This got me thinking about my current view of leadership and how it too may be limited and one dimensional.

A Limited Lens?

Up to this point, when I have used the word leadership, either in terms of looking for it during performance review or trying to develop it during professional development I have tended to see it as a set of capabilities or tasks.

An example of this can be found in the leadership inventory that I used for my doctoral research into leadership self-efficacy. The premise is with such lists that in order to be an effective leader, one must be proficient in all of the capabilities and that professional development should centre around the correction of deficits in these items.

My thoughts are not moving towards the dismissal of such inventories, just a widening of my view towards the terms leadership and even learning.

Splitting The Term

Drawing from Wiliam's separation of the term 'learning' into its verb and noun, I started thinking about the possible ways I could split the term 'leadership' and settled initially on the following:

Should we be focusing more on the person involved in the construct, the leader or the learner? What attributes do they need to possess in order to make the subsequent process successful and the product a reality? Should performance review and professional development focus more on the person?

This is where my previous focus on task capability would have landed with the lens being WHAT leadership is in the moment. This view creates some issues around the need to seek out demonstrable signs of leadership and the danger that the proxies we use are inaccurate. Are we currently overly-focused on the process of leadership and learning?

Maybe we should look for the products of leadership as a sign of its effectiveness and focus more on the impact? What is created by leaders both organisationally and inter-personally? Should performance review focus more on this element of leadership and what even are are the products of leadership?

Re-framing Performance Review & Professional Development

If we were to have a fresh look at leadership review and professional development through the lenses of Person, Process and Product what would we need to focus on? Would this look different to the processes we currently have in place? Below are my current thoughts on how these may be affected by a P-P-P mindset.

Person Lens

The existing Information for this lens typically comes from individual and organisational attempts to describe the characteristics of effective leaders. As is common within the leadership literature, there is only moderate congruence between opinions and inventories. Below are a small range of personal attributes thought to be associated with effective leaders.

Process Lens

Information for this lens typically comes from role descriptions or leadership development curricula and contains an almost infinite level of variation. This variation is created in part by difference in the following:

• Leadership sector (business, education, health care ...)

• Leadership level (middle, senior, executive...)

• Leadership role (finance, HR, sales, training ...)

• Leadership type (transformational, instructional, structural...)

There is however some agreement within the literature with the view that most leadership skills and attributes fall within the broad categories of conceptual, technical and interpersonal (Dhar and Mishra, 2001).

Below are a small range of capabilities thought to be associated with the process of effective leadership.

Product Lens

Information for this lens typically comes from the literature on leadership effectiveness and centres around the impact that they have. This is again very complex and differs between the aforementioned variances in leadership sector, level and role. Measures of impact seem to centre around the following key themes:

1. The demonstration of leadership skills / capabilities

2. Subordinate related measures

3. Group / team related measures

4. Stakeholder feedback / assessment of leader.

Some of the acknowledged outcomes of effective leadership within the above themes can be seen below:

Reflective questions

I will continue to explore the value of this three dimensional view of leadership and to reflect further on how it may influence my thinking about performance review and professional development. Below is a visual representation of how these may interact and below that, some of the questions still on my mind.

• What are the personal qualities of an effective leader?

• What does the process of effective leadership look like?

• What are the products of effective leadership?

• What do our current leadership review systems focus on?

• What do our current leadership development programmes focus on?

• Do we need to consider both the person and the process during leadership development?

• Do we need to consider the person, process and products of leadership during performance reviews?

• Could the P-P-P separation be used for other terms like learning, teaching etc?

Much, if not all of an individual's conscious behaviour is a result of their inner voice

The following post explores the impact of our inner voice, often described as self-talk and highlights some surprising insights about how we can use this ongoing narrative to positively influence our lives.

Self-talk has been described as the internal narrative that an individual has about themselves and is thought to be a mix of conscious and unconscious beliefs and biases that we hold about ourselves and the world more generally.

A Powerful Friend or Foe

It feels appropriate to first emphasise the power of our inner voice and highlight the significant impact that it has on our day to day lives. Below are a sample of researchers who have linked thoughts, beliefs and self-talk to behaviour. The findings support the view that much if not all of our behaviour is a result of our own beliefs and inner voice.

Kurt Lewin first presented the model below as an attempt to create a theory to unite the different branches of psychology. His work on field theory suggested that a person's life space determined their behaviour and the equation positioned behaviour as a function of the person and their environment. Thoughts and self-talk are a key element of a person and therefore a key influence on behaviour.

Albert Ellis created a psychological model which is now used in cognitive behaviour therapy to support individuals to reflect on the links between stimulus and response. The model suggests that an individuals' beliefs about an event will in part determine their response and thus the consequences. Self-talk therefore has the power to affect behavior and the consequences of events.

James Hardy, Emily Oliver and David Todd created the following model to describe the impact that self-talk can have on sports performance. As with the previous models, there is an acknowledgement that self-talk is influenced by the person and their environment and this in turn has an internal impact which then subsequently affects performance. The model highlights how self-talk can affect a variety of internal elements including concentration, confidence, behaviour and emotions and these in turn impact on our effectiveness.

The literature and research on self-talk highlights a series of categories and continuums that are used to describe different types of internal dialogue and the following sections explore these in more detail.

Positive Vs Negative

One of the most common ways of describing an individual's self-talk is as either positive and negative.

Positive

As the name suggests, this type of self-talk takes the form of positive messages and thoughts.

Researchers have explored the impact of positive self-talk on a range of different areas including anxiety, learning, sports performance and eating disorders. Todd, Oliver, and Harvey (2011) completed a literature review and unanimously found that positive self-talk interventions were effective in mediating cognitive and behavioral change.

Studies have shown positive self-talk to have the following benefits:

• Reduce stress

• Boost confidence

• Increase resilience

• Improve relationships

• Improve immune function

• Reduce pain

Some examples of positive self-talk include:

1. I have the power to change things.

2. I can get through this.

3. Tomorrow is a chance to try again

4. I can’t control what other people think, say or do. I can only control me.

5. I can learn from this situation

Negative

Sadly, a lot of self-talk is negative and many of our internal messages and thoughts come from preconceived beliefs about our capabilities or qualities. Jantz, (2016) suggested that the prevalence of negative self-talk may be due to the tendency for individuals to remember negative experiences more than positive ones.

Some common examples of negative self-talk include:

• Personalizing situations and blaming yourself when things go wrong.

• Polarizing thoughts by only seeing things as good or bad, with no middle ground.

• Magnifying the bad or negative in every scenario and dismissing any positive elements.

• Catastrophizing and always expecting the worst.

In order to identify the impact of negative self-talk we can look to the reverse of the aforementioned benefits of positive messaging which show how it can have a detrimental impact on our mental and physical health.

Declarative vs Interrogative

So the message is clear that we should be trying to develop a more positive inner voice and participate in more positive self-talk. But what constitutes effective positive self-talk?

Psychologists and researchers of self-talk also classify it into either declarative or interrogative and the following section explores this is more detail.

Declarative

Declarative means 'to make a declaration' and so this type of self-talk presents itself as statements of perceived truth. These declarations are typically either affirmative or evaluative.

Affirmative statements often come before or during a task and examples might include "I can complete this task" or "I am doing really well at this" and are used to create or maintain motivation levels.

Evaluative statements often come after a task has been completed and examples might include "I did really well in that" or "I gave my best in that task". These are used to celebrate actions or effort and strengthen confidence for future attempts.

Interrogative

In contrast to declarative affirmations, interrogative statements involve individuals asking themselves questions about their ability. The corresponding examples would be "can I complete this task?" or "am I doing really well at this?"

The grammatical structure of self-talk has become of particular interest to psychologists and developmental coaches as they search for additional levers to support their clients. Individuals in these roles have long used open ended and rhetorical questions to place the emphasis back onto the client and to elicit self-generated ideas and solutions. A research study by Senay, Albarracín and Noguchi (2010) found that interrogative self-talk led to changes in motivation and goal-directed behaviour and suggested that further work is warranted to explore the important but long-overlooked effects of the shape of introspection on behavior.

Interrogative self-talk may produce the following benefits:

• Reduced pressure to perform

• Increased persuasory impact

• Increased intrinsic motivation

• Improved goal-directed behaviour

• Increased creativity as the opportunity to share ideas is created ("how could I complete this?")

Daniel Pink highlights the active nature of interrogative self-talk and the way that it often acts as the start of a more detailed and useful self-talk episode. Questions such as "Can I do this and if so, HOW?" require further thought and can lead to a greater level of preparation and pre-task confidence.

Let's look at an comparison of the two approaches:

And so...

There are clear links between our thoughts, our behaviors and our performance.

Clearly, we should reduce negative self-talk where possible and increase our levels of positive self-talk.

Positive declarative affirmations of self-talk such as "I can do this" are great and play a key part in increasing motivation but there may be an even better alternative.

The power of interrogative self-talk lies in the demands it places on the individual to take further action. Interrogative questions force you to think more deeply by requiring an answer and to creatively plan a course of action.

So the next time you tell yourself you can do something, flip it into a question and extend the self-talk to explore why you feel that way. You may be surprised by the increased motivation and performance.

A cognitive bias is a systematic error in thinking that occurs when people are processing and interpreting information in the world around them and affects the decisions and judgments that they make. These biases act as individual filters through which individuals view and experience the world.

When do they occur?

Every cognitive bias is there for a reason — primarily to save our brains time or energy.

Buster Benson in his excellent blog post outlines four situations where cognitive biases typically occur:

When there is too much information

In order to avoid drowning in information overload, our brains need to filter large amounts of information and quickly and effortlessly, decide which few things are actually important.

In these situations we typically:

• notice things that are already primed in memory or repeated often

• pay more attention to bizarre/funny/visually-striking things

• notice when something has changed.

• are drawn to details that confirm our own existing beliefs. 

• notice flaws in others more easily than flaws in ourselves.

When we need to make sense of something

In order to construct meaning out of the bits and pieces of information that come to our attention, we need to fill in the gaps, and map it all to our existing mental models.

In these situations we typically:

• find stories and patterns.

• fill in gaps with characteristics from stereotypes, generalities, and prior experiences

• think better of things and people we’re familiar with or fond of

• simplify probabilities and numbers to make them easier to think about.

• think we know what others are thinking

• project our current mindset and assumptions onto the past and future. 

When we need to act fast

In order to act fast, our brains need to make split-second decisions that could impact our chances for survival, security, or success and also feel confident that we can make things happen.

In these situations we typically:

• act with confidence in our ability to make an impact and to feel like what we do is important.

• favour the immediate, relatable thing in front of us over the delayed and distant

• are motivated to complete things that we’ve already invested time and energy in. 

• are motivated to preserve our autonomy and status in a group, and to avoid irreversible decisions.

• favour options that appear simple or that have more complete information

When we are deciding what to remember

And in order to keep doing all of this as efficiently as possible, our brains need to remember the most important and useful bits of new information and inform the other systems so they can adapt and improve over time.

In these situations we typically:

• edit and reinforce some memories after the fact.

• discard specifics to form generalities

• reduce events and lists to their key elements

• store memories differently based on how they were experienced

What are the different biases?

There are a huge variety of different cognitive biases with varying degrees of occurrence, impact and research base.

The incredible diagram to the right by John Manoogian attempts to organise the wide range of cognitive biases into categories focused on the challenges we face when processing information.

You can view the full size image HERE or visit the interactive image HERE

The following section will explore some of the most common Biases.

Common Cognitive Biases

Anchoring Bias

This is the tendency to rely too heavily on the very first piece of information you learn. The danger is that we interpret newer information from the reference point of our anchor, instead of seeing it objectively.

Attentional Bias

This is the tendency to pay attention to some things while simultaneously ignoring others. The danger is that our attention is directed towards the wrong information and thus we don't have what we need to make a good decision.

Availability Bias

This is the tendency to place greater value on information that comes to your mind quickly. The danger is that we jump to quick decisions without exploring the evidence or alternatives appropriately.

Confirmation Bias

This is the tendency to favour information that conforms to your existing beliefs and discount evidence that does not. The danger is that we drive our personal agendas and trust information because of familiarity instead of rationality.

Hindsight Bias

This is the tendency to perceive past events as having been more predictable than they actually were. The danger is that we become overconfident in our ability to predict the future and make good decisions.

Negativity Bias

This is the tendency to pay more attention and be affected more by negative events and emotions than positive ones even when they are present in equal measure. The danger is that we gain an inaccurate view of situations or lose a sense of perspective.

Omission Bias

This is the tendency to favour an act of omission (inaction) over one of commission (action). The danger is that we unconsciously seek to maintain the status quo and therefore slow or halt progress.

Projection Bias

This is the tendency to project our beliefs, values, and behaviours onto others or into the future. The danger is that we do not seek alternative views and that we underestimate the need for change.

Sunk-Cost Bias

This is the tendency to continue a behaviour or endeavour as a result of previously invested resources (time, money or effort). The danger is that we fail to stop or change ineffective actions in time to improve their impact.

Social Desirability Bias

This is the tendency to answer questions or behave in a manner that will be viewed favourably by others. The danger is that we over-report the good and under report the bad. There is also a danger that views and ideas are not shared because they conflict with the norm.

What can we do about them?

We can’t avoid our biases. The best we can do is maintain an honest dialogue with our blind spots and commit to identifying and repairing inadvertent damage caused by them as efficiently as possible.

Buster Benson, 2019

Strategies for dealing with cognitive biases typically come from the literature on either Debiasing or Cognitive Bias mitigation but both are clear about the mixed results that any explicit strategies can have on biases that are largely unconscious. The first step in dealing with cognitive bias is acknowledging the possible presence of a bias blind spot which describes how we see biases in others must more readily than we see in ourselves.

Once that has been done there is a range of possible ways forward:

1. Increase awareness of your common biases - review how often you find yourself in the situations referenced in this article which often create biases and then attempt to identify the individual biases which you are affected by. Pay attention also to the impact of those biases either on your own behaviours or on other people.

2. Create a stimulus - response gap - Slow down your decision-making process so that you have time to examine the situation for the presence of any biases. during this extra 'space' it may be useful to gather additional information or the views of another person.

3. Implement decision making processes - At an organisational level it may be useful to create formal decision making processes that engineer out the impact of bias as much as possible. You may want to insist on the collection of additional data and alternative perspectives or insert a formal quality assurance step which focuses on the presence of bias.

4. Set up cognitive trip wires - The pace of life and the unconscious nature of bias makes them easy to miss even with the above strategies. It may be useful to create questions or processes that encourage the presence of bias so that they can emerge and 'trip you up' before decisions are made.

Reflective Questions?

• What situations do you find yourself in which potentially cause bias (too much information, sense making, quick decision making, memory storage)

• Which bias do these create?

• Which of the bias occur the most often?

• Which of the biases cause the largest impact?

• What can you do to reduce the occurrence of biases?

• What systems and processes can you implement to reduce bias?

Sadly, the success of change management and implementation is sometimes down to luck and the roll of a dice

The lead-up to a new project or initiative is typically full of excitement, energy and anticipation about the impending change. What is less typical during this phase is the use of tools and techniques to explore the probable success of the project or the roadblocks that may lay ahead.

Alongside activities such as force field analysis, RACI charts and Stakeholder mapping lies a useful technique called the DICE framework.

The Dice Framework

The DICE framework is a tool to help assess how likely an initiative or project is to succeed. It was developed by the Boston Consulting Group in the mid-1990s in an effort to develop a more effective approach to change management and has since been used widely across a variety of organisational domains.

The framework is split into four sections, each representing a letter of the acronym:

D (Duration) I (Integrity) C (Commitment) E (Effort)

The DURATION of time until the change program is completed or if an extended project, the amount of time between reviews of milestones.

The review process is critical to the success of any project and where possible this should be completed bi-monthly or at key milestones. Regular review is the best way for leaders to evaluate the execution of projects, identify gaps, and spot new risks. Reviews must enable leaders and project members to confirm that the project has made progress since the last review and should be formal in nature. All project members should be expected to report back on their areas of responsibilities and assigned actions.

The project team’s performance INTEGRITY; that is, its ability to complete the initiative successfully.

Performance integrity is seen as the extent to which organisations can rely on leaders, managers and staff to execute projects successfully. Team leaders must be chosen carefully and build high performing teams by clarifying roles, commitments, and accountability. Effective team leaders are typically results oriented, methodical in their approach, highly motivated and skilled at problem solving. Effective teams collectively have the knowledge, understanding and skills to meet the demand of their role.

The levels of COMMITMENT from senior leadership (C1) and staff affected by the change (C2).

Organisations must ensure they have commitment from two different groups of people if they want change projects to be successful. They must get backing from the most influential leaders (C1), and the people who must deal with the new systems, processes, or ways of working (C2). Support from senior leadership is crucial if staff are to engage and show their commitment to a new initiative. Leaders also directly impact on staff engagement through the way they set direction, communicate and distribute responsibility and praise.

The EFFORT over and above the usual work that the change initiative demands of staff.

Organisations looking to implement new projects must consider and appreciate that that staff are already busy with their day-to-day responsibilities. Project teams must calculate how much work staff will have to do beyond their existing responsibilities to implement the new processes. Above an extra 10% it is likely that resources will become overstretched and compromise either the change program or normal operations. Organisations must consider taking away some of the regular work and review all other projects to assess which ones are critical for the change effort.

Generating a DICE score

Now that you understand the different components of the DICE framework it is time to put the technique into action. During the planning stage of a project and prior to launch it may be useful to calculate a DICE score and from this gain some insight into the probability of success.

Leaders must use the DICE grading criteria to generate a score for each element and then use the equation below to calculate a final DICE score. Overall DICE scores will be between 7 and 28.

D + (2 x I) + (2 x C₁) + C₂ + E

Duration score plus two integrity scores plus two commitment 1 (Leadership) scores plus two commitment 2 (staff) scores plus the effort score.

2 + 6 + 4 + 3 + 2 = 17

Duration

How often will initiative reviews take place?
How long it will take to complete the project?

• <2 months = 1

• 2-4 months = 2

• 5-8 months = 3

• >8 months = 4

Integrity

How good are the skills and experience of the change leader and their team?

• Very good = 1

• Good = 2

• Average = 3

• Poor = 4

Commitment

How committed are senior leaders? (C1) How committed are project staff? (C2)

• Eager = 1

• Willing = 2

• Reluctant = 3

• Strongly Reluctant = 4

Effort

How much extra effort is required from leaders and staff?

• <10% additional = 1

• 10-20% additional = 2

• 21-40% additional = 3

• >40 % additional = 4

Using the DICE score

Once you have calculated your DICE score, you can use it to get a probability of success for your project.

Using the graph below you can see if your project currently falls within the:

• WIN Zone (7-14) Very likely to succeed

• WORRY Zone (15 - 17) Hard to predict success

• WOE Zone (18-28) High unpredictability or likely to not succeed

Individual elements scores will indicate where the project weaknesses lie and where efforts should be directed ahead of the launch date. (Review points, Knowledge and skills, Commitment levels, Workload)

Weaknesses and Worksheet

As with any technique, process or framework, execution is key and there are some words of caution:

• Dice section scores are subjective assessments

• The DICE assessment does not take into account other factors, like motivation, management, leadership, and organizational culture

• The framework only provides the start of a conversation which should continue into specific challenges and actions.

We often only extract the minimum learning from performance outcomes, achieving shallow insights and slowing our development because of it.

In this post, we will explore Chris Argyris and Donald Schon's work on loops of learning and how they may help us extract more from our experiences. The concept of a loop of learning focuses on what happens after we see the result of an action and how deeply we reflect and learn.

Single-Loop Learning

During single-loop learning the focus is on WHAT actions can be changed to improve the result

Teams and individuals ask themselves whether they are doing things right? and if changes need to be made to existing systems or processes. The focus is typically on detecting errors and implementing immediate short-term improvements to get back on track.

Single-loop learning leads to low levels of insight and learning.

Weaknesses:

• Focuses only on the symptoms of a negative result

• Produces short-term improvements

Double-Loop Learning

During double-loop learning the focus is on WHY the actions led to a negative result.

Teams and individuals ask themselves are we doing the right things? and if systems and processes themselves need to be changed. Double-loop learning involves a deeper reflection, exploring the 'frames' that issues exist within and can include discussion around:

• Emerging patterns or trends

• Causal assumptions

• Pathways of change,

• Organisational norms

Double-loop learning leads to deeper insight and more learning

Weaknesses:

• Continues to look externally for the root of the result

• Actions are overlooked or not integrated with frames / perceptions

Triple-Loop Learning

During triple-loop learning the focus is on HOW the individual and wider context has affected the result

Triple-loop learning was not part of Arygris and Schon's work but has emerged in order to represent an even deeper level of insight and learning. Individuals and teams focus on what is right? and stretch their thinking over longer time frames both backward and into the future. Often triple-loop learning focuses on how elements such as principles, goals, values, mission and vision have impacted on the result.

The process of triple-loop learning often results in a greater understanding of our own beliefs and perceptions and those of others.

Triple -loop learning can lead to the deepest levels of insight and learning

So What?

The goal of any post-result reflection is to accurately identify the cause of either the positive or negative outcome so that they can be repeated or corrected. The challenge is gathering enough information or the right sort of information in order to make those inferences.

The Image below suggests that as individuals and groups move through the different loops of learning the depth of insight increases which in turn leads to greater learning.

Additional benefits of multi-loop learning include:

• Encourages the search for root causes

• Facilitates the creation of long-term solutions

• Develops meta-cognitive skills

• Forces reflection on both external and internal causal attributions

  

Reflective Questions

• What loop of learning do you and your organisation typically engage in?

• What depth of insight does this typically lead to?

• How much learning does this typically create?

• How can you encourage the use of additional learning loops?

“You and a friend are having a picnic on the bank of a river. You’ve just laid down your picnic blankets when you hear a shout from the direction of the river. You look back and there’s a child thrashing around in the water. So you both dive in, you fish the child out, you bring them to shore. Just as you’re starting to calm down you hear another shout. You look back, there’s a second child splashing around, so back in you go. You fish them out, then there are two more children who come along right behind and so you’re in and out, fishing kids out. You then notice your friend swimming to the shore, stepping out, and starting to walk away. You cry out, “Hey, where are you going? I need your help" and your friend says, “I’m going upstream to figure out who’s throwing all these kids in the river.”

Upstream Thinking

The above parable is retold by Dan Heath in his exceptional book UPSTREAM which he uses to explore the concept of upstream thinking and the process of looking deeper into problems in order to find their true source. In the book, Dan highlights three key ideas that can be helpful to leaders, managers and anyone trying to become a more effective problem solver:

• Downstream action centres around our reaction to problems once they’ve occurred. Upstream efforts look deeper and aim to prevent those problems from happening in the first place. Upstream efforts explore the systemic factors that influence problems.

• People have a natural tendency towards downstream thinking as its impact is more immediately rewarding and tangible. It takes time and effort to look upstream and to reward those who seek to invest in prevention over solution.

• There are three barriers that typically inhibit upstream thinking. People need to be aware of these and adjust the systemic factors that contribute to them if they are to achieve sustainable success.

Barriers

In the book Dan highlight the following key barriers to upstream thinking:

Problem Blindness - The first challenge is recognising that there is a problem in the first place. Many problematic situations develop over time and therefore slip into normality, hiding them from view. Even if the problem is evident to people, problem blindness can mean that they can't see a way forward and are resigned to it always being a problem.

Lack of Ownership - The next challenge links to who owns the problem. For many people, proactive upstream action is in contrast to their usual style of fixing immediate problems that they are directly told to solve. Unconsciously ignoring problems or consciously uttering "that's not my problem" are issues that block upstream thinking and action.

Tunneling - In our busy lives, where the juggling of multiple tasks and issues is commonplace, tunnel vision and the narrowing of attention and energy can be a real barrier. Solving the issues directly in front of you in order to move onto the next item on the list is often either a necessity or a personal preference. Upstream thinking requires the protection of time and the use of a wider perspective in order to seek the deeper roots and sustainable solutions for problems.

Key Takeaway

A foundational takeaway for me from the upstream book was that the source of any problem may lay further upstream than we initially think. We need to look deeper and widen our thinking in order to achieve sustainable solutions.

System Thinking

In the book, Dan highlights the notion that 'Every system is perfectly designed to produce the results it does' highlighting the danger of trying to fix problems without consideration of the people, processes and systems that create them.

System thinking is defined as 'a way of making sense of the complexity of the world by looking at it in terms of wholes and relationships rather than by splitting it down into its parts' and has a rich history in the business and leadership literature. Some of the published benefits include:

• Broadens thinking

• Enables the articulation of problems in new and different ways

• Allows people to make informed choices

• Facilitates the telling of compelling stories

• Describes more fully how systems works

• Identifies causal loops

System thinking is often seen as both a way of thinking and a technique or tool.

Philosophy

People who think in a systematic way are sensitive to the circular nature of the world and are aware of the role of structure in creating the conditions that problems exist within. They recognise that there are often powerful unseen elements driving the outcomes that are visible and are committed to directing their energy in that direction. They acknowledge that systems thinking requires curiosity, clarity, compassion, choice, and courage whilst also recognising connections and multiple interventions.

Diagnostic Tool

System thinking can also be used as a diagnostic tool prior to action, during ongoing review or within summative evaluation. It is a disciplined approach to examining problems more completely and accurately in order to best act. It often involves looking at patterns of behaviour over time to surface the underlying structures rather than the immediate outcomes or data.

System Mapping is often a phrase used to encompass a range of techniques aimed at identifying and mapping the elements within a system to understand how they interconnect, relate and act together. Effective system mapping then enables users to develop unique insights and discoveries. Typical system mapping tools include: Behaviour over time graphs, iceberg models, causal loop diagrams and connection circles.

Further Reading (Pandora's Box!)

As you would imagine, by definition, system thinking related literature encompasses a huge web of interconnected topics. Below are just some:

• Collective Behaviour - Social dynamics, herd mentality, collective intelligence, Synchronisation

• Networks - Scale-free, small world, Dynamical, Adaptive, Social, Scaling, Centrality

• Evolution - Machine learning, Evolvability, Genetic algorithms, Evo-Devo

• Pattern Formation -Percolation, Dissipative structures, Geomorphology, Spatial fractals

• Systems Theory - Autopoiesis, Information theory, Entropy, System dynamics, Feedback

• Nonlinear System - Multistability, Chaos, Bifurcation, Phase space, Iterative mapping

• Game Theory - Iterative PD, Bounded Rationality, N-person PD, Cooperation vs competition

Putting it into Practice

So we now recognise that we are often blind to problems, unable to take ownership, too focused to make space to think strategically and also unaware of the interconnected components of the system that creates the problem.

In order to operationalise this thinking let's focus on three key questions that could be asked after the identification of an initial problem:

What are the system components?

Once the problem has been acknowledged and owned by an individual or group, there is a need to identify the system in which it exists and the various components of that system. These could be a combination of:

• People

• Processes

• Beliefs

• Behaviours

Where are the causal connections?

Now the focus switches to the connections between those components. Thoughts should centre on the causal links and how different elements affect each other. Other considerations may include:

• Number of links

• Direction of links

• Strength of links

Where are the pivots?

In this step, the focus is now on the efficiency of effort. Where can the individual and the organisation best place their energies and resources? Which component of the system if changed will yield the largest impact for the least input? Often there is more than one possible pivot and they need to be addressed in sequence.

Reflective Questions?

Now that we have an initial understanding of upstream and system thinking we can ask ourselves some key questions:

• What problems are you blind to?

• What problems are you avoiding ownership of?

• How tunnelled is your vision?

• How often do you use upstream / systems thinking?

• How far upstream or deep into the system do you typically look?

• What tools and techniques could you use to improve your approach to problem solving?

The Sent - Received Gap

Communication is a complex process and the interplay of the personal and environmental factors which create that complexity also creates the chance that what is sent is not always what is received. The gaps between Encoding - Transmission - Decoding - Interpretation can cause a range of negative effects:

• The message is not constructed correctly by the speaker - (Encoding)

• The message is not transmitted correctly by the speaker - (Transmission)

• The communication method is not effective - (Channel)

• External influences affect the message during transmission - (Noise)

• The message is received incorrectly by the listener - (Decoding)

• The message is understood incorrectly by the listener - (Interpretation)

The Shannon-Weaver Communication Model

A popular model of communication is the 'linear communication model' and was developed by Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver who were aiming to explain the challenges of effective communication and to identify the pressure points where communication can be distorted. The model highlights the movement of a message through encoding by the sender (source) through a channel (method) and then decoding by the receiver. They also highlighted how during transmission, messages are subject to noise which can affect the accuracy and cause what they termed information entropy. Information noise will be discussed in more detail later in this post.

You can read more about the model HERE

Other Communication Models

There is a range of other communication models that have been developed and become popular within the literature and in organisations. These models can broadly be categorised as either:

• Action Models - communication is viewed as a one-directional transmission of information from a source / sender to a destination / receiver. (Shannon-Weaver (1948), Laswell (1948), Berlo (1960).

• Interaction Models - communication is viewed as a two-way process, in which both the sender and the receiver share the responsibility for communication effectiveness. (Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson (1967), Osgood and Schramm Model (1954).

• Transactional Models - communication is viewed as a two-way process but also that individuals are often acting as both the sender and receiver simultaneously. (Barnlund, 1970)

Below is a deeper explanation of some of these models.

Laswell Communication Model (1948)

The Lasswell Communication Model is used to describe verbal communication and consists of five elements and five key questions that when used during analysis can provide insights into the communication between people. The model has been described as a ‘linear model of communication’, ‘uni-directional process’ or by some as an action model, because it describes a one-way process within communication. It is seen as one of the most influential communication models to emerge from the literature on effective communication and you can read more about it HERE

Osgood-Schramm Communication Model (1954)

A model that moves away from a linear view of communication and acknowledges its reciprocal nature is the model developed by Charles Egerton Osgood and Wilbur Schram. Their model highlights the bi-directional nature of messages and how once a listener has decoded and interpreted a message they can immediately choose to encode and transmit their own message. The model also suggests that:

• Communication is complex with multiple stages and influences;

• Communication is reciprocal and equal;

• Successful communication is dependent on encoding, decoding, and interpreting;

• Listeners are active agents in the communication process.

You can read more about the model HERE

Widening the Role of Noise

The Shannon-Weaver model introduced me to the idea of noise within communication but it felt a little limited as it seemed restricted to the channel and environment. The image below attempts to pull together some of the above models whilst also widening the role of Noise to include that added by the sender and the receiver. The idea of multiple noise sources aligns with Dean Barnlund's 1970 model of transactional communication which will be the focus of a future post.

Identifying Noise

During the exploration of these models I was fascinated by the idea of noise and how this gets 'added' to the communication and in turn can be responsible for errors in transmitted messages. The Shannon-Weaver model highlights how this noise can come from the communication channel but the Barnlund model takes this further and suggests that this noise can come from a range of different sources and stages during communication.

Intrinsic Vs Extraneous

My first thoughts in terms of categorising types of noise came from my previous reading on cognitive load (CL) and the separation of intrinsic CL (inherent in the material being taught) and Extraneous CL (Added by the teacher). Could there be a parallel with communication noise?

Intrinsic Noise - characteristics of the message itself such as subject, complexity or sensitivity that may affect how the message is encoded, decoded and then interpreted.

Extraneous Noise - External noise that is added to to the message during the various stages of communication. The communication literature highlights a range of types of noise that may fit this category:

• Psychological - preconceived notions brought to conversations, such as stereotypes, reputations, biases, and assumptions. This also includes the current mood and level of interest of the speaker and listener.

• Physiological - internal factors such as hunger, tiredness pain and external factors such as temperature, physical comfort.

• Environmental - any sensory stimuli (sight, sound, touch, taste, smell) that can potentially impact the effectiveness of communication.

• Semantic - grammar or technical language choices made by the speaker which the receiver may not understand, or cannot understand clearly.

Reducing Noise

Reducing communication noise should be a key goal for us all and especially for those for whom effective communication is pivotal to professional success.

Awareness

We can't change what we don't acknowledge and so the first step is to become aware of the types of noise that may affect our messages.

We must improve our self-awareness so that we can limit the impact that we have during the encoding process. In particular, we need to be mindful of how our psychology and physiology affect our communication as well as how our choice of physical environment and our semantic choices may add noise.

We must also improve our social awareness in order to gauge the level of noise that may be added by the receiver during decoding and interpretation. Alongside the aforementioned psychological and physiological noise that they may be experiencing, we need to be mindful that levels of interest in our message may be variable as could their understanding of the language we use.

Planning

If we are lucky enough to have time prior to our communications then we may be able to protect time for planning so as to engineer out any noise. This is particularly useful during written communication such as by letter or email but equally so for planned meetings and difficult conversations. During the planning process, we must be mindful of any evidence of biases or assumptions as well as any semantic choices that may confuse the receiver.

Monitoring

Over time we may find that our communication is regularly subject to the same types of noise. Regular reflection on the effectiveness of our communication and the presence of any noise may enable us to proactively reduce noise or deal with it as it occurs.

Reflective Questions

• How effective is your communication typically?

• How do you know how effective it is? (Speaker opinion vs listener understanding)

• How much information entropy typically occurs during your communications?

• How good a transmitter are you?

• How good a receiver are you?

• How much noise typically affects your communication?

• How do your beliefs, biases and assumptions affect your communication

• How does your mood affect your communication?

• Do you find your level of interest affects your delivery and receipt of messages?

• How aware are you of environmental noise?

• Do you proactively attempt to reduce environmental noise (quiet room etc)

• Are you aware of your semantic choices during the planning and delivery of messages?

• What is the one thing you could change tomorrow to improve your communication

The Full Deck Fallacy

One potential misconception for both organisations and individuals is the idea of a complete leader, one that has a full deck of skills and abilities.

The concept of ‘great man’ leadership where a single hero swoops in to save an organisation or team has thankfully seen its day (Murphy, 2001) and has positively led to an emerging body of research interested in ‘distributed leadership’ as a powerful engine for change (Harris, 2003).

Leadership competency models have not helped the situation by providing a set of skills or attributes that leaders should possess or develop and by promoting a message of leadership roundness. As previously mentioned, it is often the case that leadership professional development is centered around the development of deficits rather than the enhancement of established strengths.

Balancing this pursuit of a ‘Full Deck’ is the concept of Spiky leaders or leadership. A study by Egon Zehnder and McKinsey & Company in 2011 found that spiky leaders who excel in at least a few capabilities but are average or even under performers in others have the greatest impact on organisational growth. In the study they highlighted the need for organisations to:

• Focus on the leadership competencies that matter most for growth in their context;

• Build a critical mass of excellent leaders;

• Celebrate the extremes – develop and promote “spiky” leaders.

Spikiness

As the image opposite highlights, most leaders have varying levels of mastery within the different skills or capabilities that they or their organisation promote.

This variability creates a spikiness in visual representations of leadership assessment and typically directs professional development towards the smallest spikes.

Rather than seeing this as an issue to solve, maybe we should embrace the reality that expertise does not work in this way. The degree of focus and volume of deliberate practice required for mastery makes it unlikely to achieve across broad skills sets.

As Zehnder and McKinsey suggested, maybe we should recruit and develop spiky leaders who excel in specific areas and accept their weaknesses in others?

Expertise Only!

An important consideration when seeking spiky leaders is the depth to which their differences exist.

The variety of organisational demands and dynamic challenges make it seem wise to strive for a leadership team that contains a variety of expertise but has some elements that remain stable.

Successful leadership teams share a set of core values (internal beliefs and opinions) and principles (external rules and laws) which guide behaviour and shape culture.

Variation between these would not be productive and thus spikiness must be contained to a leader’s expertise (knowledge and skill).

Rounded Teams

As previously highlighted, the notion of a single hero leader has lost traction and organisations are now rightly looking to distribute leadership and to develop a collective efficacy.

As the image to the right indicates, organisations will typically have a range of spiky leaders with different levels of expertise

The goal is to bring together a set of leaders with extreme levels of expertise in specific areas which complement each other to form a more complete knowledge and skill base.

‘We are looking for rounded teams not rounded leaders‘

The challenge for organisations is three fold:

1. Identifying each leader’s spikiness

2. Locating the team’s expertise gaps

3. Developing the missing expertise

Ideally, when leadership assessment charts are laid over each other, weaknesses in one area are compensated by the strengths of another leader. Common areas of weakness should be a priority for the recruitment of new leaders and the professional development of existing ones.

Recruitment & Professional Development

A key priority for senior leaders within organisations should be the the pursuit of excellence and this can be achieved through effective recruitment and professional development.

The recruitment of new leaders should focus on expertise diversity and seek to add complementary knowledge and skills to the team. Values should be shared as should the acceptance of the established principles but at an expertise level, more of the same if not the goal.

Professional development for leaders should not strive for ’roundness’ or the acquisition of all capabilities at the expense of excellence. Clearly where knowledge and skills are below expected levels then leaders must improve but the enhancement of key strengths should be the priority.

Reflective Questions

• How spiky are you as a leader?

• How spiky are your team members?

• Are values and principles spiky between leaders?

• Where are the individual expertise gaps?

• Where are the collective expertise gaps?

• Do you need to recruit to close the collective gaps?

• What professional development is required to close the collective gaps?

References

Harris, A. (2003) Distributed Leadership in Schools: Leading or misleading? Management in Education. 16. pp. 10-13.

Murphy, J. (2001) Re-culturing the profession of educational leadership: New blueprints. Educational Administration Quarterly. 38 (2), pp. 176-191

The Conference Board. (2006) Are they really ready to work? Employers’ perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century. New York, NY: U.S. workforce.