jim.shamlin.com

3: Focus: Avoiding Bright Shiny Objects

In order to make any change, you have to understand where you currently are. The fact that you perceive a need for change implies you are not happy with the way things are - so it's often unpleasant to subject your situation to scrutiny, but it's necessary.

The author's concept of focus has three dimensions.

  1. Presence - To be where you are at the moment, not concerned with the past or the future
  2. Realistic - To recognize things as they are, free from filters, idealism, and wishful thinking.
  3. Prioritize - Determine what is most important, and what most deserves the effort, rather than distracted by trivialities

Deletion, Distortion, and Generalization

The human brain deletes, distorts, and generalizes the information it receives, largely as a matter of necessity: our senses are constantly active and the amount of data would be overwhelming if we paid attention to everything in every moment.

She credits the thalamus with the brain structure that filters information. If it filters out too much, you lose insight and creativity. If it filters out too little, you literally go insane - full conscious of every sensation in every moment, unable to focus.

The problem comes when we filter out the things we ought to give attention because it is difficult or unpleasant. Some of it is deleted so we are not conscious of it, other information is not deleted but simply ignored or denied. The problem is that if important issues are not addressed, they perpetuate and tend to fester until a relatively minor issue becomes a serious crisis.

Distortion is generally an emotional issue: we prioritize according to what we care about, but sometimes the distortions aggrandize or minimize the wrong things, and our priorities are out of order. But when we have strong emotions, particularly negative ones, then the distortion can lead us astray: we apply ourselves to a problem that has a less significant impact because we are particularly annoyed about it for an unrelated reason.

In business, distortion focuses on minor issues. If 99 out of 100 orders were shipped accurately or on-time, our focus is on the one order that was not - and we end up creating procedures based on the exceptions rather than recognizing that 99% of the time the existing ones worked perfectly.

Generalization is a mental shortcut that often saves a great deal of effort. Once we learn how a light switch works, we don't need to deliberate about how to turn on the lights in the next room we enter: we see a switch similar to the one we just used, and assume that it functions the same way. Otherwise, we would waste a great deal of energy on the most basic tasks.

Generalization goes awry when we feel we know something we actually don't. When we eliminate options or ignore opportunities that we assume will not work based on past experience, without considering the specific conditions of the present, we often make mistakes.

Being Present

Being present means focusing on the conditions and possibilities of the moment - to identify what we can and should do right now. Ruminating over the past and thinking of the future are distractions from what we need right now. And while planning means projecting a future state, we must focus on what we are doing right now to achieve the results we want later.

Being truly present can be difficult because it can be unpleasant. It can be exceedingly boring, or it can require us to face something unpleasant, rather than remember something pleasant or look for a future task to muse over that has a less negative emotional portent. It feels better and safer simply not to think about the present issue and avoidance is a safety mechanism.

Remember, though, that seeking safety is a mechanism of the animal brain, with its negative emotions and short-term perspective. To be present, we have to understand the triggers that make us want to avoid the moment.

The author's suggestion is to recognize that certain things are unpleasant, as well as recognizing that refusing to deal with them is an emotional reaction - and it is not our only choice. We can in fact choose to delay responding to them, if it is rational to do so - though there are likely better options.

One of the best ways to focus on being present is in recognizing the results we will achieve by taking action. If something is unpleasant, one of the benefits is making that unpleasantness go away - it will linger and continue to depress us until we have done so.

Inquiry Fosters Presence

One problem with many leaders is that they make snap decisions. When confronted with a problem, we jump at the first solution; when asked a question, we rattle off the top-of-mind answer. This is very quick and convenient, but the first solution and the easy answer are not always the best, and we need to take time to understand the problem and consider options - to choose the best thing, rather than the first thing.

It is even worse in leaders, because when we give orders and provide answers, we do not support their ability to think or contribute. We are creating a culture of obedience, which is not a productive and innovative culture that cultivates leadership or even self-confidence in others.

Instead of providing a snap answer, ask a follow-up question to draw out more information. Better still, ask them for their ideas - "what would you suggest?" - which will enable them to think on their own, and to feel that their ideas matter.

At first, this is slower than simply telling them what to do ... but in time, it fosters independence. After about three encounters, they will expect you to ask questions and will think through problems more thoroughly before coming to you. And if you are supportive of their ideas, they will develop the self-confidence to implement them without seeking authorization. They may then come to you to suggest their ideas and seek your validation, but as they get used to getting your approval, they will gain the confidence to take action independently.

Feuding Founders

When a firm achieves major revenue milestones, the partners who worked together to found a company diverge and develop different ideas for the future of the firm. This leads to serious disagreements, which ripple through the firm.

She provides the example of a firm that rose quickly, but then one of the founding partners began acting autocratically - making changes to the business autocratically. She avoided discussing her ideas with the other partner because she expected him to resist change in general, even though she felt it was necessary to the continued success of the firm.

Meanwhile, another partner saw her actions as an attempt to seize power within the firm, and fought back by withholding information and working to covertly undermine the changes she was trying to make. Her reaction to this was to get the political support of those investors and executives whom she saw to be in key positions.

This covert battle between them caused a great deal of confusion and frustration for the firm: it suffered not only losses in revenue and profitability, but also high employee turnover, including the defection of some who had been key players in building and growing the firm. Three outstanding executives were ready to quit because "they couldn't succeed and grow their careers in a war zone" and morale was in the gutter.

The conflict between high-ranking or highly influential people is more than a petty spat between two people - it ripples through the organization.

The author's intervention began with the two individuals in question - getting them to recognize that their behavior might seem confortable and convenient in the short term, but had much wider long-term repercussions for the entire organization. The next step included cultural training for top management, which trickled down through the ranks, to change interaction styles to include open communication and consideration of the side-effects and long-term consequences of decisions.