[Dring Dring]
<Bob> Hi Leslie, how are you today?
<Leslie> Really good thanks. We are making progress and it is really exciting to see tangible and measurable improvement in safety, delivery, quality and financial stability.
<Bob> That is good to hear. So what topic shall we explore today?
<Leslie> I would like to return to the topic of engagement.
<Bob> OK. I am sensing that you have a specific Niggle that you would like to share.
<Leslie> Yes. Specifically it is engaging the Board.
<Bob> Ah ha. I wondered when we would get to that. Can you describe your Niggle?
<Leslie> Well, the feeling is fear and that follows from the risk of being identified as a trouble-maker which follows from exposing gaps in knowledge and understanding of seniors.
<Bob> Well put. This is an expected hurdle that all Improvement Scientists have to learn to leap reliably. What is the barrier that you see?
<Leslie> That I do not know how to do it and I have seen a lot of people try and commit career-suicide – like moths on a flame.
<Bob> OK – so it is a real fear based on real evidence. What methods did the “toasted moths” try?
<Leslie> Some got angry and blasted off angry send-to-all emails. They just succeeded in identifying themselves as “terrorists” and were dismissed – politically and actually. Others channeled their passion more effectively by heroic acts that held the system together for a while – and they succeeded in burning themselves out. The end result was the same: toasted!
<Bob> So with your understanding of design principles what does that say?
<Leslie> That the design of their engagement process is wrong.
<Bob> Wrong?
<Leslie> I mean “not fit for purpose”.
<Bob> And the difference is?
<Leslie> “Wrong” is a subjective judgement, “not fit for purpose” is an objective assessment.
<Bob> Yes. We need to be careful with words. So what is the “purpose”?
<Leslie> An organisation that is capable of consistently delivering improvement on all dimensions, safety, delivery, quality and affordability.
<Bob> Which requires?
<Leslie> All the parts working in synergy to a common purpose.
<Bob> So what are the parts?
<Leslie> The departments.
<Bob> They are the stages that the streams cross – they are parts of system structure. I am thinking more broadly.
<Leslie> The workers, the managers and the executives?
<Bob> Yes. And how is that usually perceived?
<Leslie> As a power hierarchy.
<Bob> And do physical systems have power hierarchies?
<Leslie> No … they have components with different and complementary roles.
<Bob> So does that help?
<Leslie> Yes! To achieve synergy each component has to know its complementary role and be competent to do it.
<Bob> And each must understand the roles of the others, respect the difference, and develop trust in their competence.
<Leslie> And the concepts of understanding, respect and trust appears again.
<Bob> Indeed. They are always there in one form or another.
<Leslie> So as learning and improvement is a challenge then engagement is respectful challenge …
<Bob> … uh huh …
<Leslie> … and each part is different so requires a different form of respectful challenge?
<Bob> Yes. And with three parts there are six relationships between them – so six different ways of one part respectfully challenging another. Six different designs that have the same purpose but a different context.
<Leslie> Ah ha! And if we do not use the context-dependent-fit-for-purpose-respectful-challenge-design we do not achieve our purpose?
<Bob> Correct. The principles of design are generic.
<Leslie> So what are the six designs?
<Bob> Let us explore three of them. First the context of a manager respectfully challenging a worker to improve.
<Leslie> That would require some form of training. Either the manager trains the worker or employs someone else to.
<Bob> Yes – and when might a manager delegate training?
<Leslie> When they do not have time to or do not know how to.
<Bob> Yes. So how would the flaw in that design be avoided?
<Leslie> By the manager maintaining their own know-how by doing enough training themselves and delegating the rest.
<Bob> Yup. Well done. OK let us consider a manager respectfully challenging other managers to improve.
<Leslie> I see what you mean. That is a completely different dynamic. The closest I can think of is a coaching arrangement.
<Bob> Yes. Coaching is quite different from training. It is more of a two-way relationship and I prefer to refer to it as “informal co-coaching” because both respectfully challenge each other in different ways; both share knowledge; and both learn and develop.
<Leslie> And that is what you are doing now?
<Bob> Yes. The only difference is that we have agreed a formal coaching contract. So what about a worker respectfully challenging a manager or a manager respectfully challenging an executive?
<Leslie>That is a very different dynamic. It is not training and it is not coaching.
<Bob> What other options are there?
<Leslie>Not formal coaching! An executive is not going to ask a middle manager to coach them!
<Bob> You are right on both counts – so what is the essence of informal coaching?
<Leslie> An informal coach provides a different perspective and will say what they see if asked and will ask questions that help to illustrate alternative perspectives and offer evidence of alternative options. This is just well-structured, judgement-free feedback.
<Bob> Yes. We do it all the time. And we are often “coached” by those much younger than ourselves who have a more modern perspective. Our children for instance.
<Leslie> So the judgement free feedback metaphor is the one that a manager can use to engage an executive.
<Bob> Yes. And look at it from the perspective of the executive – they want feedback that can help them made wiser strategic decisions. That is their role. Boards are always asking for customer feedback, staff feedback and performance feedback. They want to know the Nuggets, the Niggles, the Nice Ifs and the NoNos. They just do not ask for it like that.
<Leslie> So they are no different from the rest of us?
<Bob> Not in respect of an insatiable appetite for unfiltered and undistorted feedback. What is different is their role. They are responsible for the strategic decisions – the ones that affect us all – so we can help ourselves by helping them make those decisions. A well-designed feedback model is fit-for-that-purpose.
<Leslie> And an Improvement Scientist needs to be able to do all three – training, coaching and communicating in a collaborative informal style. Is that leadership?
<Bob> I call it “middle-aware”.
<Leslie> It makes complete sense to me. There is a lot of new stuff here and I will need to reflect on it. Thank you once again for showing me a different perspective on the problem.
<Bob> I enjoyed it too – talking it through helps me to learn to explain it better – and I look forward to hearing the conclusions from your reflections because I know I will learn from that too.