The fifth force slides july, 2013 (1)

328 views
267 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
328
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • I find myself drifting into too much emphasis on 4-D processes because I love them. The maxim in all 4-D interactions with clients is “make it about them.” This slide introduces some practical applications that people will (hopefully) perceive as useful in their own work and broader lives.
  • This is quick review of the only four forces that Mother Mature provides. This sets the stage for the all-powerful “Fifth Force” that is man-made therefore manageable. (Our brief journey into science is just for fun. It goes very quickly, and should be easy for a non-scientist to present.These charts require no technical background, whatever.)
  • Gravity is the natural phenomenon by which physical bodies appear to attract each other with a force proportional to their masses. It is commonly experienced as the agent that gives weight to objects with mass.(FYI – The phenomenon of gravitation itself, however, is a byproduct of a more fundamental phenomenon described by general relativity, which suggests that space-time is curved by the presence of matter.)
  • I assign an arbitrary strength of unity (“1”) for this force. The blue face in the bottom of the panel is “Mother Nature.” Gravity controls matter on large scales. Although this is, by far, the weakest of the fundamental forces, it has infinite range as it falls off as 1/R2. We unconsciously adapt to both gravity and the Fifth Force.
  • This mysterious force, only of interest to physicists, is responsible for the radioactive decay of subatomic particles and initiates the process known as hydrogen fusion in stars. Weak interactions affect all known fermions; that is, particles whose spin (a property of all particles) is a half–integer.
  • The weak interaction has a very short range (around 10−17–10−16m). FYI –At distances around 10−18meters, the weak interaction has strength of a similar magnitude to the electromagnetic force; but at distances of around 3×10−17m the weak interaction is 10,000 times weaker than the electromagnetic.
  • We are all familiar with various manifestation of the electro-magnetic force.
  • It is interesting to contemplate the role of the Electro–Magnetic force in ordinary life. It is the only force with the combination of strength and range to give matter form and to make biology happen. In honor of that role we offer this image.FYI – There are four main effects, all of which have been clearly demonstrated by experiments:Electric charges attract or repel one another with a force inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them: unlike charges attract, like ones repel.Magnetic poles (or states of polarization at individual points) attract or repel one another in a similar way and always come in pairs: every North Pole is yoked to a south pole.An electric current in a wire creates a circular magnetic field around the wire, its direction (clockwise or counter-clockwise) depending on that of the current.A current is induced in a loop of wire when it is moved towards or away from a magnetic field, or a magnet is moved towards or away from it, the direction of current depending on that of the movement.
  • FYI – The strong interaction is observable in two areas: on a larger scale (about 1 to 3 femtometers (fm)), it is the force that binds protons and neutrons (nucleons) together to form the nucleus of an atom. On the smaller scale (less than about 0.8 fm, the radius of a nucleon), it is the force (carried by gluons) that holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons and other hadron particles.
  • A force which can hold a nucleus together against the enormous forces of repulsion of the protons is strong indeed. However, it is not an inverse square force like the electromagnetic force and it has a very short range. Once again, it is of only interest to physicists.
  • The Fifth Force is manmade, as the image of the Great Wall suggests. Therefore you can and must manage it. I assign a strength of infinity as it trumps everything else, and its range is that of human interaction, e.g. most commonly within a team.
  • An introductory slide
  • The upper image is the benchmarking scale for our Team Development (Assessments). Bottom-quintile Fifth Forces put “good people in bad places,” increasing risk, and debilitating team members’ capacity to lead. The Fifth Force, Team Social Context, is far more powerful than individual abilities. These bottom-quintile Fifth Forces exploded Space Shuttles, ruined Hubble Space Telescopes, crashed KAL’s jumbo-jets, and a Tokyo train. You ignore it at your peril!The box on the right indicates how top quintile Fifth Forces put “good people in good places” enhancing team performance, reducing risk, improving competitive advantage, while simultaneously developing each Team Members’ leadership abilities. The image in the upper left is about restoring a company’s profit from 67% of a fee pool to 96%. I did this work myself and describe it in my book, How NASA Builds Teams (“HNBT”) in the introduction, page xix. The image on the upper right is a $500M project, the Solar TErrestrial RElations Observatory, called “STEREO. The name comes because this pair of satellites takes the first stereo images of solar activity. A senior manager asked me to contact the project as it was about to be cancelled. I provided a three-day workshop for the leadership team and my Client Program Manager managed Team Development (Assessments) over multiple years. The two elements of STEREO, a NASA team and a contractor team moved from the bottom quintile to the top quintile more-or-less in lockstep. The project manager (and Deputy) reported their experience that both STEREO teams’ performance and sponsors’ impressions moved in tight correlation with the assessment scores. When they reached the top quintile, they were celebrated as a model of projects excellence. You can read a brief summary in HNBT, P. 54.We frequently learn much of what we know from our clients. A team that was building avionics (electronics) to return back to the moon pioneered large-scale development. They moved about a dozen teams in a 150-plus person organization from the bottom quintile to the top with, once more, strong correlation with the teams’ performance. This happened after HNBT went to press, so it’s not described there. Finally, perhaps you noticed that, even though much more difficult, the Hubble Servicing mission was entirely successful. I learned from my experience of the Hubble mirror flaw aftermath. The fact that the Failure Review Board named a “leadership failure” as the root cause of the flawed mirror slowly got my attention. I had an instinct that I needed to design the repair mission’s social context (did not have the terminology then) for success, and did so.
  • (Note: If you are uncomfortable briefing these next two NASA stories, just skip them – adequate other examples follow.)Top Panel: I drove my car into the basement of NASA Headquarters to find members of my staff waiting for me. Before I could speak, they approached me and said, “Charlie, did you hear? Space Shuttle Challenger has exploded.” They were waiting for me because my Division had a low-cost small satellite called a “Spartan” payload in Challenger’s cargo bay. I wondered, “Could my small payload have broken loose, gone through the cargo bay doors, and destroyed the boosters?” Of course, this is not the case. A “Solid Rocket Motor” booster’s “field joint” failed. I watched Challenger’s failure investigation closely, including the Congressional hearings. My people had worked closely with Shuttle astronauts as they had to deploy and retrieve our small satellite, nicknamed “Spartan” using the Shuttle’s “arm.” I also knew many of the Shuttle propulsion managers well, as I had worked with them on “Spacelab.” They were first-rate engineers and managers.When Board member and renowned physicist, Richard Feynman, one of my personal heroes showed how the Solid Rocket Booster’s “O-ring” material stiffened in his ice water, I erroneously concluded that the mistake was technical, and lost interest in the incident. This is a common error that we technical people make – we assume that all problems that are apparently technical have technical rather that social root causes.Middle Panel: I later read sociologist Diane Vaughan’s 600 page book about the Challenger explosion, The Challenger Launch Decision, (1996). She was “adopted” by the Roger’s Commission, the official failure review Board. She shifted the inquiry to the proper one, asking “Why did they proceed to launch when all the technical evidence suggested otherwise?” Let’s examine the Fifth Force (Social Context) dynamic. The political pressure to launch, launch, launch was enormous. By National policy, all payloads, military and commercial, would fly on the Shuttle, with all other launch vehicles phased out. Launch delays rippled throughout the system delaying all downstream launches. This Fifth Force context caused the launch management team to descend gradually and unconsciously into the behavior she called “Normalization of Deviance.” In this state, behaviors that are deviant in a larger context become accepted and ignored in a local (team) context. (Frank calls this “incremental stupidity.”) Examples include the widespread belief in the US that house prices could go up faster than GDP indefinitely or that discrimination because of race or sex is OK. In Challenger’s case, the deviant social context altered the launch team’s perception. They gradually and unconsciously required a stronger technical argument to delay a Shuttle launch than proceed.Bottom Panel: She wrote, “The revisionist history and sociological explanation presented here are more frightening than the historically accepted interpretation, for the ‘invisible and unacknowledged’ [quotes are mine] tend to remain undiagnosed and elude remedy.” In today’s (4-D) language: A flawed Team Social Context put “Good People in a Bad Place.”
  • Top Panel: In April, 1990, as NASA’s Director for Astrophysics, I sat in the blockhouse at Kennedy Space Center. I had led the team that built Hubble Space Telescope for the past 8 years. Launch day had finally arrived. The Shuttle delivered the telescope to its “nominal” orbit, and one-by-one the telescope’s complex systems worked as intended. I began to relax.When testing was complete we began imagining common astronomical images. The image in the green frame is what we hoped we might see when we looked at a nearby spiral galaxy in the Virgo cluster, Messier 100. (The image is from the telescope after the successful space repair.) Instead, the image we saw is in the red frame. Hubble Space Telescope, NASA’s crown jewel, is useless. Middle Panel: Mirrors like are fabricated with an “indeterminate” process – the surface is measured, then polished to remove the “bumps,” then re-measured for many (~20) cycles. A device called a “null corrector” creates an optical wave front that shows differences from the desired surface. An image of Hubble’s null corrector is on the left. As I recall, the device was several feet high and a foot or so across. The device was thoroughly tested shaping a 60 inch test mirror. Hubble’s 96 inch flight mirror required a simple re-spacing. A technician, working alone, violated a procedure and mis-spaced the “null corrector” by 1.3 mm. FYI – The technician placed a precision bar provided by the National Bureau of Standards in the center of the null corrector to re-space it. The instructions said to spray a metal cap on the bar after spraying it with a non-reflective coating. He could not locate the spray, so he covered the cap with non-reflective tape. He then took his “Xacto” knife and cut a hole in the cap. He did not notice that he chipped off a small piece of the tape. Then, as bad luck would have it, when he tried to center the metering bar, the laser beam hit this spot. Believing that this was the center of the metering bar, he mis-spaced the device by the height of the cap, or 1.3 mm. When the Review Board discovered that this is what happened, my relief was profound. Finally, bad management did not cause the failure, and with the problem solved, I could go back to my regular job, directing the Astrophysics Division. Things then took a turn for the worse. General Lew Allen, the Review Board’s Chairman wondered how an error in a single device could have created an error in something as important as the primary mirror that went undetected. He soon found that many, many measurements of the mirror with other devices (i.e. refractive null correctors) were rationalized away. More bad luck – the spacing error was large enough to ruin the telescope and small enough to be rationalized away by people who wanted to do so. Hubble was difficult technically, and we had an ineffective management arrangement, associate contractors. The project overran repeatedly at about $400M at a crack. My NASA perspective was that the contractors were to blame and rained criticism on them. This Fifth Force (social context) led them to only address technical problems that they believed were real, and there were plenty of these. In their highly stressed condition, they never contemplated that the mirror could have been manufactured incorrectly. The mirror cost was about 0.5% of the overall program cost. Bottom Panel: Failure review chairman General Allen then wondered why NASA’s scientists had not insisted on additional testing of the mirror in view of the suspicious test data. Several of them had worked on ground-based telescopes and understood the perils of spherical aberration. He then made another astounding discovery. The contractor, Perkin-Elmer, had never transmitted the numerous test discrepancies to NASA. We sued them and settled for $50M, far less than the cost of the flaw. When the investigation completed, General Lew Allen, Board Chairman told the Congress that, after 15 years and $2 Billion, that a “leadership failure” was the root cause. If the terminology had been available in the lexicon of the day, he surely would have named the cause a “flawed social context.” Of course, I was leader of the Hubble team, and had been so for the previous 8 years. It was my good fortune that nobody at NASA paid much attention to the finding. Everyone focused on the technical mistake, just as I had with Challenger. Moreover, I was so busy managing the aftermath that I had no time to think much about my culpability. Looking back, the context motivated the contractor to “rationalize problems away with (sloppy) root cause analysis,” and then not report them to NASA. The remedy to this condition would have been incredibly simple. Habituating the first 4-D behavior, “Expressing Authentic Appreciation,” could have, in my opinion, saved seven astronauts’ lives, and prevented Hubble’s launch with a flawed mirror. I wish I knew then what I know today!
  • Top Panel: In the 90’s Korean Air Lines (KAL) was crashing at 17 times the international norms. Things were so bad that the President of Korea would not fly on KAL. This continued for four years. Why do you think finding the cause of this intolerable condition took so long? The reason is that nobody understood the power of team social context to override individuals’ abilities. The investigators kept looking for some flaw in KAL pilot’s individual abilities. Mid Panel: Finally, a subsidiary of Boeing placed observers in KAL’s cockpits to watch the pilots fly. They saw that KAL had imported a Fifth Force, Korea’s Confucian social context into their cockpits. It was inappropriate for the first office to criticize the captain in any way. (The fact that they also had a rank differential from the military exacerbated the problem.) When a KAL captain was driving the aircraft, the first officer chose to “tune-out” rather than risk criticizing him. Sometimes, first officer would read a newspaper or magazine as the plane flew along. It takes two pilots working together to fly a modern jumbo jet. In normal operations, one flies the aircraft and the other operates the radio and aircraft systems. Safe flight requires the full attention of both the captain and first officer, working as a team and crosschecking each other. Each must feel free to say, “Stop” when the action of the other might be unsafe. Bottom Panel: The Boeing subsidiary understood that they had a social context problem that would not be easy to fix. They implemented a clever strategy. Since tower communications worldwide are in English, they convinced KAL to insist that all cockpit communications were in English also. The pilots had to become fluent in English or be fired. This helped keep the Korean social context out of the cockpits. They then taught the pilots how to cross-check each other’s’ actions. The crashes went to the levels of the rest of the industry. For me, the most interesting thing about this is that the problem persisted for years! The reason is that we are habituated e.g., by our education system, to focus on individuals’ abilities. Investigators kept looking for flaws in KAL’s pilots’ abilities which, of course, were nonexistent.
  • Top Panel: During the 50’s, a professor at Swarthmore College, Solomon Asch, began studying a very specific aspect of the Fifth Force, the power of conformity. I find simple experiments most compelling. People were shown a pair of cards and asked which line, A, B, or C was closest in length to the line on the first card. This is so easy that a child could do this with 100% reliability. Here’s the set-up. Subjects are unaware that seven people who report before them are plants, intentionally giving the same incorrect answer. The astounding result was that one-third of succumbed to the Fifth Force, and answered incorrectly. For many years I believed the subjects knowingly chose to answer incorrectly to “fit-in.”Many have followed this fascinating (and controversial) experiment. Recently people repeated the experiment using MRIs to see what was happening in subject’s minds. They found no activity in the decision making regions in their brains. They concluded that the subjects were reporting what they actually perceived. This is entirely consistent with the Fifth Force’s effect on all perceptions. Mid Panel: A flawed “team” social context caused the biggest loss- of-life in civil aviation history. In a difficult situation, big-jets diverted to a small airport at Tenerife Island. The most highly respected captain/trainer for KLM airlines (Jacob Veldhuyzen van Zanten) was flying a 747. When a garbled communication came from the tower, he advanced the throttles for takeoff. The first officer then said, “Captain, I did not hear a takeoff clearance.” The captain scowled at the first officer and retarded the throttles. When a second garbled communication came from the tower, the captain advanced the throttles again. The first officer remained silent, not wanting to embarrass the very senior captain a second time. The KLM jet crashed into a Pan Am 747 that was stationary on the runway shrouded in fog, killing many hundreds of people, the worst accident in aviation history.Bottom Panel: Incredibly, half of the population of Japan rides a train each week-day. The Tokyo railway company punished and shamed train operators who made errors. When an operator overshot the platform by 100 meters, he radioed the conductor and asked him not to report his error. The conductor called in the mistake, and said it was only 8 meters, just below the level of disciplinary action. Then, the operator reversed the train so passengers could move in and out. The train was now 90 seconds late and heading to a station with very short transfer times. The operator approached a sharp curve in the track with a speed limit of 70 KPH at 116 KPH. Realizing the error, he attempted to slow the train with the service brake and the train derailed killing him and 105 other people. He did not use the emergency brake which might have saved everyone, because this would bring (abusive) disciplinary action.
  • Top Left Panel: During the 50’s, a professor at Swarthmore College, Solomon Asch, began studying a very specific aspect of the Fifth Force, the power of conformity. I find simple experiments most compelling. People were shown a pair of cards and asked which line, A, B, or C was closest in length to the line on the first card. This is so easy that a child could do this with 100% reliability. Here’s the set-up. Subjects are unaware that seven people who report before them are plants, intentionally giving the same incorrect answer. The astounding result was that one-third of succumbed to the Fifth Force, and answered incorrectly. For many years I believed the subjects knowingly chose to answer incorrectly to “fit-in.”Many have followed this fascinating (and controversial) experiment. Recently people repeated the experiment using MRIs to see what was happening in subject’s minds. They found no activity in the decision making regions in their brains. They concluded that the subjects were reporting what they actually perceived. This is entirely consistent with the Fifth Force’s effect on all perceptions. Mid Left Panel: A flawed “team” social context caused the biggest loss- of-life in civil aviation history. In a difficult situation, big-jets diverted to a small airport at Tenerife Island. The most highly respected captain/trainer for KLM airlines (Jacob Veldhuyzen van Zanten) was flying a 747. When a garbled communication came from the tower, he advanced the throttles for takeoff. The first officer then said, “Captain, I did not hear a takeoff clearance.” The captain scowled at the first officer and retarded the throttles. When a second garbled communication came from the tower, the captain advanced the throttles again. The first officer remained silent, not wanting to embarrass the very senior captain a second time. The KLM jet crashed into a Pan Am 747 that was stationary on the runway shrouded in fog, killing many hundreds of people, the worst accident in aviation history.Bottom Left Panel: Incredibly, half of the population of Japan rides a train each day. The Tokyo railway company punished and shamed train operators who made errors. When an operator overshot the platform by 100 meters, he radioed the conductor and asked him not to report his error. The conductor called in the mistake, and said it was only 8 meters, just below the level of disciplinary action. Then, the operator reversed the train so passengers could move in and out. The train was now 90 seconds late and heading to a station with very short transfer times. The operator approached a sharp curve in the track with a speed limit of 70 KPH at 116 KPH. Realizing the error, he attempted to slow the train with the service brake and the train derailed killing him and 105 other people. He did not use the emergency brake which might have saved everyone, because this would bring (abusive) disciplinary action. Top Right Panel:Distracted Driving – No matter how skilled are you are as an individual driver, if you enter a context that distracts you, this context places you at great risk.Middle Right Panel:Context – The book, “Training Ain’t Performance,” by Stolovitch and Keeps ASTD Press (2004) is a treatise on how consultants too frequently offer training solutions when the context is the problem. They relate an amusing story about a breakfast restaurant which relies on excellent toast to create competitive advantage. The owner requests that consultants provide training for the waiters, who make the bread.The consultants show the owner that the problem is not training, but context, e.g., Flawed RAAs, inadequate equipment and workstations. They also describe Peter Dean’s research with Thomas Gilbert’s “Behavior Engineering Model” showing that environment (context) dominates performance 75% of the time. Lower Right Panel: Malcolm’s books, Tipping Point, Blink, and Outliers all make the case for context’s potency. He argues that if Bill Gates had been born 5 years earlier or later, we would never have heard of him – Gates success was enabled by the context he was born into. He studied the 75 wealthiest people in history and tied each person’s success to their context. Several Americans became rich because they were born at the right time in the Industrial Revolution.
  • Slide is self-explanatory
  • Imagine that it was beneficial to align iron filings. Would it be efficient to take tweezers and align them one at a time? This is like the training events that I attended as a NASA executive. I went off with unassociated people for a week or two. This was ineffective in creating any meaningful behavior change back at work. These intellectual ideas were incompatible with my work’s Fifth Force (social context), so any changes were temporary. Moreover, I demonstrated little behavioral change so my work’s Fifth Force field was unchanged.Would it be more efficient to run a current through a coil of wire and align all the particles simultaneously? (Forgive me, but I am fond of rhetorical questions.) The analogy is surely obvious. Managing your team/organization’s Fifth Force enhances team members’ leadership effectiveness en masse. You can manage your Fifth Force with 4-D processes, which combine synergistically.Finally, note our definition of a team. It has no requirement for working on a common task.
  • This is an important slide. Consider the first behavior (upper left), “Expressing Authentic Appreciation.” As the down arrow indicates, this behavior sustains a context of mutual respect and enjoyable work. Do you believe that people solve difficult problems more easily when they are enjoying their work? Of course, they do.Now notice the adjacent “up” arrow. The improved context, which influences everyone who interacts with the team, makes it easier to “Express Authentic Appreciation.” The same dynamic is in play for all the behaviors and associated contexts. Thus, we have a forward feedback loop – behavior changes the context, modified context enhances the behavior – round and round we go.Next, consider the (yellow) “Including Dimension’s,” Appropriately Including Others. The images on the left indicate sharing of power, information and rewards. This creates a context where people relate authentically (instead of hiding behind personas) and action is efficient and aligned. People who feel excluded become angry, and disruptive. When people experience a context of appropriate inclusion, they find it easier to appropriately include others.Visioning (blue) Dimension – “Being 100% Committed,” Psychologists call this the “red convertible syndrome.” As participants if they have had this experience. Have they ever thought about a kind of car they want to buy, and seen them everywhere?When I moved to what we jokingly call “the People’s Republic of Boulder,” because it is so progressive politically my friends told me that the national car is a Subaru. At the time, I owned a BMW that was getting old and needed replacement. When I drove, all I saw on the road was Subaru cars, so I concluded that this is what I must buy. There were no BMWs anywhere. I went and test-drove a Subaru, and that was that. No way was I going to buy such a car. I decided then to buy another BMW. On the way back home, I saw lots of BMWs and no Subaru cars, anywhere.During a trip to Shanghai, my client gave us a car and driver to see some Unesco World Heritage gardens about two hours out of the city. The car was a black Toyota. At 5 PM, the driver was not where he said he would be. I became anxious as I did not know how we were going to get back. Even in Beijing, taxi drivers refused to carry people who did not speak Mandarin. Moreover, finding our way to a bus seemed impossible. As I looked anxiously up and street, I noticed that every car was black, and wondered why Chinese only owned black cars? Then our driver finally arrived and I noticed that cars went back to multiple colors. The cars did not change; only my perception changed. At the peak of the trauma of Hubble’s mirror flaw, I, and the NASA Administrator met with the Congressperson responsible for NASA’s budget. She was very angry with me, poked her finger into my chest, and said, “There will never be a dollar appropriated for a Hubble servicing mission. This is just a bad dream that must go away.” I then realized two things: 1) No one was going to repair Hubble, unless I did it; and 2) I had both the motivation and capacity to do so. So, I covertly (and illegally?) reprogrammed $60M, and began the ultimately successful Hubble servicing mission. When I later told people what I had done, they said, “Charlie, what a great act of courage.” I told them, not so, I was 100% Committed and this action seemed completely natural.Directing (orange) Dimension – “Clarifying Roles, Accountability, and Authority,” I like to focus on “Accountability” as it is the most important of the three. Don’t we all need to be clear about what others hold us accountable for doing, and having the resources to succeed? Can you see how much easier realizing this clarity is in a context where everyone else is similarly engaged?
  • Imagine it is beneficial to align iron filings. Would it be efficient to take tweezers and align them one at a time? This is like the training events that I attended as a NASA executive. I went off with unassociated people for a week or two. This was ineffective in creating any meaningful behavior change back at work. These intellectual ideas were incompatible with my work’s Fifth Force (social context), so any changes were temporary. Moreover, I demonstrated little behavioral change so my work’s Fifth Force field was unchanged.Would it be more efficient to run a current through a coil of wire and align all the particles simultaneously? (Forgive me, but I am fond of rhetorical questions.) The analogy is surely obvious. Managing your team/organization’s Fifth Force enhances team members’ leadership effectiveness en masse. You can manage your Fifth Force with 4-D processes, which combine synergistically.Finally, note our definition of a team. It has no requirement for working on a common task.
  • The following are a few case studies. In each case, teams/projects were in near-terminal difficulty when they contacted us for help. I thought that the image “diving catch” fit the situation. The three images below are the activities we address herein.
  • You need to animate this slide to see what changes. It illustrates a conversation I had with my client. He wanted a physical metaphor (my specialty) for how changing who he was could fix the situation. I suggested that he and his customer were “like charges” like protons or electrons. Of course, like charges repel. I told him that he (metaphorically) could change the situation by becoming a neutron.
  • You need to animate this to see what
  • They employed multiple (aligned) 4-D processes to enhance their performance (and customer relationships).
  • The processes were completely successful. The program manager kept his job, profit was restored, and the used TDAs every 6 months for years to sustain top-quintile performance for years.
  • This slide is, I believe, largely self-explanatory. Note: Story slightly altered to protect anonymity and enhance instructional benefit.) We managed TDAs for the major STEREO teams and found bottom-quintile scores for both NASA and contractors. The project manager identified the “Deadly Sins” in play and remedied them. The next TDAs showed improvement into the next quintile and we are now ready for a three-day workshop. Perhaps, the most interesting aspect is that the two geographically separated organizations, each blaming each other, had similar low internal Fifth Force contexts.
  • The project leaders on both sides decided to build a pseudo-leadership team with 12 members from each side to meet the maximum workshop participation of 24. I conducted the workshop, which went very well. We continued TDAs of teams in both organizations and our 4-D Client Program Manager (“CPM”) produced averages for management. (I do not recall exact details, as I did not manage the administration of the TDAs.) I do clearly recall watching the results evolve over time. I was amazed at how these two disparate organizations moved TDA scores up in near lockstep. It seems that, although the teams were assessed separately, they had enough social interaction to strongly influence each other’s assessment scores!
  • As I have said, many times, perhaps the most persuasive evidence that TDAs both stimulate and track performance is the overwhelming testimonials of team leaders who use them. These are from the STEREO leaders.
  • Clients, who are using 4-D process, are our best source of both new ideas and verification (or not) of existing ideas/processes. The Avionics Systems Division at NASA’s Johnson Space Center has been a 4-D stand-out for years. This marvelous organization pioneered large-scale organizational enhancement with 4-D processes.They understood that the most important aspect of the process was that the leaders modeled the eight behaviors. Therefore, like STEREO, they formed a 24 person leadership team, and then participated in a three-day workshop. These people were the first to formally incorporate assignment of action items into the assessment process. Each team selected three they could do within their team, and three that they needed help from outside (e.g. their management) to complete. They were meeting every four to six months to coordinate activities. They allocated a half-day to discuss 4-D assessment results at each gathering. The Leadership team shared their latest TDA result, including their performance benchmark. The others all shared their six action items.
  • They understood that the most important aspect of the process was that the leaders modeled the eight behaviors. Therefore, like STEREO, they formed a 24 person leadership team, and then participated in a three-day workshop. These people were the first to formally incorporate assignment of action items into the assessment process. Each team selected three they could do within their team, and three that they needed help from outside (e.g. their management) to complete. They met every four to six months to coordinate activities. They allocated a half-day to discuss 4-D assessment results at each gathering. The Leadership team shared their latest TDA result, including their performance benchmark. The others all shared their six action items.
  • This is the story I discussed earlier, restoring the contractor’s fee. Read the story in HNBT, page xix.
  • You may think that the image is an overstatement, but it’s not. Not all TDAs go well. The most common mistake is to fail to grasp that what we name as “assessments,” because they measure performance are even more important as developmental tools. They are Fifth Force (team social context) diagnostics illuminating high-leverage, behavior-specific actions. Notice, if you get the architecture wrong recovery is difficult, perhaps impossible.
  • Not all TDAs go well. The most common mistake is to fail to grasp that what we name as “assessments,” because they measure performance are even more important as developmental tools. They are Fifth Force (team social context) diagnostics illuminating high-leverage, behavior-specific actions. Notice, if you get the architecture wrong recovery is difficult, perhaps impossible. Here are some mistakes we made early on:As seen in the slide, crossing multiple teams dilutes (destroys?) the potency of the process. We made other mistakes, all because we acceded to clients requests. A senior executive insisted that I combine a number of teams in a single assessment. The data averaged to the mean, and the sheer volume of the comments was more than anyone could read, or make any sense of. In the end, everyone’s time was wasted as no team leader wanted to act on data that was not specific to their team. Another mistake is agreeing to include outsiders, such as sponsors or customers. There are two difficulties with this course of action. First, there was no new information gained – perceptions of behaviors by team members have never been significantly different from outsiders looking in. Moreover, I have more confidence in the perceptions of people embedded in the team than people on the outside looking in. Finally, outsiders seldom fully engage in the post-assessment development activity. Their inclusion is a distraction.
  • Not all TDAs go well. The most common mistake is to fail to grasp that what we name as “assessments,” because they measure performance are even more important as developmental tools. They are Fifth Force (team social context) diagnostics illuminating high-leverage, behavior-specific actions. Notice, if you get the architecture wrong recovery is difficult, perhaps impossible. Here are some mistakes we made early on:As seen in the slide, crossing multiple teams dilutes (destroys?) the potency of the process. We made other mistakes, all because we acceded to clients requests. A senior executive insisted that I combine a number of teams in a single assessment. The data averaged to the mean, and the sheer volume of the comments was more than anyone could read, or make any sense of. In the end, everyone’s time was wasted as no team leader wanted to act on data that was not specific to their team. Another mistake is agreeing to include outsiders, such as sponsors or customers. There are two difficulties with this course of action. First, there was no new information gained – perceptions of behaviors by team members have never been significantly different from outsiders looking in. Moreover, I have more confidence in the perceptions of people embedded in the team than people on the outside looking in. Finally, outsiders seldom fully engage in the post-assessment development activity. Their inclusion is a distraction.
  • There is a common pattern among managers. My experience is that they want the people below them to work as a team, with much less interest in teaming with their peers. Therefore, they may tempt you to do a TDA when their subordinates are not a team. (Recall our definition of a team, “A group of people, under a leader’s influence, interacting sufficiently to develop common behavioral norms, i.e., a Fifth Force.) I had a case like the one described in the slide (in Australia). The team never completed the action items, as the room full of “Blues” could not stay “on-task” and I was not there in person to force this. IDAs per the chart would have been a much better approach.
  • At this point, the team and members should decide to proceed with their TDA. The middle highlights the benefits of a TDA, and the bottom illustrates the (small) time commitment.
  • I include a few slides explaining what happens in our workshops. Here are a few thoughts. First, I resist scheduling (committing to) workshops until we complete at least one TDA. In our experience, bottom-quintile teams have a social context that is so troubled that learning is very difficult. A typical syndrome is an overpowering need to talk, talk, talk, mostly off-subject. These “broadcasts” are typically “Story-lines” that have been in play at work for some time. It is much smarter for us to work with teams as consultants, find what is suppressing the context (e.g. “Deadly Sins”), remedy the context, confirm with a reassessment, then workshop. Thus, the best time for team to decide to schedule a workshop is during the processing of their TDA report.
  • The following is such an important point that I will make it now and again later. The workshop is to combine your content with 4-D processes to: 1) Enhance your Fifth Force, lowering risk and enhancing performance; and 2) Give you a set of tools so you can sustain your Fifth Force yourself. If you lack the discipline and will to do this, do not engage in a 4-D workshop.
  • You perform three social context diagnostics that you can only do as a group (team).
  • Tell the participants that they will later explore the core of leadership and likely find that attitude is much more important than “skills.” Yet, most leadership training is skills training. The 4-D System analyzes attitude into two manageable components, Story-lines and Emotions.
  • This continues the orientation showing the eight behaviors.
  • Now we illustrate a really important aspect of our workshops. Participants write the “unpleasant truths” also known as “elephants in the room” anonymously on 3x5 cards. We (usually our “second chair”) organize these and type them up overnight. We then form into small groups about the middle of day three to prioritize them. Then, the larger group selects one or more to process as a group with the Context Shifting Worksheet, “CSW.”
  • It you let yourself and others dribble Story-lines that are irrelevant to this method (red circles), you are wasting an important opportunity. We can manage your speaking space – and, we are only with you for a brief period. You doubtless have the same issue back at work, so use this opportunity for you to take Response-ability for your team’s speaking space, so you can continue this when you are back at work.
  • This is a cartoon illustrating the concept of ROI.
  • Imagine an organization with 12 teams of 20 people each. Moreover assume that each team and the overall leadership have two influential leaders each.  One of the most potent aspects of the five 4–D processes is their interchangeability. Here is an example of blending a workshop for the top leaders with TDA for all teams for simultaneous development of the entire approximately 240 individuals. We had a NASA team of roughly this size building avionics for the moon program with teams who all benchmarked in the bottom quintile. Teams who work closely together tend to benchmark similarly. Over two years all the teams moved to the top quintile realizing a performance enhancement of about 30%. Let’s do the math.
  • Here is the best part – you can “mix and match” the processes to meet client preferences, as they are all coherent and synergistic. The colored arrows represent the eight behaviors which are the common link between all processes. FYI – Some years ago I read Covey’s “7-Habits” and was moved. I then attended his two-week workshop at Sundance, Utah. I was very disappointed to observe that there was little connection with the material in the book after the first morning. I determined that if I were to do similar work, all processes would reinforce each other. All 4-D processes align around the same eight behaviors. Top Panel: This is my book. Whereas “business books” make one feel that they are doing something useful, but I think they are nearly useless as behavioral change agents. My book is an entertaining read, and much more useful as a reference manual for all the other processes. Next Panel: These are, of course, the TDAs discussed earlier. Next Panel:Individual Development (Assessments), “IDAs” are very similar to their team counterpart. These are a few of the differences:These measure individuals' behaviors, in contrast to teams’ behavioral norms;The examples in these assessment are, of course, different;While team assessments may include as many as 20+ invitees for large teams, we recommend about a dozen invitees for IDAs;We suggest that first time users include themselves so they can experience the assessment themselves. This will help people understand their IDA report, and take effective action;We also suggest that people include their spouses as invitees. A useful conversation will likely follow when they review the IDA report together;We generally use Individual Development (Assessments) in conjunction with coaching by our International Coach Federation (ICF) certified coaches;We organize IDA scores by coach and only retain coaches who are effective in improving their clients scores, averaged over lots of clients;We urge clients to provide IDAs with report briefings by coaches to all participants before attending workshops;The benchmarking scale is skewed to the right, making the same numerical scores benchmark much lower; andWe track improvements in IDA scores to benchmark our coaches. If you are a coach, we suggest that you track your client’s progress and use these data for marketing to your clients.My IDAs: I can tell you how IDAs affect me, as I used them periodically with the 4-D team. My Story-line is that I cannot be in integrity bringing 4-D processes into the world unless I can benchmark in the top quintile. People who know me in my past know that I have a “black belt” in ass-chewing.When I received my first IDA, I benchmarked in the middle of the top quintile. I immediately scheduled my next IDA. Knowing that this was coming motivated me think carefully about how I interacted with my team. My initial impulse, when someone screwed up, was to think, “How could you be so stupid?” Then, I reflect that an IDA is ahead for me. So, I instead call the person and say, “Would you like to talk about a better way to do this?” I continued IDAs every four months or so for two years, and my scores moved steadily up to the top of the top quintile. I then stopped using the IDAs because there was no longer any need. I had now habituated the kinder, more helpful, behaviors. Notice the image in the third panel from the top. It’s the Context Shifting Worksheet (CSW). Our coaches use it in perhaps 70% of our sessions. I recently suggested to a coach in China that they accumulate IDA results over a year or so and present them to their clients. She said, “My clients want results faster than that.” So is said, “Learn to use the CSW. You can crack previously unsolvable problems within an hour. How’s that for quick results?”Bottom Panel: People love our three–day experiential workshops. “Smiley–sheet” scores average “9” (out of 10).
  • We now look at your costs for an optimized combination of processes for simultaneous development of a large group of people. You can, of course, mix and match the processes to match your client’s budget and desires. Note – I used our commercial prices, set by our US General Services Administration contract. Also, if you decide to do the work yourself you need to account for your internal labor costs. Cost summary:242 Books @ $20 = $5,000 – Amazon charges a bit more for single copies – you should be able to negotiate this price when buying quantities. We provide a copy of How NASA Builds Teams for every TDA participant.65 TDAs (5 for each of 13 teams @ $1,000 each:$65,000 (4-D Provider) –I assume that you charge the same $600 that is our retail price for running an assessment then add consulting at $250 per hour. The early assessments will require more support, and after completing a few the team should be able to do their TDA with minimal help; or$6,500 (Do it yourself) – We “wholesale” TDA reports to people with dashboards for $100 each.312 Coaching Sessions (13 Team Leaders once per month) with IDAs every 6 months – I made an arbitrary estimate of coaching demand. Our clients love our coaches! $70,000 (4-D Provider), or$0 (Do it yourself, or omit)One Three-Day Workshop with IDAs for 24 participants$40,000 (4-D Provider, with IDAs and Coaching) – This includes a number of cost elements: The workshop ($30,000), Presenter Travel ($4,000), Presenter Travel Hours at half-rate ($2,000). I also recommend adding a "batch" of IDAs for all ($5,000), and a coach briefing of each IDA report ($6,000 = 24 x $250), and a second coaching session after the workshop to clarity actions; or$0 (Do it yourself)52 Behavior–focused workshop modules (13 teams, twice per year, following TDAs)$52,000 - 26* $1,000 (4-D Provider) – These are easy sessions of about two-or-three hours using slides addressing a specific behavior. The cost estimate is probably high – and this is just a guestimate anyway, or$0 (Do it yourself) Now let’s look at the participants’ internal labor cost:Participation of ~240 people 65 TDAs x ~1.25 hours each at $150 per hour, or about $300,000.Participation of 24 leaders in a three-day workshop, 24 people x 3 x 8 hours x $150 per hour or about $85,000Most companies have some allocation for internal training built into their overhead structure.  Returns Summary (Over Two Years) (Usually hidden)It might be useful to address some of the assumptions:Employee cost of $150 per hour is an annual salary of $90,000 per year for a US aerospace company with a “wrap-rate” of 3.3, or $150,000 for a company with a “wrap-rate” of 2; (“Wrap-rate” is another term for overhead.)The estimate of 3% per cycle is reasonable given the data on the chart showing 5% performance enhancement per TDA for the teams in the lower three quintiles, as seen in the previous slide. Moreover, it conservatively assumes that the first TDA has no effect; Note that we picked the midpoint of the two-year period of 6% as an average for the entire period. Moreover, the performance boost at the end of the two year period is 12%! I suggest that nothing more than recurrent TDAs will sustain, and likely improve the team’s performance going forward;Recall the beginning slides about how “low-quintile” teams experienced failures from unmanaged social contexts. The benefit is as much a risk reduction story as a performance-enhancement story;Read the testimonial on the back jacket of about how I helped Northrup-Grumman win $9B of business with these processes; andRecall the slides with quantitative evidence of broad-scale cultural change – you could have this in your company.
  • Intro slide.
  • Here are some “Extra Slides” that some of you might want to copy and insert into your presentation.
  • To build a complex system like Hubble with daunting technical requirements, you “flow-down” into subsystems and manage them. To manage the complex invisible Fifth Force, you have to manage the underlying “sub-systems.” To build a complex system like Hubble with daunting technical requirements, you “flow-down” into subsystems and manage them. To manage the complex invisible Fifth Force, you have to manage the underlying “sub-systems.”
  • This is a kind-of-fun slide I made while thinking about the power of repetition:Top-Panel:How did you learn the “times-table?”Similarly, you must reiterate the learning about the eight behaviors being a participant in multiple reassessments.Mid-Panel:In “Outliers,” Malcolm Gladwell investigated the difference between people who were famously successful and those less so. He assembled an impressive battery of evidence that the differentiator was 10,000 hours of experience. This is an amazing argument for the potency of repetition. Bottom-Panel:How important is the repetitive drum-beat/rhythm in your music.Notice that nearly every song has a repetitive chorus/refrain?Finally, notice what we all remember from Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony – dun, dun, dun, and d-u-u-n.
  • Evidence that Performance is Proportional TDA Scores(Usually hidden)People who have not used our TDA process are naturally skeptical about their effectiveness. In fact, our biggest problem is the sloppy and ineffective processes that characterize so much of what other companies in this industry offer. Technical teams have had almost universally bad experiences with other team development companies.  New clients sometimes ask us for hard evidence from our clients that our assessment numbers track actual team performance. I wish that I could find the will and resources for a comprehensive longitudinal study that eliminates all the “confounding variables.” I cannot. Some of these “variables” overpower even the most socially effective teams. These include impossibly difficult technologies, woefully inadequate funding, and the other factors in the “Seven Deadly Sins.” We need a different strategy. Here are some arguments you might find persuasive. People in the trade use the term “face validity” for what we physicists call “intuitively obvious.” Another term is “common sense.” Refer back the chart “Team Benchmarking” that contrasted the context of both bottom–quintile and top–quintile teams. Can you see that the performance differential would be profound?Next, read the reports from our clients in How NASA Builds Teams. Unfortunately, we have many more that we cannot appropriately use. Governments (and many large corporations) prohibit their employees from making statements with attribution that would have the appearance of endorsing commercial entities. Because NASA is by far our biggest client with over 1500 voluntary TDAs, I wish this were not the case. However, that is the reality. Here is something I can relate. On one occasion several years ago, our NASA sponsor, the NASA Chief Engineer, significantly cut our budget. We soon learned that he had cut several other budgets as well, and that he requested e–mails from people who wanted to object to his actions. We were concerned about this because we knew how passionate our NASA clients feel about the work we do, with and for them. My colleague went to NASA Headquarters to confirm his desire. His staff assured us that he wanted us to do this.The next day I received an e–mail from him asking me to, “Call off the dogs.” He had received 160 passionate e–mails expressing strong support for us in less than 24 hours. I reminded him that he had requested this. He then apologized, and sent me copies of his first 30 responses, including the incoming e–mails. I copied and pasted a few in the Appendix. He promptly restored our funding.What do you imagine about project, engineering, and management teams? Do you think they live in constant time stress? Launch delays are expensive, and managers are fired if they miss them. Do you think they would voluntarily undertake team and individual development activities unless they experience them as effective? Look at the voluntary use of Team Development (Assessments) by busy NASA teams. Then, I make what I think is the most persuasive argument of all. I say, “You know, I could spend the next several hours presenting arguments about why you should conduct a TDA – and in the end, you might, or might not be convinced. I have a better idea – why not take 15 minutes and benchmark your team’s performance against hundreds of “peer” teams, saving us both that time?” This works, nearly every time.
  • Choosing Behaviors to Measure & Manage (I frequently often hide and skip this slide) – The choice of behaviors was a core decision for us. I am always more interested in why we are doing something than what we are doing. So, I provide the criteria we used for our choices.  First, since each of the four Dimensions addressees a core human need, we must measure and manage at least one behavior in each. This focus on deep, universal needs also helps our work “travel” internationally. Our deepest needs are the same, transcending race or nationality. Since no Dimension is inherently more important than another, we chose to sample them equally. We initially chose three behaviors per Dimension, and then reduced to two when we understood that this improved the precision of the measurement (see below).  In our early days, we did not have the persuasive data proving the effectiveness of 4–D Processes. Therefore we used examples from broad research and our team’s experience as program/project managers. One of my favorite papers is Gallup’s “A Hard Look at Soft Numbers” by Coffman and Harter. Gallup interviewed over one million employees, in 450 companies worldwide. They found that 12 key areas consistently related to employee retention, productivity, profitability, and customer loyalty. Our inquiry was whether these mapped onto (aligned with) the four Dimensions. No surprise here, they did.  I selected my team of about 15 “Client Program Managers” by recruiting the most highly respected (retired) managers from NASA and industry that I knew. Each of them then confirmed that our chosen behaviors were characteristic of their most successful programs/projects. More importantly, they provided examples of these projects when they talked with prospective clients.  Our early work was almost totally with commercial teams. We began in the accounting industry, and then moved to aerospace companies’ project and proposal teams. As teams used our processes and reported their improved performance and customer relations, demand grew. We caught NASA’s attention in 2003, and won a big contract to reduce risk in NASA flight projects. We had two conditions that NASA readily accepted. First, we insisted that all participation remain voluntary. That is, management agreed to never force a team to use 4–D processes. Moreover, if management wanted, for example, a team’s assessment scores they would get them from the client; we never provide team data to anybody but the team leader. Our NASA client reorganized into the Office of the Chief Engineer, and we placed new emphasis on engineering teams in “functional” organizations. NASA, like most of aerospace, uses a “matrix” organization. We now probably do as much work with management and engineering teams as we do with project teams.  We have now used 4–D Processes more than 1150 teams, 70% NASA and 30% commercial. The imbalance is because we prefer to support our “4–D Network Providers” in commercial arenas. We provide them, for example, free referrals from commercial clients who sign–in to our web site.  The next criterion was whether we had first–rate training modules that had experiential (learning by doing) elements, with uplifting Significant Emotional Experiences (SEEs) for our workshops. These are both important learning stimulants.  Next, did the behavior produce a positive result for people? People will only habituate behaviors when they experience good and enjoyable results from them. The final inquiry was whether measuring these eight behaviors (behavioral norms for teams) provided a sufficiently precise measurement of teams’ social contexts. I used to believe that measuring more behaviors would yield a more precise result than a smaller number. Then, I read a story in Malcolm Gladwell’s “Blink” about diagnosing heart attacks in Cook County hospital, which I also relate in How NASA Builds Teams. Focusing on a smaller number of the most important indicators improved the precision of heart–attack diagnoses. I then worked with our coaches to pare our “12” behavior assessments, workshops, and everything else down to the most important “8” behaviors. Thus, we simultaneously reduced the assessment time for our clients, and improved the precision of the measurement.  Here is a bit of additional insight into the eight behaviors. When you:"Express Authentic Appreciation,” you meet peoples’ universal need to feel appreciated."Address Shared Interests," you enhance collaboration and reduce cross–organizational conflict."Appropriately Include Others," you meet peoples’ universal need to feel that they belong,"Keep All Your Agreements," you demonstrate your trustworthiness."Express Reality Based Optimism," you stimulate creativity.“Live 100% Committed," you alter your perception to reveal solutions."Avoid Blaming or Complaining," you can direct your energy appropriately, and“Clarify Roles, Accountability, and Authority,” you provide an essential foundation for high performance and ultimate success.
  • Here is the best part – you can “mix and match” the processes to meet client preferences, as they are all coherent and synergistic. The colored arrows represent the eight behaviors which are the common link between all processes. FYI – Some years ago I read Covey’s “7-Habits” and was moved. I then attended his two-week workshop at Sundance, Utah. I was very disappointed to observe that there was little connection with the material in the book after the first morning. I determined that if I were to do similar work, all processes would reinforce each other. All 4-D processes align around the same eight behaviors. Bottom Panel: This is my book. Whereas “business books” make one feel that they are doing something useful, but I think they are nearly useless as behavioral change agents. My book is an entertaining read, and much more useful as a reference manual for all the other processes. Next Panel: These are, of course, the TDAs discussed earlier. Next Panel:Individual Development (Assessments), “IDAs” are very similar to their team counterpart. These are a few of the differences:These measure individuals' behaviors, in contrast to teams’ behavioral norms;The examples in these assessment are, of course, different;While team assessments may include as many as 20+ invitees for large teams, we recommend about a dozen invitees for IDAs;We suggest that first time users include themselves so they can experience the assessment themselves. This will help people understand their IDA report, and take effective action;We also suggest that people include their spouses as invitees. A useful conversation will likely follow when they review the IDA report together;We generally use Individual Development (Assessments) in conjunction with coaching by our International Coach Federation (ICF) certified coaches;We organize IDA scores by coach and only retain coaches who are effective in improving their clients scores, averaged over lots of clients;We urge clients to provide IDAs with report briefings by coaches to all participants before attending workshops;The benchmarking scale is skewed to the right, making the same numerical scores benchmark much lower; andWe track improvements in IDA scores to benchmark our coaches. If you are a coach, we suggest that you track your client’s progress and use these data for marketing to your clients.My IDAs: I can tell you how IDAs affect me, as I used them periodically with the 4-D team. My Story-line is that I cannot be in integrity bringing 4-D processes into the world unless I can benchmark in the top quintile. People who know me in my past know that I have a “black belt” in ass-chewing.When I received my first IDA, I benchmarked in the middle of the top quintile. I immediately scheduled my next IDA. Knowing that this was coming motivated me think carefully about how I interacted with my team. My initial impulse, when someone screwed up, was to think, “How could you be so stupid?” Then, I reflect that an IDA is ahead for me. So, I instead call the person and say, “Would you like to talk about a better way to do this?” I continued IDAs every four months or so for two years, and my scores moved steadily up to the top of the top quintile. I then stopped using the IDAs because there was no longer any need. I had now habituated the kinder, more helpful, behaviors. Notice the image in the third panel from the top. It’s the Context Shifting Worksheet (CSW). Our coaches use it in perhaps 70% of our sessions. I recently suggested to a coach in China that they accumulate IDA results over a year or so and present them to their clients. She said, “My clients want results faster than that.” So is said, “Learn to use the CSW. You can crack previously unsolvable problems within an hour. How’s that for quick results?”Top Panel: People love our three–day experiential workshops. “Smiley–sheet” scores average “9” (out of 10).
  • (Note: This is a wonderful experiential exercise which I have used with great success world-wide. If you are briefing a public group this exercise gives them an unforgettable experience. If you are briefing a team leader, or potential client, skip this exercise.)
  • Why not decide to live your life in the beautiful field of giving and receiving appreciation. This is the standard you should to strive to meet and it is the same as in our assessments. You should get a dashboard and run recurrent Individual Development (Assessments) to cement this wondrous behavior into your life.
  • The fifth force slides july, 2013 (1)

    1. 1. Managing Your “Fifth Force” Because (Team) Social Context… …Drives Behaviors, Performance, and Risk Fifth Force #1 – Introduction
    2. 2. 2 Manage Your Fifth Force to: Enhance Your Team’s Performance Lower Your Team’s Risk Develop Leaders Simultaneously As the Fifth Force‟s ―field‖ drives behaviors
    3. 3. The Fundamental Forces Human’s Fifth ForceMother Nature’s Four
    4. 4. 4 # 1 – The Gravity Force
    5. 5. 5 1. Gravity Force Strength =1 Mother Nature’s Gravity Range =∞ We unconsciously adapt to both gravity (and to the Fifth Force)
    6. 6. 6 # 2 –The Weak (Nuclear) Force
    7. 7. 7 Mother Nature’s Weak Force 1. Gravity Force Strength =1 Range =∞ 2. Weak Force Strength ~1025 Range ~10–17M You can freely ignore this force (unless you are a physicist).
    8. 8. 8 # 3 – The E-M Force
    9. 9. 9 Mother Nature’s E-M Force 1. Gravity Force Strength =1 Range =∞ 2. Weak Force Strength ~1025 Range ~10–17M 3. E–M Force Strength ~1036 Range =∞ Many manifestations in ordinary life.
    10. 10. 10 #4 – The Strong (Nuclear) Force
    11. 11. 11 Mother Nature’s Strong Force 1. Gravity Force Strength =1 Range =∞ 2. Weak Force Strength ~1025 Range ~10–17M 3. E–M Force Strength ~1036 Range =∞ 4. Strong Force Strength ~1038 Range ~10–15M You can ignore this, too. That’s everything Mother Nature has!
    12. 12. 12 Teams’ and Leaders’ Fifth Force 1. Gravity Force Strength =1 Range =∞ 2. Weak Force Strength ~1025 Range ~10–17M 3. E–M Force Strength ~1036 Range =∞ 4. Strong Force Strength ~1038 Range ~10–15M Strength ~∞ Range =Human Interaction 5. Social Context Man-made
    13. 13. Observing the Fifth Force‟s Potency Fifth Force #2 – In Action
    14. 14. 14 The Fifth Force: Risk and Performance Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. Explosions, failures, crashes Success, profits, performance Team Development (Assessment) Benchmarking Scale HNBT P. xix STEREO P. 54 Avionics Systems Division
    15. 15. 15 Space Shuttle Challenger – Root Cause? Jan. 28, 1986 – A Horrible Explosion The (common) Fault Attribution Error Carrying a small satellite Altered Perception: Team unconsciously required an ever stronger technical argument to delay than proceed. ―It is unfortunate that…these forces are invisible and unacknowledged.‖ Why? Diane Vaughn In today’s language: A flawed Team Social Context put ―Good People in a Bad Place‖ Launch pressure = Fifth Force  ―Normalization of Deviance‖
    16. 16. 16 Recurrent Overruns NASA Hostility = Fifth Force  Rationalized Test Results Hubble‟s Flawed Mirror – Root Cause? ―The root cause was a leadership failure”Never told NASA “Team Social Context” was not in the vocabulary Launch April 24, 1990 Mis–spaced Measuring Device, the ―Null- corrector‖
    17. 17. 17 Confucianism in cockpits = Fifth Force  Forbidden to correct or criticize seniors KAL Crashing at 17X Norms! What erroneous assumption caused this to persist for years? That individual pilot’s abilities was the problem! Cockpit Observers Crew Resource Management (CRM) – Interpersonal abilities over technical knowledge/skills Safe flight restored
    18. 18. 19 Context  Performance >75% of the Time ―Asch Experiment,‖ One-Third answered incorrectly Tokyo Train, 2005, 106 Dead Tenerife Island, 1977, 583 Dead Bill Gates Industrial Revolution Context (environment) drives performance >70% of the time Throughout history, context has driven wealth (and fame)
    19. 19. 20 Hubble Servicing Mission‟s Context Hubble has operated more than 20 years with 10,000 publications! Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. ―There are no great men – just great challenges that ordinary men, out of necessity, are forced by circumstances to meet.‖ – Admiral Bill Halsey
    20. 20. ―Seeing‖ Invisible Fields First, we need to make this ―Invisible‖ Field visible. Diane Vaughan (Challenger), ―It is unfortunate…that these forces are invisible and unacknowledged.‖ Fifth Force #3 – Behaviors & Contexts
    21. 21. 22 Contexts  Behaviors Would you modify your behaviors in each of these contexts: Giving / receiving a marriage proposal? Fiancé's family dinner? Bachelor / bachelorette party? Hijacked on honeymoon?
    22. 22. 23 Making Invisible Force Fields Visible How might you measure invisible Social Contexts? Measure Team’s and Individual’s Behaviors Observe the field w/tracer particles How might you observe invisible magnetic fields? Social context’s invisible fields drive behaviors (Previous slide)
    23. 23. 24 Alignment & Leadership Development To efficiently align ferromagnetic particles, would you? Or Use tweezers? Use a field? The parallels to leader development are surely obvious. Note: A team is a group of people, under a leader’s influence, interacting sufficiently to develop common behavioral norms.
    24. 24. 25 Which Behaviors to Measure? Intuited Emotional Logical Sensed DecidingInformation ―The right coordinate system turns an impossible problem into two really hard ones.‖ – Undergraduate physics. Dilbert
    25. 25. 26 Universal human needs underlie every 4–D process. 4–D dashboards are operating in 75 countries. ―Visioning‖ – We all need hopeful futures ―Cultivating‖ – We all need to feel appreciated ―Directing‖ – We all need the ability to succeed ―Including‖ – We all need to feel that we belong The Four ―Dimensions‖ ≡ Human Needs Intuited Emotional Logical Sensed London France Malaysia SOEs-China
    26. 26. 27 Physiological Needs: Air, water, sleep, food, warmth Emotional Need #1: Feeling safe Emotional Need #2: Feeling valued Emotional Need #3: Feeling Included Logical Need #1: Realistic, Hopeful Future Logical Need #2: Meet Accountability Expectations Human Needs Hierarchy Self-Actualization Realizing One’s Potential in Work and Life
    27. 27. 28 4 (of 8) Behaviors  Contexts ―Magical‖ Solutions Appear 100% Commitment to Outcome Clear and Achievable Expectations Clarifying Roles, Accountability & Authority Expressing Authentic Appreciation Mutual Respect w/Open Communications Authenticity and Efficiency, Absent Anger Appropriately Including Others
    28. 28. 29 Alignment & Leadership Development To efficiently align ferromagnetic particles, would you? Or Use tweezers? Use a field? The parallels to leader development are surely obvious. Note: A team is a group of people, under a leader’s influence, interacting sufficiently to develop common behavioral norms.
    29. 29. Team Development (Assessments) Enhance the Fifth Force Measure (Benchmark) Performance Fifth Force #4 – Assessments & How They Work
    30. 30. 31 Average Performance Enhancement/TDA Bottom Quintile < Ave. Quintile Average Quintile > Ave. Quintile Top Quintile 53% 66% 70% 75% 66% 71% 76% 80% 72% 75% 79% 83% 77% 81% 84% 90% All 198 teams with multiple assessments (2008) ~4% Enhancement / TDA cycle +7%/TDA +5%/TDA +4%/TDA +2%/TDA +2%/TDA
    31. 31. How Team Development (Assessments) Work
    32. 32. 33 On–line Segment Behavioral Norms Rationale for Your Choices Why Each Behavior Matters Numerical Scores The ―Standard‖ (Criterion) Case Studies What ―good‖ Looks like
    33. 33. 34 TDA Report – Team Self-Development Team Leaders discuss report with members and direct three actions: 1. Schedule re-assessment 2. Decide workshop or modules 3. Assign behavior-specific actions Responsible Action Due Smith, John Develop and Implement our Appreciation Enhancement System 6/28/2012 Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. 57% 68% 72% 81% 6/07 9/07 4/08 6/09 Real ―ABC‖ Team Data Individual’s Perceptions Relatively low scoring behaviors are candidates for action items Addressing Shared Interests Being Outcome Committed Appropriately Including Others Keeping All Agreements Resisting Blaming or Complaining Clarifying Roles, Accountability and Authority Most Recent Previous Assessment Current Assessment Expressing Authentic Appreciation Expressing Reality -based Optimism
    34. 34. 35 Some (Typical) Case Studies We ―saved‖ Teams, just-in-time Diving Catches? Fifth Force #5 – Case Studies HNBT P. xix STEREO P. 54 Avionics Systems Division
    35. 35. 36 You (+ charge) # 1 – Context-shifting  Restored Profit My customer relationship is broken Charlie, I am in real trouble We need a 4- D Workshop, but they won‟t attend ## - This isn‟t about changing them Rather, you changing you! Them (+ charge)
    36. 36. 37 You Them Charlie, I am in real trouble My customer relationship is broken We need a 4- D Workshop, but they won‟t attend ## - This isn‟t about changing them Rather, you changing you! Change yourself from a ―proton‖ to a ―neutron‖ # 1 – Context-shifting  Restored Profit
    37. 37. 38 Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. Context-shifting  Restored Profit 1. Team Development (Assessment), as always 2. Three-day Workshop (~24 participants) Good to Go Shift Story-lines Manage Emotions Express Appreciation Shared Interests 3. CSW & Re- Team Development (Assessment) What you can Authentically Appreciate about the other party, or your mutual (difficult) Situation? Which Emotions (and group) are you experiencing? What Shared Interests can you identify by asking, ―What do they want that I can want for them also?‖ Reaching broadly, whom (person or organization) should you Include to garner support and avoid stimulating anger. What explicit or implicit Agreements have you broken that could affect others’ perception of your trustworthiness? What Unpleasant Reality must you acknowledge and what Optimistic Outcome can you now imagine realizing? How Committed are you to realizing your Outcome – if less than 100%, how can you enhance your commitment? How can you reduce Victims’ helplessness; Rescuers’ weariness, Rationalizers’ anxiety, or Blamers’ (deadly) anger? Have you clarified and communicated your Roles, Accountability, and Authority to all involved? What Green Story–lines support behaviors that take you to your Outcome? (Response–able) What Red Story–lines support behaviors that take you away from Outcome? (Blamer, Victim) What Outcome are you 100% Committed to realizing? (Think expansively) What Situation do you want to resolve – involving people, performance, competition, etc.? Actions & 4–D Requests you will now take/make and are these sufficient? Which Emotions (and group) must you now express?
    38. 38. 39 Context-shifting  Restored Profit Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. Then, recurrent TDAs sustained performance & profit for years Takeaways: Aligned 4-D Processes (Assessments, Workshop & CSW) restored profit and saved the Program Manager’s job.
    39. 39. 40 # 2 – STEREO Project Charlie, ―Stereo‖ is in real trouble Conflict across the two implementing organizations HQ is threating cancellation of this $500M Project 1. Team Development (Assessments) for each org. Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. NASA/Goddard JHU/APL “Sins” = Inexperienced Leadership; Broken RAAs;…
    40. 40. 41 STEREO Performance Moves to Top 2. Three-day Workshop (~12 leaders each side) Shift Story-lines Manage Emotions Express Appreciation Shared Interests + 0.5 years + 1.0 years + 1.5 years + 2.0 years + 2.5 years + 3.0 years + 3.5 years (and beyond) Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave.Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. JHU/APLNASA/Goddard 3. Dual Team Development (Assessments) every ~6 months
    41. 41. 42 STEREO Becomes a Model Project The Stereo Project Manager: ―We went from being the butt of ugly jokes to being a model of managerial excellence thanks to the 4-D System.‖ The Stereo Deputy Project Manager: ―It was amazing, to watch our performance, and our customer’s perspective, track right along with our 4-D assessment scores.‖
    42. 42. 43 # 3 – Avionics Systems Division About 150 people organized into 10 teams We must perform to save the program Top Leaders (2) 8 People 16 People 18 People 13 People 9 People 14 People 11 People 15 People 13 People 16 People 1. Formed a “Leadership Team” Top leaders plus the leaders of all the sub-teams They understood that people mimic their leaders’ behaviors
    43. 43. 44 4- D Processes Applied Shift Story-lines Manage Emotions Express Appreciation Shared Interests - Leadership team shared all their TDA Results - All shared TDA actions - Many were the same 2. TDAs for ―lead‖ & 10 working teams ~24 Person ―Leadership Team‖ Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. . . . . . . 10 Teams All „teams” Scored in lower quintiles They met every 6 months to discuss issues and TDA results/actions 3. Three-day “leadership team” Workshop
    44. 44. 45 Long-term Performance Enhancement All team scores (like Stereo) moved up together. After two- years, all teams were in the top-quintile. Years later, they continue periodic TDAs to maintain top-quintile performance. ~24 Person ―Leadership Team‖ Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. . . . . 10 Teams
    45. 45. Fifth Force #6 – Common Assessment Mistakes Common TDA Structural Errors
    46. 46. 47 Top Leaders (2) 8 People 16 People Mistake – TDA Crosses Multiple Teams Mixed Results No Action Focus Blaming Others? A single Multi-team TDA
    47. 47. 48 Top Leaders (2) 8 People 16 People The Best Method – Three TDAs Segregated Results Action Focus No Blaming TDAs for each Team TDA for pseudo ―leadership team‖ Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave.
    48. 48. 49 Mistake – TDAs ―I want a TDA to improve teamwork.‖ ―New 4-D provider set’s up and briefs TDA report.‖ They were not a ―team; they were geographically diverse entrepreneurs w/ little contact Instead, (coordinated) IDAs for all Invite all knowledgeable colleagues to participate All share resulting ideas/actions Share their benchmarks with trusted others Better – IDAs
    49. 49. 50 Now, Proceed with your TDA? With your team members’ e-mail addresses in the dashboard, we launch your TDA Educate Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. Benchmark ? Boost ~15 Minutes on-line ~90 Minutes to process the TDA Report Fifth Force #7 – Closure
    50. 50. Closure Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it‟s the only thing that ever has. – Margaret Mead, Anthropologist Visit www.NASATeambuilding.com for resources System4-D
    51. 51. Three-day Workshops Fifth Force #8 – Workshops Diagnostics/processes teams can only do as a group
    52. 52. 53 4-D Processes Plus Your Content 4–D Systems Processes Your (Expertise) Content + High-Performance Context
    53. 53. 54 Innate Personality Culture Project Mindset Three Team-Level Fifth Force Diagnostics 4–D Systems Processes Your (Expertise) Content 3 Diagnostics
    54. 54. 55 4–D Systems Processes Your (Expertise) Content 3 Diagnostics Story- lines Emotions The Core of Leadership Mindset (Attitude)
    55. 55. 56 4–D Systems Processes Your (Expertise) Content 3 Diagnostics Eight Behaviors Story- lines Emotions Eight Behaviors Eight Context-setting Behaviors
    56. 56. 57 4–D Systems Processes Your (Expertise) Content 3 Diagnostics Eight Behaviors Context Shifting Worksheet Story- lines Emotions Processing your Fifth Force Elephants
    57. 57. 58 4–D Systems Processes Your (Expertise) Content 3 Diagnostics Eight Behaviors Habitual Story-lines Story- lines Emotions Missed Opportunity Spending Your Time Wisely
    58. 58. Return on Investment (ROI) Fifth Force #9 – ROI
    59. 59. 60 What ROI Would you Want? E.G., for your savings? 110% per year? – 10% interest on your money? 200% per year? – Double your money every year? Can you imagine a return of thousands of percent?
    60. 60. 61 A ~240 Person Model Program Top Leaders (2) 20 People 20 People 20 People 20 People 20 People 20 People 20 People 20 People 20 People 20 People 20 People 20 People
    61. 61. 62 Optimal Deployment of 4-D Processes 5: DIRECTING DIMENSION  Any Drama-states you need to process and exit?  Any unclear Roles, Accountability, or Authority statements or processes? 1: DEFINE THE PROBLEM/SITUATION: • Situation you want to resolve:_______________________________________________________________________________________ • Outcome you are committed to realizing: __________________________________________________________________________ • Your ―Red‖ limiting Story-lines:______________________________________________________________________________________ • Your ―Green‖ empowering Story-lines: ______________________________________________________________________________ • Your experience & expression of emotions: _________________________________________________________________________ Context Shifting Worksheet (―CSW‖) 3: INCLUDING DIMENSION  Who needs to feel included, and how can you ensure this?  What implicit or explicit agreements have you broken that you must now process? 2: CULTIVATING DIMENSION  Who needs to feel appreciated, and how can you ensure this?  What do they want that you can want for them also? 4: VISIONING DIMENSION  What uncomfortable reality must you confront to create the Outcome you want?  How Committed (in %) are you to realizing the above Outcome? Specific Actions/Requests you will now take/make: ______________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________Are these adequate? ______ IDAs with Coaching & CSW Monthly Coaching for Team Leaders w/IDAs every 6 = $70,000 How NASA Builds Teams (Wiley, 2009 All 242 people @ $20 = $5,000 TDAs with Consulting 65 TDAs (5 for each of 13 teams) @ $1,000 each = $65,000Bottom Quintile < Ave. Quintile Average Quintile Teams, First and Following Percentile Ranks > Ave. Quintile Top Quintile 53% 66% 70% 75% 66% 71% 76% 80% 72% 75% 79% 83% 77% 81% 84% 90% One Three–day WS for the Team Leaders & WS Modules for all Teams, 2 x per year = $90,000
    62. 62. 63 Marshall All NASA Average First TDA Scores by Year 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 MSFC All NASA Marshall All NASA Average First TDA Scores by Year 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 MSFC All NASA Quantitative Evidence of Culture Change Then, TDAs sustain the 12% benefit, >> ROI Benefits (~$750K/month) & ROI Salaries for 242 people x 2 years @ $125K (with overhead) = $144,000,000 Savings per 6 months First 3% Next 6% Next 9% Next 12% 6% of $144M = $18,000,000 ROI = 8,000% Investment = $220,000
    63. 63. Quantitative Culture Change Fifth Force #10 – Culture Change
    64. 64. 65 Quantitative Culture Change (1) ~10% of NASA engaged ~20% of MSFC engaged Average NASA First TDA Scores per Year 63% 66% 71% 69% 73% 76% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Average NASA First TDA scores up ~10% Correlation is not causality. Is there another test?Annual increase in first team assessments ~participation! Average MSFC First TDA Scores per Year 61% 65% 73% 71% 86% 80% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Ave MSFC First TDA scores up ~20%
    65. 65. 66 Marshall All NASA Average First TDA Scores by Year 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 MSFC All NASA Marshall All NASA Average First TDA Scores by Year 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 MSFC All NASA Quantitative Culture Change (2) Quantitative Evidence of Culture Change The data suggest organization–wide cultural improvement proportional to your 4–D engagement 20% Engagement yields 20% Improvement 10% Engagement yields 10% Improvement
    66. 66. Extra Slides Fifth Force #11 – Extra Slides
    67. 67. 68 Innate Personalities Cultures Project Mindset Mindsets (Attitudes) Behavioral Norms Unacknowledged Realities Six Fifth Force ―Sub-Systems‖
    68. 68. 69 The Power of Repetition Habituating the Times–table Habituating the Eight Behaviors The Refrain Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony
    69. 69. 70 Histogram of Team’s Scores 50% 100%300 teams’ first assessment scores (Notional process) Fitted a curve Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. Divided into 5 equal–area quintiles  Quintiles 
    70. 70. 71 Two (Contrasting) Team Social Contexts Bottom Ave. Top > Ave. < Ave. Victims/Blamers & Disorganized Blind Optimism & Low Commitment Unappreciated & Conflict Reigns Feel Excluded & Low Trustworthiness No Drama & Clear Accountability Grounded Optimism & 100% Commitment Mutual Respect & Collaboration Feel Included & High Trustworthiness  Quintiles  The context you live your life in is your choice.
    71. 71. 72 49 101 177 284 561 824 1,116 1,345 1,561 1,824 0 1000 2000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Evidence  Performance ≡TDA Scores 1. ―Face Validity‖ – ―Bottom‖ and ―Top‖ TDA teams in prior slide 2. Anecdotal evidence – Read How NASA Builds Teams 3. Voluntary participation by NASA teams (2003–2011) Skeptical? Try a 15–minute on–line TDA, and see for yourself.
    72. 72. 73 Choosing Behaviors to Measure & Manage Addressing Shared Interests Expressing Reality–based Optimism Being 100% Committed Resisting Blaming & Complaining Clarifying Roles, Accountability & Authority Expresses Authentic Appreciation Appropriately Including Others Keeping All Your Agreements Our eight behaviors (behavioral norms for teams) are: – Grounded in core needs by the four Dimensions (2 / Dimension) – Supported by broad research e.g. Gallup’s ―Leading Indicators…‖ – Confirmed by experience – ours and our clients (>1,000 teams) – Learned & habituated with (experiential) learning materials – Reinforced by positive results (feedback) – The most precise Team Social Context measurement possible
    73. 73. 74 Resources at www.4-DSystems.com Three–day Workshops & Workshop Modules How NASA Builds Teams (Wiley, 2009 Japan Taiwan Korea China RussiaBulgaria Czech TDAs with Consulting Bottom Quintile < Ave. Quintile Average Quintile Teams, First and Following Percentile Ranks > Ave. Quintile Top Quintile 53% 66% 70% 75% 66% 71% 76% 80% 72% 75% 79% 83% 77% 81% 84% 90% 5: DIRECTING DIMENSION  Any Drama-states you need to process and exit?  Any unclear Roles, Accountability, or Authority statements or processes? 1: DEFINE THE PROBLEM/SITUATION: • Situation you want to resolve:_______________________________________________________________________________________ • Outcome you are committed to realizing: __________________________________________________________________________ • Your ―Red‖ limiting Story-lines:______________________________________________________________________________________ • Your ―Green‖ empowering Story-lines: ______________________________________________________________________________ • Your experience & expression of emotions: _________________________________________________________________________ Context Shifting Worksheet (―CSW‖) 3: INCLUDING DIMENSION  Who needs to feel included, and how can you ensure this?  What implicit or explicit agreements have you broken that you must now process? 2: CULTIVATING DIMENSION  Who needs to feel appreciated, and how can you ensure this?  What do they want that you can want for them also? 4: VISIONING DIMENSION  What uncomfortable reality must you confront to create the Outcome you want?  How Committed (in %) are you to realizing the above Outcome? Specific Actions/Requests you will now take/make: ______________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________Are these adequate? ______ IDAs with Coaching & CSW
    74. 74. Authentic Appreciation The single most important habit to enhance performance, reduce risk, and enhance (save?) your marriage and other relationships. Expressing Authentic Appreciation Context of Mutual Respect & Open Communications Fifth Force #12 – Appreciation
    75. 75. 76 Unmet Needs at Work ―70% report receiving no praise or recognition in the workplace.‖ — Gallup ―64% of those who leave their jobs say it’s because they didn’t feel appreciated.‖ — US Department of Labor 70 percent hate going to work, or have mentally checked out, roaming the halls spreading discontent — Gallup
    76. 76. 77 What People Most Want at Work About 20% of the workers are giving all they can Another 20% don’t want to give more The middle 60% say ―They would give more to their work if there were more in it for them.‖ What is the ―more‖ they want? They want to feel appreciated. Will this take more time?
    77. 77. 78 How do you name appreciating bosses? Appreciating Bosses? Departing CEO’s of Fortune 500 companies cite lack of appreciation as the primary reason for leaving their jobs. — News Report As one moves up in the organization, are their (emotional) needs for appreciation more, or less likely to be met?
    78. 78. 79 Obstacles to Appreciation Bart Simpson’s dinner blessing: ―Dear God, we paid for all this stuff ourselves, so thanks for nothing.‖
    79. 79. 80 Living in the Mindset of Gratitude ―A thankful heart is not only the greatest virtue, but the parent of all other virtues. ― — Cicero ―I maintain that thanks are the highest form of thought, and that gratitude is happiness doubled by wonder.‖ — G. K. Chesterton ―We are all heirs and heiresses to a society of freedom and plenty that most of us did absolutely nothing to earn.‖ — Ben Stein
    80. 80. 81 Step 1 - Speaking Your Gratitude Prepare to stand up and speak what you are grateful for about… Wait! Do not express Appreciation for an individual now. That is the next step. Now, say, ―I am grateful for…‖ (e.g. the opportunity to work with people as motivated and dedicated as you) Can any of us choose to live our life seeing the glass as half empty, or half full?
    81. 81. 82 Preparing to Appreciate (1) Standing, if they are in the room, look them in the eye
    82. 82. 83 Expressing Your Appreciation (2) Speak directly to them saying ―(Name), I appreciate you for…‖ If they are not present, tell the group what you appreciate about this person
    83. 83. 84 Completing the Process (3) If they are not present, finish with ―And, I’ll tell them as soon as I see them.‖ The process completes when they look you in the eye, and say, ―Thank You‖
    84. 84. 85 3) Completion: The process completes when they look you in the eye, and say, ―Thank You‖ 1) Preparation: Standing, if they are in the room, look them in the eye Appreciation Process – Let’s Do It 2) Appreciate: Speak directly to them saying ―(Name), I appreciate you for…‖
    85. 85. 86 Decide to Live ―HAPPS‖ Appreciation Promptly – The sooner, the better Specifically – The more specific, the better Habitually – Habits are your personal bureaucracy Authentically – Decide to live in the mindset of gratitude Proportionally – Appreciate proportional to their contribution
    86. 86. 87 Appreciate People in Your Life Now! Many words were spoken into the ears of the dead that they yearned to have heard while they were alive. Tonight, begin habitual appreciation before it is too late.
    87. 87. 88 Takeaways – Appreciation Commit to living in Gratitude (Mindset), and habitually Expressing Authentic Appreciation (Behavior): Because this can sustain a Fifth Force (Social Context) of: • Good feelings; • Open communications; • High performance; • Enhanced Health; • While meeting our universal need to ―feel appreciated.‖ Comments or Questions before we proceed?

    ×