Sunday, 10 November 2019

53. Develop a vison for the organization


A vision is a coherent and dynamic set of relevant and realistic beliefs about a certain part of reality.
Strong intelligence is needed to develop a solid vision. Depending on the complexity of the piece of reality about which you want to develop a vision, a “level 4” intelligence will usually be required. To make them useful for an organization (or society), “level 5” will also be necessary.
Level 1 : factual knowledge . This is something that people with a good memory have, provided they have filled their memory with enough relevant and reliable information.
Level 2 : seeing cause-effect relationships . This requires experience with practical situations in the field in which the vision must be formed, and logical thinking . The latter is a difficult point. Many people who ‘associate’, think they reason. Associating is making connections on an intuitive basis, where emotions often determine which relationship is made. In reasoning, the reliability of the relationship established becomes crucial.
Level 3 : seeing dynamics in the whole . This requires a selection of the relevant facts and the relevant relationships; with due attention to the completeness of the relationships involved in constructing the dynamics. The added value at this level is clearly that all relationships play at the same time, and that their mutual relationship, in strength, timing, effects, ... forms a dynamic overall picture.
Level 4 : seeing the relative dynamics and bringing them together in a relevant whole,  with a goal or assignment in mind . Here a selection is made between what is primary and important, and ancillary parts of the dynamics that do not have sufficient importance to be included. Relativizing capacity will determine the final quality here.
Level 5 : be inspiring . The vision can only be useful if it can be shared with the people who want and can do something with it. This means that the acquired insights can be formulated and communicated as a whole in such a way that people who are interested in these objectives (mission) are motivated and inspired for their contribution.
An organization requires two visions: an external and an internal one.
The external one relates to the 'playing field' of the organization, the working environment. Here legal , technological and economic aspects are important, but also competition and the position, interests, visions, strategies ... of all the players in the game. This external vision will determine the development of an external strategy for the organization concerned. That means it makes it possible to make all the feasible strategic choices (external focus) that are needed for the mission.
The internal one has to do with a coherent insight into the type of organization that is needed to realize the mission. This is sometimes included in the term 'corporate strategy '. It refers to the choices that are made to realize an organizational operation that must realize the chosen strategy. The 7- S model from McKinsey (1) is still a useful framework for studying and determining the relevant aspects. For the sake of clarity: the elements that must be described here are, in addition to the external strategy, the structure, the systems and processes, the style of leadership, the knowledge, the people and the organizational culture. The main challenge in shaping this vision is to forge loose beliefs into a coherent whole. A great dynamic coherence will have to be developed here, just as with the development of the external vision.
In practice, a 'mission - vision' exercise is often used to give direction to the development of an organization. The mission is usually tackled in a fairly clear manner. However, the vision often needs some more precision. It often happens that the description of the vision leads to a repetition of the mission and contains nothing new. To keep the two apart, the two guiding questions are often used: "What do we go for?" And "What do we stand for?". But these questions apparently do not help to arrive at a clear vision, neither internally nor externally.
A SWOT analysis also attempts to capture both dimensions. However, it is a static approach, an analysis of what "is". The "SW" refers to the strengths and weaknesses of the organization, the internal focus. The "OT" refers to the opportunities and threats, the external focus.
The SW analysis, however, is floating, because there is no connection with the goal or mission. You are always strong or weak in function of an assignment. In itself, strengths and weaknesses are interesting, but not relevant. The OT analysis is about relevant issues, but the dynamic connection to make it a vision is usually absent. An attempt to capture the dynamic can lead to a scenario analysis. That means trying to imagine the direction in which reality might evolve, depending on a few crucial factors that could move in one direction or another  An attempt is then made to properly assess the consequences for the organization, so that people can prepare themselves, for example with investments, systems to be built, etc. This way we are clearly already taking a big step in the right direction, at least with regard to this part of the challenge. To really do the homework in a professional way, all aspects of the organization (7- S model ) should receive a ' design plan'. That is more than an analysis! It is a concept of an organization that guides the decision-making process to create the operational architecture  of the organization towards success (mission and strategy).
The conclusion is once again that the sloppy use of terms often indicates a lack of insight.
"Ce que l’on conçoit bien , s’énonce clairement " – (Nicolas Boileau) (What one understands well, one can  also explain well. So if one cannot explain it well, one probably does not have a clear understanding.)
Two additional reflections:
People who do not have level 5 or level 4 intelligence, regardless of whether it is caused by brain capacity, personality or lack of familiarity with the work field, have a problem. They cannot oversee the complexity with which they are confronted. They would rather prefer the relative certainty of the solutions of the past and become conservative. They have no credible answer in mind that can work better than the past. A strong control drive then becomes likely when they step into a leadership role. Conversely, people with this condition who are not leaders will also suffer from complexity and will be conservative. The greater the chaos in man's perception, the more he calls for authoritarian leadership to bring order to chaos. Control-driven people then get the wind in their sails to take on leadership. Political reality seems to become more and more conservative or 'right', and it  could be an expectable evolution in actual turbulent times.
More and more research shows that softer forms of autism are also caused by a relative lack of control of the (slow) pre-frontal cortex of the brain over the impulses of the (rapid) reflex brain. (2) People with autism can be very good at level 1 intelligence (facts accumulate in memory), but gradually have more difficulty with higher forms of intelligence. They cannot handle complexity. (3) It makes you think about the political change. It becomes completely dubious when we know that emotional pressure during education has an inhibitory influence on the development of the pre-frontal cortex and a stimulating effect on the emotionally driven reflex brain. ( 4) Being constantly on-line with modern interactive media has a similar effect. It stimulates the development of the reflex brain, down to the point of addiction, and leaves little or no room for the development of pre-frontal thinking. (5) Did you know that app developers for smartphones specialize in the mechanisms that make an app addictive?
Hugo Der Kinderen
(1) Tom Peters, Robert Waterman, In search of excellence, Harper & Row, New York, 1983   
(2) Daniel Kahneman , Thinking fast and slow, Penguin Books, 2012  
(3) Temple Grandin, Catherine Johnson, Animals in translation, Bloomsbury, London, 2005   
(4) Walter Mischel , The Marshmallow test, Little Brown & Cy, New York, 2014   
(5) Theo Compernolle , Ontketen je brein, Lannoo , Tielt, 2014   



Sunday, 20 October 2019

52. Organizing changes with participation: the funnel technique


When organizing change processes in organizations, the issue of participation is made very clear. A method must be found to navigate between two extremes:
1- "Participation without insight leads to statements without prospects". Making people decide on issues for which they have insufficient information or skills is a guarantee for bad decisions.     
2- Decisions that are good in terms of content, but that are not accepted by those involved, are difficult to implement.     
The focus of the methodology sought must therefore be on reconciling content and acceptance. This means that “THE TOTAL QUALITY OF A DECISION IS EQUAL TO THE PRODUCT OF THE INTRINSIC QUALITY OF THE DECISION AND ACCEPTANCE. The funnel technique offers a solution.
As previously described elsewhere, a good change process starts with the creation of the desire for change (“Sense of urgency ”). It has also been made clear who will organize and supervise the process. This "leading coalition" has also clearly communicated the rules of the process (the method of funnel technology) , and has verified whether the culture of the organization is sufficiently receptive to the intended change. The fifth phase in the change process is the funnel technique. This means that the solution to the problem or challenge posed is achieved in collaboration between the process management and the employees involved. After all, the resistance to change that often sabotages good intentions is that management first works out the solution (specialists), and then 'sell' this solution to those involved. The known change process described by Kotter (1) is also guilty of this top-down approach. In that approach one has to become creative in inventing 'massage techniques' in order to obtain the necessary acceptance. With funnel technique we try to take three steps from the process at the same time:
- Creating the solution         
- Communicating the solution         
- Creating acceptance         
The funnel technology works in steps:
STEP 1: ALL employees involved (even external parties in some cases, eg customers) are asked to provide their input that is useful for the solution sought. This input can be proposals, possible solutions, or partial solutions, interesting techniques or examples, points of interest, risks, or even things that people are concerned about. The leading coalition receives this input and starts working with it. It is important that not only those directly involved are invited, but also people who are indirectly involved, for example from support departments. Everyone who has an important contribution to make in realizing the solution must participate in the process.
STEP2: Based on the input obtained, the leading coalition works out a solution proposal. This can possibly be 'outsourced' to a working group of specialized people, or the leading coalition is assisted by experts, or works with part of their team. It is essential that two things are used to make this first design: the input obtained, and the expertise from the working group. This expertise in particular must ensure the necessary quality of the designed solution. This must be consistent in terms of content and have already passed a test of (technical, legal, financial, ... ) feasibility.
STEP3: This draft is submitted to the SAME group of people who were asked to provide input. Even people who were invited but did not give input are involved in this way, and may even decide to cooperate from now on.
When presenting the design of the solution, special attention is given to:
- What input have we received?         
- How does the solution work?         
- What logic is behind it that makes the whole consistent (and aligns with, for example, previously made and well-known strategic choices, the sense of urgency)         
- Where can the received input be found in the design?         
- Which input was not processed, and why?         
Following this information, room is made to allow those involved to respond. The question they get is: where and how can this design be improved. This is explicitly NOT the question of what people think is good and what is not! This is an important pivotal point in the process. You do not ask for approval, but you seek improvements based on the knowledge, experience, ... of the people involved. Every response must therefore be more than an opinion; it must be supported by argumentation. Because this is a fairly difficult criterion, at least for some people, it may have to be anticipated that the response should not be given immediately, but at a certain time.  The channel used to respond must have a low threshold; be easily to use.
STEP 4: On the basis of the resulting comments and improved proposal is made. That improved design meets the same criteria as the first design (knowledge, consistency, use of input , ... )
STEP 5: This second draft is resubmitted to the entire group of stakeholders, as described in step 3, using the same method.
STEP 6: This process is repeated as often as necessary. That means that at a certain point in time there is no more useful input from the group concerned, and that apparently the most recent version is the best possible answer to the problem posed. This version then becomes the solution. Possibly the Sociocratic method is used even more explicitly here, and one concludes with the exception question: "Are there any reasons for not trying it this way?"
Why does this method provide the quality and support that are sought? Two things are essential here, and must therefore be strongly guarded by the leading coalition:
- The open and transparent way to monitor the two directions in the process: top-down and bottom-up. The funnel technology is essentially an 'intelligent combination of top-down and bottom-up!         
- The narrowing in the funnel. It is equally crucial that a distinction is made in the course of the funnel between 'sense and nonsense'. The quality and consistency of all ideas must therefore be strictly monitored. Otherwise you don't have a funnel, but a tube! That presupposes that the management has the courage to decide which idea is unsuccessful, and why. Leaders without a vision, or who use a style of ' pleasing and licking', naturally have a hard time with this.         
The original quality of the funnel technology, and therefore also the added value, is in the following elements:
- All stakeholders co-operate, and not just people in a working group of representatives (such as eg " Key users') This traditional approach is chopping the process into two parts. The easy part, the selected group, it is agreed, and the rest is forgotten and is subsequently tackled in the ' sales process ' that needs to follow. The second part of the process therefor provides the basis for resistance and loss of support.         
- There is a lot of room for input, and multiple opportunities         
- Those involved see how the solution comes about, and can follow the logic         
- The focus on quality is retained         
The time required to follow this method is often cited as an objection. Leaders sometimes find that they don't have the time. But this is a trap. The Japanese concept of NEMAWASHI is an important help here (2) It says: Decide slowly, and implement fast”. That means that the total throughput time of the change determines how quickly something is realized. If we decide quickly, implementation may be delayed by resistance, lack of clarity, additional interruptions at crucial points, etc.
  

Hugo Der Kinderen
(1) JP Kotter, Leading Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1998

(2) Liker , JK, The Toyota Way, Mc Graw Hill, New York, 2004   


Tuesday, 1 October 2019

51. The MOOD elevator: an instrument for human co-operation


It is quite something, human emotions! There is no doubt; they have a big impact on behavior, both on individual and on group level. Maybe this is one of the biggest challenges that we face in our attempt to create constructive behavior.  It seems therefore useful to focus on the way individual emotions multiply themselves in social environments, such as meetings. A good instrument to do this, is ‘the mood elevator’.

Emotions that are expressed in the presence of others create similar emotions in the heads of the people present. Of course, this happens with a varying intensity, depending on the personality. This mechanism is probably based on the work of the mirror-neurons in our brain that we needed in our earlier evolution states to survive as a mammal. If the pack-leader spots a danger i twill show in his non-verbal behavior, or even n sounds, that this creates an emotion. The rest of the pack picks up that emotion, and collective behavior of the pack is the result. The fight – flight reflex is probably one of the basic behavior patterns that determined pack behavior. The same mechanism is active in our contemporary relations. People who ventilate an emotion, for whatever reason, have an infecting impact on the emotions and behavior of others. That’s why we call this mechanism an ‘elevator’. A group of people in a meeting can become very emotional in a certain direction. A group can become aggressive, paranoia, passive, careful, … in the way they tackle a problem.

We can easily classify emotions in positive and negative as shown in this overview. They are mentioned in order of intensity, from weal-k to strong, or vice versa. Of course, this list can be completed with lots of other emotions; humans have lost of complex emotions.  (opposite to our mammal friends who seem to be more limited to a smaller number of basic emotions).



 This is how the ventilation of emotions in a meeting can have a strong impact on the results of a meeting. Outside meetings there is also an impact, but the impact is weaker because the non-verbal signals are not picked up. Maybe this is why some people prefer to have something discussed in a meeting, to have a bigger impact on people.

Emotions are picked up by people with an intensity that is part of their personality. Highly sensitive people look for environments with positive emotions (such as music concerts) and suffer more from context that radiate negative emotions. The bigger the number of people picking up the same emotion in a social environment, the more intense the group pressure becomes. This could explain the phenomenon of ‘hooliganism’ that sometimes appear with football games. The ’selection’ of people that attend events like that certainly has an impact. (looking for emotional stimuli, possible in compensation for other emotions).

This mechanism is also very relevant for leadership. When a person has a very important (informal) position in a team or organization has strong emotional input, this will be considered more important. The stronger the acceptance a leader has from the group (see ‘Join up’) the stronger the impact.
This leads to an interesting question: which emotion do you ventilate sometimes, regularly, most of the time, in your social environment? Of course, this emotion will be an important part of your internal world. Here are a few emotions that go further than just positive or negative, and that might be important in your role as a leader.

Excitement: as well positive as negative, excitement can be created in a group. Excitement means that the degree of emotional drive and motivation is increasing. Maybe this is a good contribution to motivation in a certain direction, but the question is: what is the quality of that direction?  It rather fits in a style of ‘manipulation’ and ‘obedience’ to motivate people in this way. ‘They will be less conscient and rational in the way they commit to a certain action. They get ‘carried away’. Possibly they realize later on that it was not a good idea and they start feeling guilty about what they did. Presumably every reader can come up with examples of leaders who used this technique. The well-known  “HALO” effect in meetings describes how actions can become unproductive even in consensus. (this word is derived from the Latin word, ‘consentire’, meaning: feeling the same)
Rest: This is about reducing the degree of emotions to get a more clear overview and understanding about the situation at stake. As people become less emotional, the number of stupidities will decrease…  Rest in our head allows more nuances to be considered, so we don’t forget important aspects and we do not ‘turn too close around the corner’. Creating rest therefor seems to be an important competence for people in a coaching role. Certainly when the issue is to ‘emotionally stabilize’ the coachee. (see elsewhere ‘The role of a coach’)

Hold: Creating hold in a situation has to do with direction, priorities, values, durability,…It allows people to find orientation; it works like a compass that is handed over to them. It makes it possible to create enthusiasm for a positive action that is rationally founded and is sense making. The emotion that could deliver energy then becomes less important than the ‘why’ behind the decision. When we use excitement we have exactly the opposite.  Emotion drives the behavior, mostly influenced by the momentum and/or by internal emotional instability. It is worthwhile to reconsider “passion” in this context; it could be a recipe for stupidities.

People who work with dogs or horses will recognize these concepts easily. Working with animals therefor is an excellent method to study your emotional impact and to learn how to control it. Practical applications can be found in the world of ‘natural Horsemanship’ or the methodology of horse-whisperers like Ceasar Millan.

The importance for leadership is clear. Maybe this is what is we understand by ‘charismatic leadership’; having a strong impact on people by using emotion. The question is: what is that emotion? It could be positive or negative. And it takes away the free will, the clarity of choice and the sense making. Charismatic leaders can be very convincing, but at the same time be very unethical in their intentions.

Leaders who have a strong focus on content (facts, figures, objectives, results,…) often make no use of this emotional dimension; the work outside this dimension. This could be a matter of habits, perhaps under the influence of the context (social pressure). But it could also be a lack of competences. In both cases they are missing the connection with people. People need the connection before the consider the content!! Relation always comes first in leadership. But when the motion lift pulls people in the wrong direction, we are not in good leadership, only in strong leadership.

Hugo Der Kinderen

Wednesday, 11 September 2019

50. Should " organization tilt " and " self-managing teams " go together?


Both of these concepts are currently very popular in developing organizations. The distinction between the two is often not very clear, so some explanation seems useful.
A ‘tilted organization’ is an organization that is structured according to process. This means that the structure (the way in which areas of responsibility are defined) runs horizontally throughout the organization. The structure follows the processes; the whole of activities that, taken together, produce a certain result. This is therefore in strong contrast to the functional organization where the structure is determined on the basis of specialization. People and activities of the same kind are grouped in the structure. This leads to vertical columns in which the aspects of the organization are grouped; eg administration, finance, logistics, sales, care, purchasing, etc. It is the traditional way of designing organizations, following the insights and concepts of Taylor, Fayoll and many others. As engineers they have searched for efficiency-enhancing organizations during the industrial revolution. And indeed, when it comes to physical activities, with a repetitive character, and predictable in their methodology and objectives, this functional approach is cost-effective. It does lead to stomping work, but that was a unimportant issue in the past. The long-term effects were not taken serious in the competitive drive and in hierarchical organizations of those days.
As organizations position themselves more into services and care provision, methodologies become less standard, objectives are given a flexible interpretation in function of customers or situations, and the "machine" way of building organizations appears to be no longer satisfactory. The process is put at the center, so that the necessary flexibility, quality and customer focus can prevail over fixed routines. This means that employees who contribute to a certain process must be brought as close together as possible, and certainly belong to a team that also functions as such. The work organization then becomes horizontal instead of vertical. That is a tilt-process.
The consequence of tilting is that teams get a more diverse composition because all relevant competences must be present. To achieve good flexible cooperation, teams are therefore confronted with the multi-disciplinarity that results from this. This poses an additional difficulty: cooperation is easier if employees have the same kind of approach, use similar knowledge, and also have to do very similar things together. A multi-disciplinary team therefore creates a challenge of working complementary. It is therefore logical that there is a hype in recognizing differences between personalities by using models such as MBTI, Insights, and other simple frames to divide people into types according to their personality, way of thinking, and the different competences that come with them.
The idea of ​​self-managing teams (autonomous teams) is different concept. The basic idea is that the authority to make decisions are situated more in the teams themselves, and not in management layers. As a result of competence thinking in recent decades, the management of organizations has also become more aware of the optimum use of employees' competencies. It is gradually recognized that employees are not giving the best of themselves by being obedient to management instructions. They can also think for themselves! Greater autonomy in the functioning of teams should mean that decisions can be made quicker, that players are more responsive in dealing with problems and opportunities that are becoming increasingly unpredictable. That the necessary competencies in the team must be used for this is clearly a necessity, and also an advantage. We could call this the 'soft tilt', in contrast to the 'hard tilt', which introduces more process-oriented focus.
Realizing these two movements simultaneously in organizational development is quite a challenge. Due to the ‘hard tilt’ we have established that collaboration is a new challenge due to the more diverse composition of teams. Increasing autonomy also gives teams more responsibility to find out for themselves; organize itself, flexibly adapt the operation to the needs, follow up and adjust one's own results, manage your own budgets, ... It is clear that performing these two movements simultaneously is not easy, not for the management, and not for the teammembers themselves.
In the ambitions of the leadership of an organization, this dual movement should not only be properly understood, but should also be judiciously addressed. The sequence seems to be an important question, given the pressure-increasing effects of the combination of both movements. Introducing a ‘hard tilt’ without increasing the autonomy of the work teams seems perfectly possible. The benefits of working in a process will become visible, even though the traditional management method is retained. As such a team experiences the better results of their own work, there will normally also be in demand for more autonomy. Achieving good results, gaining more control over the process, indeed has a motivating effect (control capacity). The possibilities are also increasing, because the powers that improve a smoothly running process, are in the team or close nearby. After all, less time is lost due to slower (operational) decision-making if it remains with management. This sequence of working on organizational development therefore seems the most logical.
The reverse method seems more problematic. If one were to lay more autonomy in teams, but the functional structure is still determining the context, frustration will probably be high in the  teams. They may want to arrange more things themselves, but due to the functional hard structure, too many things remain outside the competence of the team Authorities lie in other ‘silos’, and that leads to greater dependence. The process is not in their hands, so it is mot logic to make them responsible. The conclusion is that a project that gives more autonomy to teams is doomed to fail if the organization is insufficiently structured in terms of process. The team feeling (in the optimistic situation) is one of wanting but not being able / allowed to take control. There is a good chance that the entire organization process  will be thrown away because of the negative experience, both for the team members and for their management.
A third dimension also comes into play: re-engineering of work processes (1) . Re-engineering means switching from simple tasks with complex processes to simple processes with more complex tasks. So it's about how work is distributed within a team. In order to work smoothly, one should move away from the functional way of thinking, and not limit the individual contributions of each team member to their diploma, task profile, unique competencies, etc. Also at this 'micro level', it would be better to switch to more multi-disciplinary 'individual tasks. Employees should maximize the part of the process that they take control on, and give as little as possible to colleagues. Doing it yourself leads to less loss of time, less communication, fewer errors, and bigger commitment.
If you first implement the ‘hard tilt’ in an organization, and then start using the opportunities that are created for more autonomy in the teams (good agreements), then it is necessary that you re-engineer the teams at the same time. Otherwise, the problem of specialization on a micro level is recreated. In this context, one should certainly reconsider the allocation of "star roles" within a team that is often used to accompany the creation of self-managing teams. Adding too much to specialization will sabotage team engagement for the end result. If a team wants to lead itself, the integration of organization, relationship and future, the three dimensions of leadership, must be made in the head of each team member. The assignment of star roles tends to give other team members the excuse not to have to deal with that aspect. In that case, the problem of the functional organization has then been moved from the organization level, to the working teams.

Hugo Der Kinderen
(1) A highly recommended book to understand the scope of this reorganization is the well-known book by M. Hammer and J. Champy, Reengineering the corporation, Tony Saich, 2009.  This book proves again that lots of knowledge is available for a long time,  but seems  to find its way to practical application rather difficultly.


49. Dominant leadership : perception and / or reality?


Dominant people are not pleasant to deal with. Dominant leaders are not successful in the long run. Dominant parents are not good educators. This means that there is not only the emotional valuation from the environment, there is also a fairly reliable observation that the results fall short. The human side in particular seems to pay the bill, even though dominance has sometimes produced something beautiful in terms of content.
But it is not always a clear story. Sometimes people are perceived as dominant because they have a strong focus on results, responsibility, quality, speed, urgency, etc. Of course, someone can maintain this focus in a dominant way, and then there is little doubt about the negative effects. But also in a respectful way, a focus on this goal orientation can be experienced as dominance. No matter how well the person concerned does his or her best to develop and maintain a good relationship, through willingness to listen, making contact, acceptance of the person, ... sometimes he/she simply does not succeed to come across as non-dominant. In that case, the problem is probably on the other side. The ' recipient ' or "addressee" is then a problem or limiting factor.
The problem of the recipient may be an internal struggle between personal emotional needs on the one hand, and the assignment or responsibility on the other. As long as there are emotions that require all attention because they are essential and have to do with the feeling of safety of the person concerned, in the broad sense, an ‘outside’ focus on "giving" is emotionally threatening.
This condition can arise from the context, or from a structural problem in the mind of the person concerned. When it comes to context, a respectful communication that leads to some agreements and confirmations is often sufficient to restore the 'emotional peace'. Boulding or restoring a good relation, develop trust or other interactive methods to personal well-being can bring the emotional wellbeing to an acceptable  minimum. Then a focus on tasks, results, plans, agreements, ... is possible again. The internal struggle has been won by ensuring security that calms down emotions and creates a relative calm.
A structural problem arises when the emotional world of the person involved is, for one reason or another, so strongly activated or developed that a 'contextual correction' is not sufficient. An out of control need for recognition, mistrust in people, for understandable reasons from the past, are examples of emotional scripts that can block people. But sometimes it is not even a question of certain scripts, but rather a high level of emotion that always controls one's own perception and position, regardless of context. From our knowledge of the effects of 'black pedagogy' (1) we know that emotional pressure stimulates the reflex brain in its development, and the development of the pre-frontal cortex (self control and focus) is inhibited. The balance between these two determines how goal-oriented someone is or can be; how quickly a situation is interpreted as emotional threatening, and how much room there is for 'common sense', ratio, logic, knowledge, assignment, objective, etc.
People who have had the misfortune that through the combination of their genetic basis and the effects of their education with a relatively weak ability to control and focus through life, reduce their life to finding emotional peace and safety. They will have a difficulty with every demand for results, assignment, responsibility or focus. Every question in that sense will quickly be translated as dominance; the inner struggle determines that.
This reality seems to be very important for every assignment that has to do with education and leadership, especially in situations that one may consider from the start as a major challenge. If action is taken in an emotionally charged context, even when done in groups, chances are that aggression, dominance and their variants will determine the style. Even when it comes to positive emotions (eg enthusiasm) the result is sometimes disappointing. Just think of theatrical leaders who take their team in tow for utopian projects. The speed and purposefulness that they develop is often a problem for many employees because they themselves experience too little attention for their emotional needs, whatever they are.
This mechanism has important consequences for the role and style of managers. It is not enough to be right, to set responsible priorities or to see the better solution to a problem. If the relational and emotional needs of employees are not met to the extent that they need them, they will drop out. The dynamics of the Transactional Analysis (1) will determine their behavior, resulting in a loss of productivity in the collaboration. This again leads to the conclusion: the relationship always comes first. The relational reality determines how much room there is for reason and objectives. Because the relational needs op people are very different, it will be not enough for managers to maintain a ‘rational average’ relational focus. Differentiation will be needed. Some people require extra attention. And if managers give extra attention, they run the risk of being suspected of favoritism. Especially in organizational cultures where many low-mature people (2) work, the demand for 'equal' treatment will be high. Just as children quickly make a comparison between what they get / are allowed to do and what their brothers or sisters get and are allowed to do, some people will quickly feel disadvantaged. The only tool that can withstand this is to work with clear principles that are not only used consistently, but are also communicated as a reference at all crucial moments. In this way, the awareness on the side of the employees - team members is reminded time and again of the way things could and should be done correctly. Differentiation is a necessity; but a clear set principles and the timely use of them are part of good leadership.
Hugo Der Kinderen
(1) Transactional Analysis was launched by E. Berne as a dynamic of human relationships. In a separate contribution I have given a more dynamic interpretation to this phenomenon, which for every form of cooperation between people, and leadership in particular, appears to be a very useful tool for working on improvement.   
(2) Maturity is perhaps the most important development dimension of people. I have described the mechanism of maturity development in a separate contribution .   


48. From sales person to entrepreneur; focus and competences


When a company focuses on its customers and markets, a commercial challenge arises. The success and continuity of the company depends on its professionalism in this area. The 'commercial people' provide this focus, of course starting with the management, but carried out by the people in a commercial position. The focus and competences of the sales people should be adapted to the ambitions and possibilities of the company and its markets. We distinguish here four levels at which these people can function.

These levels of a seller could be:

Reactive and short-term – RAST
Reactive longer term - RALT
Proactive short term - PAST
Proactive long term - PALT

1: RAST: travels from customer to customer and maintains a good relationship; is friendly and follows customers in by laying down the questions of the customer internally in his own organization, and possibly supporting them. It is the traditional 'order taker' that can perform well in stable market situations with loyal customers.
2: RALT: keeps a close eye on where orders can be recorded, and uses the opportunities well; responds well to buying signals . This approach fits in a situation where customers show a higher turnover, and new customers constantly have to be sought. The market is fairly stable but is optimally adressed by this focus.
3: PAST: works proactively and systematically to approach the entire field of customers in a focused and systematic manner based on sound knowledge of customer consumption and their purchasing behavior; analyzes buying profiles and builds solid arguments that convince the customer to buy. The approach fits well with a growing (new) company that wants to strengthen its market position.
4: PALT: has a strategic overview of the market, and knows how to tap into new markets because he understands where the unexplored opportunities lie; knows how to convert them into new customers. This focus also quickly shows which customers and markets offer no or insufficient opportunities, so that it is better not to invest any more energy. This focus fits in moving markets where circumstances, such as evolving technology or new competition where the circomtances change quickly.

A good seller is not necessarily also a good entrepreneur. This requires additional competencies and areas of attention. The levels of a businessman build on those of a salesperson as a kind of further  development focus and competencies. Again we see four levels in this development:

1 = operational organizational - OPOR
2 = operational strategic - OPST
3 = entrepreneurial strategic - ENST
4 = entrepreneurial organizational - ENOR

1: OPOR: does not only expand the market, but does so in relation to the capacity of the organization (administration, quality management, IT systems , logistics know-how and capacity, ...) This approach prevents commercial initiatives from clashing with the inability of the organization to fulfill the commitments to customers.
2: OPST: has a strategic insight into the developments that are needed in the organization to be able to cope with certain markets, and converts that insight into initiatives that work and thus develops the organization for the future. This approach ensures that the organization follows market opportunities and, in the long term, continues to compete due to the performances delivered to customers.
3: ENST: has an overview of the entire market, the competitors and their strategies, and knows how to choose expansions and growth opportunities on that basis that sustainably lead to added value for the company. This focus also exploits the possibilities of moving markets.
4: ENOR: knows how to attract and lead the right people for the growth strategy so that they are 'involved' in the story of the future . Because of this focus, the market opportunities are not only seen and converted into the necessary organizational development, but the talents required for success are sufficiently attracted and developed

It goes without saying that a good entrepreneur is often a necessary but insufficient condition for a good management. In order to manage a company with sustainable success, two important functions would have to be fulfilled in addition to the entrepreneurial function: the organizer (manager) and the people-manager (coach). To determine whether a company is being managed operationally (in the short term), three results have to be considered:
- Are the customers satisfied?         
- Are the employees satisfied?         
- Are the results good?         
A healthy perspective should also be present in these three areas to enable good results to be achieved in the future. Looking ahead - in these three areas of work - is the message (assignment) of a leader!

Hugo Der Kinderen
July 22, 2019


47. TIME FOR A NEW DEMOCRACY!


“Democracy gives free space to emotions,
and leaves no room for virtue.”
Plato 

Participation without knowledge,
 leads to outcomes without perspective.
Unknown



PREFACE
It is becoming clearer with every election, and not only in Belgium, that polarization is increasing. Extreme positioned blocks make it increasingly difficult to form properly functioning governments and public faith in political structures is under pressure. However, every government is increasingly confronted with challenges that demand good governance. The aging of the population, immigration, the environment and climate challenges; it's an impressive list.
What is going on? Is our actual democracy not the model that we need?

Hypothesis: Every human system that revolves around the use of power will eventually destroy itself. That is good for social evolution, but the crises require so much energy and misery! In the early history of humanity, power was an instrument to "dominate and rob the others." That created misery for the victims, and benefits for the thieves. When power is used internally to organize a social system, the benefits of the theft fall away, and an internal mechanism is set in motion that brings the system out of balance and threatens it. This does not seem strange when the following observations are brought together in a dynamic whole.

SOME OBSERVATIONS

1.                      Every human system that revolves around the use of power will eventually destroy itself. That is good for social evolution, but the crises consume so much energy and misery ! All cultures that have ever had a 'high' degree of development, have also lost their supremacy over time: China, Aztecs, Egypt, Greece, the Roman Empire, etc. are perhaps inspiring examples.

2.                      If you can gain power by talking, you will get flatterers in power.

3.                      Political parties have the real power in our current political system , but are never held liable. Power without accountability leads to decadence. (values ​​and responsibility are subordinate to self-interest - gaining power )

4.                      If ' elusive ' politic parties form the power structure, this leads to increased polarity in the system.

5.                      Because political parties are fishing for votes, they come up with a program that responds to collective interests and emotions. This one-sidedness is then difficult to maintain in policy-making because of the internal contradictions in the government, as a result of which voters are disappointed. Half-baked compromises are the result of polarity.

6.                      If a majority is to be sought for government formation, then one again gives room to the dictatorship of the figures (majority) and that encourages the use of power, with a greater polarity as a result. Of course, this is at the expense of the content.

7.                      The more the polarity grows, the less the content is discussed. (observe the BREXIT process!)

8.                      A government with a lot of internal polarity is doomed to compromise, a power - driven combination of points of view (then getting an agreeing is more important than the quality of the solution) that does not work. Visible impasse is the result.

9.                      As the competition for the dominant positions grows, more and more is played 'on the man' instead of 'on the ball'. As a result, mutual trust disappears and it becomes increasingly difficult to work together. The polarity continues to grow. If the game is about ‘playing on the man’ it is not always clear where the ball (objectives) is.

10.              If the top managers of politics are elected, then it becomes an attractive position for narcissists and manipulators. Popularity is the most important criterion, and not managerial competence. That means comes down to giving the most sympathetic person the steering wheel and do not even ask if he / she has a driver's license.

11.              If elected politicians remain loyal to their party (and election promises), it becomes hard to manage the contradiction between that loyalty and the common sense that leads to solutions. The can only survive by using excuses, blame others, manipulate information,…

12.              If the policy of a political majority fails, there is sufficient room to shift the responsibility to the other parties. With a good story, if necessary in the victim role, voters can be won again. There is no real evaluation, except in the case of flagrant wrongdoing or unpopular measures. The targeted person loses his position, , and the game continues.

13.              If the ‘separation of powers’ (result of the ‘French Revolution’) leads to judiciary becoming a self-managing team (autonomy), then the " rule cousins " are without leadership. Questioning oneself then becomes difficult and the system visibly lags behind the needs of society.

14.              The ‘separation of powers’ was an attempt to limit the power of policymakers (kings and emperors) . The question remains what has been put in place to achieve a good result. 'Divide and rule' has become 'divide and make policy impossible'.

15.              With compulsory voting the quality of the management is not served, on the contrary . People with superficial and ill-considered opinions, seduced by self-interest and the sweet talk, will strongly determine the voting result. This manipulating system serves party interest, using the naivity of uninformed people. And that manipulation effect is increasing with the possibilities of the new media. The true enthusiasts of our current power system, based on tempting voters, is therefore in favor of mandatory elections.

16.              The new media is allows everyone to create and lounge "emotional triggers" by spreading false information, blow up the importance of facts and stimulate emotions like fear. Polarity is created in society because of the hunger for power. This polarity is also locked in the political parties, which then have to implement a policy together. These polarities are increasing: within the population; between the political parties, between the politicians personally, between their promises and their realizations, between the real needs and the policies pursued; and not least: between politicians and the population. What was the idea behind democracy again?

17.              If the sitting politicians have to thoroughly change the system, they put themselves out of the game. Whoever has the power will probably like to keep it. Moreover, they are usually convinced , for the sake of self-interest, that the existing system is the best possible ( " reduction of cognitive dissonance " - by Leon Festinger ) .

18.              The same goes for the press: it lives on the sensation that the polarized game brings, and will happily fuel it.

19.              As long as people want to win in the existing system, they are less interested in change the system.

20.              The more the focus of policy makers is on their own position of power, the less they are busy with their assignment.

21.              The worse the system works, the more people turn away from politics. If they then vote (mandatory), they opt more for their own interests in the short term. The ‘level of the game’ decreases even faster.

22.              Democracy was intended to break the abuse of power by dictators and to make the needs of the population more important (development of a balanced society) . The power has shifted from a single individual to the power of the numbers (number of votes). The power is therefore not out of the system; it is equally strong, but more diffuse and therefore more difficult to unmask. Therefore our actual form of democracy is only an unproductive step towards something that works better. Our painful memory of the dictatorship often prevents us from daring to question the current democratic system.

23.              If the political and civil service is parceled internally according to functions, then it becomes slow, and short of flexibility and transparency. Projects are not finished because the number of authorities involved creates a kind of 'squared matrix organization'. There is always an excuse why something is not possible. The number of powers that must be included in a certain problem is constantly increasing. The focus of thinking and acting is lost; and with that also the responsibility.

24.              The less the political system is able to provide an answer to the social problems, the more the political parties get involved in extremism, both left and right. When there is chaos, people rally for an extreme approach, even authoritarian leadership and power. (the impact of emotions).

25.              Extremism sets a vicious circle in motion: polarization, power struggles and political alienation, making the police sink to a lower level, and the system itself gradually destroys. Elections are about winning votes through extreme views. Policy is about problem solving. Having the two things done by the same people is a recipe for disaster; it creates a system crisis.

26.              The same dynamics seems to occur in all 'democracies': the US, the United Kingdom, all European countries (right - wing movement).

27.              Conclusion: it is high time that we learn from our mistakes, and build something new.

Criteria for a better democracy :

Power must be replaced by the combination of, an assignment, a mandate , and accountability.         
- Political parties must be outside the power center, out of the management position.       
- The government (executive management) may not consist of elected politicians. That is simply an application of the basis principle of "good governance" : you should not be judge and involved party at the same time!
- The government should not be under the direct influence of the political parties.         
- Elections serve to determine the relative importance of policy objectives and priorities, not to determine who gets power.         
- There must be more policy continuity at government level, so that we do not have to start from scratch every time there is a new government (and waste time and energy to create one!)
- The separation of powers must not lead to a failing policy. Leadership responsibility needs to be created.
- The role of the press must be more strictly defined; it must become a disciplined social antidote to manipulation through the new media.         

Elements of a possible alternative democratic system: (more 'sociocratic')

1- Elections are only about the number of seats in parliament. It is up to the political parties to translate social needs to management priorities, thereby setting the policy accents for the future. The winners of the elections do not form the government, only the parliament. So there are no negotiations for a government formation.     

2- The government is formed by appointed policy experts (' technocrats ') who have substantive and administrative competences (people with a driving license). They do not belong to a political party (not a ‘tool’ of the polarized interests of political parties) . They are selected on the basis of a job to be done, instructed by the parliament, and where the allocation of mandates is done by a professional selection process , with final approval by the parliament . Their appointment is not temporary.   
  
3- The appointed government makes a policy plan (each time for 1 year ; with an underlying multi-year vision ), which is submitted to the parliament for approval. All the projects implemented by the government (eg pension reform), are submitted at the discretion of the parliament. They are tested against the policy plan and the debate must lead to indicators for adjustment, if necessary. The adjusted project plan is approved by the parliament. Parliament respects an empowerment-mandate for the government, an does not intervene on technical and operational issues.

4- The vote in parliament must be secret. This is against the general rule of transparency, but it must protect individual members from the pressure of their political party. If that pressure remains too high, then tactical games take over again and replace common sense when making decisions.   
  
5- The members of the government are evaluated individually in their work through an annual 360 ° feedback; the parliament, the colleagues, the officials who work with them. This feedback is organized annually and is always anonymous. The final stage is the judgement by parliament, based on feedback scores. A final judgment below a certain threshold automatically leads to dismissal and replacement. (same procedure as appointment). The person concerned can of course also resign from his position.     

6- The government organizes itself on a project basis. Every government member may specialize, but all projects are assigned as an integral, multidisciplinary assignment. The members of government organize themselves as a team that provides the necessary support (also from cabinets) to these colleagues who have to realize a project. The government is collectively responsible to the parliament.     

7- Within the government, a minister is responsible for the judiciary. He / she is not involved in the operational operations, but does have powers to change the system, through the action of the government . This goes beyond providing budgets and infrastructure. The entire internal functioning (structure, appointments, rules of the game, etc.) fall under this authority. Developing the necessary legal framework to accommodate the leading role belongs to the minister, with the support of the government, and accountable to the parliament. The judiciary is therefore not completely independent, but at operational level, not at policy level.   
  
8- The press is being put responsible. There are clear rules created for the "free" press and for "normalized" or ethical press. The latter is primarily the assignment of the ‘national broadcasting’, via a management agreement. An ethics committee should be established that strictly monitors (with corrections, suspensions and exclusions as instruments) the social role it must play. This role does not consist in seeking sensation in magnifying the opinions and interests of individuals or political parties. It must not increase polarity by increasing the contradictions between opinions and interests. The free press is given more room to work with opinions, but the 'free opinion' must refer to content, not stimulating emotions (inciting racism is an extreme form, but not the only ethically unacceptable and socially acceptable destructive effect) . The official press has the first role to do 'fact-finding'; to defend reality by making the right information available, every time enlargements or distorted information is done. Correctly correcting this popular deception is their first assignment. You don't do that through political debates where the sensation of opposition and personal feuds are cultivated. Party presidents are not their main source of information, but the government leaders are, and even senior officials who have the expertise and the right information. They must be given the space to provide sound information and explanation, and not to be 'grounded' into the existing interview techniques that are full of interruptions, search for sensation, etc. Freedom of expression applies to individuals, but becomes disastrous as the nonsense that results from power seekers is misused to dominate the system.     

9- Political parties do not receive an allocation from the government to finance their operation.     

10- During the elections we don’t votes for people, so the person cult attached to the preferential votes disappears. Voters vote for content and priorities.  

SHALL WE CALL THIS AN ADMINISTRATIVE DEMOCRACY ?
(which replaces the current 'power democracy')

THE TRANSITION

As the existing system will try to maintain itself based on the interests of the occupants, the transition will not be easy.

It seems that these are the possible ways that fundamental change can arise:

1- Great leadership (at Nelson Mandela or Mahatma Gandhi level) . In our current political environment it is presumably impossible that such figures stand up and / or have the opportunity to have sufficient impact. This mechanism of political change seems to be more suitable for getting out of a dictatorship. 

2- An existential crisis (similar to the BREXIT in the United Kingdom?), rhat makes the whole system collapse visible. The climate problem and the migration problem are candidates! We hope that it will be necessary to reach that point, and that we develop the capacity to timely prevent  destructive disasters.     

3- Poupehan. Earlier in the Belgian political history, we had a moment of a blocked political situation. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Jean-Luc Dehaene, an informal crisis meeting was then held in Poupehan with the real rulers in our system, not the politicians in the foreground. They have reached a consensus on the necessary approach, and have done the necessary, each from their position, to sufficiently influence all organs and consultation moments to realize the change. At that time it was about restructuring public finances (and the economy) to meet Europe's budget norms and to (be allowed to) enter into the Maastricht agreement. This seems a realistic possibility.     

4- The development of an "impact network". This implies that around the idea of ​​the alternative ('administrative democracy') a number of influential people formally commit themselves to show their support for this idea, and to obtain broad support for the idea through sustained communication. That will hopefully be picked up by the existing political structures and translated into the necessary changes. 

We can also continue to treat symptoms for a while and keep the system intact by relieving the worst pressure. Forms of ‘symptom fighting’:

a.        A broad survey of the population (based on the French example). The chance that the existing system can translate the conclusions of this survey into results is minimal.

b.        Installing a confederal state (in Belgium). This means that the two (three) parts of the country in Belgium, with their different culture, will be separated administratively and will cooperate selectively on a voluntary basis. This could bring relief, but not a fundamental solution. The increasingly clear differences between north and south in Belgium are, after all, an aspect of increasing polarization. Both cultures respond differently to the frustrations and administrative inability described above. The cultural differences that arise in socio-economic history explain this. The symptom is that political left and political right are sharper opposed to each other, and make it difficult to form a government according to the working method in existing political working methods. Do it separately for both parts of the country, and the fundamental system- problem persists. For Belgium it means, although perhaps necessary, at most a postponement of execution.

c.         Include in the party programs more “listening to the people". That could pick up  many of the existing needs in the short term and intuitively could have a temporary success in creating new majorities. As long as the foundation of power democracy is not being tackled, it will undoubtedly also provoke counter-reactions, thereby sustaining the existing problem.

Hugo Der Kinderen 30 /5/2019