LT Leland gave an excellent summary and well said.
First of all, my hat’s off to anyone that ventures out and participates in something like the adaptability conference. It takes moral courage to admit, “maybe I can get better, let’s see what happens here.” More compliments to the person’s organization if the organization was willing to support and encourage its people to get better. Too many organizations focus on the short term profit and simply don’t want to lose control of its people, don’t take the opportunity to make a long term investment in making its people more competent and confident. These attributes are the hallmark of adaptability.
I use a series of different games and scenario based education to involve the students (or participants) in the discussion about how to evolve adaptability in themselves and in their organization. The students end up doing the talking and usually solving or finding the answers to their questions. Each and every time any group does these exercises, they assume that I, as the facilitator, limit what they can do, like asking question to broaden their assumptions and courses of actions, and that I will always say no if they do ask a question, like “can we have more time.”
I will leave you with this thought, after doing this approach with games and getting similar results from audiences the past 50 times, why do students box themselves in? What does that tell us about ourselves and our organizations, when we always assume the negative? How does this limit our “evolutionary adaptability”?
More later. I’ve got to walk my six dogs before it starts raining here in N.VA. Have a Happy Easter.
Don some thoughts on your questions, as to why do students box themselves in? What does that tell us about ourselves and our organizations, when we always assume the negative? How does this limit our “evolutionary adaptability”?
Why do we box ourselves in? COL John Boyd talked of cultural traditions, past experiences, genetic heritage and new information shaping our orientation. A good starting point as to why we box ourselves in. This is or has been our experience, what a lot of us have seen in organizations. Ask for permission before you act. Or you will pay the consequences. New information coming in can be trying enough in rapidly changing circumstances, let alone your part of an organization that’s culture and traditions, are shaped by autocratic style leadership with micro-management being the norm. This stifles initiative and adaptability. Creativity at solving problems is left to “Boss how you want me to handle this?” Instead of; “boss, the problem is solved, here is what we did.” Initiative is lost in the latter type of organization and at times life’s can be at stake. This type of organization creates friction, when the goal is to reduce friction through decentralizing control and allowing free thought and action, to take hold.
Training and cultures of organizations have bred this type of top down approach to getting things done. Training courses inspire the top down approach and as I had continually heard repeatedly in one particular course I took; if you have a problem child “Croak Them” never once did I hear teach them! The attitude that is nurtured through this type of action is we will do what we are told and only what we are told. The feeling is generally the boss will come up with the ideas and plans because that’s what he gets paid for. How about a minor mistake made by someone that brings on discipline when it could have been a training moment, a time to lead and teach. This type of misuse of the disciplinary process is often seen as unfair and brings down morale in an organization. Creating an atmosphere of fear; where initiative is frowned upon.
Now I do not want to pick on the bosses only here. We individually create our own limitations by going along with the crowd (“peer pressure)” doing what is acceptable, not necessarily what is the right thing to do. A lot of what I have seen and personally experience is we do not want to look like the person who is going to rock the boat, even if it’s in a positive way. We do not want to look different. We do not want to “stand up” because somebody may be offended? What we see, our experience, begin to tell us that creativity and initiative are frowned upon throughout an organization all too often. This eventually becomes acceptable work ethic. This is some of what I believe boxes us in. Although individuals and organizations are unique and have different motivators that make them tick. This is why the adaptive leadership symposium was such an important training.
My experience has been in the law enforcement and security fields over the last 21 years. I am also prior Marine Corps grunt. I will use this perspective for some thoughts on your second question; what does that tell us about ourselves and our organizations when we always assume the negative? My first thought, maybe we need to reconsider what we have learned and reshape our own orientation. Not all of it but an honest assessment of ourselves our own strengths and weaknesses. Based on what we have personally experienced and that from which others have learned. Realize that we individually do not have all the answers. Like my mother and grandmother use to tell me “two heads are better than one.” Collective knowledge is often much more creative and generates more energy to accomplish a mission or goal than one person doing it all alone. We saw this cohesion take place at the “adaptive leadership symposium” with the decision making exercises. Constantly look at and research historic events in your field and others that relate, and learn from them. I forget who said it, but the quote: “the wise man learns from his mistakes, but the wiser man learns from the mistakes of others.” This is also true of successes of others. If we make the change in ourselves first and take action to implement new creative ideas others will see it and be influenced by it. Then you sell it one by one adaptability will give the organization this ability, and that ability etc. etc. etc. Attitudes are contagious whether it’s a positive or negative that’s being spread is up to you. I think we need to be more open to learning, continued learning if we are to become more adaptive and ready to handle problems or threats we face.
How does this limit our “evolutionary adaptability”? If we are not willing to develop and reshape our orientation to the changing world, we will use methods, strategy and tactics that will become ineffective. We will not be able to survive on our own terms; as COL John Boyd puts it.
A quick example; again from my experiences, officers responding to calls throughout the year in this nation use physical force in less than 1% of all contacts according to a U.S. Department of Justice study. Less than 1% use physical force! That’s very successful rate when you consider the millions of calls handled per year. However that success rate leads to “COMPLACENCY” on the part of a lot of individual officers and their organizations. A mindset is developed that a “car stop is just another car stop” a domestic disturbance at 123 Main Street is just another domestic disturbance at 123 Main Street” can be a fatal mental flaw if we do not evolve in our ability to adapt. Keep in mind “Success” can be as, or more dangerous than failure if you are not careful. Each time you respond, if you base decisions solely on your last interaction or your last 100, 500, 1000 interactions, you may get lucky, or maybe not. Mistaking good luck for good performance is a lack of adaptability. You have to continually train yourself to adapt to observe and absorb new ideas, new information that makes sense and apply strategy and tactics based on the circumstances you are in “at that moment.” Continuous, persistent learning along with positive attitude that allows us to stay the course is how we evolve our adaptability.
Don and Fred some additional thoughts on why people at all levels and professions “box” themselves in. I believe it comes down to the cultural, social and training aspects of most organizations. Anthropologists, discuss social sustainability, which is a system of relationships within societies that ensure a form of social reproduction that will not increase pressures on the environment. In an organization this leads to a culture of not “rocking the boat”, but rather going along with the status quo so as not to cause unrest within the environment of the organization.
This social system tends to develop means of regulating the organization into one that is geared to sustainability and not evolution.
It is also note worthy to look at how sustainable organizations view education. They look at the function of organizational education not as a way to free the mind, but rather to bind them to their philosophy. Orginizations that wish to evolve there adaptibility seek to educate by training “how to think” not “what to think” thereby freeing the mind and the spirit.
Dale,
Points well taken and I agree. You get so much more are out of those you turn loose, with their own ideas and ingenuity, so much so, that you may be pleasantly surprised. I have seen the day shift here where I work, turn 180 degrees in the last 8 months for the positive. New Sergeant who understands the importance of freeing the spirit and those minds working “with him” to accomplish the mission. An exciting thing to be part of.
Memebers of the department including the top have started to see the effectiveness of this style of leadership and wants more information and training to encourage adaptability in frontline officers and leaders. This is a big step as it has not always been seen this way. Proof that having a “cause” that is worthy and “persistence” does pay off; as was mentioned at the adaptive leadership symposium.
Keep on learning and evolving!
[...] http://donvandergriff.wordpress.com/2008/03/22/adaptive-leader-conference-summary/ [...]
The style of writing is quite familiar to me. Have you written guest posts for other bloggers?