SML – how it all began

They knew that the future will not be what it used to be and that we needed to develop a new organizational culture in which there will be “an open and creative work environment where people have a sense that what they do really matters”. Good ideas! The problem was that for all of them, the talk remained what it was: just talk.

The CEO expressed it in this way: “They have an intellectual understanding of the need for change and have an excellent grasp on the theory, and they could swear on oath that they are totally committed to the new directions, but when it comes to personal example, they just don’t do it!”

When we scratched beneath the surface of this issue, we found that many members of the management team were actually feeling incredibly threatened by the change and were quite resistant.

Not surprisingly, this resistance was not open or obvious. As one manager remarked in confidence, “ What sort of an idiot would you be to openly say, “Listen, I really hate all this new paradigm non sense”? I can’t cope with this new way of managing people and I feel totally threatened and insulted by the suggestion that my management style which has worked very well for the last fifteen years, is now inadequate.”

As a consequence, this major Australian utility was being run by people who largely didn’t say what they meant and didn’t do what they said. And so, in spite of all the painful restructuring, skill training, implementation of new systems, the organization was not delivering the productivity and performance improvements that were expected of it. And in spite of all the employees carrying around those beautiful documents about corporate vision, mission and core values, very little of it was actually put into practice and the organization was still not “ an open and fair place where people feel respected and have a sense that what they do matters”.

Rather, it was an organization paralysed by fear, distrust, and contempt and on the brink of falling apart socially.

We first proposed some training to the CEO. We offered to recruit some top class training consultants to work with the management team. The CEO was not impressed with our suggestion. He pointed out that “These people – management team – have been taught more behavioural techniques that they will ever be able to use. They had psychological assessments, and frankly, they know very well what they have to do. They are just not doing it.” The problem was not a lack of skills or knowledge; it was an inability to change attitudes, beliefs and habits that had been deeply held and practiced successfully for almost a life time. It was not only a matter of work style: it was about values and self identity.

For many managers, self identity is inextricably linked to their professional role. This change was therefore not about adopting a new management style; it was about managers being forced to redefine themselves as individuals. And this is not a small thing to ask of a fifty years old engineer who has successfully raise a family and reached the pinnacle of his profession.

In fact, although they acknowledge the need for change, most senior managers really don’t believe that there is anything fundamental that they have to change about themselves. As a consequence, it is inevitable that they go through a period that is stressful and damaging for everybody and the organization as they resist the external change process evolves and they are dragged against their consent into a confrontation with their own personal core values and beliefs.

It was to assist this “inner crisis” that we felt the need for a new approach, something to help managers bridge the gap between theory and reality. We wanted to find effective ways of helping managers deal with their own inner process of ‘internal organizational change’.

After looking into several “self management” systems that could have an application in a corporate context, including in the field of spirituality where practitioners learn how to discipline and manage their minds and emotions by focusing on mental and intellectual exercises and training in emotional discipline.

The key principle of many traditional system of thought is that to be able to lead others, you must first learn to manage yourself. So, although there is always a challenge involved in introducing something even vaguely “spiritual” into the top end of a business enterprise, we still did it.

We worked a lot on the language needed to introduce the concepts of self management and developed a practical senior management development program.

We first tried it out on the electricity utility.

The management team of twelve people was taken through a series of six sessions that covered topics such as:

• Bridging the gap between rhetoric and reality in leadership style and behaviour
• Clarifying the role of core values and integrity in leadership
• Understanding the dynamics of the “self” – mind, intellect, emotions and behaviour
• Understanding the power and principles of “detached involvement” and its role in leadership
• Learning how to empower oneself through detachment from one’s thoughts, feelings and physical senses
• Learning to change deeply entrenched attitudes and behaviour that are inconsistent with one’s goals and values
• The power and effect of the leader’s attitude and vision on his team
• Learning to inspire commitment and motivation through a powerful mental attitude.

Participants were given instruction in a simple mental technique and were helped to develop their own tailored self management program, which involved disciplined mental exercises aimed at reinforcing positive values and changing unwanted behaviour patterns…[read more...]

.

Pages: 1 2 3

Tagged: career, change, Leadership, management, motivation, self management, values, work

Posted in: Communication, Effectiveness, Leadership, Paradigm, Self Management