21st Century Leadership.

Published on Published onFebruary 1, 2018

David Bovis
Managing Director @ Duxinaroe
27 articles

JOHN LOCKE (1632 - 1704)

"...we cannot reasonably expect that any one should readily and obsequiously
quit his own opinion, and embrace ours with a blind resignation to an authority
which the understanding of man acknowledges not. For, however it may often
mistake, it can own no other guide but reason, not blindly submit to the will and
dictates of another. If he you would bring over to your sentiments be one that
examines before he assents, you must give him leave at his leisure to go over
the account again, and, recalling what is out of his mind, examine the
particulars, to see on which side the advantage lies; and if he will not think over
arguments of weight enough to engage him anew in so much pains, it is but
what we do often ourselves in the like case; and we should take it amiss if
others should prescribe to us what points we should study: and if he be one
who wishes to take opinions upon trust, how can we imagine that he should
renounce those tenets that time and custom have settled in his mind that he
thinks them self-evident, and of an unquestionable certainty ...

"You Cannot impose anything on anyone and expect them to be committed to it"
Edgar Schein - Professor Emeritus - MIT Sloan School.

"Those who have a 'Why' to live can bear with almost any 'How'"
Viktor Frankl (1902-1997).

Isn't it time to take the wisdom, apparent across centuries and introduce leaders to the biology and psychology that can
now deliver the facts to support such observations?

The paradox is this;

The neuroscience and psychology at play, which interprets the presence of anything 'new' (e.g. language) as a
threat (to status, ego, ID), cannot be understood and addressed, by those unaware of the principles they
themselves are subject to, via their own brains.

In other words, if you don't understand the transition a human brain goes through in a change environment, you can't
hope to adequately plan, manage or lead change effectively (i.e. address the barriers to change), in yourself or others.

Bottom line? This significantly impacts the bottom line.

Change initiatives go over budget, over time, deliver less than expected and fail to develop internal teams. Knowledge
transfer is superficial, based in logic and tools. This doesn't provide the catalyst for a shift in a leaders beliefs. We look
at only a part of a system (Process / Technology) and fail to re-define 'Good' when considering a broader system
(People / Process / Technology).

In practice, we see leaders express an interest in knowing more about effective and efficient Organisational Change,
but the pre-conditioned expectation within the market, is that 'Change' is something done by consultants, teaching
tools. When it's suggested there might be more to it, which requires a higher level of engagement and understanding,
the coping strategy in an already busy, intellectually challenging, politically charged, full-time role, that also challenges
the work-life balance of the leader, is denial / avoidance... the problem with this, is a leaders brain (despite multiple

claims to the contrary lol) is still an adult-mammalian brain and it doesn't adapt (form new wiring patterns - i.e. learn)
by letting other brains have an experience ... it 'learns / adapts' in response to it's own sensory stimulus.

I truly believe it's time we raise the bar and introduce language into the mainstream which allows us to have informed
conversations about 'Change' where people [Brains] are recognised as the primary and major part of the 'Complex
System of Complex Systems'... we can put this subject under any banner, OCM, HR, Leadership, Systems Thinking or
Lean, the label is less important than the change of action urgently required - globally!

So, how do we break through the psychological barriers that stop leaders assimilating knowledge from current

experience to use as justification against the need to know more (in defence of their current world view / wiring &
firing patterns / glucose energy consumption in nuerogenesis which drives assumption)?

Lets put the answer like this ... I'm a fan of psychology, but I think we can short-circuit the understanding of it, if we
jump to a better (working) knowledge of the brain. I've found, where we (Dux) introduce leaders to a few basic aspects
of the brain as a system, from how it re-wires itself constantly, what experience 'imprints' the wiring patterns in the first
place, what emotional challenges are established in formative years and how it [the human brain] deals with data
(sensory stimulus), often through the filter of those formative years, what happens in sleep, the role of imagination etc.
a long list of psychological principles suddenly make a lot more sense ... and can be built into our clients change plans
for significant effect and benefit.

It's a bit like diagnosing a fault on a car. Where the basic mechanics and relationships between the parts come to be
understood, the drivers approach toward the driving and maintenance of the vehicle is more likely to change than it is
in a driver who cannot comprehend cause and effect throughout the system (including their own attitude and
behaviour)... the driver might notice certain quirks of the car, i.e. it won't start when cold etc., but if they knew about the
viscosity of oil and the drop in capacitance in a battery in lower temperatures, they wouldn't have to talk in loose terms
about the issues ... and they could be much more effective in addressing problems.

It's like that with people, if we can talk about dopamine and the triggers related to it's presence (tangible - evidence
based science), we don't have to talk about 'Motivation' and 'Engagement' as if those words in and of themselves are
enough to inform corrective action.

So, let's unpack the car analogy a little ... If a person drives fast and erratically, it might be for any number of reasons ...
they might be a young man aiming to impress and attract a mate (Peacock'ing), or, the driver might be insecure in
themselves and therefore lacking confidence behind the wheel, leading to an inner narrative that reinforces their
inadequacy, which manifests in them trying to get the journey .. any journey ... over as quickly as possible ...
Driving whilst fearful / panicking, in response to a deeply imprinted low self-concept, can lead to different parts of the
brain engaging, reducing the energy available for the parts required for driving well, diverting glucose energy away
from the pre-frontal cortex and executive function, leading to a lower level of awareness and a failure to;

1. indicate at roundabouts,
2. turn fog lights off,
3. brake too hard for no reason,
4. pull up 30ft from a junction,
5. Mirror-Signal-Manouvre
6. Sit in the middle lane or fast lane holding up 1000 cars behind them, etc. etc.

... because mirrors and other drivers don't feature in the mind of someone acting from a position of insecurity / fear ...
etc.

These and any number of similar reasons might be why the driver has a 'heavy right foot' on both accelerator and
brake.

Now, if that person is one of your drivers (i.e. is in charge of company equipment that has to perform a task as part of a
process, like a lathe operator in a factory or computer operator in an office) and your focus is on fuel efficiency, tyre-
wear rates and the amount of brake pads you get through each year (i.e. KPI's) ... Do you address the design of the
metaphorical wheels, tyres, engine or fuel? Do you look at the route the vehicle has to follow? Do you provide the
driver a new set of tools to analyse the route or change the tyres and brake pads faster? ... Or do you understand the
emotional predisposition of the human behind the wheel ... what is causing them to respond / act the way they do ...
and if they will be able to adapt to the presence of the new tools in their life or integrate the principles of those tools into
their world view, such that they are able to apply them for a sufficient amount of time to allow their use to become
natural ... i.e. an imprinted habit?

The popular approach in the market for the last umpteen decades has been focused on the application of Tools

and Techniques, keeping Process and Procedure in focus (PDCA) .. often in stark contrast to the realities and
requirements surrounding the transition people are required to make in an environment in which they perceive change

is imposed upon them. The populist logical approach just doesn't address the need to shift an individuals belief

before you can expect a shift in action (behaviour)... or the fact the imposition of anything 'New' is a primary fear
trigger, often resulting in the dreaded 'Resistance to change' at a cultural level (Group think / herd behaviour).
We need a better balance. BTFA ©™ 2000-2018 (Please do not copy without express permission from a legal
representative of Duxinaroe.). .. a little Yang to go with the Yin ... 3C's that stand for Care, Compassion and Concern,
rather than Concern, Cause and Countermeasure.

Isn't it time we stopped driving our companies and people as if they are cars and openly acknowledged the biggest
change follows a change in the person behind the wheel? (The analogy is to an organisation of parts / departments /
business units etc. of course).

With the advent of significant advance in the worlds of Neuroscience and Psychology, it's now possible to explain every
aspect of Locke's, Shein's and Frankel's observations with science, to move the conversation away from
generalisations that only a few come to understand (through experience and reflection / Hansei), into hard and fast
action for reasons that not only make sense to anyone, but translate into top line and bottom line benefit.

Let's raise the bar and replace the assumption (Confirmation / optimism bias) that we can understand things, but
everyone else needs it dumbed down ... we don't need issues surrounding 'Transition' dumbed down, we just need to
include them in the conversation.

For too long we've been dealing with Process, Procedure, Policy, Strategy (Hoshin), Structure and Systems as if they
are detached from the people expected to adjust to their presence / a change to those we've accepted.

It's always been about people and that means the starting point has to be Brain, Mind, Change and Culture before we
can do a better job of introducing Strategic deployment models and tools and techniques.

Lets stop defending the past and move into the future with the language the present provides us.