Exploring the mystery of the mind

Neuroscientist Dr Hannah Critchlow says that managers and leaders have a duty to get their heads around how the brain works.

By Lachlan Colquhoun  //  photographs by Paul Musso & Martin Pope

Of all the organs, the brain has always been viewed in a different way, and with special reverence.

Weighing only 1.5 kilograms, or around two per cent of our body mass, the brain is seen as the driver of our personalities, the home of our soul, the repository of memory, and the computer that keeps the whole body ticking over so that we can function in society.

While medical science has gone a long way to demystify the physiology of other organs, such as the liver and the heart, our understanding of the brain and its 86 billion neurons has remained comparatively limited until recently.

Breakthroughs in neuroscience over the past decade, however, are rapidly lifting the veil on our understanding of the body’s most complex organ and, in the process, helping us understand more about human behaviour.

“This is a great time to be a neuroscientist, we are peering into the mind as never before,” says Dr Hannah Critchlow, a British author, neuroscientist and fellow of Magdalene College, Cambridge. “We are learning about the brain at an exponential rate now — there are as many as five to ten thousand new research papers coming out each month.

“We still have a lot to learn of course, and there are still major problems, as we can see with mental health, but we are discovering the real underpinnings of the brain’s operation and this information will help us to better treat some of the debilitating conditions of the mind.”

Reality check

Dr Critchlow is at the frontline of neuroscience and is on a mission to communicate its findings to the world.

Nominated as one of the UK’s Top 100 Scientists by the Science Council, she is about to follow up her first book Consciousness with a second publication on the theme of “the science of fate”.

Many of the insights from neuroscience, Dr Critchlow says, have come from understanding the brain as a physical organ. Advancing technologies such as optogenetics, which uses light to stimulate specific circuits in the brain, are revealing more about the physiology of behaviours that were previously considered part of the mystery of personality.

Entrepreneurs and drug addicts, for example, have particular brain anatomies, as do people with ADHD and those who enjoy socialising more than others.

For managers and leaders, the challenge is to work with an understanding that everyone has a different perspective on reality and that certain acts that were previously considered voluntary may, in fact, be hardwired.

Although exercise and meditation can help us grow new brain cells and the connections between them, just as chronic stress and depression can kill them off, there may be limits to the ultimate “plasticity” of what a person can achieve with the particular brain they are born with.

The old adage that “you can do anything you want if you put your mind to it” may prove to have clear scientific limitations.

“We can literally see how the circuit board of the mind — this amazing machine comprised of billions of nerve cells, with trillions of connections between them — shifts and changes as we make decisions and experience the world around us,” she says.

“We can switch feelings of pleasure on or off, and feelings of anxiety and even addiction, so we are really starting to understand how these discrete circuit boards in our brain give rise to very particular behaviours.”

Part of this is a more holistic understanding that the brain does not exist in isolation at the top of the body, and that its interactions are strongly linked with the immune system, to our gut, and to organs such as the heart.

“At its most basic, when you have a cold or the flu you feel down in the dumps and depressed, and there is a physical reason for that because your brain is almost in a depressed state at that point,” says Dr Critchlow.

“There is also a lot of emerging evidence which suggests that people with chronic depression might have altered immune systems as well, so their immune system is attacking the brain. An altered immune system has even been linked to the terrifying symptoms of psychosis, and in some patients simply clearing their blood of the faulty immune cells can stop the symptoms for good.”

Performance enhancing drugs

These new understandings of the brain have created new treatments for depression and addiction, and perhaps controversially, opened up the potential to enhance our creative capacities through the use of smart drugs.

“There is lots of information coming out now about how creativity and problem solving in the brain is formed, and there are drugs called cognitive enhancers which seem to boost certain aspects of our alertness, or our reasoning and our concentration skills,” says Dr Critchlow.

“There’s also psychedelics, which previously people were mainly interested in from a recreational viewpoint, but now small doses of these drugs have been implicated in boosting creativity and problem solving skills, raising all sorts of considerations around whether we want people in the workplace to be taking small amounts of drugs, even if it does boost their performance.”

Alongside research into drugs, there has also been work done on “brain helmets” that use mild electrical currents to stimulate specific areas of the brain to see how this can foster particular behaviours like, for example, creativity.

Plasticity has limits

But while this research shows that capabilities can be enhanced, and that we do each hold the scope for plasticity and flexibility within our brains, Dr Critchlow says a key finding of neuroscience is that many of our behaviours are “ingrained” because of how our brains process the vast amounts of information from the outside world, and accepting this has particular relevance in the workplace.

“So rather than trying to make somebody fit into a role and a set of expectations, it may be more productive to just create the environment that will help them to flourish and make use of the skillsets they bring,” she says.

“Although our brain has a huge scope for plasticity and we can learn new things, emerging neuroscience is showing that people have specific strengths and weaknesses that sometimes you just can’t change.”

People whose brains have a larger prefrontal cortex, for example, with many “slots” for beta-endorphins, are “almost hardwired” to need a wide number of different friendship groups.

“They are like conduits which let information be exchanged from clique to clique, so that is a very important role within society,” says Dr Critchlow. “And then there are people with a much smaller prefrontal cortex and they have a much smaller group of friends, or they spend more time with each of their friends in closer relationships.

“There is a hypothesis that because these people have fewer beta endorphin spots they don’t need to go around filling them up by meeting lots of other people.”

These two types of people respond differently to the workplace. The first type, with the larger prefrontal cortex, may be more comfortable working in an open plan office where they can mix with larger number of colleagues, while those with the second brain type may prefer to work in smaller groups.

Entrepreneurial thinking

Neuroscience is also beginning to understand the brains of entrepreneurs, which can sometimes be similar to people with ADHD.

“People who are entrepreneurs and who are thriving in taking risks in business have an evolutionary drive to do so and that is based around their brain biology,” says Dr Critchlow. “Much of this is intuitive, of course, and we have talked about this for decades but neuroscience is now demonstrating how this has a basis in the brain.”

In her next book, Dr Critchlow is focusing on the subject of “the science of fate,” looking at the extent to which our behaviours are predetermined by the brains we are born with.

“I am interested in understanding how much of our behaviour is ingrained,” she says. “We are seeing now that a lot of what we do is predetermined, so that opens up the question on whether we actually have any agency, or any free will at all.

“We have been sold this concept that the brain is highly plastic and that we have the power to change our behaviours if we can put our minds to it, but this may not necessarily be the truth.”

The take out from all this is one of acceptance and tolerance. People have strengths and weaknesses and need to work with them, but at the same time environments need to be sensitive to this to help a diversity of people flourish.

“For leaders and managers there is a responsibility for acceptance, but also to use this to be the best person they can be and look after the mental health of their teams,” says Dr Critchlow.

She says that she personally has “appalling spelling” as a result of dyslexia, “but I’m okay with that”.

Everybody is on a spectrum for every different kind of behaviour, and although there is some wriggle room for moving, we must accept that we need an environment which can nourish us.

“Our individuality is a beautiful thing, and it’s the brain which produces that individuality.”

Dr Hannah Critchlow’s new book on ‘the science of fate’ will be published in Australia in 2019 by Hachette.

The best manager I ever had

Behind every great leader is a manager who offered inspiration and mentorship. We talk with four leaders to discover the best managers they ever had.

By Nicola Field

Holding the reins loosely Kristen Turnbull, Director of CoreData WA, doesn’t hesitate in nominating Andrew Inwood, founder and principal of CoreData, as the best manager she has ever worked for.

“He’s not just a good manager. Andrew is a great leader,” says Turnbull.

Turnbull began working with Inwood nine years ago when CoreData was in its infancy. It was a big change for her, as she was making a career switch out of journalism and into financial services research.

From the start Inwood stood out as an exceptional leader. “I’ve had good managers before,” says Turnbull. “But Andrew really wanted me to succeed and took the time to understand what makes me tick.” Guided by his example, Turnbull recognises the need to know her own team and keep lines of communication open. “We all have external stresses, and when you truly know your people it’s a lot easier to help them manage external issues that may be impacting their professional life.”

She says Inwood demonstrates genuine interest in his staff, and one particular instance really stands out. “One December I casually mentioned to Andrew that I’d lost my sunglasses. When Christmas rolled around, he handed out gifts to all the staff – and my present was a gift voucher for a new pair of sunglasses. It really highlighted how he listened and cared.”

More than helping her transition into a new career, he encouraged an investment in her personal brand. “Education is very important to him,” notes Turnbull. “And he suggested that I complete a Masters of Business Administration (MBA).”

What was remarkable was the no-strings-attached support provided.

“The company funded my MBA, which is an investment worth tens of thousands of dollars. Even more amazingly, there was no lock-in attached – no formal expectation that I would remain with the company, even after I had completed my MBA.”

For Turnbull, Inwood’s willingness to invest in her as an employee has created a tremendous sense of loyalty to both her leader and CoreData. Six years into the role, this two-way street bore fruit. Expecting her second child and keen to be closer to family in Perth, she approached Inwood about relocating from Sydney to Western Australia. She acknowledges that Perth was not a strategic market for CoreData, but both she and Andrew were willing to turn the move into an opportunity.

Turnbull admits, “Andrew really put his faith in me and let me spearhead CoreData’s entry into the Perth market. Andrew talks about ‘holding the reins loosely’, and by trusting me to build the Perth office, he has encouraged me to share that same approach with my own team – letting them know that support is there if it’s needed but otherwise giving them space to achieve independent success.”

Today, CoreData WA is thriving, and a little over a year ago Turnbull became an equity stakeholder in the business, a step that was especially noteworthy for her. “In previous roles I only felt valued when I had one foot out the door. Andrew has taught me to reward my people in the moment and acknowledge their value today.”

Looking back, Turnbull observes, “Having an outstanding leader has shown me the value of being willing to invest in my own people. It helps them grow – and ultimately that helps the business grow.”

Firm but approachable 

Mark Hayball CMgr FIML, General Manager at RCS Telecommunications in Brisbane, says he didn’t directly work under the best manager he has encountered. Rather it was someone who worked in a different area of the business. He explains: “I wasn’t aware at the time that he was monitoring my progress. It was only much later that I connected the dots.”

According to Hayball, the light bulb moment came when he was nominated to attend in-house leadership training. “I didn’t know who had nominated me,” he says. “I later discovered it was this particular manager. After that I became much more aware of him and his management style.”

What especially impressed was the “firm but approachable” style of the manager involved. “I was in the early stages of my career, and I didn’t really know what management was all about. I wasn’t getting a great deal of leadership from my direct managers, and I was focusing on the technical process. This manager took a very different approach. He was more about engaging people, understanding individuals and what they needed to perform well.”

The absence of bias also left an impression. “I saw a sincere commitment to people in this manager. And he never showed bias to any one particular person.”

Those observations have had a lasting impact on Hayball. “Being able to recognise where staff need help, and giving them opportunities to seek recognition, are essential skills of a good manager.”

These days, it is “ingrained” in Hayball to support his team and offer recognition. It’s also become a two-way street. Mark developed a self-assessment tool for his staff to provide feedback on him as a manager. “It’s a wake-up call!” he says, though he adds that this is fundamental in developing trust. “Senior managers need to be able to guide others, but it’s also essential to be able to receive feedback and not take it personally. One of the biggest challenges facing senior managers is that they don’t let others in, so there is no real opportunity for self-reflection.”

Resilience and emotional intelligence

Aletia Fysh, Head of Marketing at Community First Credit Union in Sydney, says that throughout her career she has benefitted from the support of several good managers, and has distilled the best learnings from each into her own leadership style.

One manager in particular taught Fysh the value of brainstorming the rules of engagement with a team as a whole, so that everyone is on the same page. She notes: “When you set clear expectations it is far easier to explain to team members ‘we agreed to do this’ if things don’t go according to plan.” She adds that it is critical for the team to collectively develop these rules. “When everyone takes part in setting the rules it’s more likely each person will take ownership and adhere to the ground rules.”

Fysh says one manager stood out for encouraging leadership and development training. “This particular manager invested in staff – not just to do their roles, but to learn to lead and manage change,” she explains. “I was encouraged to attend courses that were incredibly effective at developing my leadership skills.”

One learning experience stood out in particular. “I attended a course that taught the value of listening to others to gain insights into how they think. It’s then possible to use this knowledge to convey information in a way that each different person is best able to relate to.”

She provides an example: “I was trying to explain to a colleague how we needed to improve our processes. By listening to their response I could see this person wanted numbers and statistics to make sense of what I was saying. Without this, I wasn’t able to influence the team member in the way I wanted. Realising this, I pulled together some key data and statistics, which the person took on board. I could immediately see a big difference in their reaction.”

The value of formal learning has encouraged Fysh to invest in her own team. “I strongly encourage learning and development among my people.” She is quick to point out though that this doesn’t have to mean funding expensive courses. “Development can come from something as simple as teaming a staff member with a peer they can learn from.”

Across the best managers she has worked with, Fysh says a common feature is resilience and mastery of emotional intelligence. “Managers who get overly emotional when things don’t go to plan can have a very destabilising impact on their staff,” observes Aletia. “Resilience matters because if something doesn’t work out, you need to be able to learn from the experience and not take it personally.”

One of the most useful tips Fysh has picked up from a former manager is having monthly one-on-one meetings with each of her team members. “It’s very effective,” notes Aletia. “You only need to ask three questions – ‘What’s going well?’, ‘What’s not going well?’ and ‘What can we do better?’”

According to Fysh, the beauty of this approach is that it empowers team members. “As a leader, people should feel you are open for feedback. At one-on-one meetings I hand the floor to each staff member and they run the dialogue. There is no need to write up notes. It’s about letting your people think through their progress. It’s also a good opportunity for your team to give feedback about you as a manager and leader. And you need to be prepared to take this on board.”

Galvanising a team

Benjamin Brown MIML, Graduate Civil Engineer in Bundaberg, is still in the early years of his career but he is lucky enough to have encountered a great leader in his current manager, Joe Saunders.

One of the key aspects Brown has learned from his manager is the value of culture. Brown explains that Saunders has been in his current role for 12 years and “embodies” the company’s culture: “He works in the way the company is looking for and that’s something the whole team respects as it sets a strong example.”

Brown also says he has benefited from the investment Saunders makes in one-on-one time with team members. “As I move more into a project management role, Joe regularly checks on me,” he says. “That means he can pull me up at an early stage if I am starting to take the wrong direction. I appreciate that he genuinely cares about my progress, and this gives me confidence in my role and what we’re working towards.”

One aspect of Saunders’ style that Brown particularly appreciates is his frankness. “He speaks his mind. It can be confronting at times but by calling things as they are without sugarcoating the issue, I know exactly what needs to be done to get back on track.”

As Brown’s office team expands, he finds himself moving into a project management role. He says, “I now appreciate the value of being able to galvanise a team. Joe is very good at binding everyone together and providing clear team objectives. Having firm objectives across multiple teams working on the same project helps in providing quality outcomes, and this has helped to set our company apart within the market. It’s taught me the value of keeping in touch with individual team members on a regular basis to achieve the highest level of quality with the experience they have.”

Make your mark. Go Chartered.

IML offers the prestigious and globally recognised Chartered Manager designation to leaders in Australia and New Zealand. Have your leadership experience formally recognised through IML today. Contact our Chartered Manager team on 1300 661 061 or email chartered.manager@managersandleaders.com.au

Details online at managersandleaders.com.au/chartered-manager

 

The murky world of self interest

New research shines the spotlight on how managers and leaders make decisions when personal gain conflicts with organisational benefits.

By Professor Danny Samson FIML

Leaders and managers typically find that decision making – be it strategic or tactical – is a core part of their professional lives. We should therefore question the extent to which those decisions benefit the organisation or the individual making the choice on its behalf. Whenever there is a discrepancy between what is good for ‘me’, and what is good for the organisation, then trade-offs invariably play a part.

Leader as selfless steward, or selfish agent

Good leaders and managers recognise that to do what is right for the organisation’s stakeholders, a combination of controls, monitoring mechanisms and incentives might be required. Take bonus systems as an example. Imperfect as they are, we see them paid in short and long-term share options as an example of attempts to improve alignment between what is good for the employee, including the CEO, and what is best for the organisation’s other stakeholders, most notably its owners. The competing view of this aspect of leadership, called stewardship, assumes selfless behaviour and the desire to maximise the outcomes for the whole organisation. Which view is closer to the truth, and if there are both types of people in leadership roles, how can we tell one from the other?

New perspectives on this age-old problem

As part of our research, we have built, tested and validated a new theoretical framework, called Multi-Stakeholder Decision Theory, that recognises the continuum between pure (self-maximising) agent and pure (selfless) steward positions. Our studies showed us that many people weigh up what is good for them personally (for example bonus, career progression), and what is good for the organisation, (such as sales and profits), when making decisions. The question is what are the relative weightings that different leaders apply?

It is interesting to note that for many decades, organisations have allocated massive amounts of resource conducting business analyses including strategic, tactical, market research, cost reduction, and quality improvement under the assumption the findings that are in the broader interests of the organisation will automatically be implemented by its leaders. But we should also consider what would happen if the decision maker is a pure agent (or close to it) and the monitoring, controls and incentives aren’t strong enough to ensure they will do right by the organisation if it conflicts with their personal interest?

Empirical evidence of this trade-off phenomenon

As part of our research we asked managers to anonymously respond to decision situations by choosing between alternatives that had either a monetary benefit to their organisation and nothing for them personally, or vice versa. Under the assumption that there would be no detection of their choice, they were asked to choose between making a profit of $1 million for their organisation (eg closing a deal) or making an amount for themselves while the organisation did not benefit at all. This revealed some scary findings. The first was that only a few individuals are ‘steward-like’. That is, they selflessly put their organisation first and stated that they worked primarily to maximise outcomes for their organisation. Our research revealed that the majority of surveyed managers were ready to forsake significant benefits for their organisation if they could get away with a personal gain instead. The extreme of this was a manager who said that $10 in his pocket was enough to sway him from making a $1 million for his firm. For many people it was one or a few thousand dollars. We found a few different processes and factors that people used to guide their trade-offs.

Workplace implications

The first implication of our research is that, for better or worse, we cannot assume that the majority will do the right thing by their organisation, when their personal interests and gains are in conflict with organisational outcomes. Striving to achieve close alignment between organisational and personal outcomes is a key task for leaders and managers at all levels. Finding that sweet spot – where personal gain and organisational gain overlap – is all important. We would also advocate being on the lookout for agent-like behaviours and highly opportunistic types of people and decision-makers: this shows the need for measurement and motivation systems that carefully drive alignment. This thinking should apply to all decision processes from recruitment, selection and promotion choices to project team formation, and all aspects of leadership.

The full research report is available by email from Danny Samson, d.samson@unimelb.edu.au

Professor Danny Samson, University of Melbourne Director, Master of enterprise & Master of Supply chain Management

The 6 ‘Do’s’ of Decision Making

Decision making is a challenge that faces us daily. For organisations, poor decisions can damage corporate reputation, decrease profit, undermine employee wellbeing and distort the organization’s strategic direction. Unfortunately, there is no formula for always getting decisions right; however, there are some ‘do’s’ to promote more reliable and sustainable decisions. In this article, we describe 6 decision making ‘do’s’ to reduce the risk of decision-making disasters.

1. Get Analytical

According to a study by Accenture (2013), only 21% of respondent organisations successfully used analytics for routine decision making. Analysing a situation before making a decision is a great way of ensuring an objective approach and gaining the commitment of others. Despite this, analytical decision making takes more time; therefore, it may not always be the most effective approach when prompt decisions need to be made.

2. Block out Bias

Bias is a hard thing to block out of decision making; however, accepting that bias occurs and forcing yourself to consider other factors can help. There are three common types of bias in decision making: confirmation bias, availability heuristic and halo effect. Confirmation bias refers to our natural desire to not rethink our beliefs or change our opinions. When we are presented with new ideas that contradict our beliefs and opinions, we tend to ignore them rather than using them to form new judgements. Secondly, availability heuristic refers to the mental shortcuts we take when evaluating a specific action or decision. According to this form of bias, we are likely to form evaluations solely on what we initially recall. Finally, the halo effect refers to our desire for consistency when forming decisions. For example, if we initially form a positive impression on someone, we are likely to judge that person more favourably than someone we initially form a negative impression on. When making future decisions, ask yourself whether any of these three forms of bias could’ve come into play. By asking yourself this question, you can prevent bias from steering you in the wrong direction.

3. Think Ethically

Ethics is an important factor to consider in any business decision as it is likely to impact multiple people. By not considering the ethics behind a decision you make, it would be harder to build commitment and gain acceptance from others.

4. Consider Outcomes

Understanding the gravity of different consequences can assist in formulating responsible decisions. One common consequentialist theory is utilitarianism. This theory proposes that the most appropriate decisions are found by evaluating what decision would cause the greatest good for the greatest number of stakeholders.

5. Solicit Stakeholder Opinions

Gaining feedback from other key stakeholders enables you to view a potential decision from a different perspective. For example, it may open your eyes to ethical considerations or outcomes that you may not have thought of. This particular approach is also a great way of reducing personal bias as it forces you to consider alternative attitudes.

6. Remind Yourself of Organizational Priorities

Business objectives and an organization’s vision serve as a good guide for effective decision making as they can sometimes put priorities into perspective. For example, when choosing between two available alternatives, reminding yourself of organisational values or objectives may change the weighting of certain factors that differentiate the two alternatives.

There may not be a formula for decision making success, but considering these 6 factors in future decision making will help you to form justifiable courses of action.

Could Appreciative Inquiry Be Your Next Solution?

Who would’ve thought that you could solve inefficiencies and problems by not looking at the inefficiencies or problems? It is an unusual concept, but Appreciative Inquiry (AI) takes problem solving in an innovative direction. According to this problem solving technique, paying attention to the problems will only amplify them; whereas, focusing on the positives will elicit the best solution. In addition to this, AI has been proven to produce other significant benefits for organisations, such as: enhancing collaboration, encouraging creativity, empowering individuals and avoiding stereotypical solutions. So, how can your organisation solve problems using AI?

There are four steps to undertaking a successful AI process, these are: Discover, Dream, Design and Deliver. When organisations want to undergo an AI process, they are encouraged to invite a group of stakeholders along to a planning workshop that works through these four phases.

Discover

The Discover phase of an AI process seeks to understand the current situation. This is one of the hardest phases for people to get their heads around as our minds naturally shift towards the current situational issues. However, instead of looking at the current issues, the Discover phase requires us to appreciate the best of what is and what has been. To discover this, participants are asked a series of questions that get them thinking about some of the key strengths of a current situation. Examples of questions that are commonly used during this phase are:

  • What do you like most about…?
  • What makes this memorable…?
  • Why do you like…?
  • What would make you choose this over something else…?

By responding to these questions, common themes and words start to appear. These are the themes that the rest of the AI process seeks to capitalise on…

Dream

The second phase of an AI process is the Dream phase. The Dream phase encourages imagination and creativity from participants by allowing them to brainstorm an ideal situation. When crafting an ideal situation in their minds, participants are encouraged to think about what it involves, what it looks like and what strengths it capitalises on. To make the most out of this phase, it is usually conducted individually at first before ideas are shared and strengthened in a group.

Design

The third phase of the AI process is when participants start to translate radical ideas into reasonable solutions. As a group, participants take bits and pieces from the dream phase to design an ideal solution. Practicality questions are answered during this phase when proposing what resources, skills, training, money, knowledge and commitment is required to translate the dream into reality.

Deliver

The final phase is the Deliver phase. This phase is where participants commit to the solution and set out a plan to achieve it. Typically, this stage involves the formulation of a proposal plan or implementation timeline.

And that’s it! A small workshop with four steps that could lead to innovative solutions for your organisation. Could AI be the solution to your next organisational problem?

Are You Guilty of ‘Scraping the Surface’ When Solving Problems?

We hate to admit it, but many of us are good at just scraping the surface when solving problems. Some like to call this approach the ‘hide it in the closet technique.’ However, in today’s competitive business environment, problem scraping and closet filling isn’t going to get you or your team very far.

For those of you that are guilty of this, the Fishbone Diagram is a great method for delving a little deeper. This model facilitates a comprehensive problem-solving approach by encouraging consideration of all possible causes when designing a solution. This model also describes the relationships between different factors that cause a particular problem. Below we will take a look at the four steps required to effectively use the Fishbone Diagram as a problem-solving technique.

Step 1. Decide on a problem that you want to be solved

When deciding on the problem, it is important to be as specific as possible as more specific problem definitions will promote tailored solutions. It is also important to ensure that the problem isn’t defined in terms of a solution (e.g. we need more of something).  By defining the problem in terms of a solution, the chances of identifying other underlying causes and deriving creative solutions are reduced.

Step 2. Agree on the major categories of the problem

The major categories of the problem are the labels of the major branches on the diagram. It is important to tailor these categories to the structure and characteristics of your organisational environment so that the factors surrounding the problem can be appropriately analyzed. These categories will vary across organisations and teams; however, three of the most common Fishbone Diagram categorizations are:

  1. Surroundings, suppliers, skills and systems
  2. Price, people, place/plant, procedures, promotion, processors, product and policies
  3. Man, materials, machines, methods, environment and measurements

Step 3. Brainstorm all the possible causes of the problem under each category

To promote the success of this step, it is recommended that a group of people are involved as this will encourage a more diverse range of ideas. Every cause identified during this step should be added to one or more of the relevant categories in the diagram. During the cause identification phase, it is also common to identify further problems that have additional causes. When this occurs, they can be added as extra sub-branches on the Fishbone Diagram.

Step 4. Analyze the diagram

This step is the most significant part of the Fishbone Diagram exercise. This step is important for identifying causes that may require further investigation, causes that are repeated across the various categories as well as causes that may be easy to correct.

Overall, the Fishbone Diagram could be a powerful tool for you and your team when solving organisational problems. By encouraging the implementation of this tool, it could assist in fostering a culture that is dedicated to continuous improvement and critical problem-solving.

Putting a Stop to Intuitive Decision Making

Despite the significant consequences of poor managerial decision making, it is astounding to see the high weighting of intuition in decision making processes for many organisations. In fact, a study by Accenture in 2013 found that 70% of surveyed Australian small-to-medium sized managers say they trusted their gut instinct over any professional advice when making decisions.

Although gut instinct will creep its way into decisions from time to time, there are ways to prevent it from clouding effective decision making. One way is through the utilisation of the Ladder of Inference. The Ladder of Inference provides a method for looking at holes in your logic, setting aside personal influence as much as possible and preventing your judgement from being clouded by emotions. This method has seven topics that each form a separate step on the ladder. These are: reality and facts, selected reality, interpreted reality, assumptions, conclusions, beliefs and actions. According to this model, instinct will cause your mind to naturally skip some steps of the ladder when initially forming decisions. Consequently, effective decision making requires individuals to step up and down the ladder as much as they need to in order to develop holistic decisions. Below we will take a look at each of the ladder steps.

1. Reality and Facts

This step of the ladder requires individuals to consider what has happened and all of the facts surrounding the situation. In organisational settings, this step may involve research and SWOT analysis. Individuals commonly skip this step of the ladder; however, it is an important step to reduce bias and provide perspective for the remainder of the decision-making process.

2. Selected Reality

The second step of the ladder considers the information that individuals decide to filter informing their decision. The information that individuals decide to select is usually based on prior experiences.

3. Interpreted Reality

This stage of the ladder translates the selected facts into a personal meaning. By developing a personal meaning based on the facts developed in step one and two, a decision is likely to be more justifiable.

4. Assumptions

At this level, assumptions are made based on the interpreted reality that has been developed. The assumptions made will vary for every individual and instinct may play a role in shaping these.

5. Conclusions

Once assumptions are clear, conclusions can be formed. In order to make more responsible conclusions at this stage of the ladder, it is recommended that individuals ask for feedback from their peers.

6. Beliefs

Beliefs assist in solidifying the conclusions made in step 5 of the ladder. If beliefs aren’t strong at this stage, it is possible that further situational analysis needs to be undertaken before making a decision. As such, it is recommended that individuals step back down the ladder to form more concrete conclusions.

7. Actions

Once concrete beliefs are formed, reasonable actions can be undertaken. The consequences of these actions can then be utilised in the initial ladder stages of future decision-making processes.

Overall, the ladder of inference displays how instinct will naturally creep its way into any decision making process. However, being aware of the likeliness of instinct and following a systematic decision-making process can assist individuals in making more responsible decisions.

Suncorp’s Dominique Layt – Investing in your leadership with Chartered Manager

 

Dominique Layt CMgr AFIML, Head of Stores and Speciality Banking Delivery at Suncorp and Board Director has built her leadership career from the ground up, over 30 plus years in the financial services industry. After finishing Year 12, Dominique’s parents encouraged her to take all the Banking entry exams, which lead to her first job as a trainee bank teller with NAB. She was keen to learn, asking other colleagues to show her their different roles so she could cover their days off. Dominique worked her way up to a senior role in the State Office over 17 years. She then moved to Westpac as a Regional Manager, but found that she’d need to move to Sydney or Melbourne for further promotion.

Dominique joined Suncorp in 2007 in business banking strategy just as the global financial crisis was biting, which she credits as an amazing learning experience working on the restructure. She moved into risk management, setting up the bank’s risk frameworks and committees. Dominique’s subsequent role was to establish the bank’s customer retention and insights strategy and capability, handpicking a team which took Suncorp to #1 in customer satisfaction over that time. The team implemented a new way of having a conversation with customers, which lead to positively impacting Suncorp’s S&P’s rating.

You’ve enjoyed an incredible career in the Financial Services industry, and you describe coaching, mentoring and leading high performing teams as your greatest passion. Tell us how you’ve built your leadership step by step over your career. 

One of the things I learnt early in my leadership journey was that each individual is different and to be an effective leader I needed to adjust my approach to the individual where needed. The other thing I learned with experience and growing confidence as you get older is to be factual, clear and open when giving feedback and coaching. Most people do not like conflict and they expect they will receive it if they provide constructive feedback to individuals. Whilst this can happen I have found the majority of people are grateful for honest feedback especially when it comes to career development.

I have lost count of the number of conversations I’ve had where someone has said they have asked many other leaders why they had missed out on roles. Or, why they hadn’t progressed and they had never been provided with tangible feedback that would allow them to develop and grow. One of my strongest influencers today is Brene Brown who talks a lot about vulnerability and authentic leadership. These practices are critical to developing high performing teams and being an effective coach and mentor.

You recently obtained your first Board Director role with the Somerville House Foundation. What are your initial observations on the different style of leadership required of Boards versus Management?

The Board is a team and whilst the Chair is in essence the leader of that team it is different than organisational leader roles where the leader has the ultimate decision making authority. Similar to organisational teams a Board has a mix of skills which, when fully leveraged, allows the Board to be effective at its role. The role of the Chair is much more about ensuring the key skills are fully utilised, each member is actively contributing and the focus is absolutely on the objectives of the organisation the Board is privileged to govern.

What has been your greatest challenge?

There have been many challenges throughout my career, as there are for most people, including strategic and operational challenges during the GFC, shifting from a defensive to a growth strategy and transforming cultures from a merged organisation into one cohesive team. The one that stands out the most is maintaining team members motivation and energy during extended periods of multiple restructures and change which involved carrying vacancies for several months.

What are you most proud of?

There are many team and individual successes over my 30+ year career I could talk about, but whenever I am asked this question the moments that make me the proudest have been individual coaching sessions. Those moments where you help someone realise what is possible and the only thing standing in their way is their own self-confidence. When you literally see the light bulb go on and they realise they can achieve what they are aiming for. Those are the moments where you know you have made a difference to someone else and then to watch them achieve their goals and grow and grow from there is truly rewarding.

What motivated you to pursue the internationally recognised Institute of Managers and Leaders’ (IML) Chartered Manager Accreditation?

I have invested most of my career into becoming the best leader I can be. I’ve pursued my own development, sought out mentors who are strong authentic leaders and consistently sought feedback from peers and direct reports. I once commenced a Master of Leadership through a University only to find it was cancelled after less than a year.

When I saw the opportunity to be recognised for the development and investment I have made into leadership I jumped at the opportunity to apply for Chartered Manager Accreditation with IML.

How has achieving Chartered Manager status impacted your leadership journey, and what do you see are the future benefits to come? 

I found the application process another learning opportunity. Completing the application provided me with an opportunity to review, self-assess and consider other areas I wanted to delve further into as part of my growth and continual improvement as a leader.

Now being a Chartered Manager I feel I have the opportunity to expand my career beyond financial services and potentially into areas such as executive coaching or leadership coaching.

What’s one piece of advice for future female leaders?

Read Brene Brown’s books and work out who you are and what sort of leader you want to be. Don’t be afraid to be your authentic self. We do not need to be like anyone else nor do we need to compete with others. If you can be an authentic leader with the right values as your anchor, your team will follow. Servant leadership is a great foundation but authentic leadership means you are “all in” and people will respect you for that; but it takes vulnerability and courage.

In partnership with:

Speaking Up Without Fear

Elizabeth Ticehurst and Hoda Nahlous investigate what part a ‘speaking up’ and ‘whistleblowing’ culture plays in rebuilding corporate trust.

 

In this current era where trust in corporations is low, there is demand for organisations to develop an ethical corporate culture to control and minimise, to the extent possible, corporate misconduct. As a result, organisations are focusing on better understanding and improving their internal culture and practices. As part of this process, an effective ‘speak up’ and ‘whistleblower’ culture is becoming a prominent benchmark in measuring whether an organisation has a good corporate culture.

The benefits of ‘speaking up’

An effective ‘speak up’ culture is one where employees are encouraged to raise concerns and feel comfortable in doing so without fear of persecution. This requires the board and senior executives of the organisation to clearly articulate to staff what is ‘good’ corporate behaviour, so that ‘bad’ corporate behaviour can be easily identified. In addition, it also requires an organisation’s leaders to encourage a culture of dialogue and openness so that employees feel that management is trustworthy, accessible and well-equipped to handle their concerns.

If ‘speaking up’ is embedded into an organisation’s corporate culture and is effectively managed, then it provides opportunity for the organisation to deal with employee concerns in advance of these concerns escalating into any form of crisis.

What is a ‘whistleblower’?

‘Speaking up’ is sometimes fused with the term ‘whistleblowing’. Although a ‘speak up’ culture must also be a culture that encourages whistleblowing, ‘whistleblowing’ has specific meaning under law. In particular, ‘speaking up’ often involves an employee raising concerns with respect to their own personal circumstances within the organisation. By contrast, a ‘whistleblower’ is an insider within an organisation, who reports misconduct or dishonest or illegal activity that has occurred within that same organisation.

Whistleblowing has often been associated with negative connotations, most prominently that it is used as a tool by aggrieved employees to make a ‘nasty’ complaint against particular individuals, or that it is an act of disloyalty to the organisations (or ‘backstabbing’ of any relevant individuals involved in the whistleblower disclosure).  However, effective whistleblowing is key to eliciting trust among employees as it demonstrates that the organisation actually wants to know and cares about any misconduct or dishonest or illegal activity occurring within the organisation.

In any case, the proposed amendments to the whistleblower laws look to enforce the implementation by certain organisations of internal whistleblower policies, and to further strengthen whistleblower protections.

The law

Currently, a whistleblower is protected under law if they:

  • are a current officer, employee, contractor (or employee of a contractor) of the company that they are making the disclosure about;
  • disclose the information to any of: the company’s auditor (or a member of the audit team); a director, secretary or senior manager of the company, or a person authorised by the company to receive whistleblower disclosure; or ASIC;
  • provide their name to the person or authority that they have made the disclosure to;
  • have reasonable grounds to suspect a breach by the subject of their disclosure; and
  • make the disclosure in good faith.

Certain protections are afforded to whistleblowers under law, including protection of information provided by the whistleblower and protection for whistleblowers against litigation and from victimisation.

Proposed changes to whistleblower laws

Late last year, the federal government introduced a Bill aimed at improving protection for whistleblowers in the corporate, financial, credit and tax sectors. The Bill proposes various changes to the current whistleblower protection laws, including a requirement that public companies and large private companies implement internal whistleblower policies. Notably, it also proposes extending protection to a whistleblower who makes a report to a journalist or politician in circumstances where they reasonably believe there is an imminent risk of serious harm or danger to public health or safety, or to the ‘financial system’, if the information is not acted upon immediately, and a “reasonable period” has passed since the whistleblower first made a protected disclosure.

The whisleblower’s right to confidentiality is a key feature of the Bill. If enacted, these rules would potentially lead to significant civil penalties, and even criminal charges, for individuals and entities who breach the confidentiality of a whistleblower, or who engage in detrimental conduct towards an individual because that person has been, or is suspected of being, a whistleblower.

The changes were to take effect from 1 July 2018, however, the Bill is still pending in Parliament at the time of writing this article (August 2018). In any case, there is an expectation that most (if not all) of the proposed changes will be passed.

 

Hoda Nahlous is Director and Elizabeth Ticehurst is special counsel – Employment at KPMG Law.

 

Blending The Four Personality Types of Leadership

You have a great bunch of people, everyone’s working hard, but you’re just not quite hitting the mark as a team. The problem may not lie with the mix of skills but rather the blend of personalities.

 

By Nicola Field

Building a like-minded team can seem like a strategy for success. However, it could leave you short on a key ingredient – a diverse blend of personalities.

As a leader you’re probably aware of the technical strengths and weakness of those who report to you. And you know you need a high calibre group of people. But a strong group isn’t the same as a strong team, and all organisations need the right mix of personalities to achieve maximum productivity.

Are you dominant, or an influencer?

Teams are typically made up of a variety of personality types. This inherently creates scope for friction and even poor performance. The challenge for managers and leaders is not to resolve “personality clashes” but rather to understand the strengths, weaknesses and quirks that each person brings to the table – and help them work together more cohesively.

So what are these personality types? Charles Go MIML, Research Product Manager at the Institute of Managers and Leaders (IML), explains that a key resource for use in this area is a behavioural profiling tool, such as Everything DiSC.

A variety of psychometric tests are available that centre around the DISC concept. They are based on the work of US psychologist William Moulton Marston, who identified four primary emotions and associated behavioural responses. DISC itself is an acronym that reflects the four different personalities of dominance, influencer, steadiness, and conscientious.

A “D” or dominant personality, for instance, is strong willed, outgoing, direct, fast-paced and task-oriented. “I” personalities – the influencers – are sociable, talkative, lively and people-oriented. Those steady “S” personalities are kind-hearted, supportive, accommodating and prefer things to move at a moderate pace. The “C” people on your team are logical, private, cautious and analytical.

Go says that we each have a personality that can broadly be slotted into one of these four categories. However, as complex beings, few of us will fall absolutely into a single category. We aren’t just one style – people tend to be a blend of styles. DISC profiling recognises this. For example, a “CS” personality type may have a cautious disposition, and be careful, soft-spoken, and self-controlled.

Go explains why it is worth knowing where your personality sits within DISC, saying, “Once you find out which category you fall into personally, it is much easier to recognise the different types of personalities within your team.” From here, leaders can form a clearer view about the way their team interacts.

Juggling diverse personalities

A report by the Stanford Graduate School of Business noted that diversity in a team can be a plus. It found the mere presence of diversity – even something as simple as race or gender – can cue differences of opinion. This cueing can enhance a team’s ability to handle conflict. A more homogeneous team, on the other hand, may not be able to handle conflict as well because the team doesn’t expect it.

That said, Go believes having a team filled with, say, D types is not necessarily a bad thing. “It’s easy to assume the team should have a balance of personality types,” he says. “But if one particular personality is dominant it doesn’t mean the team is weak. It can be a strength, because everyone has a similar way of doing things. The key is to look at how you can manage these people as a team.”

It would be easy to assume that leaders need a blend of each personality type, and Go points out that “leaders do need a bit of everything in the sense that in some situations you need to be an influencer, while in others you may need to be more dominant.” This, he believes, is where the value of DISC lies: “It encourages self-reflection as a leader, and makes you aware of situations where you need to think differently”. If you’re a strong D for instance, you might have to make a more conscious effort at moving slowly and methodically on a project than would,
say, an S.

None of us like to feel we can be pigeonholed into a certain personality type. To avoid this, and to allow team members to better understand the dynamics of the group as a whole, DISC testing is typically followed by a debrief session with a trained facilitator. “This helps to create a common language among the team,” says Go. “It also reduces the possibility of individuals being branded as a certain type of personality, and avoids the risk of people looking at their own DISC report in isolation.”

Understanding the personalities on your team can deliver multiple benefits. It helps to build a sense of trust and encourage team members to tap into each other’s skills and experience. It saves time and energy that is otherwise wasted on office politics and conflicts. And cohesive teams are more productive, which can ultimately create a competitive advantage.

Increasing use of psychometric tests

Of course, there is nothing especially new about these sort of psychometric tests. According to Hudson’s The Hiring Report: The State of Hiring in Australia 2015, 54 per cent of senior executives value psychometric testing as part of the recruitment process. And 40 per cent say they’re seeing more psychometric testing being used now than in the past.

What’s different this time around is the recognition that psychometric testing doesn’t have to be limited to the talent acquisition stage. As the Hudson report points out, most senior executives have been through an assessment process themselves and understand the value it can add. Test results help leaders understand more about themselves: who they are, what drives them, and the strengths they can play on.

Having a grasp of what motivates people is one of the most critical levers of leadership – and organisational success. A review of psychometric tests by the London School of Economics and Political Science found that they deliver “significant correlations between personality scales and measures of job performance”. Nonetheless, knowing how to make the most of what you learn from psychometric testing still hinges on your ability to lead and manage people.

Most personality psychologists believe that traits and situations are interactive. This is one reason why DISC can be so helpful — you can learn to adapt your own responses depending on the DISC style of individuals in your team. The bottom line is that as a manager and leader, you may choose not to behave in a way you’re most comfortable with, but instead use one you know will be more effective for your entire team. It takes conscious effort but as the motto for DISC goes: “It’s not all about me. It’s about us.”

About Everything DiSC

Everything DiSC is part of a suite of analytical people tools offered by IML to members and non-members. A number of Everything DiSC tools are available, and depending on the version, an Everything DiSC survey can take as little as 15-20 minutes to complete. It measures personal tendencies and preferences. It does not measure intelligence, aptitude, mental health or values.

For example, the Everything DiSC questionnaire asks about how you respond to challenges, how you influence others, how you respond to rules and procedures, and about your preferred pace of activity. It does not measure every dimension of personality.

Managers are discouraged from completing the test and interpreting the results themselves. Facilitators available to conduct a debrief with follow-up activities. IML’s Charles Go MIML says that learning outcomes tend to be better when smaller groups are involved, but Everything DiSC can work for larger teams of up to 25 people.

Read full details on Everything DiSC at managersandleaders.com.au/people-analytics

Understanding where each team member fits in the work wheel

Leaders can also tap into another important IML resource, the TMS Team Management Profile (TMP). The TMP uses the Margerison-McCann Team Management Wheel to identify the individual’s work preference from eight core activities (starting from the creation of an idea, assessment of the idea, planning and so on).

IML’s Charles Go MIML notes, “The TMP tool works on the theory that when individuals are matched with what they do best, they are more likely to perform at a high level in their role.”

The TMP is based upon self-assessment and identifies where in the eight-stage process each person is best suited. Go adds, “It’s a great way to discover the preferences of each member of the team and enables leaders to successfully and confidently assign people to projects and tasks.”

Full details on the TMP can be read at managersandleaders.com.au/people-analytics