Support a worthwhile charity, get a complimentary coaching session

This week's Save-the-world Sunday post comes a day early, in order to bring you news of a special offer.

On August 9th I'll do my first City2Surf 14km race in Sydney, from Hyde Park to Bondi Beach. I want to raise as much money as I can for a cause that's dear to me, the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), in support of their efforts to help protect animals around the world from cruelty.

THE ASK: I'm seeking sponsorships of my race-for-charity. Any amount is gratefully accepted - even $10 donations add up - and you can donate from wherever you are in the world by credit card at the fundraising page.

THE OFFER: if you choose to donate AUD$50* or more, tmc will offer you a complimentary 1-hour coaching session. No further obligation is required - just make a donation and we'll book you a coaching session at your convenience. That's it!

*that's about £25 / €28 / SEK310 / HK$300 / S$57 / CAD$45 / US$40

So...with just one donation, you get four things at once:

1. A chance to try out coaching, if you've not done so before, at a knock-down rate
2. Feel-goods as you help a deserving global charity to improve animal welfare
3. The one-on-one attention of an experienced coach to address an issue that's real for you today - and walk away with practical actions to do right away
4. And as a charitable contribution, it's tax deductable!
   

Why coaching?

Coaching will benefit anyone who wants something and has not yet been able to get it. It is a structured way to renew your focus, better tackle your challenges and identify how you can make the best use of your efforts and resources to get sustained results over a period of time.

Todd asks great questions - pertinent and provocative. Then makes sure you work through to a good answer. ~ Paul Z. Jackson, Owner, The Solutions Focus

In the same way that top athletes have coaches to help them realize their full potential and improve their performance, coaching helps you to be your best. Far from being a remedial step or an admission of weakness, having a coach is a useful way to head off potential issues before they impede your performance, drawing on your existing strengths to get results.

At the outset of a new project it is also invaluable in setting the right course so that when storms blow up along the way, you will already have the means in place to handle them and not get blown off course or overwhelmed.

GETTING THINGS DONE
Coaching...gave me real clarity and focus, which was just what I was needing at the time. After just one coaching conversation, I found that I was better organised, and managing my time much more effectively. Over time, I have found that the tools I gained have stayed with me, even if my method has changed. ~ Linnet Good, writer and entrepreneur, Goodscribble

How does coaching work?

You will draw on your own experiences as you “think out loud,” with the added benefit of an impartial outside point of view for fresh perspective. Through skilled work as both a sounding board and source of positive support, a coach can help uncover your own hidden insights and ideas. An ongoing coaching dialogue also makes it more likely that you will follow through on your commitment to do the actions you know need to be done.

A coaching session gives you that all-important pause to get clarity on a course of action, identify useful and practical ways forward, and follow up on those actions to get the maximum possible learning benefit from them.

ACHIEVING BREAKTHROUGH INSIGHTS
I've found Todd's coaching consistently excellent, in one session helping me reach a goal I'd been striving towards for 15 years...in a field with which he had no previous experience! He is very creative, and generous with his time, energy and ideas. He is both very professional and excellent company. Time spent with Todd is time very well spent. ~ Sakya Kumara, Training Manager and Coach, windhorse:evolution

Some practical examples

Coaching can help if you’ve got challenges in any of these areas:

• assertiveness in business and personal situations
• negotiation to get the outcomes you want
• having difficult conversations with co-workers or partners
• using effective persuasion and influencing skills
• leadership development
• becoming a better manager
• coaching others to help their performance/business focus
• time management and priority-setting to get things done
• business planning
• strategy execution to turn your plans into reality
• decisiveness in knowing what you want and how to get it
• cross-cultural (or other) communication challenges
• presentation skills to deliver your message with maximum effect

And if you want to:

• get “unstuck” from current dramas
• achieve breakthrough insights
• handle conflict in a no-dramas way
• interact more effectively with other people
• set a course that’s right for you and stick to it
• get your business in shape to achieve its full potential

For more details about how coaching works and who it's right for, read more about solution-focused coaching.

LEARN TO FIND YOUR OWN WAY FORWARD
I write to sincerely thank you for the coaching...invaluable help in that I've realised it is not what you can do for me, rather how you enable me to do it for myself. When I talked with you this afternoon, on more than one occasion I answered my own question. That fact alone speaks volumes for your skills. ~ Tom Pattinson, Operations Manager, British Nuclear Group

What to do next

Please make your donation at the fundraising page and then to contact me directly to schedule your coaching conversation. Also: encourage your friends, colleagues and anyone else you can think of who could put this offer to good use - to make a donation as well.

ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS
A talented communications professional who understands the importance of smart questions, thoughtful listening and flawless execution. Clever, focused and thorough, Todd is a pleasure to work with. ~ Andrew Cole, Manager, Bell Canada

**Remember, the donations support a worthy global charity, with a tax receipt issued directly to the donor.

Thanks - I hope I can count on your support of my efforts and look forward to speaking to donors very soon...or at least once I've recovered from the 14km race!
tm
.

Creative adaptive beings, not machines

In a previous post about Howard Gardner's theory of Multiple Intelligences, I wrote that I find it a useful tool to identify one's own preferred "intelligence" as well as one's blindspots. I further suggested that the model was of value in identifying and working with people's existing abilities, to help them get the most out of what comes naturally to them and to make the most of the diversity that results from natural differences of perspective. Thus equipped, team members will be better able to respect each perspective and engage in a collaborative and productive discussion.


Is intelligence multiple?

Gardner's theory has provoked controversy. Only a few weeks ago an article appeared that typifies the contrary position. On my reading of Not Every Child is Secretly a Genius, Ferguson seeks to reassert that there really is only one measure of intelligence - defined as "the ability to learn" - and all people have it to varying degrees based on their "raw biological machinery of intelligence" (added emphasis mine).

I find his phrase telling, as it suggests to me a determined effort to reduce the concept of intelligence to something mechanical in order to apply just one tool of measurement rather than admitting of multiple possibilties.

I'm not saying that "every child is a genius in his/her own special way" and everyone should get a trophy just for playing the game.

What I think is that something as complex as intelligence ought to be subject to a broader treatment than that rendered by reductionist science employed to describe "what is true" in the area of intelligence (with the attendant dire warnings against alternative views that risk leading us "down the path to intellectual relativism").

Rather than treating people as learning machines, I'm in favour of a more flexible approach.


Learning takes many forms

Today any number of neuroscience and brain books tell the stories of how people's brains have literally rewired themselves to regain key functionality that had been lost to catastrophic illness or disease.

A less traumatic - yet no less astounding - accomplishment is described in a recent review of the book Fixing My Gaze: A Scientist's Journey Into Seeing in Three Dimensions. The book tells the inspiring story of a Susan Barry, who overcame the effects of being born cross-eyed and gained (I would say, "learned") stereoscopic vision in adulthood.

The reviewer's closing statement I find uplifting enough to quote at length:

With the added evidence it offers of the brain’s perennial plasticity, this book will encourage us all because it suggests that if people can reconstruct pathways of vision, there are other things they might succeed in doing. It is a pleasant and optimistic thought indeed, that at any point in life we might, if determined enough, be able to fix things, improve, mend, and grow in positive ways: even to see more clearly, and not just with our eyes.

So to paraphrase Shakespeare's Hamlet: There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your reductionist scientific view. Clearly the brain is capable of many things beyond the strict confines of IQ tests. But is this talk of brain plasticity and capacity to relearn all just new-fangled neurospeak...or has it always been so?


Complex adaptive beings, not caveman-machines

A Newsweek article from last week gives a very readable summary of recent debate over evolutionary psychology (or evo-psych), a field which essentially suggests that we humans in the 21st century still operate with Stone Age minds.

That is, traits that evolved thousands of years ago to adapt to the challenges of the day have been passed down in the genes of successful survivors - reinforcing those behaviours.

Clearly humans have an ability to adapt to the environment and survive; we need only look at how our ancestors applied superior intellect and adaptive skills to successfully inhabit every corner of the globe no matter how inhospitable.

Where the evo psych argument falls over, however, is that it assumes that our ability to adapt somehow ossified early on, rendering modern humans little more than cavemen in business suits. In sum, there is a single human nature and it was set a very long time ago.

In stark contrast, more and more research now supports a field called behavioural ecology, which "starts from the premise that social and environmental forces select for various behaviours that optimize people's fitness in a given environment. Different environment, different behaviours—and different human 'natures.'" In other words, yes humans evolved according to Darwin's theories...AND natural selection chose in favour of "general intelligence and flexibility, not mental modules preprogrammed with preferences and behaviours."

And, arguably, in favour of multiple intelligences distributed across the human population.

Complex adaptivity is therefore a hallmark of the human condition and always has been. Despite the Western impulse to reduce everything in our world to the strictly measurable, there is great merit in considering the multiple as well as the singular...lest the quest for a single "truth" devolve into the kind of arguments over right/wrong that already cripple so many human interactions, in the workplace and in society at large.


Credits: "Caveman" illustration by Peter Oumanski for Newsweek.

.

New series: Save-the-world Sundays / this week - the Meatrix!

Regular readers are aware of my support (and that of my company, tmc) for environmental causes, particularly those devoted to animal welfare and habitat preservation. A quick glance at the left-hand sidebar of this blog makes this equally clear - "supported causes" and the "unofficial adopted mascots gallery" are given prominent mention.

Today I'm starting something new, which I'm calling my Save-the-world Sunday series of blog posts. On the principle that weekends are for spending time pursuing hobbies and interests, I'm designating Sundays as the day to highlight some of these important causes and provide information on how readers can act for change.

This week: Enter...the Meatrix

There's an important viral campaign going round at the moment which, as of this writing, has had at least 15 million viewers.

It's clever, it's informative, and it's something that we can all do something about - industrial meat production. Go inside the Meatrix, find out where meat really comes from and vote with your purchasing power and decisions.

Watch The Meatrix (part 1) and then check out what the movie's producers at the Sustainable Table have to say here.


Australia: Animal testing experiments kill one animal every hour

ONE animal in NSW is killed every hour during testing for new medicines and cosmetic products. The Daily Telegraph can reveal 8813 animals - including birds, guinea pigs and endangered marsupials - were killed during 12 months of trials.

Another 16,000 were kept conscious and subjected to a "a moderate or large degree of pain/distress that is not effectively alleviated". [...]

University of Wollongong researcher Dr Denise Russell said the tests were cruel and had continued even when alternatives were available and in spite of government appeals.

"What hasn't been addressed is replacing animals with alternatives like computer simulation and the use of tissue samples which don't require that we take the animal and house them in a prison and just kill them in cruel ways," Dr Russell said yesterday.

NSW review panel chair Professor Margaret Rose said that the 16,000 animals being subjected to category 7 testing, the most painful test while the animal remains awake, was cause for concern.

Among the thousands of animals were 14 horses, almost 3000 fish which had their water poisoned for environmental testing, almost 1000 chickens, 379 sheep and 59 cows.

What you can do:
Join or support the efforts of Animals Australia, the only national animal protection organization that actively exposes animal abuse and promotes a cruelty-free lifestyle.

tm

.

Multiple intelligences - theory into reality

The idea of a single comprehensive test for intelligence (the IQ test) was challenged over 25 years ago by Howard Gardner, whose research suggested that there are many different kinds of intelligence and culminated in his current work on Multiple Intelligences at the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Gardner describes eight forms of intelligence:

• Verbal/Linguistic - naturally good with writing or speaking and memorization
• Logical/Mathematical - driven by logic and reasoning
• Visual/Spatial - good at remembering images and aware of surroundings
• Bodily/Kinesthetic - love movement, have good motor skills and are aware of their bodies
• Musical - musically gifted and have a "good ear" for rhythm and composition
• Intrapersonal - adept at looking inward, self-awareness
• Interpersonal - good with people and thrive in social interactions
• Naturalist - sensitivity to and appreciation for nature

Know your strengths...and blindspots

It's a worthwhile exercise to identify your preferred intelligence systems. Doing so can help you understand your strengths, what interests you and give you an idea how to best focus your energy in the areas of your natural gifts and talents.

It's also helpful to become aware of which areas are of lesser interest to you and may represent your potential blindspots. This provides insight into your own areas for personal development - though on balance you may also choose to "outsource", seeking advice from people who rate highly in those intelligence systems so you can benefit from their complementary perspectives.

An additional reason to learn about how people's intelligence preferences differ is that you can then better understand some of the reasons why another person's view of the world differs from your own - sometimes quite dramatically!

Accepting the valid grounds for having preferences and perspectives that differ (i.e. they may be based on different Multiple Intelligence preferences) helps people get beyond pointless debates about "right/wrong" or "good/bad" to reach a place of "different, each with its own merits". In this mode you will then be much better equipped to value and respect each perspective and engage in a collaborative and productive discussion.

Multiple Intelligences - insights

To give an example of what I mean, here are my results from an online version* of the Multiple Intelligences self-assessment:

Major learning - my strongest intelligence is "Naturalist", which is related to nature, animals and the environment. This result surprised me in the way that happens when you suddenly notice something that's been right in front of you all along. To wit: if I just take a look at this blog's list of "adopted mascots" and its strong environmental theme then it's right there, plain as day. I like this realization because lately I've consciously noticed my enjoyment of nature and actively sought opportunities to do what I like to do and am "good" at noticing.

Biggest surprise: "Interpersonal intelligence" comes sixth(!) on the list. Now, while there is no "fail" in this test, I was surprised and disquieted by this because I've made a career of consulting in human behaviour and interpersonal dynamics, so I thought that I "should" have ranked higher here. Then I thought about it further and came to the humbling realization: I simply don't have all the answers in this field - I have as much to learn about this subject as the people who seek my expertise. This, in turn, I found quite liberating since the corollary is I don't "have to" have all the answers...and I think that ultimately makes me a better consultant, one who's able to work with what's there and collaborate with clients rather than being the pontificating "expert".

Making it real: theory into reality

By now I guess you get the idea - the multiple intelligence model is a useful tool for identifying and working with people's existing abilities, to help them get the most out of what comes naturally to them and spot potential blindspots for development work or seeking the complementary skills of others.

Of course, this should not be just an intellectual exercise. It's not enough merely to know there are differences - individuals and teams will want to know how to capitalize on this knowledge for competitive advantage!

tmconsultancy helps people find ways to manage the inevitable conflict that differing perspectives can create. People learn to talk TO each other, not past each other. This kind of useful dialogue helps channel the energy of conflict into productive activity, avoiding the miscommunication dramas and fragmented effort that hobbles teams and undermines engagement. When people learn to play to their particular strengths and teams learn to weave a powerful tapestry from the complementary talents within them, interpersonal communication improves dramatically. The outcome: better results, performance and personal satisfaction.

To find out more about how tmc can help you to turn useful theory into powerful practice, email me!
TM

*-I've no affiliation with this site; registration required, test is free
.

Following tmconsultancy on twitter

Thanks for clicking! Here’s what’s on offer.

What you can expect as a tmconsultancy follower on twitter are posts with:

**links to practical and interesting articles and blog posts on (among others) the following topics:

• neuroscience
• brain research
• limbic responses
• emotional reactivity
• psychology
• philosophy
• anthropology
• behaviour & personality
• creativity & innovation
• management theory
• leadership development
• coaching
• change management
• strategy development & execution
• cross-cultural business
• personal branding
• marketing
• communications
• employee engagement
• negotiation
• persuasion & influence
• training
• facilitation

**personal status/location updates – esp. while travelling to neat new places
**my own occasional musings, observations, insights or outbursts
**info about worthwhile causes – esp. animal welfare/rehabilitation, habitat protection and educational programs, including the "Save-the-world Sunday" series
**retweets, kudos and thanks – to show the love
**and, of course, questions to tap the collective knowledge/wisdom of the twitterverse


Who's Todd anyway?
I’m a Canadian living in Manly, Australia (part of Sydney’s “Northern Beaches”) and I divide my time among Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, the UK and Canada. Hence I have an interest in all of those locations, as well as (in no particular order) Paris (...and France...and Europe in general), Cape Town, Buenos Aires, Malaysia, and...well the list goes on.

Ich spreche sehr gerne Deutsch, je parle pas mal le français, ik spreek wel Nederlands, estoy aprendiendo lentamente español, och jag förstår lite svensk - so I enjoy connecting with people all over the world.

My non-work interests include surfing, scuba diving, wildlife, travel, photography, design, film, cooking and learning about wine (the hard way, glass by glass).

What I do
I consult with organizations and individuals using the Integral Growth Model.
Email me directly if you’d like to find out more.

Thanks!
TM
.

How to celebrate the Buddha's birthday

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small doesn't serve the world. There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We are born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us, it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.
- President Nelson Mandela, in his inauguration speech (quoting Marianne Williamson)

Minor enlightenment - the view from the back deck

I've spent this weekend at my brother's place in Cambridge, Canada taking some time out of a hectic travel schedule. Today while we had a BBQ I sat on the back deck in the late spring sunshine and listened to the radio. I noticed that every song crooned about how happiness is found, lost, or lost then found again in the form of another person.

Songs with lyrics like I can see forever in your eyes and Everybody wants to know they're not alone and You're everything I need repeatedly made the point: we're all incomplete as we are and need someone else to "make us whole". In fact the only song that didn't offer solace and happiness in external sources pleaded Chuck me in the shallow water before I get too deep...

Now perhaps I'm insufficiently taking on board the warning offered by that last chorus, but I'd like to offer an interesting point of contrast.

Happy Birthday Buddha

This weekend in east Asia is the date when the Buddha's birthday is celebrated in 2009.

About 2400 years ago (give or take a few decades) Siddhattha Gotama was born and was destined to live the luxourious life accorded him as prince of his people.

Various accounts suggest that he had his fill of earthly pleasures and was certainly shielded from the harsh realities of the world by his protective father the king.

Perhaps he became tired of a life in which his every material was fulfilled, perhaps his pampered upbringing resulted in greater shock when he was finally confronted with the realities of illness, old age and death - whatever the combination of factors, the rest of his story is well known.

He escaped the palace, lived an ascetic life in his quest for Truth and, after long meditation under the Bodhi Tree, he achieved Enlightenment.

Am I suggesting this is the path for everyone to take and that Enlightenment should be your single and only goal? Not exactly. Let me share with you the insight I had while sitting on the deck today.

What if I told you that you were inadequate?

If I told you that you were incomplete, inadequate, and in need of propping up in order to function in life and be a whole person...well, you might justifiably have a variety of responses to offer me - and I bet none of them would be very pleasant!

Yet we are continually bombarded with these very messages - you are incomplete until you have the product or person that will help make you complete - not just in the lyrics of pop songs but throughout the media and marketing machines that surround us every waking hour.

What these messages represent is a superficial answer to a deep and fundamental truth about human beings, namely: we are all born whole and complete, then in the course of our early life development and interaction with the world we learn to devalue or disown those parts of ourselves that don't seem to "fit in" or fail to get us what we want.

Each of us is like a complete picture which then has a few puzzle pieces removed. It's important to remember, however, that those pieces don't go away forever; they're still within our reach. Sitting under his tree, the Buddha realized this fundamental Truth: we are all complete just as we are and have access to all the means we require to take care of ourselves.

Through the effective application of what Buddhists call the Middle Way, we can steer our lives along a path of moderation away from the extremes of self-indulgence and self-mortification. 

What that means is: rather than cloistering yourself up to gain spiritual awareness, you can still hold down a job and function in the world - though by paying some attention to certain fundamental questions, and by rejecting as false the empty lyrics and marketing messages preaching your inadequacy, you can find a path leading to greater personal satisfaction, happiness and achievement of what's important to you.

Turning the Middle Way into the everyday

Practically speaking, in my work I frequently help people in all kinds of fields to dissolve the crises and tensions that arise from this constantly-reinforced message that they are not OK as they are. I do this, I hasten to add, not by fostering dependency on me as yet another external "quick-fix" but by enabling them to locate those helpful energies and resources that already exist within them. In this way they can continue their own personal journey long after our work together has tapered off or ended entirely.

So think about how you will choose to celebrate the birthday of this extraordinary individual, the Buddha, not just this weekend but in the days and weeks to come as you continue your own life's journey. And remember: you already have within you everything it takes to be just as extraordinary, if you'll just let yourself be so.

With apologies to the pop music industry, I'd suggest that learning to dance to your own tune may change the course of your whole life for the better. It will help you to engage with others not in a needy and dependent "please complete me!" way but as a productive and independent person who's capable of entering and sustaining an equitable relationship for the long term. Worth thinking over, under a tree or by the BBQ on the back deck...
TM

Networking at the speed of Twitter: social media

Thanks to Matt O'Neill and the London Communicators and Engagement Group for the invitation to this week's April meetup in London and the chance to hear Euan Semple discuss the latest trends in social media.

I like to think I've fair put myself out there in social media terms: besides this blog, you need only have a look at the left hand column next to this post to see that I've taking part in LinkedIn, Xing, ecademy, Naymz and various Ning communities (Applied Improv, Solutions Focus in Organizations Linkup, Sustainable Leadership and Open Source Integral).

But twitter...well until now I've until recently been of two minds, asking myself: How much social media is enough? Or too much...? I was still unconvinced of the twitter's value proposition for my business.


Downsides of twitter

You may already share some of the concerns I had and understand the causes of my hesitation: the short-message format of "tweets" encourages a trend I find sinister, namely the mangling of language and grammar that was begun by mobile text-messaging and has now found its large-scale cousin in twitter.

I've also had a concern about the utility and purpose of twitter - by and large there seems quite a lot of inane, vacuous and valueless noise about the mundane trivialities of people's everyday lives, posted (as put in the article Fear of Twitter) as part of the present day's "look-at-me adolescent neediness, constant-contact media addiction, birdlike attention-span compression and vapidity to the point of depravity."

And to add to the dramas, there has lately been research warning that Twitter and Facebook could harm moral values as the phenomenon of instant/always-on messaging tempts us to act speedily (and emotionally) rather than morally (and rationally). In brain terms, these instantaneous media seem to promote or at least foster and environment in which limbic reactions (and re-tweets) are the norm. People are prone to action without consideration.

In sum, I've been conflicted.


A personal twitter tipping point: channels, concision, choices, currency

Then I had a conversation with Kay Ross in Hong Kong and it tipped me over from the blogosphere into the twittersphere. What did it was when Kay mentioned at least two business opportunities that came about as a result of twitter - that is, with people that she would not have met any other way and that twitter made possible.

This nicely illustrates the first salient point that I took away from this week's discussion with Euan and the London communicators: more channels means more chances to connect with other people whom I might not otherwise meet.

The corollary: different channels serve different purposes. I use LinkedIn, xing and ecademy more or less as calling cards to present my online CV with credentials, background and experience. Ning groups are a way for me to keep up on the events and people associated with particular communities of practice and interest. And I use this blog to share insights and content with a broader community.

The question for me was: would twitter simply duplicate efforts or could it be a useful and complementary application?

The answer to this is the second aspect of twitter that I find useful: it requires concision. Tim Ferriss' outstanding piece on how to use twitter without twitter using you, including his insight that twitter's best use is as a micro-blogging platform - a quick and concise way to share info and ask questions of my network without writing an email or writing a blog post.

As the title of his post also suggests, and a point that was made clear in Euan's talk as well, the explosion of twitter and all preceding forms of social media makes it all the more important to make choices about how much content I post and consume. With social media the brakes are off and constant streams of content are more than ever the norm. Anyone who's ever emerged from endless surfing wondering what happened to the day can attest to the stream-of-consciousness quality of trolling about on the Net.

At base, however, it's about priority-setting; if one lacks direction and purpose, procrastination can as easily happen online as in the kitchen rummaging for snacks. And if you're really not so into hearing about someone's updates on location and activities, you have the choice to turn it off or ignore it. So there is a case to be made for taking personal responsibility - just because it's there doesn't mean you have to use/see it.

As for keeping current with people, Joel Comm, makes the case that twitter "goes to the core of one of our most important needs...connecting with others of our species." But does the currency that "Twit Power" offers really stem from sharing inane details about favourite donut flavours and whether I've shaved today, or is there some onus on me as a micro-blogger to provide some value to the folks who follow my content?

The conclusion I've drawn is that if I am adding to the information stream I want to add things of value and potential interest to others, to be the signal that people seek out rather than the noise they filter.

So I've taken into account the potential downsides and, on the basis of the above four factors (channels, concision, choices, currency) I have now been twittering for a short while.

I should add: online social networking is different in character from the kind of face-to-face networking that's behind my current travels and enables much of my work. More about that in an upcoming post!
TM

Formula for success: good news and a global century

Over the past two weeks in Shanghai, Hong Kong and Singapore I've spoken to locals about topics ranging from Asia's place in the world, expat life, starting and sustaining businesses and, inevitably, the global financial crisis. The result is an Asia-based comment I want to share, but first let me address this last item.

Where's the good news?

A recurring theme I heard is the people are fatigued by the gloom-and-doom media coverage of the GFC (yes, it's even got its own acronym now) with ceaseless bad news and warnings of worse yet to come.

It's a prime example of the media's primary business model and, coincidentally, an answer to the age-old question of why we don't see more good-news stories: the media broadcasts bad news to drive people into an alarmed limbic state - because fearful people crave more information to develop their survival strategies and thereby become regular consumers of more and more (bad) news. It's an endless cycle.

So I want to counter this and encourage you to do so as well.

For my part, I've taken to posting feel-good news snippets and stories via the twitter micro-blogging platform (you'll see some examples in the top left-hand side of my main blog page). If you're interested, tweet yourself to some free "feel-goods".

What can you do? Turn off the news and go talk to people (like I've been doing). My hunch is that you'll enjoy a much more nuanced, detailed and interactive picture of what's really happening "out there" and you'll have made a genuine human contact as well. We're social, tribal creatures - I suggest we can all benefit from getting informed of what's happening with real people and tone down our consumption of the media's abstract and incessant stream of global bad news.


In other Asian news...

With this weekend's Chinese Grand Prix race the F1 returns to Asia. How appropriate, really. During my travels I observed that the GFC-besotted world right now is a lot like an F1 race.

The ceaseless quest to go ever-faster has produced a multi-car pileup on the track. When this happens the yellow flag is shown, all cars must slow down and no passing is allowed - in other words, it's a holding pattern. Eventually, the carnage and debris are removed and the race resumes as the green flag is shown.

As I see it, when the global green flag flies again and the race resumes, the cars at the front of the pack will all be Asian. Following behind are the rest of the global contenders (some Europeans, Canada looking peppy with its conservative fiscal practices, and a host of others).

And what of America? Well, well with its shaken confidence, and its balance of trade and spending deficeits, it's a bit like a car running on low-grade fuel with borrowed tires. With President Obama now heading up the pit crew, it'll be interesting to see if the performance can be tweaked before the green flag is out again.

The Asian Century

A running debate has existed since the mid-80's about the ascendancy of Asia and whether the 21st will be the Asian Century. Whether viewed in economic or demographic terms, a shift is undoubtedly taking place.

The 19th century has been called the British Century, followed by the 20th, American Century...but it's not as though a changing of the guard happened in the year 1900. Rather, a complicated dance has taken place between these two empires and continues to do so (witness, for example, the pre-GFC ascendency of London to replace New York as the world financial capital). So it will be with Asia as this century unfolds.

That said, you could say that Asia's current advantage in the "global financial Formula One" stems from having done this sort of thing before: in 1997 there was the Asian financial crisis and in 2003 the SARS outbreak. Experience counts a lot in fostering resilience (the London bombings of 2005 were only the latest in a series of assaults on the British capital, and did not have the same deep psychological impact as did 9/11 on the US) and coping strategies.


What about a "Global Century"?

Taking a wider holistic view, there are many signs that humans are getting things pretty spectacularly (and unsustainably) wrong - not just financially but environmentally, interpersonally, and in our development as individuals.

Success in this global F1, I would argue, will require more than just pole position and ever-faster innovations to increase the speed of business-as-usual. Increasingly compelling global events show that we need to apply our energies to something different. I would argue that instead of an F1-style contest in which countries endlessly chase each other on a circular track that is actually a road to nowhere, a useful shift in focus would be to move beyond shifting regional hegemonies represented by the British/American/Asian Centuries and foster an integrated view - the Global Century.

In this way we would be much better placed to have integral and holistic global solutions to the ceaseless stream of global bad news that the media deliver for our consumption - which would put us all in a more cheerful frame of mind. A formula for success indeed.
TM

Understanding resistance to change

What's the difference between resistance to change that's driven by emotional reactivity - and resistance that's actually useful feedback?

One of the greatest challenges we all face is to manage our emotional reactions better, so the energy they produce is directed in more useful and productive ways. When we're able to do this, we function better - not just at work but in all our interactions across the board. And chances are we can be more contented in life, equipped to deal with setbacks and celebrate successes.

My previous post was about the nine predictable reactive states that people enter when faced with what their brain's fast emotional limbic system perceives as a threat.

Today I want to expand that concept to talk about how managing those states (in ourselves and in others) can help bring people along on the change journey by enabling them to act in more productive ways.

An article in this month's Harvard Business Review offers useful context to this discussion. The following excerpt is quoted from Jeffrey D. Ford and Laurie W. Ford's "Decoding Resistance to Change - Strong leaders can hear and learn from their critics" (added emphasis is mine, numbers added for reference and addressed in order below).

When change initiatives run aground—as they so often do—change agents can be quick to point a finger at the people who never got on board. The assumption is that they resisted a perfectly logical move, so it fell apart.

However, blaming resisters not only is pointless but can actually lead to destructive managerial behaviors. When managers perceive resistance as a threat, they may become competitive, defensive, or uncommunicative. They are sometimes so concerned with being right—and not looking bad—that they lose sight of their original goals (3). In stubbornly pushing things through without understanding the resistance, they sacrifice goodwill, put valuable relationships in jeopardy, and squander the opportunity to engage skeptics in service of a better plan. They don’t hear about missing pieces and faulty assumptions. And, in true us-versus-them fashion, they presume that only the other folks—the resisters—need to alter their behavior and that the change would succeed if not for the resisters’ irrational and self-serving actions.

It’s true that resistance can be irrational and self-serving (2). But like it or not, it is an important form of feedback. Dismissing it robs you of a powerful tool as you implement change. It takes a strong leader to step up and engage when a change effort meets with pushback. If you can gain perspective by paying attention to, understanding, and learning from behaviors you perceive as threatening (1), you will ultimately deliver better results.

Taking these highlighted parts in the numeric order I've assigned:

(1) The lattermost comment makes the useful point that reactive behaviour can easily provoke reactive behaviour and produce an escalating emotional chain reaction that undermines any chance at a productive outcome. Leaders of a change initiative therefore need to carefully monitor their own reaction to the (potentially hostile) behaviour of team members. Unmanaged, such a reactive spiral may throw the leader off kilter just at the moment when clear thinking and a level head are most urgently needed.

(2) Yes these strongly emotional reactions are irrational and self-serving - and, I would add, for good reason! They are irrational because they're driven by the emotional limbic brain, not the rational neocortex, and furthermore are geared the the ultimate self-serving purpose: one's own survival. Leaders should therefore not be surprised that emotion-fuelled resistance is both tenacious and enduring.

(3) So what would it look like if that powerful emotion-fuelled response was channelled into more productive, rational responses? And what might those responses look like?

Taking the second question first, in a team setting these more productive, rational responses take the form of eight key team roles:

• Explorer / Motivator
• Inspirational Coach / Facilitator
• Promoter / Strategist
• Practical Problem Solver
• Creative Change Agent
• Visionary Planner
• Auditor / Organizer
• Driver / Completer

Limbic vs. Rational - Reactive vs. Productive

Now how can you tell if someone is being, to put it bluntly, a pain in the ass, or is genuinely engaged in the role of "practical problem solver"? Well, it pays to be able to identify whether that person is being emotionally reactive or rationally productive.

In other words, are they working from their emotional limbic brain response or from their cognitive, rational brain.

Here the comment I've numbered (3) about people who are "so concerned with being right" is instructive. When you find yourself absolutely convinced that you are right about something, there's an excellent chance you're operating from a limbic space.

This is because the limbic brain's function (to ensure your survival) dictates that it must act fast - that is to say, before all the facts are considered. This makes sense: if you stopped to take a long look at the thing that might just be a snake and it turned out in fact to be a snake, it could well have bitten you and you'd be dead before you could say, "My word! Is that a...eurk!!"

Clearly in these situations there's not a lot of room for considering alternatives and taking the time to be open to different points of view. What this looks like in an interpersonal conflict situation is there are one or more people's limbic brains screaming at them (via hormones and neurotransmitters), "Your survival is at stake! This needs to happen MY way, Right Now!!"

Does that sound like any conversation you've been involved in recently...?

The rational brain, meanwhile, evolved later and makes up the majority of our grey matter. It's the bit that distinguishes we humans from other creatures and does the tremendous cognitive heavy-lifting - the sort that allows for playing the violin, designing hybrid cars, calculating your tax return, and thinking of clever things to say in 140 characters of less on twitter. :)

By design, then, the limbic response is the classic knee-jerk reaction - act first, then consider.

Meanwhile, the rational brain is capable of weighing options and alternatives, gathering data and information - consider first, then act.


How this applies to "resistance to change"

Having made this distinction between the two sorts of behaviour (and the associated forms of resistance to change - i.e. reactive vs. productive) I hasten to add: there's no point trying to disconnect the emotional reaction to change. It WILL happen, no matter any leader's well-meaning efforts at avoidance and minimization.

The change leader's task is therefore as follows:
(1) First and foremost: manage your own reaction. Like the air hosties tell you, make sure your own oxygen mask is in place before you attempt to engage with others.

(2) Assess the most likely limbic responses of the members in your team and incorporate active measures to address the underlying survival concerns that produce these fight-flight-freeze limbic responses.

(3) Their knee-jerk reactions thus calmed, team members are now better placed to activate their rational brains and channel that emotional energy into productive action.

NB - the bonus step: engage in a facilitated process to help identify team members' particular talents. Everyone can naturally manifest at least two of the eight roles listed above - and when you have all eight covered, your team's extremely well placed to achieve extraordinary results.

tmconsultancy offers focused training programs to help you identify the emotional reactive behaviour patterns and the productive rational styles that manifest in every team. To find out more, email me.

TM

This weekend I slept with Trinny & Susannah

On my flight this weekend from Melbourne to Hong Kong I enjoyed the unaccustomed comfort of a First class berth on Qantas, along with the unexpected overnight company of Britain's fashion gurus, authors and TV presenters, Trinny and Susannah. 

Now before Qantas has a Ralph-related meltdown, allow me to assure them and you that when I say "slept with" I mean nothing more salacious than a trio of unconscious travellers just trying to make the best of a 9-hour plane trip. 

So with apologies for the tabloid-like headline of this post, there is a serious point to be made and it has to do with celebrity.

Celebrities - people like you and me?

Today it's possible to get information - however dubious - about the doings and private concerns of any number of celebrities in the world. This week, I noted in passing, "Brad walked out" and Madonna's quest for a matching set of black babies was thwarted. 

It's an open question whether this information enriches my life, but there you have it - every newsstand screams out lurid titillation with the dramas of people I don't even know and (barring future coincidental meetings in First class Qantas cabins) will never meet.

So-called "reality TV" shows have increased in number - if not in good taste and quality. We need only look at the famous (and too brief) life of English media personality Jade Goody to understand that for some, "being famous" is a more viable career option than going to university or pursuing vocational training. 

Certainly this is the conclusion drawn by a surprising number of young people: a British survey reported in 2007 that the number one career ambition of one in seven 16- to 21-year olds was to become a celebrity or "socialite" like Paris Hilton.

What IS "celebrity" then? Are celebrities people just like you and me? Certainly in my admittedly brief experience of them, Trinny and Susannah seemed nice enough people, not at all the tyrants and bullies some famous folks are reported to be. 

Susannah even chose the same breakfast as me, though I have to say Trinny looks a hell of a lot better in the morning than I do.

Our tribal origins

In the quest to unravel the strangeness of "celebrity" it's helpful to remember our origins. Humans are not well designed to live alone and so we form social groups to ensure our survival. Having done this for so long, and for such a compelling reason, our brains have evolved accordingly.

Dunbar's number (named for British anthropologist Robin Dunbar) suggests that humans are ideally suited to exist in a group of between 20 to at most 150 people in our "tribe". 

What that means is in a tribe setting of up to 150 people we are pretty well suited to getting along with each other without resorting to hierarchies, stereotypes or other means of simplifying the complexity of social relations/interactions. Beyond that it starts to get a bit dodgy.

In such a tightly-knit tribal group, if you knew someone else pretty well and they didn't view you as essentially competition or food, chances are you counted him or her as a "friend". I think this is where our fascination with, and confusion about, celebrities comes into play. 

Our basic neural wiring tells us that if we know personal stuff about people then they must be our friends. Technology, meanwhile, delivers truckloads of personal information about celebrities and, thanks to social media, loads of people who may be seeking celebrity on a more or less limited scale. What these celebrities and would-be celebrities have in common is that they are not only outside our optimum tribe of 150, we don't actually really know them at all. 

The result is a "does not compute!" disconnect between what technology enables us to do and what our brains can handle. We are essentially glorified chimps suffering from information overload. This is where Brad and Madonna (and some people's hundreds of Facebook "friends") confound us: the presence of personal information says friend while our brain's capacity to keep track of it all says not part of my tribe. 

This is not to say that we should limit our interactions to a select 150 people - hardly practical in a connected world. Rather my brush with celebrity has encouraged me to think more closely about fostering a quality and degree of connection to others that is a) manageable given the limits of my own brain and therefore b) helpful if I'm to engage fully and effectively with other people. 

Circles within circles

Accepting the fact that we'll all have an inner circle and varied degrees connection to others whom we get to know, here's a first pass at some relational boundary-setting (NB: membership in multiple categories is possible):

• friends - potential tribe member (per the loose description offered above)
• acquaintances - those with whom I share interests and memberships (as part of the constellation of people in my extended network) and between whom I may occasionally make connections on the basis of their common interests
• colleagues/clients - relationships of a commercial nature, transacted in an adult, professional and pleasant manner
• strangers - I'll not be so naff as to say "a friend I haven't met yet" since that in itself is a violation of the tribal friends distinction - but offering a smile and a friendly comment certainly isn't amiss in this realm
• celebrities - those whose career involves raising their image and profile into the public domain; I think the useful distinction here is to always bear in mind that, "hey I recognize that celebrity" does not automatically imply a relationship, least of all one of "hey I know that person". 

Some food for thought - leave me a comment to let me know what you think!

TM