We have talked to many leaders about their attempts to create organizations of higher purpose. One of them told us the following.
Building a positive organization is a challenge. I spent years trying to create one. One day I received a call reporting that one of my people had made a major mistake. I had just given intensive training on the very issue. My first thought was this, “He is a problem.”
At that instant I had an unusual experience. I was stopped in my tracks. I knew I had just done something wrong but I had no idea what it was. I sat down and examined the brief incident. A clear message came to my mind. “None of your people can ever be seen as a problem.”
The notion was so strong that it transformed me. From then on I refused to define any one as a problem. A problem is something you solve and make go away. A human being is someone you cherish and develop.
With this change I began to observe other administrative situations. Many administrators define people who violate their expectations as problems. Most people who are defined as problems detect the negative orientation of the senior person and they see only two choices; disengage or rebel. With either choice, the organizational culture begins to turn negative.
The conventional mental map suggests that an administrator is a person of power and expertise who fixes problems by acting upon others. The authority figure is separate from the system and acts upon it. Good management is a function of a brilliant mind.
The positive mental map suggests that authority and expertise, taken alone, make us ineffective. The leader is actually a part of the human system that the leader seeks to change. Our ability to elevate human systems is a function of our ability to love and learn with others.
Andy Hoffman understands this connected, dynamic, and reciprocal perspective. He argues that to bring sustainable change, one might draw inspiration from the world one is trying to change (2016:22). He cites E.B. White, the author of Charlotte’s Web:
“Every morning I awake torn between a desire to save the world and an inclination to savor it. This makes it hard to plan the day. But if we forget to savor the world, what possible reason do we have for saving it? In a way savoring must come first.
To savor is to enjoy, relish, appreciate, cherish, treasure, value, and delight in. When we authentically appreciate the people we work with we orient to them with love, particularly when they make mistakes. If we do not, we see them as problems and we promote fear.
It is said that students do not care how much a teacher knows, until they know how much a teacher cares. It is trust that leads to learning and authenticity that leads to trust.
In the end, the leader is part of the system the leader is trying to change. In that system everyone is interdependent and success is predicated on the collective ability to learn. Success is a function of the leader’s integrity and virtuousness. Courage, sensitivity, caring, forgiveness, and authenticity are just of a few of the virtues that make a leader effective. Such a leader is oriented to appreciation and not to depreciation.
Reflection
Why is it natural to define people as problems?
Why does objectification destroy a positive culture?
How can we use this passage to create a more positive organization?
9 comments on “Purpose and Appreciation”
Comments are closed.
Early in my career as the leader of a small business, I decided to banish the word “problem” from my working environment. I was only in my 20s and I was already feeling worn down by having people come to me, on a regular basis, saying, “We have a problem.”
So I told all of my employees that we were never going to use the word “problem” again — whether in referring to people or to situations; instead, we would substitute the word “challenge.”
As Mr. Quinn points out, “A problem is something you solve and make go away.” Conversely, a challenge is something from which you can learn and grow by addressing — an opportunity for transformation.
By simply reframing the notion of “having problems” to “facing challenges,” the dynamics of the working environment shifted from adversarial (e.g., “I have a problem with my co-worker,” “I have a problem with this client,” or “I have a problem with that assignment”) to team-building.
When someone came to me saying, “I am facing a challenge with X,” I was then able to respond, “Let’s consider how we might work together to meet this challenge,” or “How about teaming up with Betty Lou and David to brainstorm some options.”
This simple adjustment in language seemed to have multiple positive effects:
> People who might be disposed to hiding or covering up “problems” felt more comfortable coming to me or their coworkers with “challenges.”
> It opened up people’s minds to more creative approaches to dealing with issues and concerns.
> Positive aspects of encountering what might seem like roadblocks but were actually a chance to explore came to light upon further examination.
> And once we had considered our options, then selected and implemented our course of action, rather than merely saying, “Problem solved; case closed,“ we could follow up with, “So what have we learned from the process?”
This is a wonderful story. Not many 20-somethings are so insightful. Thank you for sharing.
The more I think about your story, the more I like it. Would you mind if I share it sometime or use it in the blog?
The more I think about your story, the more I like it. Would you mind if I share it sometime or use it in the blog?
I would be honored!
I love this! “Appreciating” people versus “depreciating” them.
Thank you!