Archive

Dialogue

Learning to Let Go

I’ve just come back from six weeks in Delhi, working there with around eighty people engaged in software development – mainly coding and testing – as members of a number of different product teams located in various other geographies around the world.

This post is by way of thanks to the Delhi folks for their hospitality, generous spirit, and humanity – and for helping me (re)learn a valuable lesson.

The Lesson Relearnt

The lesson in question is: people do not learn from hearing things.

I see my present role – of which my time in Delhi was but one example – as fundamentally about inviting folks’ curiosity and interest. No more, no less. In essence I am asking the question:

“Would you be willing to examine with me – or amongst yourselves – your current views and assumptions regarding the field of software and product development?”

Whether they choose to accede to the request or not matters to me – not because I have any agenda for them, but because my needs include making meaningful connections with people, and helping folks’ life become more wonderful. Given the amount of time folks spend at work, I can think of few better opportunities to pursue my needs. If people choose not to engage with my request, I respect that choice, even though I personally see it as a lost opportunity for all concerned.

Letting Go

So, of what am I “letting go”? I’m letting go of the need to be an expert. Of the need to have answers to their problems (I don’t even know their problems, really). And of the need to tell them all about how highly-effective software and product development works. As someone who has been examining my own views and assumptions of software and product development for the best part of forty years, I’m letting go of the idea that I can help people learn and grow by simply telling them things from my own experiences. Unless they ask. And they may not know that asking me is an option.

“We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves.”

~ Galileo Galilei

Some years ago, recognising the dysfunctions inherent in telling folks things, I used to withhold information unilaterally – until I thought folks were ‘ready’ to hear it, piece by piece. Having learned from e.g. Argyris, Noonan, Kline and Rosenberg, nowadays I try to make it clear that, to the extent that I have any knowledge or information that might be useful to someone, the timing and manner of its sharing can be something on which we can decide together.

I suspect this notion of self-paced ‘pulling’ of information or knowhow is pretty novel to many people. And so I suspect that many may not connect with the notion straight away. At least, not in a way that they might immediately benefit from.

Summary

In summary then, in attempting to help folks have a more wonderful life at work, I believe that if I have any part to play it’s in simply being there, with them, giving of my full attention:

“The quality of our attention determines the quality of other people’s thinking. Attention, driven by deep respect and genuine interest, and without interruption, is the key to a Thinking Environment.”

~ Nancy Kline, More Time To Think

- Bob

Nonviolent Meetings

Two outstretched hands meet

Around a month ago I wrote a post on Nonviolent Conferencing. Central to that idea – well, more of an appeal, really – was the use of the four steps of Nonviolent Communication as a framework for the conference and the delegates’ participation:

  1. Say what you saw, or heard (a simple evaluation-free statement)
  2. Say what you felt (it can help, initially, to pick from a list)
    “I feel…”
  3. Say what you need (again here’s a handy list)
    “…because I need/value…”
  4. Make a request (the concrete actions you would like taken)
    “Would you be willing to…?”

Having set through a number of meetings this week, I’m minded of much the same dysfunctions in meetings as I see in the more traditional formats for conferences:

  • Speakers not in tune with their own needs nor the needs of their audience.
  • “Push” of more-or-less random information – often of little interest or relevance to the audience.
  • Tendency to talk about things that work well, rather than air problems that need fixing. Whereas a Solutions Focus is nice, often things that could benefit from others’ positive solutions do not get mentioned.
  • Failure to engage with the emotions of the audience (cf Emotioneering).
  • Little or no fellowship – limited sense of collaboration and mutual learning.
  • Fear, obligation, guilt and shame preventing anyone leaving the room, or even saying anything about their frustrations with the meeting.
  • The prospect of future meetings following just the same format, with just the same frustrations.

And in the same vein as Nonviolent Conferencing., I can see nonviolence bringing much improvement to the standard meeting experience.

How would this work?

Basically, the Nonviolent Meeting would bring together

  • folks with specific (topic-related) needs, and
  • folks who might be able and willing to help meet those needs.

Each participant would:

  1. Share with the meeting one or more observations (things seen, heard or otherwise observed at their places of work, and related to the topic at hand – free from judgements or evaluations).
  2. Share what they felt about the thing(s) observed.
  3. State what they was needing, needs which caused them to feel that way.
  4. Make one or more specific requests (non-demanding, positive, actionable) of the other folks in the meeting), in the hope that someone (or some number of those folks, together) might be able to meet their request(s).

Following a request (or requests), the folks in the meeting can then, together, consider how they might contribute, singly or in fellowship, to the satisfying of each request.

Aside: This approach might also serve to encourage some focussed thought in preparing for the meeting. I know from my own experience with Nonviolent Communication how difficult it can be sometimes to go from an observation, to a well-identified feeling, to an underlying need, to a specific request, particularly on-the-hoof. Having some preparation time beforehand to follow through the four steps of NVC might be helpful, especially if one could have some colleague or coach to help in the preparation.

Seems to me this could cut out a whole passle of la-la yadda-yadda talk, and get to the crux of the issues on the table – needs that folks have, that they need help with, help from the other folks around the table.

I’d be interested to hear if you’d be willing to give it a go in your next meeting? And to hear your feedback on the idea.

- Bob

Further Reading

Nonviolent Communication ~ Marshall B. Rosenberg
Speak Peace in a World of Conflict ~ Marshall B. Rosenberg

Nonviolent Project Management

Photo of a hand drawing the four steps of the NVC process

Some eighteen years ago now, I started using a technique I named “Stakeholders and their Needs” – as part of my approach to managing software development projects. I’ve found it a useful enough technique to continue using and evolving it on just about every endeavour I’ve worked on since then.

Aside 1: There’s a paper describing this and other aspects of the whole approach – which in its early days was called “Jerid” and more recently has evolved into “Javelin”.

Aside 2: This was all long before I became aware of Rosenberg and Nonviolent Communication, or even paid much attention to e.g. Gandhi and the general idea of nonviolence.

Aside 3: As in some other posts, I’m leaving to another day the contentious question of whether we should even have “projects” in the world of software and product development. And whether “Project Managers” should be doing the management of said projects.

Aside 4: I recognise that managing a project is about more than just ensuring that the right thing gets built. But given that so many projects fail in this key regard:

  • Poorly defined applications (miscommunication between business and IT) contribute to a 66% project failure rate, costing U.S. businesses at least $30 billion every year (Forrester Research)
  • 60% – 80% of project failures can be attributed directly to poor requirements gathering, analysis, and management (Meta Group)

Source:
Software Project Failure Costs Billions. Better Estimation & Planning Can Help

I posit that anything that can help us ensure we are building the right thing has significant value.

Before Requirements

I had, for some years before adopting “Stakeholders and their Needs”, come to see the benefits of a clear and shared understanding of the pertinent “requirements” for a project. And the benefits of evolving those requirements (and their clarity and the shared understanding) as the project progressed, by means of e.g. early and frequent delivery of both working software, and of the interim work products, such as the list of stakeholders and their needs, described here.

But I had also come to see that it was more or less a matter of chance whether the right people got involved (as “stakeholders”), whether they had the inclination or support necessary for them to engage with the project, and particularly whether they understood the formalisms of  the requirements models. Most of all, perhaps, was the key question: “How likely is it that the people who would benefit most from understanding what the project was doing – how it was going to meet their needs, and when – could actually understand those things?”.

The answer then – and I suspect, quite often even nowadays – was “Not very likely”.

So it seemed that some less formal, more easily shared, and understood, articulation of what the project was trying to achieve might be useful. And it seemed handy to have a (prioritised) list of the folks the project team needed to have conversations with about needs (what the team, and the stuff they’re producing, should do).

Thus “Stakeholders and Their Needs” was born.

Here’s a simple (abridged) example:

Name Group Role Needs Contact
David Hains Corporate Head of Development
  • Improved organisational development capability
  • Weekly face to face status report
  • Daily RAG status update
555-1234
Personal
  • No surprises
  • No calls when on holiday
Charlene Smitts Programme Office Programme Manager
  • Clear visibility into project progress
  • Advance notice of any and all resource changes
555-6661
Betsy Doohan Project Team Project Manager
  • Enhanced reputation as a PM
  • No late nights
555-8882
Charlie Watts Project Team Developer
  • Making a difference
  • Improved C++ coding skills
555-2313
Personal
  • Pay rise before September
Bill Harlan Marketing Product Owner
  • Ground-breaking product
  • Long-term product success
  • Happy customers
  • 25% market share before Xmas
555-1022
Personal
  • Promotion to Head of Products

We can have other columns too, such as “stakeholder priority” or “email address” – whatever the project team and its wider stakeholder community find they need.

This technique allows everyone to see what everyone needs from the project. When needs conflict – as they inevitably will, from time to time – folks can see the conflicts and move to resolve them. Of course, if some folks are unwilling to disclose their needs to the group, then some needs may go unseen and thus, possibly unmet. This points to the advantages of a climate of dialogue and trust, where folks feel comfortable enough to share their real needs with each other.

And, crucially, the project team and its external stakeholders have a fairly clear, albeit broad-brush, comprehensive, comprehensible and topical statement of what “success” looks like.

Additionally – for those folks who seek such things – this approach affords traceability, from the list of stakeholders and roles, through their various informal needs, and thence to the more formal requirements (Use Cases, User Stories, Quantified Quality Objectives, etc.), and eventually to the outputs/deliverable (e.g. the system components in production).

The Nonviolent Dimension

So, from its inception, this technique, with its focus on needs, turns out to be pretty much in line with the fundamentals of Nonviolent Communication. I suspect that’s why it has proved to be of such enduring benefit over the years.

One further change, now I better appreciate Rosenberg, would be to see if the addition of an “Actionable Requests” column would offer some benefit. Actually, I wonder if a “Feelings” column might not provide some benefit, too. Although I can appreciate that for the vast majority of e.g. Analytic-minded organisations out there, talking about and sharing feelings is even more challenging and uncomfortable than sharing one’s needs.

And this approach also offers a way to take the coercion and violence out of the relationship between the Project Manager (if the project has a person dedicated to that role) and the development team. Given that the team (they’re stakeholders too!) can see everyone’s needs, they have the information they need to make everyone’s lives more wonderful. Violent tactics such as coercion and obligation only get in the way, and are conspicuous by their incongruence, here.

Indeed, the same goes for all the relationships pertaining to the endeavour.

Afterword

This technique is at the root of my approach to “Covalence” – the discipline of ensuring that any endeavour delivers the necessary value to all its stakeholders.

- Bob

Nonviolent Conferencing

Photo of some folks in a nonviolent conference

OK, not so many Agile or business conferences end up in a brawl or other such overt violence. But I have been at several conferences where violent language was rife.

In any case, this post is not about that.

It’s about the use of the principles of nonviolent communication in making better conferences.

“The number one rule of our [NVC] training is empathy before education.”

~ Marshall B. Rosenberg

So, how to encourage and maybe even assure empathy as the primary objective for a conference? Well, having it as the explicit objective might help, for starters. I’ve never been at a conference (of any format) where empathy has been the declared goal.

Of course, many folks in the Agile community are quite close, like family almost, so I note Rosenberg’s caution:

“It may be most difficult to empathize with those to whom we are closest.”

~ Marshall B. Rosenberg

Having been practising nonviolent communication with my nearest and dearest recently, I can attest to the truthiness of this caution.

What is Empathy?

According to Rosenberg:

“Empathy is a respectful understanding of what others are experiencing.”

I’m thinking here more about sharing an understanding about what folks are experiencing in their at-work situations – although what they’re experiencing at the conference itself has some relevance and interest, too.

The Four Steps of Nonviolent Communication

So, if we take empathy as our primary goal, how might we address the question of a suitable format or structure of a Nonviolent Conference? I suggest the four steps of Nonviolent Communication can guide us:

  1. Say what you saw, or heard (a simple evaluation-free statement)
  2. Say what you felt (it can help, initially, to pick from a list)
    “I feel…”
  3. Say what you need (again here’s a handy list)
    “…because I need/value…”
  4. Make a request (the concrete actions you would like taken)
    “Would you be willing to…?”

How can we convert these steps into a conference format? Here’s my take.

  1. Folks share with each other their observations (things seen, heard or otherwise observed at their places of work, free from judgements or evaluations).
  2. Folks then share what they felt about these things observed.
  3. Folks state what they needed, needs which caused them to feel that way.
  4. Folks make requests (non-demanding, positive, actionable) of the other folks gathered together (i.e. their fellow attendees), in the hope that someone (or some number of those folks, together) might be able to meet that request.

To recap, this is suggesting that:

a) Someone states a context for a request
b) They then make the relevant request

Rinse and repeat. Easy as.

Of course, this might be new to most if not all the attendees. And identifying one’s own feelings, and the needs which cause them, is a skill that develops only with practice. It would be great to have Dr. Rosenberg there to facilitate, of course, but given his busy schedule, maybe we could find some other experienced NVC practitioner(s) to help things along. And the day could open with a demonstration of these four steps by someone who had either rehearsed or was practiced in them.

As to format, I can think of several options:

  • One large room, with everyone taking turns (or drawing straws) to share their context and request.
  • Several smaller rooms or areas, each with some means for serialising access to the “speaker’s” slot.
  • A goldfish-bowl or park-bench setup, with a small self-selecting queue of folks in line to “share and request”.
  • A World Cafe arrangement, where each table is seeded with a “share and request”-er and the other three people at the table attempt to meet the request. This may need some coordination to improve the odds that the three have the wherewithal to meet the request.
  • A series of Pecha Kuchas, with each 20-slide presentation setting the context and closing with a request, subsequently responded-to by members of “the audience”.
  • I’m sure you can come up with other ideas too. Would you be willing to share?

Some Other Pertinent Advices

Other aspects of nonviolent communication have relevance to conferences too, I believe, including:

Play

“Never do anything that isn’t play.”

~ Marshall B. Rosenberg

Which may appeal to the Legoists out there, but let’s also remember Rosenberg’s definition of play. “Play” is any activity where we

“make choices motivated purely by our desire to contribute to life, rather than out of fear, guilt, shame, duty or obligation.”

Aside: I have myself experienced too many “play” sessions where judgement, fear, guilt, shame, duty or obligation were writ large in the proceedings.

Absence of Judgement

“When we judge others we contribute to violence.”

~ Marshall B. Rosenberg

How to give feedback to e.g. speakers and yet remain true to this advice? See the Fours Step of NVC for guidance on that, too. As well as my past blog post “How to Give Feedback“.

“Every criticism, judgment, diagnosis, and expression of anger is the tragic expression of an unmet need.”

 Absence of Coercion

“Learning is too precious to be motivated by coercive tactics.”

And I’d include “making” people sit and listen to speakers (through social expectations, politeness or lack of alternatives) under the soubriquet of “coercion”.

Fellowship

Not particularly a concept from nonviolent communication, but congruent, and an idea I’d like to see more in conferences everywhere. It’s been my experience that some Open Spaces and Unconferences have scratched the surface of creating a sense of fellowship amongst the folks involved. And I think we can all do so much more in this regard.

“Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there.”

~ Rumi

- Bob

Further Reading

Beyond Good and Evil: Marshall Rosenberg On Creating a Nonviolent World ~ Dian Killian

Damning with Fulsome Praise

A cartoon dwarf

Many folks write about how Positive Reinforcement is a Good Thing. Some folks use the grander (yet, smellier?) term “Appreciative Performance Remediation“.

Yet Rosenberg said

“In Nonviolent Communication, we consider praise and complimentsviolent form of communication.

I’m so much with Rosenberg on this one. Here’s a longer extract, with Rosenberg explaining the issue, from the Nonviolent Communication perspective, in some more depth:

“In NVC, we consider praise and compliments a violent form of communication. Because they are part of the language of domination, it is one passing judgment on another. What makes it more complex is that people are trained to use praise as reward, as a manipulation to get people to do what they want. For example, parents I work with, teachers, managers in industry have been trained in courses and by other people to use praise and compliments as rewards. In a family, we are taught that if you praise and compliment children daily, they are more likely to do what you want. Teachers do the same in school to get children to work more. And managers in industry are trained to do this, showing them how to use praise and compliments as rewards. To me, this is a violent form of communication because it is using language as a manipulation that destroys the beauty of sincere gratitude. So in NVC we show people to make sure that before you open your mouth to get clear that the purpose is not to manipulate a person by rewarding them. Your only purpose is to celebrate. To celebrate the life that has been enriched by what the other person has contributed to you. Then, once conscious to make clear three things in this celebration; first, what the person did that enriched your life, not a generality, like ‘your so kind, beautiful, or wonderful’ but what concretely did they do for you. Second, how do you feel inside about their action? And third, what need of yours was fulfilled inside you by their contribution?

“I had just finished saying this to a group of teachers, telling them about the dangers of using praise and complements as rewards. I showed them how to do it this other way and I must not have done a good job of explaining this because afterward, a woman came up and said, ‘You were brilliant.’ I said, ‘That is no help. I have been called a lot of names in my life some positive and some far from positive and I could never recall learning anything of value from someone telling me what I am. I don’t think anybody does but I can see by the look in your eyes you want to express gratitude.’ She said, ‘yes’ and I said, ‘I want to receive it [the gratitude] but telling me what I am doesn’t help.’ She said, ‘What do you want to hear?’ ‘What did I say in the workshop that made life more wonderful for you?’ She said, ‘You are so intelligent.’ I said, ‘That doesn’t help.’ She thought for a moment and then opened her notebook and said, ‘Here these two things that you said really made a difference.’ I said, ‘How do you feel?’ She said, ‘Hopeful and relieved.’ I said, ‘It would help me if I knew what needs of your were met.’ She said, ‘I have this 18 year old son and when we fight, it is horrible. It can go on for days. I have been needing some concrete direction and these two things have made such a difference for me.’

“When I give this example, people can see the difference between praise and gratitude and how different in value both are. In the case of celebration, you can trust it is being done with no manipulation so that you will keep doing it or say something nice about them. Instead, it is really coming from the heart. It is a sincere celebration of the exchange between two people.”

Application to Organisations

This same perspective – that praise and compliments are a violent form of communication – applies at least as much to groups as it does to individuals. And, ultimately, to organisations in toto.

Are you motivated to praise or compliment your teams? Where did you learn that? Do you have any evidence for its efficacy? How likely is it that praise is actually causing more harm than good? How would you know?

Oh yes, praise or compliments may be better than harsh words, criticism, and punishment. But how likely is it that there might be a better way?

Personally, I can imagine some folks subconsciously resenting the attempt at manipulation implicit in receiving praise or compliments.

Might it not be better to take the path of Nonviolent Communication?:

  1. Say what you saw, or heard (a simple evaluation-free statement)
  2. Say what you felt (it can help, initially, to pick from a list)
    “I feel…”
  3. Say what you need (again here’s a handy list)
    “…because I need/value…”
  4. Make a request (the concrete actions you would like)
    “Would you be willing to…?”

Further Reading

Speak Peace in a World of Conflict ~ Marshall B. Rosenberg
Five Reasons to Stop Saying “Good Job” ~ Alfie Kohn
The Four-Part NVC Process
Praise vs Encouragement, Gratitude ~ Duen Hsi Yen

Better Conferences – Revisited

As I put together my notes for the upcoming Agile Tour Latvia 2012 conference next week, I’m reflecting back on a post I wrote earlier this year (in March) titled Better Conferences. This post was based on my experiences at, and general dissatisfaction with, some number of conferences I had attended in 2011 (as an invited speaker).

Whilst very appreciate of being invited, I expressed in the post how, for me, conferences in general, and software conferences in particular – although at the better end of the spectrum – place too much emphasis on presentation sessions (“push”) and too little on interaction, dialogue, and, well, conferring:

con·fer

[kuhn-fur]  verb, -ferred, -fer·ring.

verb (used without object)

  1. to consult together; compare opinions; carry on a discussion or deliberation.

[C16: from Latin conferre  to gather together, compare; from com- together + ferre to bring]

At the time of writing, quite a few folks expressed some sympathy and fellow-feeling with that point of view.

Well, my general dissatisfaction remains at about the same level, although the ACE Conference 2012, and Lean Agile Scotland 2012 were a small step in the right direction, I thought. I guess it’s just that much easier to stick with the old ways.

You may notice I’ve been at fewer conferences recently. That’s both because I’ve been invited less, and because I’ve avoided them more. The latter not least because I’ve chosen to avoid folks whose “conversations” I find entirely unidirectional, like David Snowden, Jurgen Appelo, and Stephen Parry.

I feel my level of attendance is likely to decrease further, which is a shame as each conference does at least provide some opportunities for conferral and dialogue. But the effort/reward equation – particularly as I see myself as an introvert – just seems to continue moving in the wrong direction. In a nutshell, too many presentation sessions, too few opportunities for quiet, considered, thoughtful dialogue and meaningful connections.

So if you’ll be at Agile Tour Latvia 2012, or the Scandinavian Developer Conference 2013, I’ll be so much happier if you come up to me and exchange views, tell me about yourself and your hopes, fears, feelings and issues – and generally just confer. I’ll be doing just that. In quiet corners. And, to the extent that it’s possible, in my “presentations” too.

- Bob

Afterword

Adrian Segar, author of Conferences That Work, got in touch to let me know about his website, including various free downloads. Might be worth taking a look.

My Organisational Psychotherapy Toolkit

When in a day of meetings last week, at one point we each introducing ourselves in a round-robin fashion. I naturally explained my chosen and preferred role these days – that of Organisational Psychotherapist. Given the room was full of software folks, I expected a few blank faces. What I did not expect was the ripple of schoolboy sniggering that ensued. Never mind. I learned something.

In the next break I was gratified – and my faith somewhat restored – in that some folks came up to me and asked some intellegent questions about the concept of organisational psychotherapy. One of these questions was about the means and techniques at the disposal of the Organisational Psychotherapist. I responded by explaining about Positive Psychology and in particular Solution Focus. If I had had more time, I might have worked my way down the following list of the “tools” in my organisational psychotherapy toolkit:

Solution focus (Steve de Shazer and Insoo Kim Berg)

Solution Focus, borne out of the InterActional View studies at the Mental Research Institute, focuses attention on what’s been going right, on what works, and on what we should be doing more of. Its emphasis on taking small steps and keeping things simple means organisations can get started with it straight away.

The key principles of Solution Focus include:

  • Focus on solutions, not problems.
  • People already have the resources they need to change.
  • Change can happen in small steps.
  • Work with what you see – in-depth and up-front analysis offers few if any advantages.

Solution Focus derives from the talking therapy named Solution Focused Brief Therapy (one of a range of Brief Therapies). There’s also a great book “The Solutions Focus: Making Coaching and Change Simple” by Mark McKergow & Paul Jackson.

Further Reading

From the Interactional View ~ Carol Wilder

Dialogue (William Isaacs)

In his excellent book, Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together: A Pioneering Approach to Communicating in Business and in Life, William Isaacs explains his experiences and methods regarding “The Art of Thinking Together”. Influenced by David Bohm’s work on dialogue (apparently) and making similar observations to Nancy Klein.

P.E.R.M.A. (Martin Seligman)

Professor Martin Seligman is one of the most famous living psychologists, having served as president of the APA in 1996, and making a number of important contributions to the field, including the learned helplessness conception of depression. He is also a pioneer in the field of positive psychology. According to Prof. Seligman, the PERMA acronym reminds us of five important building blocks of well-being and happiness:

  • Positive emotion
  • Engagement
  • Relationships
  • Meaning (a.k.a. purpose)
  • Achievement

Prof. Seligman also writes, in his book “Flourish” about PERMA and the Positive Business. His work with positive psychology provides a number of well-researched techniques for improving well-being, including:

  • What Went Well Today (Three Blessings)
  • Active and Constructive Responding
  • The Gratitude Letter
  • The Gratitude Visit
  • Strengths and Virtues (VIA Survey of Character Strengths )
  • The ABC of effective living

I believe many such positive psychology techniques, developed for the individual, have equal application in organisational therapy.

StrengthsFinder (Marcus Buckingham)

StrengthsFinder provides an assessment (online or via the book) of an individual’s key strengths. As an example, here’s mine from a few years back. The same principles (although not directly, the research) can be applied to an organisation. Just having people share knowledge about their strengths can help build understanding and strengthen relationships. This helps the process of organisational therapy.

Social Styles (Wilson Learning)

Social Styles provides a means for groups of people to relate to each other better,with actionable advice on how to modify one’s own natural communication styles to better suit others. Again, this can help build understanding and strengthen relationships. This helps the process of organisational therapy.

Clean Language (David Grove)

Clean Language is a personal therapy technique which focuses exclusively on the metaphors and vocabulary of the patient/client/questionee. The philosophy and principles underlying this are outlined in e.g. this paper.

“Many clients naturally describe their symptoms in metaphor, and we find that when the therapist simply enquires about these metaphors using their exact words, the patient’s perception of the issues begins to change.”

The “Full Syntax” of Clean language is very minimal, consisting of the following few “questions”:

  • And [their words].
  • And when [their words] …
    • what kind of [their words] is that [their words]?
    • is there anything else about [their words]?
    • that’s [their words] like what?
    • where is that [their words]?
    • whereabouts [their words]?

I myself generally start out with one more question:

  • Would you like something to happen / what would you like to have happen?

Aside: Finding NLP somewhat suspect, I see no reason to associate the two, excepting perhaps for historical reasons.

I am currently experimenting with the use of Clean Language in group situations. For example, using group metaphors to help a group to change its perceptions. Here, group can mean team, department or, ideally, the organisation as a whole.

Family Therapy (Virginia Satir)

Virginia Satir (1983) described the family as an interacting unit that strives to achieve balance in relationships through the use of repetitious, circular, and predictable communication patterns. This sounds to me much like an organisation (a.k.a. a business). Satir saw the spousal mates as the architects of the family and contended that the marital relationship is the axis around which all other family relationships are formed. I see parallels in this with the organisation – with the executives and managers as the (tacit) architects of the organisational psyche, and their (tacit) power structures as the axes around which all other relationships are formed. Thus organisational homeostasis is directly influenced by the power relationships in the organisation. Hence I find much in e.g. Virginia Satir’s approach to Family Therapy which applies (in a modified form) to organisational therapy. There’s a useful review of the field here.

Bohm Dialogue (David Bohm)

Bohm Dialogue is a technique invented by the noted physicist, philosopher and neuropsychologist David Bohm. His aim was for it to overcome or at least ameliorate the isolation and fragmentation he observed in society. I find it useful in helping to ameliorate the isolation and fragmentation we can all observe in most of our organisations today. Note: His prerequisites of equal status and “free space” can be difficult to provide in some organisations.

Further Reading

On Dialogue ~ David Bohm
Bohm Dialogue – Resource page at David-Bohm.net

World Café

The World Café method is “a simple, effective, and flexible format for hosting large group dialogue”. The fragmentation of the organisational psyche (amongst and between all the folks in an organisation) can make “treating” the organisation, as a whole, somewhat, erm, problematic. Hence the value of techniques for large group dialogue.

Further Reading

The World Café: Shaping Our Futures Through Conversations That Matter ~ Juanita Brown & David Isaacs

Nonviolent communication (Rosenberg)

Marshall Rosenberg created Nonviolent Communication, to help people exchange the information necessary to resolve conflicts and differences peacefully. “Violent” communication can weaken relationships and increase divisions within organisations. Nonviolent communication can therefore help strengthen relationships and reduce divisions.

“NVC is based on the idea that all human beings have the capacity for compassion and only resort to violence or behavior that harms others when they don’t recognize more effective strategies for meeting needs.”

~ Wikipedia entry

Further Reading

Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life ~ Marshall B. Rosenberg

Cognitive Biases

I find it helpful to share the knowledge of our human fallibilities (biases in judgement and decisions-making) with the folks in an organisation. Wikipedia has an extensive list of cognitive biases. Many folks are unaware of the many ways in which the human mind can systematically deviate from rationality or good judgement. And even with awareness, we can often still get suckered into making poor judgements.

One key aspect of effective organisational therapy is the organisation getting to understand itself better. Knowledge of the mores of the human brain is but one aspect of this journey towards enlightenment.

Further Reading

Thinking, Fast and Slow ~ Daniel Kahneman
Predictably Irrational ~ Dan Ariely

Action Science (Chris Argyris)

Chris Argyris‘s concept of Action Science begins with the study of how people design their actions in difficult situations. Although not strictly part of Action Science – which itself is more of a field than a tool – I use various “tools” from Argyris from time to time, including Ladder of Inference and Left-hand Column.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Leon Festinger)

Cognitive dissonance is the term used in modern psychology to describe the state of holding two or more conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously. More specifically, the term refers to the sensation of unease or discomfort arising from such a state. Cognitive dissonance is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

The idea of organisational cognitive dissonance is the collective-psyche analog of individual cognitive dissonance. I posit that an organisation can collectively suffer a sense of discomfort or unease when finding itself having to hold two or more conflicting conditions simultaneously. One classic example of this is when an Analytic organisation finds itself host to an outbreak of alien, synergistic thinking during an Agile adoption.

Organisational cognitive dissonance theory warns that organisations have a bias to seek consonance among their cognitions. Much of what goes on in the organisation can be regarded as “dissonance reduction”.

Coaching for Performance (Sir John Whitmore)

In his popular book “Coaching For Performance“, Sir John Whitmore (a co-founder of the Inner Game Ltd.) argues for the use of effective questions to raise awareness and (self) responsibility.And, in the context of business coaching, for “a fundamental shift in management style and culture”. Some of the key tools I have used from this work, over at least 25 years, include:

  • ARC
  • GROW Coaching Model (ex- Graham Alexander and Alan Fine)
  • Team Development Model (with exercises)

Much of this has direct application to psychotherapy at the organisational level.

The Inner Game (Timothy Gallwey et al)

The “Inner Game”, developed by Tim Gallwey and friends, suggests that an individual uses accurate, non-judgmental observations of what they are doing, so that the person’s body will adjust and correct automatically to achieve best performance. A staple of e.g. sports coaching, I have adapted this basic principle to the organisational context. I posit that if an organisation uses accurate, non-judgmental observations of what it is actually doing, it will adjust and correct automatically to achieve best performance. This seems to me congruent with the “make it visible” vibe of e.,g. personal kanban.

Further Reading

Effective Coaching: Lessons from the Coach’s Coach ~ Myles Downey

Theory of Constraints (Goldratt)

The Theory of Constraints is a philosophy developed by Dr. Eliyahu M. Goldratt, for application in improving organisations. Whilst not addressing issues of organisational health directly, Theory of Constraints provides a number of “Thinking tools” useful to the Organisational Therapist, including:

  • Evaporating Cloud – a means to finding a resolution to conflicting points of view.
  • Current Reality Tree – a focussing tool to help understand problematic situations
  • Future Reality Tree – a means to explore the impact of proposed solutions
  • Negative Branch Reservations – a complement to the Future Reality Tree
  • Pre-requisite Tree – a means to plan the implementation of solutions

Note that much of the Theory of Constraints is congruent with various aspects of positive psychology.

Further Reading

The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement ~ Eliyahu M. Goldratt
It’s Not Luck ~ Eliyahu M. Goldratt

Systems Thinking (Ackoff)

When dealing with whole organisations, and the collective organisational psyche, it makes little to no sense to work on parts of the organisation in isolation. Professor Russell L Ackoff created both Reference Projection and Interactive Planning as means to tackle whole-system change coherently.

Further Reading

Re-creating the Corporation: A design of organizations for the 21st century ~ Russell L Ackoff

Group Dynamics (William McDougall et al)

Group dynamics refers to a system of behaviors and psychological processes occurring within a social group (intragroup dynamics), or between social groups (intergroup dynamics). Group dynamics are at the core of understanding a range of social prejudices and discriminations. The history of group dynamics has a consistent, underlying premise: ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’ In organisational psychotherapy, this is a very congruent premise. The term was invented by Kurt Lewin (to describe the positive and negative forces within groups of people).

William McDougall was an influential early twentieth-century psychologist who wrote in his 1920 book, “The Group Mind“:

“We can only understand the life of individuals and the life of societies, if we consider them always in relation to one another. . . each man is an individual only in an incomplete sense.”

~ William McDougall, The Group Mind, 1920 (p.6)

Further Reading

An Introduction to Social Psychology ~ William McDougall
The Group Mind ~ William McDougall

Systems Archetypes (Senge)

System Archetypes, as describe by Peter Senge in his seminal book “The Fifth Discipline“, help people understand the interconnections and interrelations between e.g. the various parts of their organisation. We might compare this to the way in which neuroscience helps us understand the interconnections and interrelations between e.g. the various parts of our brains. Such an understand can help elaborate the context for organisational psychotherapy.

The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook has many useful exercises and techniques for the organisational therapist, particularly in workshop settings.

Further Reading

The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Org. ~ Peter M. Senge
The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook ~ Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross & Smith

Lateral Thinking (Edward de Bono)

Edward de Bono‘s key idea in his work on lateral thinking is that effective creative thinking requires us to take conscious steps to transcend our natural, logical, linear and critical mode of thinking in favour of a mode which recognises how the brain works. Some of the tools he has created for this include:

  • Six Thinking Hats
  • Po (Provocative Operation)
  • Straatals
  • Septoes
  • DeBono Code Book

Further Reading

The Mechanism of Mind ~ Edward de Bono
I Am Right, You Are Wrong~ Edward de Bono
Discussion of the Method: Conducting the Engineer’s Approach to Problem Solving ~ Billy V. Coen

Managing Transitions (William Bridges, Kurt Lewin passim)

Managing Transitions is a book by William Bridges. In the book, he explore the psychology of change and presents an approach not unlike Kurt Lewin’s Unfreeze-Change-Freeze change model. The ideas in the book sit very comfortably with The Marshall Model’s idea of “Transition Zones”.

“The main strength of the [Bridges] model is that it focuses on transition, not change. The difference between these is subtle but important. Change is something that happens to people, even if they don’t agree with it. Transition, on the other hand, is internal: it’s what happens in people’s minds as they go through change. Change can happen very quickly, while transition usually occurs more slowly.”

Further Reading

The Bridges Transition Model: A Summary (pdf)
The Bridges Transition Model – MindTools.com

Client-Centered Therapy (Carl Rogers)

Carl Rogers was amongst the founders of the humanistic approach to personal therapy, and known for practicing unconditional positive regard – accepting a person without negative judgment of their basic worth. In this, his work has many similarities with that of his student, Marshall Rosenberg (Nonviolent Communication). I choose to apply much of Rogers’ approach in the context of Organisational Therapy. That is to say, practicing an unconditional positive regard for the organisation as a whole.

Rogers did much research into what makes therapy effective, and found just three necessary “Characteristics of a Helping Relationship”:

  • An unconditional, warm, positive regard for the client
  • Genuineness and “congruence” on the part of the therapist
  • Empathy and empathic understanding

Rogers expressed his Theory of Personality by way of Nineteen Propositions. Here are those Nineteen Propositions, but re-cast for the organisation:

  1. All organisations (systems) exist in a continually changing world of experience (phenomenal field) of which they are the center.
  2. The organisation reacts to the field as it is experienced and perceived. This perceptual field is “reality” for the organisation.
  3. The organisation reacts as an organised whole to this phenomenal field.
  4. A portion of the total perceptual field gradually becomes differentiated as the (organisational) “self”.
  5. As a result of interaction with the environment, and particularly as a result of evaluational interaction within its “self”, the structure of the (organisational) self is formed – a coherent, fluid but consistent conceptual pattern of perceptions of characteristics and relationships of the “we” or the “us”, together with values attached to these concepts.
  6. The organisation has one basic tendency and striving – to actualize, maintain and enhance the experiencing organisation.
  7. The best vantage point for understanding behavior is from the internal frame of reference of the organisation-as-a-whole.
  8. Behavior is basically the goal-directed attempt of the organisation-as-a-whole to satisfy its needs as experienced, in the field as perceived.
  9. Emotion accompanies, and in general facilitates, such goal directed behavior, the kind of emotion being related to the perceived significance of the behavior for the maintenance and enhancement of the organisation (organisational homeostasis).
  10. The values attached to experiences, and the values that are a part of the self-structure, in some instances, are values experienced directly by the organisation, and in some instances are values introjected or taken over from others (other organisations or sub-units or individuals within the organisation), but perceived in distorted fashion, as if they had been experienced directly.
  11. As experiences occur in the life of the organisation, they are either, a) symbolized, perceived and organized into some relation to the (organisational) self, b) ignored because there is no perceived relationship to the self structure, c) denied symbolization or given distorted symbolization because the experience is inconsistent with the structure of the (organisational) self.
  12. Most of the ways of behaving that are adopted by the organisation are those that are consistent with the concept of (organisational) self.
  13. In some instances, behavior may be brought about by organic experiences and needs which have not been symbolized. Such behavior may be inconsistent with the structure of the (organisational) self but in such instances the behavior is not “owned” by the organisation.
  14. Psychological adjustment exists when the concept of the (organisational) self is such that all the sensory and visceral experiences of the organism are, or may be, assimilated on a symbolic level into a consistent relationship with the concept of (organisational) self.
  15. Psychological maladjustment (dysfunction) exists when the organisation denies awareness of significant sensory and visceral experiences, which consequently are not symbolized and organized into the gestalt of the (organisational) self-structure. When this situation exists, there is a basic or potential psychological tension (a.k.a. organisational cognitive dissonance).
  16. Any experience which is inconsistent with the coherence of the structure of the (organisational) self may be perceived as a threat, and the more of these perceptions there are, the more rigidly the (organisational) self-structure is organized to maintain itself.
  17. Under certain conditions, involving primarily complete absence of threat to the (organisational) self-structure, experiences which are inconsistent with it may be perceived and examined, and the structure of (organisational) self revised to assimilate and include such experiences.
  18. When the organisation perceives and accepts into one consistent and integrated system all its sensory and visceral experiences, then it is necessarily more understanding of itself and its constituents (sub-units, individuals) and is more accepting of itself and its constituents and their respective, several needs.
  19. As the organisation perceives and accepts into its (organisational) self-structure more of its organic experiences, it finds that it is replacing its present value system – based extensively on introjections which have been distortedly symbolized – with a continuing organismic valuing process.

Rogers believed that every person can achieve their goals, wishes and desires in life. When, or rather if they do so, self-actualisation takes place. I believe this applies to organisations too. Although rarely. Sigh.

Further Reading

Six Amazing Things Carl Rogers Gave Us~ Dr Stephanie Sarkis
Carl Rogers ~ Saul McLeod
On Becoming a Person: A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy ~ Carl Rogers
Client-Centred Therapy ~ Carl Rogers
Growth-promoting Relationships ~ Jon Russell

Ram Dass

Ram Dass is the author of the “counterculture bible” Be Here Now, and “one of America’s most beloved spiritual figures”.

“It is important to expect nothing, to take every experience, including the negative ones, as merely steps on the path, and to proceed.”

~ Ram Dass

Integrative Therapy (Jeffrey Kottler)

Jeffrey Kottler reminds us that therapists are people too. In his work with Integrative Psychotherapy, he focuses on both integrating (fusion) of different therapies, and on integrating the personality – making it cohesive and bringing together the “affective, cognitive, behavioral, and physiological systems within a person”.

I have embraced and adapted this approach to the organisation, believing that much of the dysfunction, stress and lack of effectiveness in kknowledge-work organisations stems from a lack of coherence and integrity (here, in the sense of: the quality or condition of being united, whole or undivided; completeness.)

Further Reading

On Being A Therapist – An Interview with Jeffrey Kottler (article)

Transactional Analysis (Eric Berne)

Transactional Analysis (“TA”) is an integrative approach to the theory of (individual) psychology and psychotherapy. TA places an emphasis on curing the patient, rather than just understanding them (or having them understand themselves).

I have yet to explore an analog to TA in the context of organisational psychotherapy, excepting the role the organisation too often plays as Parent in relation to its employees-as-Children – roles reinforced from early an early age by our traditional systems of education.

Further Reading

Families and How to Survive Them ~ Robin Skynner and John Cleese
I’m OK, You’re OK ~ Thomas Anthony Harris

General Semantics (Korzybski)

Count Alfred Korzybski founded the field of General Semantics, and in particular the premises of:

  • Non-Aristotelianism
  • Time Binding
  • Non-elementalism
  • Infinite-valued determinism

“We need not blind ourselves with the old dogma that ‘human nature cannot be changed,’ for we find that it can be changed.”

~ Alfred Korzybski

Drawn from his work with General Semantics, D David Bourland, Jr. created E-Prime to address the “structural problems” – as determined by Korzybski – of using various forms of the verb “to be”. I find E-Prime to be (sic) a useful addition to the Organisational Psychotherapist’s toolkit.

Further Reading

Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics ~ Alfred Korzybski
The Institute of General Semantics – Home page

Action Research, Force Field Analysis (Kurt Lewin)

“Action research is a term which refers to a practical way of looking at your own work to check that it is as you would like it to be. Because action research is done by you, the practitioner, it is often referred to as practitioner based research; and because it involves you thinking about and reflecting on your work, it can also be called a form of self-reflective practice. The idea of self reflection is central. In traditional forms of research – empirical research – researchers do research on other people. In action research, researchers do research on themselves. Empirical researchers enquire into other people’s lives. Action researchers enquire into their own.”

~ McNiff, 2002

Kurt Lewin is known as one of the modern pioneers of social psychology, industrial and organisational psychology, and applied psychology, including Group Dynamics, Action Research and Organisational Development. He specified Lewin’s Equation for behaviour: B=ƒ(P,E).

Force field analysis provides a framework for looking at the factors (forces) that influence a situation

“In the late 1930s Kurt Lewin and his students conducted quasi-experimental tests in factory and neighbourhood settings to demonstrate, respectively, the greater gains in productivity and in law and order through democratic participation rather than autocratic coercion. Lewin not only showed that there was an effective alternative to Taylor’s ‘scientific management’ but through his action research provided the details of how to develop social relationships of groups and between groups to sustain communication and co-operation… Action research was the means of systematic enquiry for all participants in the quest for greater effectiveness through democratic participation.”

~ Clem Adelman

Chris Argyris acknowledges the roots of his “Action Science” (co-developed with Robert W. Putnam) in Lewin’s Action Research (and in the work of John Dewey).

Further Reading

Kurt Lewin and the Origins of Action Research ~ Clem Adelman (pdf)
Leadership and the New Science ~ Margaret Wheatley

Thinking Environments (Nancy Kline)

Nancy Kline, in her book “More TIme to Think“, makes the case for creating a “Thinking Environment”, and identifies a number of “components” (with associated techniques) to help achieve this:

  • Attention
  • Equality
  • Ease
  • Appreciation
  • Encouragement
  • Feelings
  • Information
  • Diversity
  • Incisive Question
  • Place

Other Influences in my Practice

  • Patrick Lencioni (Trust, team-building)
  • Dan Pink (Intrinsic Motivation)
  • Morihei Ueshiba (Aikido philosophy, harmony)
  • Buddha (Zen)
  • Lao Tsu (Taoism)
  • Gandhi (Compassion, nonviolence, integrity)
  • Karl Marx, Georg Hegel (Alienation)
  • CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy)
  • REBT (Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy – Albert Ellis)
  • Mark Federman and the concept of Ba

- Bob

Postscript

I’ll be running a workshop in Tel Aviv in May for folks wanting to learn about Organisational Psychotherapy. Please let me know if you might be interested in attending. Keep a look out for announcements from ie AgileSparks.

Nonviolent Programming

The idea of Linguistic Relativity has been around since at least the Eighteenth Century. Many folks may have heard of the (misnomerous) Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.

In a nutshell, Linguistic Relativity suggests that language influences the way we humans think. ’Whorfianism of the third kind’ proposes that language is ‘a key to culture’.

Setting aside the Rightshifting implications of this for now, I’ve been considering the implications of Linguistic Relativity from the perspective of the humble programmer (a.k.a. coder), especially in the light of Donald Knuth’s description of the job of programming:

“Let us change our traditional attitude to the construction of programs. Instead of imagining that our main task is to instruct a computer what to do, let us concentrate rather on explaining to human beings what we want a computer to do.”

~ Donald Knuth

Most programming involves the imperative style. Defining instructions to the computer to tell it what to do. If this, then that. Do this. Do that some number of times.

Actually, I’m surprised there is, as yet, no programming language called “Jackal”. (Although, for the record, there is a ‘compiler-driven distributed shared memory implementation of the Java programming language’ named Jackal).

Does daily immersion in the imperative style of communication, in imperative languages, shape the programmer’s thinking in such a way as to increase the tolerance for command-and-control behaviour? Does such implicit imperativism contribute to the preservation of the status quo in our knowledge-work organisations?

Should We, Could We?

In Rosenberg’s NonViolent Communication, he cautions against the assumptions implicit in the word “should”:

“Avoid ‘shoulding’ on others and yourself!”

~ Marshall Rosenberg

I note with irony the use of the word “should” at the heart of modern BDD, for example. This is but one example of what we might choose to call “rampant imperativism”.

E-Prime

The idea of modifying language to aid thinking is not without precedent. D. David Bourland, Jr. first proposed E-Prime (in my mind, a close cousin of Giraffe language) in order to help people “reduce the possibility of misunderstanding or conflict”.

New Language, New Feelings

Could we conceive of a different style, a different language of BDD, of coding in general, built upon the Four Steps of Nonviolent Communication? What would a Nonviolent Programming language look like, feel like to use? Would there be knock-on advantages to Nonviolent Programming and e.g. Nonviolent BDD?

If Gandhi had been a programmer rather than a lawyer, what might his code have looked like?

Conversely, If he had been immersed in COBOL, FORTRAN or Java for forty-plus hours a week, would he ever have come hold his views on the paramountcy of non-violence?

What implications – seen through the lens of Linguistic Relativity - would adoption of such a language and style have in our communications as individuals? Could forty hours a week of Nonviolent Programming contribute positively to the health and well-being of our human dialogues, our personal interactions and our organisations?

- Bob

Further Reading

Linguistic Relativity ~ Lera Boroditski MIT paper
The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis – Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy

The Way of the Harmonious Spirit

“Aiki is not a technique to fight with or defeat an enemy. It is the way to reconcile the world and make human beings one family”

~ Morihei Ueshiba (Ōsensei)

Human Potentialities

As a coach – and a human being – I’m interested in seeing the world fully realise what some folks call “human potentialities“. In this I find I have much in common with George Leonard, and the folks at Esalen where he was President Emeritus for some years.

Mastery

Dan Pink’s work on Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose seems quite widely known nowadays, at least amongst the Agile community. Less well-known, perhaps, are some of the roots of these ideas, including the subject of Mastery. I’m eternally grateful to my one-time boss Peter Moon, a forex futures trader, ex Pink Floyd roadie and close friend of the explorer Sir Ranulf Fiennes. Peter snuck me a copy of “Mastery” when I was working with him in Battersea. In some ways it changed my life, introducing me as it did to both the ideas of George Leonard, and the world of Aikido.

“How can I describe the kind of person who is on a path to mastery? First, I don’t think it should be so dead serious. I think you should understand the joy of it, the fun of it. Being willing to see just how far you can go is the self-surpassing quality that we human beings are stuck with. Evolution is a whole long story of mastery. It’s being real. It’s being human. It’s being who we are.”

~ George Leonard, Mastery

Threads

Joy and harmony seem like unwelcome interlopers in many of our organisations, and lives, today. I feel sad to contemplate how long this has to continue before we wake up and restore them to centre stage. Joy and harmony are common threads to many of the ideas I choose to study, including Seligman’s Positive Psychology, Zen and Buddhism, Rosenberg’s Nonviolent Communication, Ueshiba’s, Dobson’s and Leonard’s Aikido, and Scharmer’s Theory-U, to name but a few.

“For the atom’s soul is nothing but energy. Spirit blazes in the dullest of clay. The life of every woman or man – the heart of it – is pure and holy joy.”

~ George Leonard

Aikido

Many folks see martial arts as being about thumping people, e.g. violence. I can’t speak for other martial arts, but Aikido – the way of the harmonious spirit – was created by Morihei Ueshiba (Ōsensei ), in the late 1920s, as an expression of his personal philosophy of universal peace and reconciliation. Given his history, this in itself seems remarkable. At the heart of Aikido is a concern for the well-being of all, and especially of the Uke or “attacker”.

“Aikido demonstrates [Ōmoto-kyō - the philosophy of love and compassion] in its emphasis on mastering martial arts so that one may receive an attack and harmlessly redirect it. In an ideal resolution, not only is the receiver unharmed, but so is the attacker.”

“O-Sensei’s Aikido was not a continuation and extension of the old [physical martial arts] and has a distinct discontinuity with past martial and philosophical concepts.”

Blending

Here is an excerpt on blending or the spirtual practice of love:

“What do you do when somebody pushes you?

“Over the past twenty-five years, I’ve posed this question to groups totaling more than fifty thousand people in workshop sessions, and the first answer in every case has been ‘Push back.’ I’ve heard ‘Push back,’ as a matter of fact, in four languages: English, French, German, and Spanish. From this experience, I’ve concluded that the practice of pushing back whenever pushed is ubiquitous in Western culture — and, I suspect, in other cultures as well.

“And here, of course, we’re not just talking about a physical push. It’s unlikely you’ll be pushed physically between now and this time next week. But the odds are pretty good that someone will push you verbally or psychologically. And if you’re like most people, you’re quite likely to push back verbally or psychologically. So let’s see what options you have, what outcomes you can expect, in case you do. It’s simple: You can win, you can lose, or there can be a stalemate — none of which is conductive to harmony and mutual satisfaction. If you win, somebody else has to lose. If you lose, it doesn’t feel very good. And a stalemate’s a big waste of time…

You can find the full excerpt from “The Way of Aikido: Life Lessons from an American Sensei” here.

The Road Not Taken

“At the heart of it, mastery is practice. Mastery is staying on the path.”

~ George Leonard

If you’re looking for a point to this post, there is none, excepting maybe some pointers to some roads not (often) taken. I’d love to hear from folks who also follow such paths.

- Bob

Further Reading

Mastery ~ George Leonard
The Life We Are Given ~ George Leonard
The Way of Aikido: Life Lessons from an American Sensei ~ George Leonard
The Concept of Ki in Aikido ~ Aikido FAQ
It’s a Lot Like Dancing: Aikido Journey ~ Terry Dobson
Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us ~ Dan Pink
Presence: Exploring Profound Change in People, Organisations and Society ~ Senge, Jaworski, Flowers, Scharmer

Progress with Nonviolent Communication

Upon beginning to read Marshall Rosenberg’s book “Nonviolent Communication” two or three weeks ago, it felt like coming home.

As a coach, consultant (long time ago) and more recently Organisational Therapist, I have long felt that the key to meaningful change in people’s lives – and incidentally, in organisations – is the quality of the dialogue they manage (sic) to have.

Dialogue is a Skill

Dialogue – more explicitly, meaningful dialogue, requires much practice to acquire the necessary skills. And it’s hard, no matter into whichever “school” of skilful dialogue you might enrol yourself. Absent such hard-won skills, dialogue can often be insipid and superficial, or worse, a minefield.

I stand in awe at @benjaminm‘s dedication to learning the art of skilful dialogue the Argyris way. For me, the tenor of Argyris’s ideas always made me feel a little uncomfortable, notwithstanding their obvious strengths.

It wasn’t until I came across Rosenberg that I could even begin to articulate my reservations. Again, for me, Argyris seems a tad cold and clinical in its style, compared to the warmth and fuzziness of Nonviolent Communication. I mean, who could fail to love glove puppets (see the Jackal and the Giraffe, below), or indeed Rosenberg himself?

Progress in Practice

Since reading the NVC book, I’ve been diligently practicing, writing (you may have noticed) and thinking about the techniques and implications of Nonviolent Communication.

I’m finding it hard to slough off a lifetime of judgmentalism and thinking, and focus more on feelings. One of the most challenging aspects, for me, has been trying to identify just what I am feeling in any given situation. I had no idea how unpractised I was at finding a suitable label – free from thinking and judgement – about my feelings.

I’m finding much benefit in the practice, though. Especially in terms of dealing with some folks who until recently I would have judged as “difficult” people. Choosing to see them as, instead, needful and worthy of compassion seems to suit me well.

Not that it’s all been a bed of roses. It seems I need more skill before I can truly engage with the more extreme cases of angst or need. Or maybe it’s just always going to be that much harder to apply the ideas through e.g. Twitter.

And when I’ve not been able to produce the kind of dialogue modelled in the book and by Rosenberg in his videos, I’ve found it quite natural to jump to self-judgement, rather than step back and take another look at my own feeling and needs. Still, even Rosenberg relates a number of tales of his own foibles in that regard. More practice required here.

Still, I have my Giraffe Ears now, and I’ll be listening from the heart more, at least, as my energy levels permit.

If you’re wondering whether there’s anything in Nonviolent Communication for you, I thoroughly recommend the book. Who knows, it might suit you.

- Bob

Further Reading

Nonviolent Communication: a Language of Life ~ Marshall Rosenberg
Discussing the Undiscussable: A Guide to Overcoming Defensive Routines in the Workplace ~ Bill Noonan
Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When the Stakes are High ~ Kerry Patterson
Difficult Conversations ~ Bruce Patton
Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together ~ William Isaacs
More Time to Think: A Way of Being in the World ~ Nancy Kline
Solving Tough Problems: An Open Way of Talking, Listening, and Creating New Realities ~ Adam Kahane

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,719 other followers