Theoretical theory and practical, pragmatic, practice.

Before we begin our series on followership I just want to talk about theory and practice. This came out of a couple of conversations I have had recently. The first of these was with a company owner who made a remark that he didn't want theory but practical training for his staff. This got me thinking about what he might mean and what his understanding of theory was. Then when I was coaching another business owner who runs a company of about 150 people she stated that she wanted to know what the academic research was 'as it helps to inform what we do here'. Last week I was teaching at Liverpool and this week at Oxford University when the MBA students, most of whom were running businesses started a conversation about how they had changed their view of the use of theory. As we are about to look at followership and some of this will involve theory, opposed to the theoretical it I thought that it would be timely to quickly look at the differences between, theory, theoretical, practical, pragmatic and practice.

In everyday language people tend to mix up the concept of theory and theoretical. Quite simply theoretical means that something has not yet been tested. In other words it is speculative however there may be some anecdotal evidence for the speculation. 

The first thing to realise about a theory on the other hand is that in an academic sense is that nothing can be proven only disproved. So when academics have a lot of evidence to suggest something is so, then the explanation is called a theory even though it is based on good evidence. The reason why something with lots of evidence is called a theory is that there may well be a better explanation or new evidence may come to light. Never in an academic sense, will anything be called a fact because it is always assumed that a better explanation might come forward. 

So a theory can be (and is often) based on very grounded practical evidence that the lay person might call a fact. So a theory can and often is both practical and pragmatic, and can help to inform practice and make the practice better. To think that because something is called a theory it is somehow not grounded or practical is a mistake many people make. All that is happening is that theorists are hedging their bets.

On a word of caution however; not all theories are equal. Some are well founded and based on good (valid and reliable) evidence, and some are based on no more than an idea someone had in the shower for which there is very little evidence. 

We all work off theories all the time. Every time we notice a pattern (the buses are taking a long time, or x is difficult to deal with) we are weighing up evidence to come to a conclusion (a theory). 

So as we start our exploration of followership it is wise to have in mind the idea that not all theories are equal - many in business for example appear to be pragmatic but can be based on little evidence or data, or the data is biased in someway and ultimately the theory turns out to be wrong, often with bad consequences. Good theories or explanations are based on good evidence where as much of the evidence as possible fits the theory. 

A theory can be practical, pragmatic and based on and inform good practice. Also a theory does not have to be theoretical. Simple really when you think about it!

   

Leadership when people are scared III

When you are leading people who are scared here are some do's and don'ts:

DO

1. Learn to be become emotionally resilient. In a recent study we found that this is the single biggest factor in dealing well with difficult and ambiguous situations. This means that you can control the balance between your emotions and thinking whilst still keeping in touch with your instincts and remaining empathetic. More about this.
   
2. Give people a sense of positive direction and movement. This really helps when people are unsure and emotions are running high.
3. Communicate lots and keep in touch with people. One of the biggest failures, especially in situations of flux and change is not to keep people with you every step of the way. You should be acting as if you are on a mountain in bad weather with poor visibility. You rope everyone together and move as a group.
4. Listen lots. All to frequently when the going gets tough , managers and leaders become autocratic, start telling and stop listening. History is full of such instances where leaders wouldn't listen to 'negative talk'. This is a big mistake. Listening to everything can notify you of so much like how people are thinking and feeling, dangers on the horizon are closer and more. The special forces (SAS etc) have what is called Chinese Parliaments. These are group meetings where everyone regardless of rank or status can and are expected have their say and put forward ideas, thoughts or questions including criticisms of leadership decisions and thinking. This form of tough love has lots of advantages.
5. Keep people busy and thinking. The more they have to think the less time they have to feel scared. So let them solve problems rather than what most leaders tend to do is do the solving themselves (often poorly - see this). Make sure any tasks you give people are real tasks. people know when they are just being kept occupied with meaningless tasks. Navigating difficult and ambiguous times is a team effort.
   

DON'T

1. Panic! Keeping your emotions is vital now. If others think that you are in a negative emotional state and making knee jerk reactions rather than using the resources around you, they are unlikely to follow willingly. Additionally you may find that people start to loose respect for you.
2. Make decisions in isolation no matter how good you think they are. Test them out and modify them in the light of different thinking from others.
3. Surround yourself with comforting people who think like you do. This will just lead to group think. Find diversity in views and challenge. Now more than ever everything, and I mean everything needs to be challenged. Failure in difficult and uncertain situations usually come about because of the assumptions people make that go unchallenged. Paradoxically right now you need people who will confront, contest and question, which is the opposite often of what most leaders do in difficult situations which is to surround themselves with people who will agree and make them feel comfortable with their decisions. This is another reason why you need to be emotionally resilient.
   
4. Shoot down daft ideas. Right now you need all the creative, imaginative and innovative ideas you can get. Treat one idea with contempt or anything less than being very welcome and you will kill creativity stone dead. Even the daftest (to you) ideas could well lead to an opportunity or the solution you need. Far too many leaders and their teams shut down prematurely on ideas and never find that killer concept. Nurture all ideas and see what flowers.
   
5. Try to control things too much. The normal response to difficult times is to start to put in place tougher controls. This is often a very big mistake as it stops great and creative things happening, those happy accidents that get you out of the pile of poo you are in. These are known in complexity theory as emergent properties and they can only really occur when things are allowed to flow. More controls are frequently a sign of an emotional response to what is seen as a negative situation. Chill, look for opportunities and play!
   

2008 - the year of the paradox

Happy New Year.

Blogs, websites and news agencies have moved from their reviews of the year to predictions of what will be in vogue in 2008. I am not sure that I want to fall into the same trap of making predictions virtually all of which I (nor anyone else for that matter) have no real idea will come to fruition. The art of forecasting, predicting what will happen next is usually based on what we already know to the the case now. Largely these are based on research that is ongoing and have some trends already, trends that are happening now and are then projected. The front page of this months Focus magazine (the BBC science and technology magazine), for example has a very informative article and a prediction about the future for power based on a new breed of steam engines. We appear to be very good at pulling a series of not quite disconnected facts together and making an extrapolation to project. Now this is a very useful trick that allows us to have visions of the future and then work to make them so. Everything that we are all working on now is based on this ability. Our cognitive ability to perceive patterns, extrapolate and project them is part of what makes us, us and drives 'progress'.
On the other side of this fantastic ability is the problem that it also constrains our vision, makes us miss even the most obvious competing thoughts and ideas and frequently creates the conditions where we cancel out ambiguities. The idea that steam driven engines are about to come into their own for personal power, for example in cars, whilst an interesting intellectual exercise misses a few issues that at the moment makes this not the most practical solution to our growing energy crisis.

This isn’t a critique of an article on steam driven personal transport, it is intended however as a illustration of the opposite side of our abilities. One of the things that has struck me in the last year or so is how everything has an opposite and equal. This has become a bit of a theme. Now I admit this is not an original thought as I am discovering. The earliest known text dates back to 300 years before Christ and are usually attributable to Lao-tzu, (580-500 B.C.), it is believed to predate him by several centuries.

I bought a book for a friend for Christmas called ‘Change your thoughts, change your life’ by W.W. Dyer. Whilst the title didn’t do much for me I knew that she was ‘into this kind of stuff’. I am a little hooked and have stolen it back!

The book opens with a quote from George Bernard Shaw

Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.

Anyway, the first chapter introduces the Tao with the first few lines from the Tao Te Ching and “Lao-tzu tells us that the “Tao is both named and nameless.” This sounds paradoxical to our western intellect – and it is! (sic)”

He then goes on to describe how our western thinking highlights and maintains opposites as opposing thoughts and that the eastern Taoist thinking embraces such paradoxes as part of the same entity allowing both to exist side by side.

(These are my thoughts) It’s sort of dualist thinking (this or that) and holistic thinking (this and that). Dualism separates and makes one side oppose the other. If we think or see something it is usually to the exclusion of the opposite. Paradoxes become confusing and something to be resolved, preferably by working out which side of the paradox is right. This line of thinking come about because we think in ‘facts’ and facts have to be right or wrong (hence dualism, this OR that). The problem is that when exploring what the reality of a situation is this type of ‘factual’ thinking leads us to miss things as we only look for what fits.

I recently went to a (very expensive) workshop given by a consultant in complexity. Much of the workshop was spent hearing his opinion of what were good and what were bad theories, people, books and ideas. Whole books and ideas were dismissed with the wave of a hand because they weren't 'valid'. I was a little struck that when considering complexity, which I have written about in 'The Ambiguity Advantage' the idea of dismissing things because it doen't fit seems a little like buying an Ikea wardrobe, emptying all the bits on the floor from the box and throwing some of the bits away because they don't look right before waiting to see if you need them.

The eastern condition is this and that. Both are true at the same time. If this is true then that (the opposite) is true as well. What this means is that with such thinking exploring the reality of a situation we look for what fits and the opposite at the same time not only allowing both to exist but seeing what emerges from the existance of competing ideas. The central tenat of complexity theory is allowing things to be enough, without over managing them to find the natural emergent properties. It is these that give complexity practitioners the edge.

Many failures in decision making and problem solving occur not because there weren’t enough facts, if anything there are often too many (of one type), but rather because of the facts we were disallowing because that don’t fit or make sense.

How many of us, and I include me in this, have dismissed someone (some book, some article) and their thinking because they aren’t making sense? We make this decision before really hearing what it is they are trying to communicate. Logic is judged to be logical if we understand and agree with it, i.e. it fits with our system of logic. If it doesn’t fit with my / our system of logic then it is deemed to be illogical. The idea that only one can be true may just mean that we are missing something and narrowing our thinking.

2008 - embrace a paradox.