Our work is not just based on our own experience, but incorporates many different views that inform our work. Below are some of the assumptions we might bring to our interventions:
That complex problems require emergent thinking
When experts propose solutions they actually discourage this thinking in their audience, and therefore are counter-productive. For example, as appealing as management models are, they perpetuate the idea that complex problems can be solved by following an easy process. Although effective in some situations, such an approach can run counter to, rather than support the adaptive challenges that future leaders need to tackle. (Heifetz and Linsky)
Appreciation must precede accusation
That framing the challenges for the organisation in terms of “biases” can in fact trigger fear responses and hesitation to engage in effective problem-solving. That is, people who fear recrimination are likely to either shut down, or resist new information or approaches. (Robin DiAngelo)
Effective development must be nested in context
Dropping great and innovative ideas, new skills or frameworks, even good advice doesn’t work if it doesn’t first appreciate what is already happening. Therefore, effective development must be nested in the context of the organisation. Our interventions start with the organisation’s target audience understanding, their current goals and challenges. Therefore any intervention must place the needs and context of the leaders at the forefront of the work. (Josh Bersin)
Our approach will begin by engaging with the target groups’ knowledge, structures and context, as well as their motivation to become better leaders, players and contributors to their chosen field.