What enables these organisations to turn the corner quicker than others?  Of course factors like industry sector, geographical footprint, financial exposure and even a bit of luck, play a part.  What about the mindset and behaviours of leaders in these organisations?  How do they stay focused and optimistic where others can’t see beyond the next crisis?  What can be learned from these leaders that we can use to equip others with the capability to cope with intense pressure, uncertainty and overwhelming adversity?

One of our clients, a household name and global player, asked us this very question.  While the business had never had it so bad, the Board recognised this was the time their leaders most needed an opportunity to make sense of their experience, to learn from one another, to equip them for the tough times ahead and develop their capability to get the best out of their people.

To support them, we designed a development programme.  To stretch our own thinking, we delved into the organisational research on sustained success; we reviewed historical accounts of leadership in the face of adversity; we drew on our observations from organisational consulting.   Soon we found ourselves on a path back to our own back yard – the field of clinical psychology.   The clinical literature on resilience – defined broadly as the ability to cope with adversity and bounce back from setbacks – provides some powerful insights into what it is that predicts our ability to cope in the face of overwhelming adversity, trauma or loss.

We translated a broad expanse of research into a coherent, practical and evidence based model with an emphasis on supporting business leaders to boost their personal resilience, and to foster this in their teams.  The model is summarised below.

 Cognitive resilience is about the way we think about and make sense of our experience.  In the context of job losses, a ruthless drive on efficiency, increasingly long hours and gloomy forecasts one could be forgiven for thinking “What’s the point?”, or “This is out of my hands” or “Things are just going to go from bad to worse”.  We all have these sorts of thoughts – it is their frequency and persistence which is important here.  If we think this way on a frequent and persistent basis, guess what happens?  This thinking starts to have an impact on the narrative we create for ourselves and others, and soon has an adverse, knock-on effect on our motivation and our behaviour. 

So the first building block – Cognitive resilience – is about building optimism.  Not a blind faith that things will turn out OK, but a capacity to take a balanced view and to see opportunities (as well as challenges) when the chips are down.  Drawing on one of the most powerful tools in cognitive therapy, we coached managers in skills to identify and challenge negative beliefs and unhelpful thinking patterns.

Let’s look at behavioural resilience.  When faced with a crisis, many people approach it with what we term an external locus of control.  They perceive that the problem is too big for them to influence.  They do not see themselves as active agents in the solution.  They wait for someone else to bail them out, for a change in circumstances or for the problem to simply go away.  This pattern of behaviour has been termed ‘Learned Helplessness’ (Seligman, 1967).  The phenomenon was originally observed in dogs whose control over adversity had been manipulated – and it is the very same pattern we see in people who become depressed. In organisations we see a lesser, yet no less corrosive form of this same phenomenon.  This occurs where people feel disconnected from one another; where decision making, problem solving and innovation are seen as someone else’s job and where there is a lack of clear accountability. 

In contrast, take the example of one of our clients.  In the depth of the crisis, people did not sit back.  Managers volunteered for pay cuts and put themselves forward for additional duties over and above the day job to drive efficiencies.  Why?  Because people believed they could make a difference. They also felt a deep sense of loyalty to one another and the business.  This exemplifies what one may term an internal locus of control. 

The other thing we have noticed as a by-product of this recession is that organisations’ social networks become fragmented as people leave, are moved or are simply caught up in crisis management with little time for lunch or socialising after hours.  What we know is that social support is one of the strongest predictors of successful coping under pressure. 

So, our intervention here involved introducing leaders to this concept and helping them develop solution focused coaching skills, and place a renewed emphasis on investing in new social networks across the business.

Finally we looked at emotional resilience.  Many people assume that work is not the place for strong feelings – anger, frustration, anxiety and sadness – and go to lengths to suppress their feelings.   The truth is, these are fundamental human emotions which are inevitable at work given the combined pressures, politics and personalities.  Managing these emotions both in the moment and in the long term are critical resilience building skills.  Recognising that all of us have our own coping strategies and release valves to manage strong feelings, rather than prescribe techniques, we encouraged leaders to share their tips and tricks with one another. These proved more creative – and often more entertaining – than anything we could have designed ourselves. 

So does it work?  Preliminary evaluation data will be available shortly.  I’ll post an update when it comes through. 

Craig

There are many factors that contribute to how people respond to stressful events including what the events are, the amount of stress that happens within a given time period, and specific personality traits. There are also different ways of measuring the effects of stress such as job performance, social functioning, physical health, and emotional well-being. I’m going to focus mainly on the latter two. 

Although it is true that there is a correlation between the amount of stress people experience and health problems, that doesn’t necessarily mean that stress causes illness. In fact, many people are remarkably resilient even after experiencing major trauma or loss. For example, studies of bereaved spouses typically find that fewer than half show signs of significant, long-term distress and most show no signs of clinical depression.

Clearly, some people do not cope as well as others, and personality plays a part. It has been found, for example, that people who are prone to negative moods are more likely to experience life difficulties and health problems. But it has not been established that life difficulties and health problems cause negative moods. In other words, it appears that being negative or pessimistic puts you at risk for health problems—not the other way around.

This is likely due to the subjective nature of stressful events. It is the negative interpretation of the event that compromises the immune system and leads to health problems—not the event itself. Fortunately, studies show most people are optimists, even when faced with potentially life-threatening circumstances. Research indicates that optimistic people react better to stress and are generally healthier than pessimists.

Another factor that is important in our culture is perceived control. A high sense of perceived control, where we feel we can influence outcomes in our lives, is associated with good physical and mental health. But when people feel that they have lost control (e.g., being placed in a nursing home against their wishes), they often deteriorate rapidly and sometimes die unless some measure of control is regained.

A related concept is self-efficacy. This is the belief in your ability to carry out specific actions that will produce a desired outcome. High self-efficacy is associated with greater success in lifestyle change efforts such as quitting smoking, lowering cholesterol, and exercising regularly.

Another factor that has been linked to health problems, specifically coronary heart disease, is Type A personality. Type A persons are typically competitive, impatient, aggressive, control-oriented, and hostile. Of these characteristics, recent studies suggest that hostility—not simply a fast-paced lifestyle—appears to be the culprit.

It may be encouraging to know that research also shows it is possible for people to improve the skills needed to cope with stress without changing one’s basic personality.  

Scott

The authors (Perlow and Porter) identified several “lessons” learned in conducting their experiment. In reading these I could not help but interpret a few of their “lessons” as mirroring existing Behavioral Medicine and Occupational Health Psychology principles.

Suffice it to say the consultants worked in what they perceived to be a continuously stressful work environment. The adverse physical, mental and cognitive effects of prolonged stress are well documented. The requirement of the consultants to take predictable time off during heightened workloads (times of prolonged stress) allowed the consultants to separate, relax and recharge. By removing oneself from the threatening environment, and exposing oneself to a relaxing and/or rewarding environment, higher order cognitions become accessible versus the focus on, or pre-occupation with the task (demand or perceived threat). Therefore, from a Behavioral Medicine Stress perspective, it was not surprising, when the authors found the consultants exhibiting greater creative processes despite the time away from work.

To ensure that the consultants took the time off, the leadership had to support it and encouraged experimentation with different approaches to problems.  These factors are reflect what is known in the Occupational Health Psychology field as Perceived Organizational Support (POS).  POS is defined as the extent employees perceive that the organization they work for values their input and cares about their well being.

The participants in the research knew that their superiors cared about their well being; since the article reported that the leaders “set the tone” about taking time off and “modelled” the new behavior.  
As a consequence of that level of POS, the perceived level of stress in the work environment would be lower since POS has been found to ‘buffer” work stress and strain.  The positive effects of POS has been   been found in a variety of positions (skilled, unskilled, blue and white collar) throughout the globe.

In summary, the HRB article identifies increased levels of communication, an elevation in the creative process and a greater level of employee retention by taking consistent and administration supported time off.    It is my opinion that the improvements noted within this research belie the influence of appropriately managing stress while management created a supportive and caring work environment.

Dan

Day 1

The plane descends in a steep spiral into the airport to avoid anti-aircraft fire from the surrounding mountains. We find ourselves in a line to enter through immigration without the promised escort.  Despite worries that we may not get through, it turns out to be orderly and quick, with up to date technology in place. Once through to baggage claim, our elusive guides are still not around, so we accost someone with an American accent and a badge and surprisingly, he knows that our guide is at the airport entrance.  Once met, we are escorted to our transport and suddenly we’re in a war zone.

We put on flak jackets and get into two armored vehicles with well-armed escorts. “Today is highest threat alert because of the elections. If anything happens to the car, stay in it; if you are hurt we have medical treatment. We have your blood groups”. We then go through the Kabul streets at speed and probably with more danger from the traffic on the single lane ring road – there is little regard for lane discipline.

Once at the camp we are shown our rooms and told we’ll probably get sick either from the altitude (6000 feet) or the food!  Our rooms have a bunk with mattresses whose springs are designed to injure; a desk; a locker; a basic shower room and a rat trap at the door. We reflect on the task we have – helping front line reconstruction workers change their leadership culture.

Day 2

We survived dinner and get up at 6:00am to prepare the workshop. We become aware of the pervasive aroma of sewage – apparently the builders forgot to put traps into the plumbing system. We discover that although we had sent detailed information about our work room requirements, the message has not been understood and tables need removing, we improvise flip stands out of road signage and a local is dispatched to go buy paper pads. Remarkably he returns very quickly from a local store with a dozen pads. We resist the temptation to ask how, given how short the supply of other basic needs for living seem to be. Then the fun starts – we have a list of participants which bares only something of a resemblance to who shows up. None of us has ever had to facilitate sessions on developing Emotional Intelligence with participants who have been told to be present and are angry about this, but are also fully armed with side guns and rifles. Nevertheless, by lunchtime all are fully engaged and showing a remarkable level of self awareness and an understanding of how relationships work.

Day 3 to Day 7

We facilitate two 3-day workshops and as well as the full engagement in learning and personal actions, we support the groups in analyzing the issues they face in leading re-construction teams at the front line, including deployment with the troops.

We hear frequent gunfire from the practice ranges and the rooms are rocked on a couple of afternoons by explosions – just controlled ones at the airport and nothing to worry about we’re told.

We all reflect on how when we’re in the rooms working despite this environment, we focus and work as normal. It’s a shock to walk outside and realize we’re in Kabul. The beauty of the surrounding mountains is stunning; the range to the east is snow capped and glistens at dawn and dusk.

One of us succumbs to the food but valiantly carries on. We mark our days by mealtimes and still find ourselves getting disoriented.

We walk the perimeter of the camp each evening and talk with the Gurkha guards patrolling the high stone walls. These Nepalese have formed a great community, which is a contrast to the rest of the camp. We have a discussion with the groups about the social psychology of living in enclosed guarded conditions, where access out is limited and only occurs under guard for personal safety reasons.

On our last day we get to see some of the local culture as a bazaar comes to camp.

Day 8

We’re collected early by our armed escort, put on the flak jackets and do the hair-raising journey in reverse back to the airport. Kabul has some new building going on, but it’s the devastation and poverty that is most striking. Most of the roads we can see in the city are rubble and for the most part there is an open sewage system.

On the plane again, we spiral steeply up, very aware that we can leave and many can’t and that war puts stress on the culture and society both of the nationals of a country and those who arrive to help in the aftermath. Within two hours we are in Dubai and the culture shock of the wealth and the biggest mall in the world.

Lindy

“The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing”                              

ALBERT EINSTEIN (1879-1955)

I was conned recently in a local restaurant I have been going to for years. They overcharged me by a large amount and because I know them well I did not check the machine I put my PIN number into – I trusted them. Neither did I check the receipt which I put straight into my wallet. The hand written bill was correct. I did not discover the error until I got my bank statement three weeks later. I was angry with the behaviour of the staff and I was angry with myself for not noticing. Taken together with recent discoveries about the behaviour of financiers, bankers and Members of Parliament, I ended up spending considerable time thinking and reading about personal ethics in organisations.

I came to three conclusions:

• In the same way that organisations do not have values, only individual people do, there is no such thing as organisational ethics – an organisation is only as good as the behaviour of its ethically weakest member of staff
• Putting in processes to check ethical behaviour will not and has not solved the problem of individuals behaving unethically in business
• Behaving ethically at work (or anytime) requires that individuals are rational and mindful – and we are all less rational and mindful than we like to believe 

Being ethical is deeply personal. Ethical behaviour is the output of a state of mind. This is simply expressed in a flow chart:

Many organisations attempt to legislate for ethical behaviour and ‘train’ everyone on what being ethical constitutes. As with lots of other systemic training e.g. health and safety procedures, staff performance reviews and project management systems, content can be put across and knowledge tested without gaining the emotional commitment of staff. The result is processes and systems that are fallible. No matter how well someone knows the safety rules, people only truly behave safely when they are consciously aware of what they are doing and are committed. How many of us have driven home on autopilot without being aware of the journey or what we passed on route?

In terms of ethics, how many of us could answer no to all the following:

• Using the company phone to make personal calls
• Seeing you are undercharged in a shop and not pointing it out
• Rounding up the mileage on travel expenses
• Claiming for something that is not strictly business e.g. stationery for use at home
• Finding money/wallet on the street and not handing it in
• Seeing someone shoplift and not report it
• Exaggerating an insurance claim
• Copying material from the internet for your own work
• Bumping (minor) someone else’s car in a car park and not leaving a note
• Taking perfectly OK items back to a shop when they have been used and asking for a refund
• Not giving back things we have borrowed

Moral awareness and moral decision making are affected by past experience and learning. Some people are simply unaware they are facing an issue with ethical dimensions. That unawareness can be the result of errors in how people process perceptions of the world. Human beings frequently fail to see the evidence before them. We often filter reality based on what we heard most recently or something that made a deep impression on us when we were younger. We often default to believing what our own group says rather than any other group e.g. different race or company. There are many types of cognitive bias that can trip us up.

Some people only take their cues from the external environment (other people around them), called an external locus of control where they see themselves as unable to control or influence events. The culture and pressures in a work environment can exacerbate these pre-existing tendencies. Deadlines, financial constraints and strident management can set an environment where people respond by knee jerk rather than with rational thought.

Having the capacity to reflect on situations, recognise the ethical dilemmas and make coherent moral decisions are the necessary conditions for ethical behaviour. For any individual or team of people to conduct themselves in this way requires a level of self value or OKness that is equal to the value we attribute to others (I’m OK/You’re OK). If we answer yes to any of the scenarios above, what was our mindset when we behaved unethically – most likely not OK. Improving ethical behaviour can only come from increasing the self value and confidence of a workforce.

We have all (on balance of probability) behaved unethically at some point in our lives. Being able to forgive ourselves for such transgressions is essential for our mental health, perhaps with the proviso that we learn from the experiences. If we recognise post hoc in a more rational moment that we have behaved unethically, what action do we take to redress that behaviour? The quotation from Einstein at the beginning of this blog refers to people looking on and doing nothing. He was referring to the atrocities of the Second World War – however the quotation holds just as true for all the less life threatening scenarios we come across. Organisations have collapsed, lost custom or diminished in value and credibility due to the unethical conduct of a few individuals. Many of these go unrecognised, unlike ENRON or MP’s expenses. Allowing a substandard process to go forward or failing to report difficulties in delivering products are just as much ethical issues.

Whilst we are all less rational and mindful than we believe, at any one time it is unlikely every person in a team or organisation is irrational. The bottom line is whether at the times we are rational we act to redress a situation or allow the danger to grow.

Now I am thinking how I can go back to the restaurant and redress the issue effectively – or will I simply look the other way and never go there again?

 Janet

I thought that this was a good example of the differences between expert consultation and process consultation.  My colleague as a lawyer has been trained to be the professional problem solver and advice giver and she did this very effectively.  Our clinical psychology experience has taught us to attend to all the processes operating in order to help the person, group or system learn and change.  In this meeting I was interested as much in the way the CEO told the story as the content of the story itself.  I wanted to know more about the context and the type and styles of the people concerned.  I wanted to know how the CEO construed the problem and what she had in mind to do.  I wanted to know what her style was and the expectations of everyone involved.  I was looking for solutions that would fit the context.  The lawyer by contrast told us the law and the consequences of certain actions.  She made assumptions very quickly and based her solutions on these.  She was clearly confident about her knowledge and position.

Often described as the USP of clinical psychology, the skill of formulation is central here: the clinical psychologist starts with a blank sheet and a set of appropriate theories, models and experiences to interpret meaning and implication and then matches a set of solutions to the problem.  Formulation requires the gathering of a wide range of information, which sometimes may be seen by others as superfluous or ‘odd’.  From here, he or she formulates a hypothesis which is tested as more information emerges or different approaches tried. In this way interventions are locally grounded in the client’s system and are more likely to be effective.

Process consultation depends on a number of other skills familiar to clinical psychologists:

• working in partnership to solve a problem
• the integrity and self awareness of the consultant: the ability to prevent the imprinting of the consultant’s personal values, beliefs  and emotions on the client’s situation
• relationship building between the consultant and client (and ensuring we are developing such a relationship with the person most able to enact the solution in the client organisation is often part of the process itself)
• being able to use language to ask, explain and hypothesise so that the client is engaged and inspired while we creatively solve the problem together

My legal colleague did challenge my view, as did working with the client I mentioned earlier.  If I had just told them the answer, would I have given the right answer without the exploration? I would certainly have saved time.  Edgar Schein, the father of Process Consultation reminds us that just as we need to use different communication styles with different people we need to know when to use which consultation model in which situation.  There are many times when the answer seems straightforward and it can be tantalising to go straight there.  However my learning so far is to have confidence in my process and formulation skills even when the client or other advisors ‘go expert’ as this yields more innovative and far reaching solutions.

Kate

Reference:  Schein E. H. (1999) Process Consultation Revisited: Building The Helping Relationship. Addison- Wesley

Capitalism, as defined by The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, is “An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.” There are a number of other definitions on the Internet, and the common elements of these are the recognition of individual (human) rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The many exalted benefits of Capitalism include the encouragement of individual initiative, a free market that determines the price of goods through competition, human rights, freedom of speech, and lastly, motivating people towards financial freedom. This all sounds great, yet given the current financial debacle one has to wonder, “what went wrong?” Some pundits will argue that greed is the culprit and others will say that poor ethics are ultimately to blame. Perhaps both are correct; however, my belief is that both these hypotheses are too simplistic. In my opinion, the true nature of our current situation has yet to be fully understood and may ultimately require a more in-depth multi-disciplined analysis. So far, the acts of throwing money at the problem and lowering interests rates have not had much of an impact on the money markets and banks, which seem immune to the corrective strategies being employed. Unless we fully understand all the co-factors that created this crisis and then work strategically to address them, we may have great difficulty overcoming them and/or will remain vulnerable to repeating the same mistakes.

In the next few paragraphs, I humbly hope to add to this discourse by exploring a construct called the “Psychological Contract”. While I fully understand the logic behind economic experts strictly focusing on the financial variables, systems do not exist in a vacuum and usually are only as effective as those who use them. Consequently, I believe human factors and, more specifically the current mindset and the related behaviors stemming from that mindset are also to blame.

Psychological Contract – What American Dream?

By definition, a Psychological Contract refers to the unwritten or implicit mutual or reciprocal exchange or agreement between an employee and his or her employer and is based on the expectations, beliefs and/or perceptions of both parties. The attributes generally covered under this construct vary throughout the literature but in general include items like work ethic, pay commensurate for performance, to uphold the companies reputation, opportunities for training and career development, reasonable job security, honesty, work-life balance, respect, loyalty, and trust to name a few. Thus far, the bulk of the research around this construct has, for the most part, been strictly focused on: 1) the relationship between employees and employers; 2) the negative impact of having a broken Psychological Contract; and, 3) the changing needs subsumed under this construct given the differences between the Baby Boomers and what are now being called the Millennials (generation Y plus). Even when corporations have the best intentions, the constant demand on corporations to be leaner, faster and deliver more profit makes it hard for them to meet these implicit, and at times, competing expectations. Unfortunately, intentions or dreams are not enough. The research shows that a breach to these contracts is strongly associated with a decrease in obligation to one’s employer, resentfulness, a decrease in trust, lower performance, a reduced commitment to one’s company, lower citizenship behavior, feelings of betrayal and, ultimately, even to an increase in attrition. The full impact of this breach has yet to be fully understood and navigating this crisis successfully will require that all the stakeholders show up fully committed and ready to work hard. Otherwise, whatever strategy is undertaken will be greatly compromised before it is even started.

The broken psychological contract at the corporate level may only be a symptom of a greater problem. Namely, I hypothesize that a similar Psychological Contract exists at a higher level. More specifically, in the relationship we as citizens hold with our respective governments. One does not have to work hard to find news articles and clips about government corruption, the crumbling infrastructure, or broken social systems like Social Security and health care. To many people these entitlements represented a safety net. People used to trust that their companies and their government would ensure that their best interest, safety and security were being looked after. In short, they believed that both these entities were honest brokers of the public interests. Given the current status of all these systems, it is no great stretch of the imagination to suggest that many people may no longer trust either? If indeed trust is lost, then, one would also assume that people are probably afraid or at the very least feeling anxious. How will they make ends meet? How will they afford mortgages, medical bills, college tuition, and retirement? Again, I suggest that we do not fully understand the breath and depth of our current situation. Let me be clear however that I do not mean to suggest that corporations or government can solely fix this crisis. The problem is greater than either entity and far too costly to tackle without first forming a coalition of sorts to address the problem. The American Dream or Psychological Contract has always been a function of the reciprocal relationship between the government, corporations and the individual. If you worked hard, then you were promised a piece of the pie. Sometimes the pie came to us from the government, sometimes it came in the form of a golden handshake from our corporations and sometimes it was a combination of both. Unfortunately, the government and corporations have for a while now been very focused on either special interest, or delivering more profit to the external stockholder. These strategies generally resulted in a decrease of return at the individual level. Unless you were lucky enough to be sitting at the top of either structure, you saw little or no reward.

While it is not my intent here to lay blame on either entity, I do believe that at least here in America, the individual worker has been hit hard from two sides over the last two decades. Americans have worked harder and endured longer and longer work days compared to any other nation and yet, have less money saved, pay high taxes, have poorer health care options, contend with crumbling schools and infrastructures, and have less leisure time than ever. Something is wrong with this picture. This is not the American Dream of my forefathers. Instead, I think we are suffering the consequences of the American Dream gone awry. In the face of broken Psychological Contracts, it has become a dog eat dog world, where individuals respect no boundaries or ethos. Since they can no longer trust the societal pillars of years past to keep them safe and secure, people are now taking what they believe was implicitly promised regardless of whom or what they hurt along the way. In psychological terms, I hypothesize that in some ways we have reverted to our survival instincts.

Capitalism 2.0.

My definition of Capitalism 2.0 does not in any way change the definition given above and certainly includes all of the exalted benefits that have inspired creativity and individual initiative throughout this nation since its inception. However, what I do mean by Capitalism 2.0 is that we need to temper our actions and behaviors with a reflective process or consciousness that is mindful of the fact that we are all connected. Technology, biology, and in deed even Mother Nature consistently remind us that even the smallest of actions taken in the dark in a remote village in the middle of nowhere can ripple effect across the globe. Whether we are talking about global warming, the financial markets, or terrorism, the future of our nation or perhaps even the human race requires us to recognize that we are connected and that we all share responsibility for co-creating the future. Our problems are the same problems facing countless others across the globe; our problems connect us all. People who have no food or shelter and feel left out will turn to desperate measures, so we cannot continue to take without regard for the responsibility we share in looking out for our neighbors whether they reside next door or on the next continent. We need to offer them an alternative and we need to renew the Psychological Contract. If we do not, it may only be a matter of time before the consequences of our disregard for others and the earth catch up with us. Perhaps they already have.

As I sit here writing, Barack Hussein Obama has been sworn into office as the next President of the United States of America. It is a time of great crisis and also amazingly a time of great hope. My wish for our nation is that we do not, once again, squander the good will of the people here and abroad, and instead focus our energy on revisiting and recommitting to our values as a nation. The problems we face are so many and so varied that if we do not approach them through some sort of cohesive systems approach (values) or lens, we might soon once again discover that we have lost our way. We cannot fix the stock the market without also fixing the mortgage situation. We cannot fix the mortgage situation without also fixing the Healthcare system. We cannot fix the Healthcare system without also fixing the Social Security system. We cannot fix the Social Security system without also fixing corruption on every level in both the corporations and government. We must recognize the connections and approach them holistically. Otherwise, we may be doomed to a perpetual game of Whack – a – mole.

Looking Forward

In closing, I’d like to repeat that my thoughts above are simply meant to increase the dialogue and hopefully inspire some creative thinking around how to better manage the issues we currently face across the globe. Simple fixes do not seem adequate for the challenges we face and I believe the current crisis will require a new partnership forged between governments, corporations and individuals. At every level, we must consider what needs to be done differently in order to create a better future for all. Indeed, we need a new Psychological Contract that is mindful of our connectedness, works to employ systemic strategies, and includes something akin to the Hippocratic oath, which reads, “First do no harm.”

Eugene

So how do I join the 63% of people who will have kept their resolutions by February?  

Like many people, my real challenge is avoiding those private “oh blow it!” moments – when all I want in the world is to sit down with a good book and a chocolate biscuit dunked in full fat cappuccino.  Typically, my downfall will occur at the end of a bad day (we all have them), when I’ll be tired and I’ll experience some powerfully self defeating thoughts, which go something like…

“I knew I could never change.  That workout was really pathetic.  People must have been laughing at me.”   Before I know it, I’ve talked myself out of my next gym session and I’m feeling like a failure. 

Recognising and preparing for these danger times is one way to keep on track.  Tackling my faulty thinking is another.   American psychotherapist Aaron Beck helped to develop Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) demonstrating that the negative ways we think about a situation (he called them negative automatic thoughts) affect how we act.  In turn, our actions can determine how we think and feel.  We need to change both the act of thinking (cognition) and behaviour at the same time.

CBT says that we often create our own problems. It is not the situation itself that is making us unhappy, but how we think about it and react to it.  

So I need to rethink my session at the gym today (and the fact that I’m now onto my third cup of coffee).  Beck offers four main questions to help challenge our negative view of things:-

• What is the evidence?  Do the facts of the situation back up what I’m thinking?

I attended the gym today and did only 10 minutes on the treadmill and cut short my weight training.  It’s certainly more than I did last week but less than yesterday.  I also have no idea how people see me at the gym – they are more intent on their own training than on mine.

• What alternative views are there?  How might someone else interpret what has happened?

This is my third time at the gym this week which for anyone is an achievement.  I was also feeling more tired than usual. 

• What is the effect of thinking this way? Is it helpful and how does it influence how I feel and what I do?

What I want is to get fitter and thinking this way is not going to help me with that.  If I put myself down like this I will give up instead.

• What illogical thinking errors am I making?  Am I jumping to conclusions, taking responsibility for things outside my control, over-generalising from a specific event.

Just because I cut my training short today does not mean I am a complete failure. I’m going back to the gym and my performance today does not automatically predict my results in the future.  As for the coffee, a few extra cups do not negate the progress I’ve made so far.  I can reduce my caffeine tomorrow by having a glass of water beside me as I work.

CBT is a scientifically proven approach developed originally to treat major mental health problems which is why most of the books available are geared to that market.  CBT also offers an everyday tool kit for challenging the unhelpful beliefs and attitudes that we all hold at some time in our lives, about ourselves and our capacity to change and grow.  The key elements of CBT include keeping records of behaviours,  thoughts and feelings, challenging the negative automatic thoughts which undermine our success and undertaking “experiments” to test out hypotheses about future behaviours.  In addition, Beck recommended we reward ourselves daily with activities which provide Pleasure and a sense of Mastery to maintain our progress. 

So, in a month’s time how will I be doing with those resolutions?  Chances are I’ll have had a few more setbacks (I’m human) but I’ll be challenging the way I think about these.  The odd slip up won’t mean the end of my progress.  By December I intend to be one of the 12% of people still pursuing their new year’s goals.  And If I find myself falling back into old habits? The secret will be not to beat myself up but pick up where I left off.

 Gill

Teams are organizational groups composed of members who are interdependent, who share common goals, and who need to coordinate their activities to accomplish these goals (Kogler-Hill & Northouse, 2001).  The task of the leader is to focus on two distinct but related areas:

Team Performance – helping the group accomplish its task (task functions)
Team Development – keeping the group maintained and functioning (maintenance function)

This is a complex process requiring leaders to monitor the progress of team work, determine when to take action, and work out when it is most appropriate to focus on internal group issues or external concerns.    In Peter Northouse’s Leadership: Theory and Practice, Susan E. Kogler Hill highlights some specific team principles which can be used to help leaders manage this complex process.  These are derived from research into the critical discriminators between successful and unsuccessful teams carried out by Larson and Lafasto (1989) and include:

A clear elevating goal – Teams often fail because their objectives are unclear and they get pulled into non-value added activities such as firefighting or pursuing personal agendas.  The most effective way to ensure this does not happen is to agree a clear, motivating goal in which everyone in the team is invested.  

Results-driven structure – Different teams have different functions, and they need to find the optimal structure to achieve their goals.  For example, problem resolution teams need to emphasize trust so that people are willing to contribute; creative teams need to be structured to emphasize autonomy; project teams need to emphasize clarity so that everyone knows what to do and when.  Alongside this attention to the function and structure, it is critical that clear roles, good communications and methods to manage individuals are in place. 

Competent team members – This is about having the right number and mix of people to achieve the goals of the group. Team members need to be provided with adequate information and training to be effective in their roles.  As well as technical skills, individuals need to develop so-called ‘soft skills’.  These include interpersonal skills and an ability to collaborate and communicate effectively with one another. 

Unified commitment – This is about fostering a positive team spirit.  Effective teams share a common sense of purpose, are united by shared values and identify themselves as part of the team. 

Collaborative climate – An effective work environment is one where people can be open with one another, where they listen to and respect one another’s views, feel free to take risks and are willing to compensate for one another.   Kogler Hill highlights the importance of honesty, openness, consistency and respect in building this collaborative climate in the team. 

Standards of excellence – It is important that the team itself sets a clear standard to which all members are expected to perform.  This creates a degree of peer pressure which exerts a positive influence on individual effort and performance. 

External support and recognition – Kogler Hill points out that a common mistake is to give a team challenging objectives, and then fail to back this up with adequate organizational support.  Even with clear goals in which all are invested and the most competent team members, a team will fail if the following are not in place: clear direction, adequate information, resources, rewards and training.  

Principled leadership – The team leader can undermine the effectiveness of the team by failing to tackle poor performance.  Another barrier that leaders often inadvertently put in place involves setting too many priorities.  According to Kogler Hill, principled leadership is about coaching the team to work collaboratively and to share knowledge and skills throughout the team.  The leader’s role is also to focus the team on their unified goals, to encourage autonomy and to motivate team members.  

These factors provide the building blocks for effective team performance.  Getting the most out of individual contributors and blending these skills to produce a quality team product can help ensure business leaders get the most out of the people they lead in these tough times.    

Martin

Northouse, P.G. (2006).  Leadership: Theory and Practice.  Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, California. 

I now find myself wondering how organisations are going to navigate through this new era and what new mental models will evolve to replace the old. Clearly, ‘fixing the roof’ will be the first priority to most organisations. Yet in doing so, most companies are now re-evaluating their business models through new eyes.  Inevitably, what it means to work in these new organisations and the psychological contracts that define the employee-employer relationship will change as well.

As each individual begins the arduous task of working out what the current conditions ‘really mean for me’, they will begin rebuilding the mental models that they will use to navigate the new economic world order.  This can be an intensely anxiety provoking experience – and people will go to significant lengths to avoid this anxiety.  For some, this will involve a retreat into what has gone before and a determination to fit current experiences into existing models.  For others, it will involve the abandonment of existing models and a process of rapidly trying to work out the rules of the new order.  Either way, it’s exhausting and feels risky – which simply reinforces the emotional intensity of it all. This can drive behaviours that are, at worst, dysfunctional and divisive.  Or this same intensity can be the catalyst for innovation and inspiration.

In her work with traumatised communities, Ronnie Janoff-Bulman (1992) suggests that people’s mental models comprise the following factors:

• Whether they perceive the world as a largely habitable and co-operative place
• Whether they perceive the world as a place of meaning, logic and predictability
• Whether they perceive themselves as having worth and the skills to make a meaningful contribution to the world.

When these models fail us in the face of a dramatic, new experience, we start rebuilding them. Typically, this involves emotional processing of the event through:

• Denial and emotional numbing
• Persistent intrusive thoughts, and reliving of the experience
• Interpreting new experiences and their impact on us through:
  • Comparing our fate to that of others
  • Interpreting our own role in the experience and the extent to which we had control over it
  • Finding meaning, logic, explanation or positive consequences in the new experience
• Seeking interactions with others to enlist support and to normalise feelings and experiences
• Developing an evolving personal story or narrative around the experience that helps us put it ‘on record’
• Experimenting with new ways of doing things to demonstrate our mastery in the new world

Within this context, all over the world, people and organisations are rebuilding their mental models. Already, the first books are appearing that document some or other aspect of this crisis.  New theories and policies are being formulated that will shape the recovery of our economy for years to come. These will be the maps that will guide us through the largely unchartered waters over the next 2 – 3 years. What astounds me most as a human being and a psychologist is how rapid the process of rebuilding mental models can be.  I often think that this is a matter of self preservation. I say this because out of the gloom of every crisis the new shoots of optimism and innovation are seldom far behind. Just as I witnessed this in the fire ravaged community, so too am I confident in seeing it emerge from this current crisis.

Aedrian

Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered Assumptions: towards a new psychology of trauma. New York: Free Press