WE SEE OURSELVES IN OTHERS ……UNFORTUNATELY

I am delivering a nine day leadership course to two groups in an Alberta Municipality. One group is great (read that easy for me to work with). The other group is not. Five of the difficult group were told that they had to come. They are busy and giving up 9 days of working time to learn what you don’t want to know does not make a happy learner. It would be easy to blame the group for my difficulties but it is a more complex than that.

In the last two years, I have been experiencing a lot of success in the workshops that I do. I get really positive evaluations and people even give me presents thanking me for the difference I have made to them. A sweet woman, a native from Malaysia, took time today to tell me how she has completely changed her thinking because of a two day leadership course she took from me. She understands the culture here now and can now can say with confidence what she needs to say to senior leaders. She realizes that she is important and has a right to share her expertise with others. As a result of feedback like that I feel like I am pretty good at facilitating learning.

This difficult group is a whole other experience. What I do that works so well for other groups just doesn’t for them. They don’t like open-ended questions, will not discuss anything in a large group and like playing games more than thinking and making applications. So different from me. The last workshop, our 5th day together was arduous for me and I couldn’t wait for it to be over. On the drive home I thought about all the things that I am usually sure about and how with them I am not sure about anything. I thought about how I probably come off as a know it all – like I have all the answers. These people are not interested in my answers and really why should they be?

I was still in this fairly negative headspace when I arrived at a “leadership” meeting with the Stake President and all the leaders in our ward. I am convinced this man is a ESTJ. He always, and unfortunately can say always, offends me when he speaks in meetings. He is fond of rules and checklists about personal righteousness and uses stories about how people “it” ( pray, serve, teach etc.) the wrong to teach. Anne is quite right when she says that this is poor way of teaching. His questions have right answers and I always feel like he is the parent and I am the child. As a result I feel hostile, distrustful and judged. My spirituality plummets and my testimony is challenged.

In one of the courses I teach, I have people select behaviours from a list that are hot buttons for them. Then I ask them why these behaviours of others bother them so much. Is it because they offend deeply held values or is it because of a fear of some kind that these behaviour engender? Or, perhaps, is it both. I have determined that the Stake President that bothers me so much does so because his behaviour does offend deeply held values. I don’t think that anyone has the right to tell me or any other adult how to live their life. We are all so different. I also value humility, the openness to learning a great deal. He never sounds as if he has anything to learn. I am know I am intelligent and thoughtful and opinionated. I am an extravert that processes thinking out loud. As a result I am constantly afraid of being perceived as arrogant, thinking that my way is the only way and that I have all the answers.

I don’t know of anyone who feels about the stake president as I do. I must admit therefore that my perception of his behaviour says way more about me than him. How is it that I turn this around. I don’t like feeling as I do. I go to church to be spiritually fed not drained. The answer of course is to work through my own concerns and focus on my own behaviour. I need to remain aware of how my perception is being shaped by my values and fears while I listen and then try to see him in a different way. Not an easy task to be sure. One that I am not always up for unfortunately.

Success to the Successful

I teach Systems Thinking. This course uses the pragmatic approach developed by Marilyn Herasymowych and Henry Senko to Peter Senge’s seminal theory found in the “Fifth Discipline”. This particular approach to formerly incomprehensible theory, enables anyone to use 10 system archetypes to understand complex patterns of behaviour in systems of any size. The world is a system, organizations are systems, groups are systems and we, as individuals are systems. Working with these concepts over the last ten years has heightened my awareness of repeating patterns of dysfunction. This is not always a good thing since I am prone more to analysis than action in most situations where I perceive little influence. I rarely take action on situations that should and could change. This blog is about high school basketball.

One of the most common and easily recognized archetype in systems thinking is “Success to the Successful”. In this pattern, an individual, group or organization is identified as having great potential. This high potential target is given access to resources that enable them to reach their assigned potential. They are given these resources because of course it “makes sense”. It is a “wise investment”. They are “talented” and the return on investment will be high. For people or groups in organizations this means that “high potential” individuals or groups are given more money, training, visibility and performance opportunities. And not surprisingly, they become even more successful. Others who are not deemed successful in the beginning do not have the same access to the resources and again not too surprisingly, do not become more successful. In fact, they often become less successful or poor performers.

I don’t think it is my knowledge of this archetype is to blame for my perception that this is one of the most powerful dysfunctions in our society. Children born in poverty become poor students eventually dropping out, become unemployed adults and often homeless. It is a cycle of poverty. Others born with money and advantage go to good schools, marry well, acquire great jobs and too often pat themselves on the back attributing their success to their own effort and determination. This archetype is in fact the reason I am a socialist and why I believe that Mormons among all people should be… “Unto whom much is given much is required” (D&C 82:3) “Are we not all beggars”(Mosiah 4:19) “ the poor have ye always” ( Mark 14:7, Luke 12:48). “And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them” (Moses 7:18).

Organized sports seems to be a haven for this archetype. There were only a couple of blacks on Canada’s winter Olympic team because winter sports more than others are expensive and socio economically there are not as many rich blacks in Canada. We won a lot of medals because Canada funneled a lot of money into our athletes over the last 4 years. It was great to share the success of these dedicated, perhaps obsessive people. I only experienced the positive results of this archetype in the Winter Olympics – i.e national pride, excitement etc.

High school basketball however does touch me and the application of this archetype is driving me crazy. Both the junior team and senior team coaches are caught in this negative pattern. The coaches have chosen their “best players”. These girls have more game time, and hence more experience and opportunities for feedback and learning. No surprise that their skills have increased and they score a lot of points. This “A” team can make a lot of mistakes and stay on the floor. Members of the “B” team can make only one mistake and are instantly subbed. These girls who are not as good, play less and remain of course, not as skillful. The coaches would say that this is a competitive level of play and that they are playing to win. I think this is a fallacy, that is compromising both team effectiveness and is hurting young women at a critical time of their lives.

The problem is that the “winners” continue to play when there is no possibility of losing i.e. the team is winning by 20 or 30 points. This pattern is unjustifiable and has the impact of lowering the capability and winning potential of the entire team. As a wise and successful coach said to me years ago, “a team is only as strong as its weakest member”, this “Success to the Successful” pattern works against team capability and potential. By creating winners and losers ON a team, the potential and capacity of the team is compromised. A team using this strategy will always lose to a team that has 3 strong lines not just one. Raymond’s senior girls team last year was a case in point. There were no weak players. Every line was unbelievably well conditioned, expert and high scoring and that team won the provincials.

What is more upsetting to me is to see the impact of this archetype on individual girls. I watched a girl who has never been a star, be a star for a month or so when she was chosen to be a “starter”. She had never played so well. Now for some reason, she has fallen from grace and her floor time is greatly reduced. This fall from grace was a gradual but a predictable downward spiral. Now when, she plays, it is frequently poorly and she is too often immediately removed when she makes a mistake. This is especially true if the score is close. It is obvious that her confidence has been compromised and her performance has decreased.
Anne and I have talked about this problem. Her strategy is to focus on believing that she is one of the best player every time she is on the floor. Without knowing it, she is using the reverse archetype or the positive manifestation of “Success to the Successful”, entitled “Strut Your Stuff”. This archetype leads us to be clear about our own particular strengths and abilities and has us look for opportunities to communicate and capitalize on these strengths.

I am sad that I will not be able to see the finals. Anne’s team will be playing Andrews team in the quarter finals. Andrew works on the “Strut Your Stuff” coaching philosophy and analyzes what every girl is best at. He develops team and coaching strategies based upon these strengths. His girls have much less experience and training than Anne’s team. What will happen? Who will win? Who will have increased their capability the most? For our family, Monday’s game will be both win/win ( one team will progress) and lose/lose ( one won’t) whatever the result will be. Anne only wishes that Andrew was her coach.