Appreciative inquiry, when applied to human relationships,

brings out the best in people,

builds enduring emotional bonds

and lays the groundwork for quality engagements.

The appreciative inquiry model, is normally applied to systems, projects and individual issues to achieve positive outcomes. In this article, RMI  has  focused  the model on human relationships which are always a key component of appreciative inquiry but not always the subject of the inquiry itself.  

Appreciative inquiry brings out the best in people.

Appreciative inquiry is the opposite of problem-solving, and critical inquiry. What we focus on  positive aspects, we emphasize and amplify them.  Thinking the best of people,  brings out the best in them.

Appreciative Inquiry builds enduring emotional bonds.

Knowing  you are valued and your contributions, right or wrong, have meaning, encourages us to show up with positive intent.  To listen to others and provide our responses. We are willing to be less critical of others because others are less critical of us.

Appreciative Inquiry lays the groundwork for quality engagement.

Practising Appreciative Inquiry as part of the culture creates an environment where people are willing to offer more diverse suggestions.  Confident that others will seek to understand, rather than shoot down an idea that deviates from the status quo.

The following definition of appreciative inquiry is from appreciativeinquiry.case.edu:

“Appreciative Inquiry is the cooperative search for the best in people, their organizations, and the world around them. It involves systematic discovery of what gives a system ‘life’ when it is most effective and capable in economic, ecological, and human terms. AI involves the art and practice of asking questions that strengthen a system’s capacity to heighten positive potential. It mobilizes inquiry through crafting an “unconditional positive question’ often involving hundreds or sometimes thousands of people.”

Cooperrider, D.L. & Whitney, D., “Appreciative Inquiry: A positive revolution in change.” In P. Holman & T. Devane (eds.), The Change Handbook, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., pages 245-263.

Ap-pre’ci-ate, v., 1. valuing; the act of recognizing the best in people or the world around us; affirming past and present strengths, successes, and potentials; to perceive those things that give life (health, vitality, excellence) to living systems 2. to increase in value, e.g. the economy has appreciated in value. Synonyms: VALUING, PRIZING, ESTEEMING, and HONORING.

In-quire’ (kwir), v., 1. the act of exploration and discovery. 2. To askquestions; to be open to seeing new potentials and possibilities. Synonyms: DISCOVERY, SEARCH, and SYSTEMATIC EXPLORATION, STUDY.

The way we do our work affects the way other people do their work.

As such, each person is key to the sustainability of the organization.

Twenty years ago, Peter Senge described the learning organization as a group of people who are continually enhancing their capabilities to create what they want to create.  This concept  has been acknowledged by organisations, and yet, is rarely invested in.

…organizations where people continually expand their capacity to
create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns
of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and
where people are continually learning to see the whole together.

The social learning theory of Albert Bandura emphasizes the importance of observing and modeling the behaviors, attitudes, and emotional reactions of others.  Social Learning has become a contemporary label for transferring knowledge between individuals on a peer to peer basis.  Social technologies provide a technological conduit for peer to peer knowledge sharing to occur.

The culture and behaviors associated with sharing knowledge  through social learning are poorly developed. Social learning is done predominantly  away from the machine.  It takes place in the informal conversations, behaviors and activities that inform the culture. Technology supports and captures but true social learning is witnessed and adopted by human observation.

Steve Flinn is  Managing Director of ManyWorlds, Inc., an intellectual capital design firm that delivers next generation strategic advice, research, content solutions, and author of the recently published ‘The Learning Layer’. Prior to founding ManyWorlds,  Flinn was a Chief Information Officer, as well as a Vice President of Strategy of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group, which was, at that time, the most valuable company in the world.  Steve recognizes that learning to learn better is the only sustainable competitive advantage that builds the value generating the possibilities of any business.

Social awareness and learning from experience can now be built into our IT systems and evolve the knowledge within the organisation more efficiently. Engendering the emergence of an entirely new phenomenon, an evolving network of people and knowledge. The result is a system that can recommend the right individual or item of knowledge to the right person at the right time.

Harold Jarche, in his critique of Steve Flinn’s Learning Layer commented,  “The key difficulty I see in the implementation of a learning layer is getting people to use it. As a layer, it is not integrated into the work tools. Even if socially aware systems collect and analyze data and feed these into the learning layer, the layer has to be used by people.”

Tools can only capture what people share.  Sharing needs to be an enculturated process.  If you embed learning into the organisation,  people who want to do their work well, feel incentivised to participate in learning and sharing. Then, you grow a sustainable culture, with people who feel accountable about how they deliver their work.

Learning is always going to be human centric. If you are not enculturing learning in a way that is accessible, participatory, rewarding and sharable; the vision will remain a vision.

Bandura’s social cognitive theory emphasizes the role of observational learning and social experience as significant in building cultural norms. Without creating a culture where learning, sharing and mutual accountability is fundamental, and valued, how can social learning be effectively implemented,  measured or sustained?

What is the value of cultivating robust relationships?

Why bother enculturing abstract  ideas  such as authenticity  trust, accountability and willingness?

The value of laying the ground work emerges when it is time for growth and change.

A healthy culture can be engaged with a gentle hand , build a structure  for the  living network  and cultivate it.

In Fritjof Capra’s 2002 book The Hidden Connections, he describes the gentle nudge a wise manager can introduce into a living system to effect the desired response.

A living network responds to disturbances with structural changes, and it chooses both which disturbances to notice  and how to respond.  What people notice depends on who they are as individuals, and on the cultural characteristics of their communities of practice.  A message will get through to them not only because of its volume or frequency but because it is meaningful to them.

Mechanistically oriented managers tend to hold on to the belief that they can control the organization if they understand how all its parts fit together.  Even the daily experience that people’s behavior contradicts their expectations does not make them doubt their basic assumption.  On the contrary, it compels them to investigate the mechanisms of management in greater detail in order to be able to control them.

We are dealing here with a crucial difference between a living system and a machine.  A machine can be controlled; a living system, according to the systemic understanding of life, can only be disturbed.  In other words, organisations cannot be controlled through direct instructions.   To change the conventional style of management requires a shift of perception that is anything but easy, but it also brings great rewards.  Working with the processes inherent in living systems means that we do not need to spend a lot of energy to move an organisation. There is no need to push, pull, or bully it to make it change.  Force or energy are not the issue; the issue is meaning.  Meaningful disturbances will get the organisation`s attention and will trigger structural changes.

Giving meaningful impulses rather than precise instructions may sound far to vague to managers used to striving for efficiency and predictable results,  but it is well known that intelligent, alert people rarely carry out instructions exactly to the letter.  They always modify and reinterpret them, ignore some parts and add others of their own making.  Sometimes, it may be merely a change of  emphasis, but people always respond with new versions of the original instructions.

This is often interpreted as resistance, or even sabotage, but it can be interpreted quite differently.  Living systems always choose what to notice and how to respond.  When people modify instructions they respond creatively to a disturbance, because this is the essence of being alive.

Authenticity is the degree to which one is true to one’s own personality, spirit, or character, despite external pressures.

Becoming authentic is an ongoing process of self-discovery that includes realizing our personal and collective potential and acting on that potential. Part of the process is accepting  responsibility for our choices and their consequences. The process leads to congruency between our ideals, values and our actions.

Authenticity in the microcosm of the individual,  propagates to the macrocosm.  Our intention to be authentic in every interaction both individually and collectively results in resilient human relationships.   By being mindful of our interactions we enculture authenticity.

Authenticity is essential for  building sustainable communities.  When we can show up as ourselves and genuinely like the people we engage with,  then collectively,  we are better able to adapt,   find new solutions and  flourish in a changing environment.

Individual Authenticity

• Do I think for myself and speak my truth?
• What fascinates me, what potentials do I want to explore?
• Do I own the consequences of my choices?
• What qualities do I value in myself and in others?
• Is my behavior congruent with my values?
• Where is my compass pointing me to at this time?

Authentic Interaction

• Am I mindful of how my choices may influence another person?
• Do I recognize diversity and appreciate the differences in others?
• Do I interact with others with  respect and courtesy?
• How do I extend degrees of trust?
• Do I respond appropriately when a personal boundary is crossed?
• Is my behavior appropriate given my role and the interaction?
• Do I observe and process the results of my interactions?

Authentic Group Engagement

• What is the group formed to accomplish?
• What am I here to do? What is my role? What contribution is expected of me?
• Is there an expectation of mutual accountability – if so what is it?
• What strategies is the group applying to find solutions?
• How will the group negotiate an impasse should one occur?
• How can we cultivate the positive dynamics of this team?

Organisational Authenticity

• As an organisation do we mean what we say?
• How do our customers experience us?
• Is integrity infused in our products? Is quality a priority?
• How is our culture expressed in our day to day activities?

The term Chaordic was coined by Dee Hock the founder and former CEO of the VISA credit card association. He says:

“By Chaord, I mean any self–organizing, adaptive, non-linear, complex system, whether physical, biological, or social, the behavior of which exhibits characteristics of both order and chaos or, loosely translated to business terminology, cooperation and competition”

Most employees have flexible, informal or autonomous aspects of their work such as work hours, information sharing or responsibility for assignments.  Examining how a team currently self manages these tasks  provides insight  into  the underlying organizing principles, intention and relationship dynamics within the group.

Following the principles of the Chaordic design:

• The activities must be equitably owned by all participants. No member should have intrinsic preferential position. All advantage must result from individual ability and initiative.
• Power and function must be distributive to the maximum degree. No function should be performed by any part of the whole that could reasonably be done by any more peripheral part, and no power vested in any part that
• might reasonably be exercised by any lesser part.
• Governance must be distributive. No individual, institution, and no combination of either or both should be able to dominate deliberations or control decisions.
• It must be infinitely malleable yet extremely durable. It should be capable of constant, self–generated, modification of form or function without sacrificing its essential nature or embodied principle.
• It must embrace diversity and change. It must attract people and institutions comfortable with such conditions and provide an environment in which they could flourish.

Successfully moving from control and command to flexible, self organized work teams requires the intention and ability of each individual to understand the principles as outlined  above by Dee Hock and  apply them in a fashion that releases human ingenuity for the benefit of all.

To cope with changes and differences when they arise,  trust, respect, participation and altruism need to be highly valued culturally norms.  It is the quality of human relationships that provides endurance during challenging times.

The altruistic  fashion in which these principles are applied,  from human being to human being, with  respect, trust, sharing and altruistic assistance create the fertile environment where a chaordic organization can flourish.  Learning about ourselves, our relationships with others and how our behavior shapes the whole is key.

It is for this reason that we have integrated into the Relationship Management Institute’s Learning Modules the values, principles and a guiding ethos that create organizational cultures that place human values in the forefront.

In Fritjof Capra’s 2002 book The Hidden Connections he uses the principles of complexity theory to analyze human interactions. In order to be sustainable, the principles underlying our social institutions must be consistent with the organization that nature has evolved to sustain the web of life . In this book he shows how the theoretical ideas of science can be applied to the practical concerns of human nature. He describes culture as resulting from human social dynamics which produces a sustainable system of shared values and beliefs :

Our ability to hold mental images and project them into the future not only allows us to identify goals and purposes and develop strategies and designs, but also enables us to choose among several alternatives and hence to formulate values and social rules of behavior.  All of these social phenomenon are generated by networks of communications as a consequence of the dual role human communication. On one hand, the network continually generates mental images, thoughts and meaning, on the other hand, it continually coordinates the behavior of its members. From the complex dynamics and interdependence of these processes emerges the integrated system of values, beliefs and rules of conduct that we associate with the phenomenon of culture.

For our systematic analysis of social reality we need to focus on the anthropological meaning of culture, which the Columbia Encyclopedia defines as “the integrated system of socially acquired values, beliefs and rules of conduct that delimit the rage of accepted behaviors in any given society.”  When we explore the details of this definition, we discover that culture arises from a complex, highly nonlinear dynamic. It is created by a social network involving multiple feedback loops through which values, beliefs and rules of conduct are continually communicated, modified and sustained. It emerges from a network of communications among individuals; and as it emerges, it produces constraints on their actions. In other words, the social structures, or rules of behavior, that constrain, the actions of the individuals are produced and continually reinforced by their on network of communications.

The social network also produces a shared body of knowledge – including information, ideas and skills – that shapes the culture’s distinctive way of life in addition to its values and beliefs. Moreover, the culture’s values and beliefs affect its body of knowledge. They are part of the lens through which we see the world. They help us to interpret our experiences and to decide what kind of knowledge is meaningful. This meaningful knowledge, continually modified by the network of communications, is passed on from generation to generation together with the culture’s values, beliefs, and rules of conduct.

The system of shared values and beliefs creates an identity among the members of the social network, based on a sense of belonging. People in different cultures have different identities because they share different sets of values and beliefs. At the same time, and individual may belong to several different cultures. People’s behavior is informed and restricted by their cultural identities, which in turn reinforces their sense of belonging. Culture is embedded in people’s way of life, and it tends to be so pervasive that it escapes our everyday awareness.

Cultural identity also reinforces the closure of the network by creating a boundary of meaning and expectations that limits the access of  people and information to the network. Thus the social network is engaged in communication within a cultural boundary which it members continually re-crate and renegotiate.  This situation is not unlike that of the metabolic network, which continually produces and recreates a boundary – the cell membrane – that confines it and gives it its identity.  However there are some crucial differences between cellular and social boundaries.  Social boundaries, as I have emphasized are not necessarily physical boundaries but boundaries of meaning and expectations.  They do not literally surround the network but exist in a mental realm that does not have the topological properties of physical space.

Respect, acceptance, and tolerance are all attitudes desirable in partners, colleagues and significant relationships.  They collectively have the  influence of making each of us feel esteemed, valued and worthy. Respect forms part of our principle value set and is a foundation upon which other values and measures of integrity are based.

The Respect Research Group, founded by several young scientists from different academic fields who wanted to create an environment of excellence for studying the pressing questions around the phenomon of respect, defines it as ‘an attitude of one human versus another, in which the first recognizes in the latter a reason which justifies in itself that the other should be recognized and treated in a way so that he/she feels acknowledged in value and significance’. Regardless of our individual values and convictions, it is paramount that the people around us treat us with respect, compassion and integrity and that we reciprocate in kind.

In 2007, a research team led by Oregon doctoral candidate, Eda Gurel-Atay, commissioned a survey in which 1,500 Americans were asked to rate the importance of eight social values, and to identify the one they considered most important. They compared the results with those from similar surveys taken in 1976 and 1986. Self-respect led the list in all three surveys, with a greater percentage of Americans ranking it as the most important value with each new survey. By 2007, 28.8 percent ranked it No. 1, compared to 21.1 percent in 1976 and 23.0 in 1986.

The basis for mutual respect is acknowledging, appreciating and reinforcing the values that are commonly identified as beneficial to any relationship, social or professional . The values of self-respect (“to be proud of yourself and confident in who you are”), security (“to be safe and protected from misfortune and attack”), warm relationships with others along a sense of accomplishment, self-fulfillment, being well-respected, a sense of belonging and fun were rated as significant.

A personal and/or cultural value is an absolute or relative ethical value, the assumption of which can be the basis for ethical action. A value system is a set of consistent values and measures. In today’s challenging business economy,  workable, trusting, professional associations with people, who know your business value and credentials, is a lot more valuable because of the referral relationship capital impact. Diverse workforces often challenge our cultural conditioning in relation to our views on gender, race, age and other religious persuasions, reflecting our personal prejudices. Harnessing the power of mutual respect and cross-cultural understanding is a sign of maturation and wisdom, emerging from internal scrutiny of a personal value set. Organisations who adopt cultural normatives that require common courtesies to be honoured amongst colleagues find that soft skill training does much to improve collegial relations. Neil Chalofsky’s article ‘Meaningful Workplaces; Reframing How and Where we Work’ has a chapter on Values-Based Organizational Culture that clearly identifies the benefits of respectful attitudes at work.

Picture courtesy of Johnson Controls: www.globalworkplaceinnovation.com
For The Smart Work Company: www.thesmartworkcompany.com

Eric Fernandez of The Royal Society of Account Planning has produced a visual study guide for cognitive bias.

You can download the PDF here http://www.mediafire.com/?rizzmmdn1bi

The list of  social cognitive biases was sourced from the wikipedia article where you can click on each bias for details

• Actor-observer bias – the tendency for explanations of other individuals’ behaviors to overemphasize the influence of their personality and underemphasize the influence of their situation (see also fundamental attribution error). However, this is coupled with the opposite tendency for the self in that explanations for our own behaviors overemphasize the influence of our situation and underemphasize the influence of our own personality.
• Dunning–Kruger effect – a two-fold bias. On one hand the lack of metacognitive ability deludes people, who overrate their capabilities. On the other hand, skilled people underrate their abilities, as they assume the others have a similar understanding.
• Egocentric bias – occurs when people claim more responsibility for themselves for the results of a joint action than an outside observer would.
• Forer effect (aka Barnum effect) – the tendency to give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. For example, horoscopes.
• False consensus effect – the tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which others agree with them.
• Fundamental attribution error – the tendency for people to over-emphasize personality-based explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing the role and power of situational influences on the same behavior (see also actor-observer bias, group attribution error, positivity effect, and negativity effect).
• Halo effect – the tendency for a person’s positive or negative traits to “spill over” from one area of their personality to another in others’ perceptions of them (see also physical attractiveness stereotype).
• Herd instinct – common tendency to adopt the opinions and follow the behaviors of the majority to feel safer and to avoid conflict.
• Illusion of asymmetric insight – people perceive their knowledge of their peers to surpass their peers’ knowledge of them.
• Illusion of transparency – people overestimate others’ ability to know them, and they also overestimate their ability to know others.
• Illusory superiority – overestimating one’s desirable qualities, and underestimating undesirable qualities, relative to other people. (Also known as “Lake Wobegon effect,” “better-than-average effect,” “superiority bias,” or “Dunning-Kruger effect”).
• Ingroup bias – the tendency for people to give preferential treatment to others they perceive to be members of their own groups.
• Just-world phenomenon – the tendency for people to believe that the world is just and therefore people “get what they deserve.”
• Notational bias – a form of cultural bias in which the notational conventions of recording data biases the appearance of that data toward (or away from) the system upon which the notational schema is based.
• Outgroup homogeneity bias – individuals see members of their own group as being relatively more varied than members of other groups.
• Projection bias – the tendency to unconsciously assume that others share the same or similar thoughts, beliefs, values, or positions.
• Self-serving bias (also called “behavioral confirmation effect”) – the tendency to claim more responsibility for successes than failures. It may also manifest itself as a tendency for people to evaluate ambiguous information in a way beneficial to their interests (see also group-serving bias).
• Self-fulfilling prophecy – the tendency to engage in behaviors that elicit results which will (consciously or not) confirm existing attitudes.^[12]
• System justification – the tendency to defend and bolster the status quo. Existing social, economic, and political arrangements tend to be preferred, and alternatives disparaged sometimes even at the expense of individual and collective self-interest. (See also status quo bias.)
• Trait ascription bias – the tendency for people to view themselves as relatively variable in terms of personality, behavior and mood while viewing others as much more predictable.
• Ultimate attribution error – similar to the fundamental attribution error, in this error a person is likely to make an internal attribution to an entire group instead of the individuals within the group.

Company culture is defined as the ‘distinctive personality of the organization’.

How individual behaviour impacts the working environment reveals and reflects the accepted culture.  Through attitudes about teamwork, problem solving, customer service, productivity, and quality, what is revealed is the embedded nature of ‘how things get done around here’.  It is a company’s culture that makes it possible for a person, division or the whole company to address concerns, celebrate success and innovate collectively.   A poorly informed culture is often the source of people-related problems such as communication, motivation, morale, absenteeism and, finally, retention. Because the company culture influences everything and everyone in it, a well-developed company culture creates positive changes and improve the triple bottom line.

Most company cultures are poorly cultivated

Gallup provided a glimpse of the national picture of company cultures in a poll of U.S. companies reported in USA Today, 5/20/2001:

26 percent of employees are actively engaged in their jobs.
55 percent of employees have no enthusiasm for their work.
19 percent are so uninterested or negative about their work that they poison the workplace to the point that companies might be better off if they called in sick.

Apparently 74 (55 + 19) percent of employees work in poorly developed company cultures.
A number of studies have found that high-performing companies tend to have high rates of employee engagement.  Work satisfaction plays a big role in organisational cultural development. The two-factor theory (also known as Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory) developed by Frederick Herzberg, a psychologist, found that job satisfaction and job dissatisatifaction are calibrated by a number of clear factors. The top six factors causing dissatisfaction and the top six factors causing satisfaction, are listed here in the order of higher to lower importance:

Leading to satisfaction

Achievement
Recognition
Work itself
Responsibility
Advancement
Growth

Leading to dissatisfaction

Company policy
Supervision
Relationship with boss
Work conditions
Salary
Relationship with peers
Security

The Meridian Group, experts in aiding the maturity of organisational culture, developed an excellent internal survey to get a sense of employee satisfaction:

This is not a test. There are no right or wrong answers. Answer how you personally feel about the statement in your present job, not how you think it “should” be. Circle a number for each question.

1=No, 2=Mostly No, 3=Not Sure or Uncertain, 4=Mostly Yes, 5=Yes.

People

1 2 3 4 5 Do you feel useful and productive?

1 2 3 4 5 Can you be creative?

1 2 3 4 5 Do you see endless opportunities for improvements?

1 2 3 4 5 Do you know how you fit into the big picture?

1 2 3 4 5 Do you feel you belong?

1 2 3 4 5 Are you valued for your work and contributions?

1 2 3 4 5 Do you have fun?

1 2 3 4 5 Are you well managed?

1 2 3 4 5 Are relationships at work mature and non-political?

1 2 3 4 5 Do you have enough information to make good decisions?

Culture

1 2 3 4 5 People bring their full energy and creativity.

1 2 3 4 5 This is a powerful company that engages employee’s hearts and minds.

1 2 3 4 5 Procedures here are designed with real people in mind.

1 2 3 4 5 Relationships and communications are fine.

1 2 3 4 5 Senior managers keep in mind their early work experiences.

1 2 3 4 5 Power and control is widely shared.

1 2 3 4 5 I am involved in decisions that affect me.

1 2 3 4 5 The company is open to challenges, suggestions, and change.

Leadership

1 2 3 4 5 Leaders here put people first.

1 2 3 4 5 Leaders here are good coaches.

1 2 3 4 5 Leaders here ask people how they can help them.

1 2 3 4 5 Leaders here set a clear direction—“This is where we are going.”

1 2 3 4 5 Leaders here celebrate and recognize and reward desired behavior.

1 2 3 4 5 Leaders here give everyone background information, the big picture.

1 2 3 4 5 Leaders here protect people from abuse from the system above them.

1 2 3 4 5 Leaders here make cooperative, team decisions.

Earning the loyalty of your employees is done by making them feel valued.
Could your staff answer these questions positively? Creating a good employment relationship to foster trust and value makes employees feel respected, they perform better and respect their bosses and the company in return. It takes time, investment and effort to build a thriving company where all employees feel engaged in the overall success and the rewards are worth it. The benefits of a cohesive corporate culture are retention and productivity, a stable workforce, improved customer service, and, inevitably, improved bottom line.

Daniel Goleman authored the internationally best-selling book,  Emotional Intelligence, (1995, Bantam Books),  that spent more than one-and-a-half years on the New York Times Best Seller list. Goleman developed the argument that non-cognitive skills can matter as much as I.Q. for workplace success in “Working with Emotional Intelligence” (1998, Bantam Books), and for leadership effectiveness in “Primal Leadership” (2001, Harvard Business School Press). Goleman’s most recent best-seller is Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships , (2006, Bantam Books).

Daniel Goleman’s interview was recorded on December 10, 2007, at the CASEL Forum, an event in New York City that brought together seventy-five global leaders in education and related fields to raise awareness about social and emotional learning (SEL) and introduce important scientific findings related to SEL.
CASEL is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization that works to advance the science and evidence-based practice of social and emotional learning (SEL).

Roger Martin is the Dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto in Canada and the author of The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage (Harvard Business Press, 2009).In 2009, he was named one of the top 50 management thinkers in the world by The Times of London and in 2007 he was named a Business Week ‘B-School All-Star’ for being one of the 10 most influential business professors in the world. So when he writes, people listen and I certainly hope they are paying attention to his latest article.

Roger has embarked upon declaring the dysfunctionality of corporate life and all its ramifications.  The article entitled ‘Why modern business is bad for your mental health’ speaks specifically to the financial world but could equally find its measure when applied to any major corporation culture.

‘After all, within the course of a single decade, we had the Enron/Worldcom/Tyco/Global Crossing/Adelphia accounting scandal, the options backdating scandal, and the sub-prime mortgage scandal. This is not an accident. This is the direct result of the rules of the unhealthy community we have created.’

Many of us who have left corporate life,  jumped rather than be pushed for the very reasons he highlights. The discrepancies of personal values tallied against the inappropriate demands of a business that put profits before people.  He even embarks of outlining the possibilities of a ‘healthy culture’:

Think about it. A healthy community:

• Believes in reciprocity rather than exploitation.
• Believes in long-term relationships rather than one-off encounters.
• Protects its weakest members rather than targeting them for gouging.
• Worries about the externalities it creates rather than turning a blind eye to them.
• Discourages its members from playing games that endanger the community rather than encouraging them.

What serendipity.  RMI sets it’s very raison d’etre towards fulfilling these considerations and so I shall be paying close attention to further follow ups promised from Mr Martin pursuing this objective. Authentic cultural change includes changing people’s attitudes, values and beliefs about their work and the workplace is a gradual, evolutionary process requiring careful planning and follow-through.

Gareth Morgan describes organizational culture as: “The set of the set of beliefs, values, and norms, together with symbols like dramatized events and personalities, that represents the unique character of an organization, and provides the context for action in it and by it.” Beliefs and values are translated into behaviours and accepted working practices, in turn, manifesting the cultural climate. Culture has a powerful reach infusing the business with an intangible sense that impacts the customer. It bodes well to invest in creating healthy values that all personnel can adopt with purpose, passion and pride.

According to results of a Workforce Profile, (source: http://www.workforce.com/), a valuable employee is one who will grow and learn as the business changes. Soft Skills are defined as all the skills other than technical skills required for a building a successful career. Research has indicated that whilst technical skills account for only 15% , apparently soft skills fuel 85% of a person’s productivity especially in the context of the current stressful business environment. The study analyzed careers of successful businessmen, managers, professionals, salespeople and points out that there are critical key skills required for each professional track which appears to augment retention and job satisfaction.

In the report soft skills are considered “are as important, if not more important, than traditional hard skills to an employer looking to hire regardless of industry or job type. This could offer a major breakthrough as educators and training providers seek to develop and cluster training courses to fit business and industry needs.”

Top 60 soft skills

The Workforce Profile defined about 60 “soft skills”, which employers seek. They are applicable to any field of work, according to the study, and are the “personal traits and skills that employers state are the most important when selecting employees for jobs of any type.”

1. Math.
2. Safety.
3. Courtesy.
4. Honesty.
5. Grammar.
6. Reliability.
7. Flexibility.
8. Team skills.
9. Eye contact.
10. Cooperation.
11. Adaptability.
12. Follow rules.
13. Self-directed.
14 Good attitude.
15. Writing skills.
16. Driver’s license.
17. Dependability.
18. Advanced math.
19. Self-supervising.
20. Good references.
21. Being drug free.
22. Good attendance.
23. Personal energy.
24. Work experience.
25. Ability to measure.
26. Personal integrity.
27. Good work history.
28. Positive work ethic.
29. Interpersonal skills.
30. Motivational skills.
31. Valuing education.
32. Personal chemistry.
33. Willingness to learn.
34. Common sense.
35. Critical thinking skills.
36. Knowledge of fractions.
37. Reporting to work on time.
38. Use of rulers and calculators.
39. Good personal appearance.
40. Wanting to do a good job.
41. Basic spelling and grammar.
42. Reading and comprehension.
43. Ability to follow regulations.
44. Willingness to be accountable.
45. Ability to fill out a job application.
46. Ability to make production quotas.
47. Basic manufacturing skills training.
48. Awareness of how business works.
49. Staying on the job until it is finished.
50. Ability to read and follow instructions.
51. Willingness to work second and third shifts.
52. Caring about seeing the company succeed.
53. Understanding what the world is all about.
54. Ability to listen and document what you have heard.
55. Commitment to continued training and learning.
56. Willingness to take instruction and responsibility.
57. Ability to relate to coworkers in a close environment.
58. Not expecting to become a supervisor in the first six months.
59. Willingness to be a good worker and go beyond the traditional eight-hour day.
60. Communication skills with public, fellow employees, supervisors, and customers.

How many soft skills do you possess?

When it comes to taking soft skills seriously is that most bosses think they are just about ‘touchy-feely’ people skills. Soft skills are powerful in creating great workplace environments, happier relationships and better communications. Encompassing listening, sharing with clarity, heightened awareness, both personal and communal, we raise the bar on being self motivated and professionally respected as a value to any team. In a world where getting, keeping and succeeding at work is imperative, anything we invest in that can make us irreplaceable has to be worth learning. Good leaders are forged from the fire of engagement at every level of the business rockface. Great CEO’s build on the strength of their people. The dot’s aren’t difficult to connect.

Among Peggy’s important workplace lessons are the following:

•Knowing yourself is as important as knowing how to do the job.
•Learn when to stick and when to shift or the details will hang you.
•Your procrastination is trying to tell you something.
•Get smart about asking dumb questions.
•You don’t need to be everyone’s best friend—that’s what dogs are for.
•Know where to draw the line between self-improvement and self-destruction.
•When it comes to gossip, learn the art of deflection.
•Keep your visibility when you’re not face-to-face.
•Don’t take it personally.
•Stop stereotypes from sinking you.
•You’re the boss, stupid, that’s why they hang on your every word.

And, perhaps, most favorite of all: Get out of your own way.

Peggy Klaus reveals The Hard Truth About Soft Skills: Workplace Lessons Smart People Wish They’d Learned Sooner (Collins, January 2008). Peggy is a world class communicator who understands why important soft core competencies are invariably ignored and reveals the fact that soft skills can be the key to enduring success.

The characteristics of trustworthiness include integrity, reliability, fairness, caring, openness, reciprocality and, within appropriate caveats that does not transgress a core value set, loyalty. Organizations and institutional policies might promote a culture of trust by promoting open communication, by modeling behaving in socially responsible and ethical ways to every employee.

According to Charles Green, creator of the Trust Equation, ‘the way we use the Trust Creation Process model is really just outcomes of the principles we hold.’ What I understand Charles to impute, it that who we are and what values we hold to be true, informs how we engage and behave with others across the board.

Green maintains that the only way to become trusted is to act consistently from a set of core principles and the four specific principles governing trustworthy behavior that he cites are:

1) A focus on the Other (client, customer, internal co-worker, boss, partner, subordinate) for the Other’s sake, not just as a means to one’s own ends.

We often hear “client-focus,” or “customer-centric.” But these are terms all-too-often framed in terms of economic benefit to the person trying to be trusted.

2) A collaborative approach to relationships.

Collaboration here means a willingness to work together, creating both joint goals and joint approaches to getting there.

3) A medium to long term relationship perspective, not a short-term transactional focus.

Focus on relationships nurtures transactions; but focus on transactions chokes off relationships. The most profitable relationships for both parties are those where multiple transactions over time are assumed in the approach to each transaction.

4) A habit of being transparent in all one’s dealings.

Transparency has the great virtue of helping recall who said what to whom. It also increases credibility, and lowers self-orientation, by its willingness to keep no secrets.

According to Green, applying these principles to all of our actions will develop the fullest potential of trust that bonds and binds relationships, and thereby, builds longevity and reward born from such a strong tie.

As this erudite research on trust reveals, ‘Trust has several beneficial effects. It helps build teams, where trust acts as a bond of tying people together. It reduces energy otherwise required for controls. It helps in cases of conflict. Overall, it reduces task complexity.’

The benefits trust rewards us with professionally, socially and personally, are worthy of our time, attention and investment to explore, accomodate and demonstrate. Make no mistake. your ‘relationship capital’ is being accounted for with every interaction, so it is a wise person that conducts themselves with every meritricious endeavour of creating relationships bound and bonded in trust.

Performance typology

Defining the key competencies and behaviours of an effective manager includes the ability to inspire high levels of teamwork, and the qualities that are exemplifed in values, ethics, character, knowledge and demonstrated in superior people skills. Often managers are promoted without sufficient grooming or training to take on the roles that allow them to navigate the complexities of individual, team and hierarchical interactions Competencies are the outcome of being appropriately qualified to perform a task and are observable or measurable skills, knowledge, and abilities.Knowles (1975) uses the following typology for competencies:

• Knowledge
• Understanding
• Skill
• Attitude
• Value

These benchmark the distinguishing standards between superior and other performers and are requisite in managers who are frequently the role models to employees and therefore inform the culture enfranchised organisationally. Time invested in training in soft skills competencies provide tangible bottom line results.

In the new knowledge economy, encouraging initiative is needed throughout the ranks. Involvement in an organization is no longer optional. A manager can work towards engaging personnel to achieve its objectives and increase the triple bottom line. The new ‘knowledge-centric’ enterprises are characterized by flattened hierarchies and multi-tasked workforce. Managers are assuming more leadership and coaching tasks and must work harder to provide employees with resources and working conditions they need to accomplish the goals they are hired to fulfill. Mining the talent by empowering human capital is now the prime focus of organizational success. A critical feature of knowledge-based enterprises is that they are invested with a significant culture of empowerment, or decision-making authority. Communication is vital to stimulate a creative workplace in a mature, seasoned culture and creativity in communication is key to implementing a high performance culture. In brief, managers now work for their staff, and not the reverse. Employee empowerment shifts managers’ mind-set and affording them with more time to engage in implementing agile decisions and keeping their eye on critical issues that require immediate action.

The value of a business increasingly lurks

not in physical and financial assets that

are on the balance sheet, but in intangibles.

—The Economist, June 12, 1999

The reputation of your business is what precedes it in the marketplace, be you service or product. Building a reputation based on customer centric service, standing by your brand promise and placing an emphasis on happy customers sows dividends in the short and long term. Businesses and organizations must manage their reputation by communicating with their clients and customers and management must embody honesty, fairness, responsiveness and consistency in dealing, conducting business in a manner that ensures long-term success. People are loyal to companies they feel good about.

How you deal with employees and customers creates the reputation you develop.They are key to the success of every business. Many companies fail to understand the importance of developing and maintaining a consistent reputation as trusted, reliable and treats everyone fairly. The culture of the organization informs the perceptions of the public at large and learning how to assess what kind of reputation your organization has improve upon your approach each employee, customer and client, each of whom has an influential ability to impact the reputation for better or worse.

If the reputation of an organization is tarnished, it is a lengthy and expensive job to shift negative perceptions that have been created by the key constituencies. Management must strive to communicate clearly to employees a culture where they expect them to treat each other and everyone they come in contact with while representing the company in a manner that is consistent with the brand values. When employees deviate, it is important to re inforce those expectations and that behaving in a manner inconsistent with the culture is unacceptable as the values and perspectives build the reputation perception.