The Danger of Artificial Harmony

In his book The Advantage, Patrick Lencioni refers to the organizational problem of artificial harmony.  He argues that 80% of organizations live in the space of artificial harmony – the space where people cannot, may not (!), speak honestly or authentically about their perspective regarding all manner of things in organizational life.        

According to Lencioni, the impact of artificial harmony is that people end up not buying into organizational decisions.  This absolutely has been my experience.     
 

But there is another angle of artificial harmony that Lencioni refers to that is worth exploring further.  Organizations that live in artificial harmony typically do not live only there.  Instead, they ricochet between artificial harmony and mean-spirited personal attacks (see the diagram above).  When people cannot be honest with one another, they are left to their imaginations to determine the intentions of the other.  Here our imaginations do not help us. 

When we are not permitted to speak into a situation that impacts us, when we are constrained by artificial harmony, when the actions of another have shut us down, it is easy to see the other in a negative light to the degree that even if we maintain artificial harmony publicly, privately we slide into mean spirited personal attacks. 
  

Neither end of the continuum above leads to organizational health.
The ideal conflict point lies between artificial harmony and mean-spirited personal attacks.   From this place we can disagree honestly, passionately and yes, even kindly with one another.  This is not about inviting tepid engagement.  It is also not about being so direct we are hurtful.  This is about inviting active engagement and nurturing healthy disagreement, recognizing that the most useful wisdom typically emerges from dialogue about differences rather than agreement reached too easily. 

Leadership & the Capacity to Tolerate Pain

In today’s culture we hear a lot about leadership and in many ways live under the assumption that all people must aspire to some level of leadership in their lives.  Leadership does come with its benefits:  Permission is given to have influence; there is a measure of prestige and increased pay associated with leadership; leaders navigate change and shepherd visions; leadership can be a fun ride...  Often, it is also painful.  In fact, church consultant Peter Steinke states that leadership must include the capacity to tolerate pain.  This is true not only in the church world; it is also true in the business world.   We don’t hear much about this reality in leadership literature yet most leaders with whom I speak agree that pain and its partner, loneliness, are a part of the leader’s job description. 

One of the “greatest hit” articles in the Harvard Business Review is entitled Level 5 Leadership:  The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve.  Jim Collins, the author of this article, states that excellent leaders give away credit and take on critique.  This is excellent advice but in the midst of a hard go when the people around the leader have not done their job well, this is hard advice.  And it leads to the pain and loneliness leaders are required to tolerate.

When leaders work at culture change, make mistakes, engage naysayers, mediate disputes, hear critique, manage organizational failures they come face to face with the challenges and pains associated with leadership.  How leaders tolerate pain defines their leadership.  Will leaders blame others for their pain?  Will they lash out against the people they are leading?  Will they become blind to their own contribution to their pain?  Will they become destroyed by the naysayers to the degree that their capacity to shepherd the organization’s vision is compromised?  OR, will they digest (and release) the pain in order to stay grounded and focused on both the organization’s overarching vision as well as what modifications are required of them (not the others) in order to more effectively live into this vision?  Excellent leadership must include the capacity to tolerate this pain.

The Mindful Leader

“The success of an intervention depends on the interior condition of the intervener.”  (William O’Brien)   
I have mulled over this quote at least 100 times.  Is this true?  If it is, I am both humbled and well, scared.  And maybe we should all be.  O’Brien after all was not talking so much about consultants as he was business leaders.  If this is true – it demands of those of us who see ourselves as leaders in any way, “How are we attending to our inner condition?”  
 

My own journey of leadership has led me directly and indirectly again and again into the practice of mindfulness.  While the term mindfulness emerges from the Buddhist tradition, every religion has some version of mindfulness and the practice of mindfulness itself has entered the mainstream in North America to the degree that its benefits no longer reside solely with those who would consider themselves religious.

Mindfulness has four fundamental principles on which it rests:  Attention, awareness, acceptance and release.  Attention invites us to focus on the now, to live fully in the present moment.  Why?  Because to lead well we must have the capacity to listen deeply to the wisdom as it is being revealed to us in whatever moment we find ourselves.  In addition, to be fully present to this moment we must allow our egos to rest in order to be fully present to the other, whoever that might be.  Part of our problem of course is that as we seek to live fully in the moment, our mind stirs up memories, judgements (of self and other), associations and distractions – all of which draw us away from the moment and all of which can enslave us to the protection of our egos.

Mindfulness invites us to become aware of these memories, judgements, associations and distractions, to accept them without judgement and then to release them.  If we are honest, many of us would recoil from the thoughts, feelings and sensations that make their way through our bodies.

 The wisdom of mindfulness is this:  We cannot release that which we have not accepted.  Further, as we practice non-judgement toward ourselves, we learn the discipline of practicing non-judgement toward the other or the situation; allowing a deeper wisdom and compassion to emerge.  

Having both accepted and released themselves, mindful leaders become grounded and almost strangely calm, yet very present; they listen deeply and with compassion for the wisdom emerging in whatever situation they – and the people they are serving – are in.  This is at the center of their gift to the interventions they lead. 

Accountability That Rests On “Tell Me More”

A significant responsibility of those in leadership is to hold others accountable for their opinions and/or for actions they have taken.  Holding others accountable is a difficult task at best and at worst, it leaves those with whom we are working feeling dismayed or even destroyed.  Is it possible to hold someone accountable while allowing them to walk away from our conversation with them with their head held high?  I offer the following phrase as a starting point:  “Tell me more.”

Let us assume that you are leading a meeting and someone at this meeting has offered an opinion with which you disagree.  And let assume that the opinion that was offered was laced with an ounce or two of bitterness, possibly over a decision that did not go as the speaker had anticipated.  Our temptation in these moments is simply to respond to the statement that was made, offering information and possibly defending the decision that was made.  The problem with this approach is that as we defend our position, the speaker tends to become defensive as well.  And in their defensiveness, the speaker entrenches into his/her position.  Further, the speaker has not been effectively held accountable for the opinion they offered – an opinion sometimes based on limited information.

Alternately, let us consider the impact of the phrase:  “Tell me more.”  When the speaker offers their opinion and we respond with a curious question or an invitation for them to tell us more, two things happen:   
1) The speaker must back up their opinion with more information – this is a form of inviting accountability on the part of the speaker for the statement he/she has just made.  
 2)  As the speaker shares more about his/her opinion, he/she is more likely to feel heard, especially if we listen well.

Most people do not actually need to agree with the decision that was made.  What they do need is to feel as though they have been heard – that they have had a voice in whatever issue is being addressed.  “Tell me more” not only ensures people feel heard, in the process it also holds the speaker accountable for the opinion he/she is offering – but doing so in a way that meets the speaker’s need (to be heard) and your own need (to encourage accountability) at the same time.  For a three word phrase, this is not a bad deal at all.