Month: November 2015 | The Fourth Revolution Blog

How Room Temperature Can Change Dramatically Meeting Outcomes

Marshall Goldsmith describes an astonishing experience in his new book ‘Triggers‘: “Many years ago I was speaking at an off-site gathering of partners from a consulting firm. Although my previous work with this firm had gone well, this time something wasn’t working. No give-and-take, no lively laughter, just a group of very smart people sitting on their hands. I finally realized that the room was too hot. Amazingly, by merely turning down the temperature in the room, the session got back on track”

I think Marshall makes an excellent observation and it’s a key learning point for me in my facilitation activities for the future! Marshall Goldmith has now decided that room temperature was a key parameter to set: “Like a rock star demanding red M& Ms in the dressing room, I’m now a bit of a diva about insisting on a cool environment for my presentations.”

Up to now, while I knew that it is important to care about the comfort of the participants, I had not identified how temperature plays such an important role. Maybe we should also review that parameter in our offices and where we do important presentations!

Why We Need to Enroll our Environment in any Change Intent

Marshall Goldsmith, well-known coach, writes in his last book ‘Triggers: Sparking positive change and making it last‘: “Our behavior is shaped, both positively and negatively, by our environment— and a keen appreciation of our environment can dramatically lift not only our motivation, ability, and understanding of the change process, but also our confidence that we can actually do it”

The core theme is that it is quite difficult, even impossible, to change anything without taking into account our environment, and in particular our social environment. It will require to inform them that we intend to change; and even to draw the people around us to participate actively to our change. That is in particular the case when they are affected and easier if they support the change.

Because without changing our environment, most of our change efforts are doomed. Everyone must recognize that you intend to change, and that you are changing.

If you intend to introduce a substantial behavioral change in your life, make sure to involve the people around you, up to having them play specific roles!

Why Learning Comes from Giving

For a long time I have found that the best way of learning is teaching. It is a bit of a double-edge sword of course (you need to know a minimum to be able to teach) but the preparation and the performance of the course really nail the knowledge down. And the questions and challenges from the students do help light up some obscure corners as well.

Roland Barth, a specialist of school learning, is quoted to say: “The most powerful form of learning, the most sophisticated form of staff development, comes not from listening to the good words of others but from sharing what we know with others. Learning comes more from giving than from receiving. By reflecting on what we do, by giving it coherence, and by sharing and articulating our craft, knowledge, we make meaning, we learn.”

I love that sentence: Learning comes more from giving than from receiving.

This statement is actually potentially much more far-reaching than just the issue of teaching. It applies throughout our life: we can’t learn without some exchange. We can’t learn without giving. And it is those lessons that matter.

Quote extracted from the book ‘Optimizing the Power of Action Learning‘ by Michael Marquardt

Why We Should be Learners Rather Than Experts

“In times of change, the Learners will inherit the world while the Knowers will remain well-prepared for a world that no longer exists.” writes Eric Hoffer. Just right – and as we are now constantly in a time of change, this should apply universally.

‘Experts’ or ‘Knowers’ derive their views from an analysis of the past. Furthermore, in instances where the past is complex such as in history or economics, they add a layer of rationalization on these observations (such as correlations or implied causations).

The thing is, the future is not going to be a repeat of the past. And even more as time tends to accelerate. Even if is useful to study history to grab how random events create huge consequences, it can be disastrous to use this knowledge in the field of forecasting.

The observers, the ‘learners’, are those that will keep an open mind to new developments and will more quickly adapt. Be a Learner. Don’t seek to be a Knower.

Why is there a Golden Arches Theory of World Peace?

What is the Golden Arches peace theory? “No two countries with a McDonald’s have ever fought in a war. The only unambiguous Big Mac Attack took place in 1999, when NATO briefly bombed Yugoslavia” writes Steven Pinker in ‘The Better Angels of Our Nature: The Decline of Violence In History And Its Causes‘.

This is an observation, but not a causal fact. What could explain this effect? “Broad historical changes have tilted financial incentives away from war and toward trade. Russett and Oneal found that it was not just the level of bilateral trade between the two nations in a pair that contributed to peace, but the dependence of each country on trade across the board: a country that is open to the global economy is less likely to find itself in a militarized dispute”

It thus seems that bringing countries or communities into the flow of world trade and increasing the dependency on exchange would be a great way to foster world peace. The dramatic increase in worldwide trade could be an explanation of the much more peaceful times we are enjoying since the end of WW2.

In the Collaborative Age, bringing people and communities into the worldwide exchange of ideas should also improve peace and understanding. We then need to be particularly wary of those communities that close themselves to the outside world.

How Sensor Devices Add Another Dimension to the Personal Data Sharing Conundrum

Since the start of the Collaborative Age most of us have been giving out personal data in exchange for free services (like Gmail or Facebook where it serves to generate “targeted” advertisement). It’s already a lot of personal data, but it might become much more soon: we are increasingly wearing personal sensors that generate a lot more intimate data (location, movement, biological data etc.) and the Internet of Things will generate still more data about our personal environment. Should we continue to share it in exchange for more and more (annoying) targeted advertisement with the risk to really see our intimacy compromised or should we put a stop to this trend? Or are we happy to continue to fund free services with our personal data?

It is a real debate that is unfolding under our eyes at the moment. Cory Doctorow who is clearly on the side of the defense of personal data, proposes in a recent column ‘What If People Were Sensors, Not Things to be Sensed?‘ to change the logic: let the world produce offers and let us choose and filter without giving out our data. Large internet conglomerates on the other hand, defend their interest to have our data (while pledging for confidentiality and anonymity). And when Microsoft when installing Windows 10 asks a lot of questions of what we accept about data sharing, it seems scary but well, at least they are asking for authorization… while others don’t!

It is a narrow edge that the internet giants are treading at the moment. Their business model is at stake. Give the consumer the impression that they know too much about their intimacy and they risk a backslash; allow too strict personal data laws to pass and their revenues will disappear. And at the end of this conundrum, the choice is ours, as it will shape the Collaborative Age to come.

Why You Need to Beware of Second-Hand Stress

Second-hand stress has become a commonly recognized issue in the workplace and life in general (with an interesting parallel with second-hand smoke). Many papers are written on the subject even in the Harvard Business Review (‘Make Yourself Immune to Secondhand Stress‘).

Emotional contagion in the workplace results in the dissemination of stress in the office: “if someone in your visual field is anxious and highly expressive — either verbally or non-verbally — there’s a high likelihood you’ll experience those emotions as well, negatively impacting your brain’s performance“. The HBR paper even goes as far that one can be influenced by sight, sounds and even smell!

The recommendation to fight second-hand stress is simple. It involves quite some self-awareness, and building defenses (counter-acting stress episodes with compensating thoughts and situations, and defending oneself against the spread by resolutely taking some distance from the events at hand).

Be aware about the negative effects of second-hand stress! Build your defense system and minimize the impact of any residual second-hand stress on yourself. Remember, in most cases it’s not worth it!

Why are we working the more the higher in the organization? The work-time paradox

Today, the higher people are in organizations, and the higher paid they are, the more they are expected to work. That is very much the opposite of the situation one century ago: it was rather the lower classes that had to work long hours to gain a meager living while the upper classes took advantage of a life of leisure. And in the meantime, productivity gains should have rather diminished the average work time, while automation should have reduced human effort.

overworked — Overworked in the bureaucracy?

Why this paradox? Is it representative of a societal shift? Where will it stop (when one hears for example about young interns in banks dying from overwork !?)?

The New-Yorker published an interesting column on this topic ‘You Really Don’t Need To Work So Much‘ following some recent controversies about work conditions in Collaborative Age companies such as Amazon.

The column I find does not give convincing explanations of the paradox. Some arguments are probably valid (such as ‘If you’re busy you seem important’ and the fact that the modern large organization does create a lot of occupation that diminishes dramatically the efficiency, not to mention the effectiveness). One can think also about the fact that the current organizational structures are not designed to tackle the increasing complexity of the world, and this creates huge work to try to catch up the increasing gap. And yes, it is probably possible to be as effective and putting less hours at work, removing some bureaucracy.

It seems to me that the fact that the higher one is in an organization, the more he/she has to work is a remnant of the pyramidal organization of the industrial age. This should disappear progressively with the Collaborative Age. However the increase of inequality counteracts this movement as many people have to work more to earn what they expect. And freelance people end up working more than employees in general, because they also need to do marketing and administration tasks they can’t easily delegate.

Please comment if you have a good explanation for this paradox and your views on its evolution!

How We Increasingly Discover the Importance of the Vagus Nerve

I am struck to see in more and more papers and articles mention of the “vagus nerve“, a lesser known nervous system that runs parallel to the best known spinal system and concentrates on linking our internal organs to the brain.

This comes in parallel to an increasing awareness of the importance of “gut feelings” in decision-making. Gut feelings are mainly transmitted by the vagus nerve system. See for example this article: ‘Science says your “gut feeling” isn’t a metaphor‘ (which even goes to link our guts’ microbial condition to our brain capabilities).

In general it appears that a lot of deep emotional reactions are triggered or conveyed by the vagus nerve and that it plays an essential role in our overall behavior. This of course goes against some theories about the role of certain other nerves and brain parts. We still have a lot to learn on our bodies!

Why You Need to Get Better at the Skill of Asking Dumb Questions

Dumb questions can be very effective. And asking pointed dumb question is an art that I try to perfect.

I am not alone. “An important tenet of action learning is to create a structure and environment in which people are encouraged to ask what they might think of as “dumb” questions. Often it is the “dumb” question that is really the great “fresh” question that ultimately solves the problem and perhaps saves the company” writes Michael Marquardt in the book ‘Optimizing the Power of Action Learning‘.

Of course, it is harder to ask dumb questions on a topic that you know very well so unfortunately I realize that I get much less effective the more I know about something. That’s why it is always useful in a facilitated session to have someone there that does not know too much about the subject at hand and can ask the effective dumb question.

Are you also working on this essential skill?

How to Benefit of Reality Distortion Fields While Avoiding Total Disconnect

Reality Distortion Fields are essential for visionary leaders like Steve Jobs, but they can also be dangerous if too strong – reality often catches up rather quickly when ignored for too long. This is in particular the case for distortions of time (the most common maybe).

There is thus a fine balance to be maintained so as to allow visionary jump forward while at the same time, retaining sufficient connection with reality.

It is very possible to keep a moderate reality distortion field, which most people do even if unaware, and sufficient realism too. The issue is when the distortion strength becomes significant.

It is then easier to have this balance maintained by a team rather by a single individual. The visionary leader with his distorted vision of reality must then be paired with a down-to-earth realistic counterpart, and sufficient trust must exist between those individuals, which must rely on mutual respect. Sometimes leaders themselves must try to maintain this balance, but this often leads to unease and sometimes to accidents.

Strong reality distortion fields are essential for creativity and for leaps forward. They need to be managed and counterbalanced for a healthy progression.

When Will We Have Health Warnings on Social Networks?

Social networks create significant disruption in our lives. Some people get addicted and they indirectly generate accidents when people can’t help looking at their friend’s latest posts while driving or walking…

So, when will we have health warnings on social networks like on cigarettes?

Joke apart, this may happen sooner than you think!

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30