More Often Or Not - It Comes Down to Context

I recall the first time I was challenged with the difference between a point of view and a viewing point.  A point of view being heavily influenced by “mental models” – several of which are untested and a viewing point being influenced by “viewing” from a different perspective.

Having grown up in arguably “the best of two worlds” – near the ocean and near the mountains, our family routinely would take drives to enjoy the beauty and wonders of nature.

Climbing from sea level to thousands of feet we would look at the ever-changing landscapes, terrain, vegetation, and “views” corresponding with our ascent.  I was curious about how rivers changed in size and intensity the higher we went.  It would be years later while hiking that we would discover their origins being amazed at the innocents of either glacier melt or snowfall resulting in some of the largest rivers sojourning towards the ocean.

My viewing point of rivers literally changed by physically viewing the river from different elevations. Simply, my viewing point of rivers changed with the change in perspective. 

Viewing points are context.  How staff within an organization view the “work” – current reality, problems, challenges, issues, accomplishments, successes and etc. are determined by their perspective or viewing point.  We get this!

Collectively, however, we have not done a very good job considering context when it comes to “change” and “changing”.  Moreover and as it relates to implementation intelligence, context if often assumed – a fatal error!

The absence of awareness as well as understanding of context is further compounded by those external to the organization.  Organizations and companies have viewing points or context that may or may not be accurate.

What do we do?

The simple answer, ask questions!  Lots of questions!

The theory of action I believe that sets as well as clarifies context is:  What + Why + How = Results

What are we trying to solve, improve, or change?

What is the goal or aim of …?

What is the purpose of …?

What are our expectations for …?

What are the results we expect, require of …?

What is the alignment of … with our strategic goals, aspirations, plan?

What is the alignment of … with our core mission, vision?

The “what” questions should directly lead to “why”.  If you recall, the answer to “why” must resonate, connect deeply with the core values of the organization as well as each individual – my favorite “why” question is “Why are you engaged in this work?”

The "what" and "why" create or clarify context for individuals and the organization.  Too often the excitement of the power of "how" creates a gap in awareness and understanding - both of which are critical to how.  A good example is the exponential explosion of technology in schools.  One explanation as to why "technology" has not produced the promises or envisioned results is that in most cases, technology as remained a "what" never shifting to a "how".  The failure to establish or clarify context has in many cases prevented results.  Teetering on over simplifying, learning is the "what" and technology is a "how".

Context matters!

It deserves our attention through intentionality.  Asking questions, seeking clarification, ensuring as many viewing points are considered and addressed are starting points for raising awareness, support, and actionable intelligence for implementation success.  

Culture + Climate + Context = Growth

Much has and will continue to be written, discussed, and debated about the role, influence, importance, and impact of culture in and on an organization.  Climate and context have equally been studied especially with respect to employee well being.  However, it is the integration of culture, climate and context that now more than ever are key to organizational growth and ultimately organizational success.

Here's why -

For the purpose of my discussion, I operationally define culture, climate, and context as:

·       Culture is both subjective and objective elements that can be summarized as the organizations values, norms and ways of behaving;

·       Climate consists of perceived as well as real organizational practices; and

·       Context is the organizational structure or configuration including work groups, workflow, reporting and span of control practices, and formal communication practices.

Lately, a lot of attention has been given to the transition of "start ups" from launch to profitable to scale.  What is of great interest is the "how" to maintain the excitement, enthusiasm, energy, focus, motivation, creativity, risk, and innovation to name just a few characteristics or traits of a start up through the transition. 

What intrigues me about the transition is one the most common misunderstandings of change and change management.  This is, if change is viewed as episodic, event driven, or need driven, the energy, effort to "ramp up" and deliver change creates more challenges that it solves.

What we have learned or should have learned is that change is constant.  As such, shifts in thinking about change and the change process are critical to the success or failure of an organization - their brand and brand deliverables as well as managing the brand experience.

The landscape is literally dotted with companies, institutions, organizations and their leadership that failed to accept that change is constant - continual.  Teetering on over simplification, the myriad examples studied reveal three common factors missing.  They are the presence and practice of anticipating, adjusting and adapting.

Organizations or businesses capable of anticipating, adjusting and adapting (A cubed) thrived while those that didn’t struggled eventually losing market share or worse – their existence.  Once a “nice” to have – A cubed is an essential component for organizational vitality. 

One example of the capability that A cubed produces are companies and organizations that have or are shifting to being proactive rather than reactive. They are intentional.  They are thoughtful. They are constantly and consistently learning as well as growing individually and collectively. They invest time in building an individual and collective mindset of “why not”.  They challenge themselves through stretching their imaginations, their creativity, and the design as well as innovations by, of and for solutions.  They embrace change as a core function and thus are positioned to thrive let alone survive.

A cubed shouldn't in anyway be reckless or irresponsible.  Rather, when an organization has shifted their individual and collective thinking to "change" and "changing" as natural and organic to the organizational culture, climate, and context they minimize errors or mistakes that are irreversible.

·       What are the assumptions that individuals have about the organizations mission, vision, and core values? Are the words and behaviors congruent?

·       What is the level of personal responsibility let alone organizational responsibility to hold one another accountable for making and keeping commitments?

·       What is the risk tolerance?  Are individuals or work teams affirmed and validated for creativity and innovation?

·       What role does learning play?  Do we take time to learn individual and corporately from what doesn’t work?  Do we study the “whys”?

·       How does fear impact individually and organizational performance?

·       What role does sarcasm play in our organization?

·       Are there patterns of negative, destructive behavior that have become normalized?

The aforementioned questions are not exhaustive but do reveal what individuals “think” as well as “interpret” that shape, influence, and impact individual and organizational behavior.  Without question we all have points of view on the culture and climate of an organization. 

Yet, it may be the context or “viewing point” we have that provides the opportunity for individual and organizational learning and growth creating the conditions necessary to integrate culture, climate and context for success.  

Next week – Context Matters!     

Confidence and Self Efficacy are Key

What role does individual and organizational “confidence” play in implementing a new product, program, practice or service in an organization?

Huge!

As the third component of Implementation Intelligence© confidence in many respects drives the other two - capacity and competence.

Why?

Dictionary definitions of confidence include terms or words like "being certain", "proven", "demonstrated" or "self assured".  Yet, it’s not just knowing something or being able to do something that makes one confident.  Rather, it is the application of knowing and doing that produces a result, effect and “belief” that creates confidence.

I recall vividly playing baseball and my first introduction to the “curveball”.  My brother and I stayed after practice one day and pleaded with our father to pitch additional batting practice.  My father had always pitched harder to both my brother and myself building a level of confidence that at times included a lot of swinging and missing.  I remember experimenting with my swing, bat size, stance, position and etc. all in attempt to “catch” up my swing with the velocity of the pitch.

Never allowing either of us to develop poor habits or shortcuts with our swing, my father would work with us what seemed endlessly to get it right - and then, we experienced the curve ball.  For those with a similar experience, do you remember the feeling of the ball heading right at you and bailing out only to have the ball “change” course for a strike?  I do.

My father patiently demonstrated how to hit a curve ball including what to look for from the pitcher, elbow, arm motion, and etc.  We learned patience, how to roll our hips to keep our weight balanced, as well as not pulling the pitch but driving it the opposite field. Over time and a lot of practice, both my bother and I became pretty proficient in hitting all forms of curveballs.  We developed a confidence based on knowledge and application.  We’re we perfect – far from it.  We’re we successful every time – absolutely not.  We did, however, step into the batter’s box with not only a proven confidence but also what I would learn later as self-efficacy.

"Self efficacy is commonly defined as the belief in one's capabilities to achieve a goal or an outcome. Learners with a strong sense of efficacy are more likely to challenge themselves with difficult tasks and be intrinsically motivated. These learners will put forth a high degree of effort in order to meet their commitments, and attribute failure to things that are in their control, rather than blaming external factors. Self-efficacious learners also recover quickly from setbacks, and ultimately are likely to achieve their personal goals” (downloaded from (http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/affective/efficacy.html).  We also know that learner efficacy is derived from teacher efficacy - the ability of the teacher to challenge, support, reinforce, stretch, and “be there” to assist students in developing self-efficacy.

Consider the influence of individual self-efficacy on organizational efficacy in much the same way as learner self-efficacy is fostered by teacher self-efficacy.  Self-efficacy applies to implementation confidence of an organization in the same manner that it does to a learner.  Consider,

·  Does the organization challenge itself with difficult tasks?

·  How successful has the organization been with these challenges?

·  What obstacles or barriers were there to success?

·  What did the organization learn, how did it grow?

·  What does the organization do differently as a result of challenging difficult tasks? 

·  Does our organization intrinsically motivate itself?  How? And how well?

·  Does our organization attribute failure or the lack of success to factors within its control?  

·  Is the organization resilient?  

·  Does the organization recover quickly from setbacks?

These are but a few of the questions an organization must ask itself to assess their self-efficacy and emerging confidence to implement a new product, program, practice or service.  Far too often, assumptions are made about the confidence of an organization to implement. 

Lastly, I offer that organizations must have all three – capacity, competence, and confidence to increase the likelihood for successful implementation of a new product, program, practice or service. I advocate for pre-assessing these components before launching not as a readiness check but for the individual and organizational opportunity to increase awareness, understanding, and support for the “new”.