Courtney S Robinson

In late July, I met with a communications professor who specialized in small-group communications and he directed me to check out the Tuckman’s Stages of Group Development created in the mid6os. I’m not done researching it, and would not be surprised to see some recent study refuting it since the initial study is so old, but I think it makes sense and will be an essential tool in the pursuit of my leadership philosophy.

According to Tuckman team develops in these stages: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, and Adjourning. In my experience, that’s an accurate team life cycle. Interestingly, this model has a lot of overlap with SCARF and change management.

Tuckman and SCARF

In the forming stage, everyone is feeling each other out. As professionals, our inclination is to act politely and avoid challenging each other too much. We find ways to relate. We avoid saying things like “I think Led Zeppelin sucks” when a teammate proclaims John Bonham is the best. We can comfortably continue our same level of autonomy as collaboration workflow have not yet been established so. In all, this is a gentle phase. Still, leadership needs to communicate strong goals for the team to coalesce around. The leader also needs to make sure to dedicate time not just for the ‘tasks’ realm, but for ‘group structure’ too with inclusion activities.

Storming is the ‘two steps forward, one step back’ phase. This critical phase includes confrontation, resistance and limited productivity. All the SCARF domains get touched during this phase. Team members are less relatable b/c we let our hair down and shout “Zeppelin is overrated!”. Things like status and certainty are diminished as roles and workflows are introduced. If there is a lack of communication, transparency or information management, decisions can appear less fair. There may even be a loss of autonomy. That said, working through this phase builds a stronger team with more trust and a more honest understanding of each other’s values, work styles, and strengths. A leader needs to identify members of the team that have high tolerance for conflict that can support the manager throughout this stage.

Norming is when the new-group-generated norms are institutionalized and turned into muscle memory. Without re-enforcement, it is easy for a team to slip back into the storming phase. In this stage things may not be quite automosly b/c there is and extra level to ensure the new process sticks. So a leader needs to be attentive, work to continue to define the roles and make sure the processes are being followed.

Performing is when everyone really understands their roles and goals. The team is a well oiled machine. Now, things are certain, fair, we know how we related to one another and there is an increase in autonomy.

Tuckman and Change

The Tuckman stages follow along the same basic timeline as the three phases of transitions as well as the Kubler-Ross grief model.  The article Tuckman and Tears goes into a deeper analysis on how the Tuckman and Kubler-Ross model complement each other. What I find very interesting is the correlation. The second stage, storming, has the most conflict and touches all of the SCARF domains which are based on approach-avoidance behavior. In the second phase of transition, the neutral zone, approach-avoidance and conflict are listed. Some of this can get confusing. When does one model end and the next begin? BUT overall I think an accurate timeline and sound strategies for anticipating and overcoming resistance emerge. Now I just need to commit some to memory.

My first interview at The Corner Room generated a lot of discussion, but ending up centering on two main concepts: The Iron Triangle and SCARF.

Scarf is a ‘brain-based model for collaborating with and influencing others’ based on social neuroscience research. Since my leadership centers around building a collaborative creative community, my first interviewee suggested it. I’m glad he did.

The model is based on the simple concept that most social behavior is either trying to minimize threats or maximize reward. When the brain comes across any stimuli it categorizes it as a threat (avoid) or something good (approach). Beyond the good or bad, social behaviors are then categorized into five social dimensions: Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, and Fairness—hence SCARF.  Why these five, I guess they ping the same parts of the brain as primary survival needs (food, water). When people perceive a threat to their ‘Status’ the same parts of the brain are activated as when a person receives a threat to one’s life.  On the flip side, increases in autonomy can be perceived as an equal reward as a pay raise.

This ties into emotional intelligence. If someone is perceiving an action as a threat to their status they will naturally be flooded with emotions akin to having their own life threatened. Understandably, anyone feeling the effect of that flood will have a hard time listening, thinking, and working. If I want to create a collaborative community, I’ll have to understand how to navigate those situations.

Reading through the model is very insightful as it illustrates behaviors that can be perceived as a threat or reward for each domain. With that info, I’m able to assess my own actions better and make sure that I avoid inadvertently setting off a threat response.

The Interview

My first interview provided a lot of inspiration and guidance. An informal conversation, we discussed our thoughts on leadership, emotional intelligence, how both work together, and what’s the best ‘go to’ at The Corner Room. I tried the bison burger.

The discussion centered on how someone can practice servant leadership from a non-traditional leadership position and/or in a very dynamic environment. One potential solution is to correctly communicate expectations. My interviewee came from an environment that relied heavily on project management and believes looking through that lens really helped him communicate expectations and build trust. In his experience, one tool in particular has helped a lot when communicating to senior leaders: the Iron Triangle.

The Triangle

“Pick any two; you can’t have all three.” That’s how the Iron Triangle works. If you want to increase the scope of the project, then either “resources” or “time” must follow. This simple illustration really helps explain the correlation between the three concepts. One of the most important, yet hard, thing to do is to correctly communicate how much time and resources you need. It’s seems a little backwards, but saying “no” when you don’t have enough of either can actually build trust. Using the triangle can help you say no.

The Creative Venn Diagram

Interestingly, I have experienced with the “you can pick two” philosophy from my advertising background. I’ve used above venn diagram before as a way to manage exceptions, costs, and deadlines with clients.

Conclusion

After being introduced to the triangle a quickly found a lot of discussion and alternative  versions. One swapped quality and scope. I’m excited to try the triangle out for my next project and read more about it. Hopefully, it will help me improve my communication skills, expectation management, and build trust among those I work with.

I’m at the downtown Panera Bread and the table beside me is a group of grad students (?) talking about chickens and egg production. I had to mention that because I just sat down here to blog about  . . .  super chickens and egg production.

Setting

On the first Wednesday of every month State College Young Professional met for their monthly ”Sips,” an informal networking social which rotates between local bars and restaurants. I just wrapped my draft up, and I was excited to jump right in and give it a test.

A/B Testing

Since I was there to test out the speech I decided to speak to a handful of folks and alternately try my draft vs. whatever I could ab lib.

Conclusion

I’m very comfortable going off-the-cuff. I think when I used my elevator speech it felt like I had to hit my ’marks’ and overall it felt less smooth then whenever I let the conversations take me wherever it took me. Maybe less preparation works best for me? Maybe I did not prepare enough?

Or maybe my draft didn’t match the setting. Since ‘Sips’ is informal, I had my fiancé with me, and the event is more driven as a social gathering, I think my draft may not have perfectly synced up. I wrote my draft to be less formal because that matches my personality, but I refrained from sarcasm etc. As a result, I thought my draft would work for the audience and my goal, but maybe it was still too formal for when everyone is holding a beer or glass of wine. People were there to meet new folks, joke around, and talk about the careers. In that environment, sarcasm, current events, and the kitchen sink lead to more interesting conversations and a fun time. And really that’s what the audience was there for. My draft was not quite tailored for that environment, which I should have realized beforehand. Fortunately, I think it was so loud no one noticed any hiccups except for me.

I just gave a listen to an old NPR interview with the author of “The Perils of Power.” First they redefined power: there’s the traditional definition of might, resources, positional power vs. the the more nuanced definition of power which includes influence and respect. This nuanced definition tied directly into emotional intelligence and servant leadership. Those that display ‘altruism, kindness, social intelligence,’ gained power and respect from their peers more successfully than their peers which did not. Then comes the paradox. As all those kind folks moved up and gained power their social intelligence actually decreased. In some studies they actually lost their ability to read emotions from facial expressions.

So no real surprise. Power corrupts.

My values + worldview lead me to servant leadership

The two things I’ve done the most during PSEL is to reassess my values and think hard about the kind of leader I want to be. Previously, I mentioned I had a natural inclination towards servant leadership and I was wondering why. I think it taps into my more foundational values.

When I think about one of my fav passions “creating things” I’ve always considered it was because the joy and sense of discovery I experience. I always get a kick from seeing the results and pondering “where and how did I come up with that idea.” But there’s a second side I never considered. I don’t just do this in a vacuum. I like sharing those creations with others. Why? I think it’s because I also want to see how it will impact those around me. (Not always positively. Among my friends I am often the pot-stirrer on board game nights. Truthfully, I have a little Iago in me.)

Then, there is the integrity aspect. How can I ask someone to behave or change if I don’t embody that change too? Being a servant leader ties into my values of integrity and gives me the chance to see how my actions can have a positive impact.

Zeroing on my goals

My other value/belief is that power corrupts and that most large/powerful institutions likely have an immoral and/or unethical foundation. This value is really helping me zero in on my goals and action steps.

When I’m shown quotes from a leader from a large corporation I cannot fight thoughts like: Has there been a more destructive group of humans than the “C-suite” of fortune 500 companies—especially in the past 40 years? Why must we quantify the value of diversity and inclusion by profit increases? I understand this a a business program, but does anyone find it surprising that most of the transformation leaders mentioned in Dr. Tom C. Hogan’s video were of individuals who fought against the ‘c-suite’ and not too many names of those w/in that group. Probably not. I think from one POV this could be considered a bias, but whatever you call it I do think is gives me some direction.

So my goal is to avoid the traditional definition of power. I want to take a more altruistic approach to leadership. My goals for this summer is too improve on my foundational skills like project, time, and relationship management and become a leading example within my workgroup. Now I’m ready to schedule my leadership interviews!