Fit and Emergent Leadership

Vlatka has recently had an article published in the Havard Business Review called “To Be a Better Leader, Give up Authority“. One of the interesting themes to emerge from this work is the idea of ‘mutualism’.

Mutualism involves measuring workers not against revenue or other numerical goals, which we have observed to be ineffective as motivational tools, but against qualitative values such as trust, responsibility, and innovation.

And it implies that leaders don’t dictate vision or strategy; instead, they enable employees to create a common vision through, for example, off-sites for discussion of strategic issues and regular feedback and education. Hitting numerical goals has been the natural outcome.

Exploring mutualism, alongside human fit should make for a very interesting discussion.

How can I join in?

The dial in number is + 1 712-432-3100 and the code is 152585. We’ll also be recording the call.

The underplaying of social relationships and social cohesion as significant facets of work and organisation is not new. In part this may be attributable to the difficulty researchers encounter when it comes to understanding, codifying and quantifying what happens in human relationships. Yet the ‘R’ word (‘relationship’) is one of those that clients often seem to get nervous about, so maybe I should not be so surprised.

Why bother with researching this area? If we consider for a moment a fundamental question: lovely as it may be to understand how relationships work, is there any impact on performance, ROI or shareholder value? Yes, actually…

“MIT research shows that 40% of creative teams productivity is directly explained by the amount of communication they have with others to discover, gather, and internalise information. In other MIT studies, research shows that employees with the most extensive digital networks are 7% more productive than their colleagues. Furthermore, those with the most cohesive face-to-face networks are 30% more productive.” (Hodgson, 2009 – my italics)

In other words, if an organisation is not cultivating/encouraging/supporting its people to form cohesive social networks, which by definition are based on relationships, it risks 40% of its productivity. This will undoubtedly vary from industry to industry, yet the fundamental point remains: you can invest as much time and money as you want in processes, management structures, policies, strategies and performance management, organisations are inherently relational human systems. If you have not identified how to develop and foster social cohesion, the plan is incomplete at best, flawed at worst.

“Today, work design researchers are increasingly recognizing that jobs, roles, tasks, and projects are inextricably intertwined with interpersonal relationships, connections, and interactions” (Grant & Parker, 2009: 9)

So where does this leave the Fit Form? My intention here has been twofold.

Firstly, to make a case for fit, in the context of the wider fields of research, as an increasingly important lens through which to view relatationships in an organisational context. In and of itself, in the meanings that it comes with and has projected and transferred onto it, fit is a vehicle and symbol of something both fascinating and crucial in the day-to-day, emergent and unfolding nature of human relationships.

Secondly, to propose that relational practitioners and researchers have far more to offer the modern organisation, which is becoming increasingly decentralized, fluid, dynamic and dependent on relationships between individuals who may find themselves increasingly employed and deployed in virtual teams and/or as freelancers who will be contracted on an as needed basis. Why? Because we are able to help clients release the hidden 40% of productivity. Working relationally is not simply about soft outcomes, it impacts directly on hard ones.

References

Parallel to us, the 2009 Fit Conference, hosted on-line by the Open University, identified a number of trends in the area of academic research that form part of the backdrop to our work, namely:

• Understanding what underlies perceptions of fit;
• Distinguishing misfit from fit;
• Looking at organisational fit within its social, economic, and religious environments;
• Exploring organisational fit in different forms of work; International perspectives on fit;
• Assessing the impact of organisational fit on organisations and teams;
• Assessing fit for organisational use;
• Longitudinal studies of fit.

Key themes/questions to emerge from the conference relate to whether fit research is inherently a cul de sac, and if not why not, and a sense that the area is dominated by predominantly American constructivist researchers, heavy on quantitative rather that qualitative research methods.

In the context of the Fit Conference, we have been reflecting on what role the Fit forum could/should play in the arena of fit research, and what value we can bring. We believe the Fit Forum, whilst sharing similar aims to academic research in some respects, is different in four key respects:

1. Practitioner focused – the founders and most of the members of the Fit Forum are primarily practitioners rather than pure researchers (academic or otherwise).
2. Qualitative rather than quantative – more of a focus on what more relational models of psychology such as Gestalt can offer, with a preference for phenomenological and heuristic modes of inquiry.
3. Person – Person – fundamentally, we are interested in what happens at the contact boundary between individuals, and believe that it is from these encounters that the lived experience emerges and is co-created. This locates us within a subset of the academic research frame, namely fit in the context of Person : Person (PP) as opposed to e.g. Person : Environment (PE) and PO – Person : Organisation (PO).
4. Performance and fit – how can we link them? Can we identify any form of ROI in relation to an organisation focusing on the quality of relationships and social cohesion?

This last point is intriguing, and a follow-up to this post will cover this in more detail.

Steve Hearsum

Co-Founder, Fit forum

The event consisted of an initial interview with Glenda, during which we explored what HSD might be able to tell us about fit/non-fit, and a Q&A.

Some of the key themes to emerge included:

• The similarities between HSD’s interest in similarities and differences and the notion of fit/non-fit.
• The role of fit/non-fit in complex adaptive systems.
• The suggestion that notions of fit/non-fit are embedded within human consciousness yet operate in many instances at an unconscious level, and the extent to which this can generate discomfort and un-ease.
• The wider significance if fit in a socio-psychological context.

The subject of the next conversation is yet to be decided. Please let us know if you have any requests/suggestions.

Below is a recording of the conversation.

Download audio file (fitforum-09-12-09.mp3)

HSD & The Fit Forum

I (Steve Hearsum) met Glenda in September this year, when she ran an introductory course on Coaching in Complexity. It struck me that HSD offers a fascinating lens through which to inquire into the phenomenon of fit. Thankfully, Glenda thought the same, and kindly accepted my invitation.

What is HSD?

“Human systems dynamics (HSD) is a collection of concepts and tools that help make sense of the patterns that emerge from chaos when people work and play together in groups, families, organizations, and communities.

HSD uses metaphors from the physical, mathematical, and computer sciences to help practitioners understand what is happening in the everyday dynamical interactions in organizations and groups. The concepts are grounded in science, but they continue to emerge as we explore the complex behaviors of human systems. In spite of their application to complex and challenging fields, these metaphors and applications are simple to understand and highly useful.”

How can I join in?

The dial in number is + 1 712-432-3100 and the code is 152585. We’ll also be recording the call.

The key themes to emerge were:

• Relationship to wider question of awareness we do/do not bring to our lives in general.
• Value judgement in relation to fit creation.
• What values configure fit creation, and at what level do they operate at e.g. Humanity, Culture, Society etc? Do ‘global values’ exist? A particularly interesting strand of conversation, this surfaced the view that to date, aside from the Barret Values Centre’s work on national values, there has been little research into what might be termed ‘global values’.
• The centrality of values to the type of fit that emerges.
• The tension between the apparent ‘desirability’ around fit, and its elusive quality.

The subject of the next conversation is yet to be decided. Watch this space as we have an exciting announcement re a guest we hope to be interviewing for the Fit Forum in December.

Below is a recording of the conversation.

Download audio file (fitforum-24-10-09.mp3)

We’re going to talk about the role of the conscious and subconscious in fit and explore some of the ideas, theories and impacts this has on fit as a whole.

Feel free to dial in if you can make it and it will be great to speak again.

The three possible dates are the

• 3rd September
• 23rd September
• 24th September

Feel free to sign up via the calendar on doodle or via the box below.

Finally, the dial in number is 1-712-432-3100 and the pin is 152585.

Steve suggested we explore three questions;

1. How do you decide if there is good or bad fit between someone when you meet them?
2. How long does it take to decide if there is a good or a bad fit?
3. How are you going to go about deciding on the quality of fit between you and me (in this case Steve)?

Over and above the very interesting responses, the other themes that emerged from the conversation included;

• The role of the conscious and subconscious in fit
• Listening skills
• The time it takes to achieve fit and can it be seen as a process
• Fit in the context of mergers and acquisitions
• Fit and individual/group values

Below is a recording of the conversation.

Download audio file (fitforum-13-08-09.mp3)

Suggested topics for the next call(s) include the conscious and subconscious in fit and fit in mergers and acquisitions.

The dial in number is +1 712-432-3100 and the code is 152585. We’ll be recording like the first one, a summary of which is online here.

As before, the idea of exploring the lived experience of fit seems to appeal. Likewise, if you’d like to propose any topics or ideas for discussion, please feel free. We’re thinking about inviting people to join the call from the next one going forward, possibily people who are already talking about fit or topics related to fit, in the main from a commercial and/or pragmatic perspective, but we are not averse to academic discourse either, even if it does mean dusting off the old mortar board and gown

I’m looking forward to another conversation.