But as you placed each card and the house grew taller, you began to worry more about the possibility of the house falling down than about building it. You worried about the air currents being stirred as people walked by; you were careful not to breathe while placing each card. Try as you might, it became harder and harder to concentrate on that perfect card house. The sweat beaded on your brow as your shaky hand placed one more card on top, and…CRASH!

Keeping Focused on What We Want

Many goals succumb to the same fate as the house of cards. Try as we might to keep focused on the goal, other pressures interfere and take our attention away from what we are really trying to achieve. Productivity standards, cost control measures, fire-fighting–all can undermine a project or effort and, over time, lead to a “Drifting Goals” scenario. We become focused on what we don’t want to have happen, rather than what we want to change.

The “Drifting Goals” archetype is helpful for trying to understand why an organization is not able to achieve its desired goals. “Drifting Goals” occurs when the gap between a goal and the actual performance is reduced by lowering the goal. Because this often happens over a long period of time, the gradual lowering of the goal is usually not apparent until the decreasing performance measure has drifted so low that it produces a crisis. The following seven-step process illustrates how to use the “Drifting Goals” archetype as a diagnostic tool to target drifting performance areas and help organizations attain their visions.

1. Identify a performance measure that has deteriorated or oscillated over time

Sometimes the actual performance measure that has deteriorated is not the same as the one you have identified. For example, when sales of Tater Tots fell from 1985 to 1987, managers at OreIda assumed that the decline reflected a change in consumer eating habits. But further exploration showed that the quality of the Tater Tots had gradually declined over the years: ‘Their once-chunky insides had turned to mashed potato. The outside had lost its light and crispy coating.”

(“Heinz Ain’t Broke, But It’s Doing a Lot of Fixing,” Business Week, December 11, 1989).

At Ore-Ida, the goal was in the form of a quality standard for Tater Tots (see “Drifting Quality Standards”). A gap between actual quality and that goal should have signaled the need for investments in new equipment and/or the quality of the ingredients (B1). But because the drift in the quality standard (B2) occurred over a long period of time, it was not perceived as a problem.

2. Are there implicit or explicit goals that were in conflict with the stated goal?

Sometimes there are implicit or explicit goals in an organization which are at odds with the stated goal. For example, Ore-Ida was committed to producing quality Tater Tots, but the company had also embarked on a series of cost control plans beginning in 1979. “Cost-cutting had led plant managers to step up line speeds and change storage and cooking methods. Over a decade, the moves had changed Tater Tots.” Identifying other related goals that may be affecting the particular performance measure could reveal conflicts which create sub-optimization.

Drifting Quality Standards

A gap between actual Tater Tot quality and the quality standard should have signaled the need to invest in production processes or ingredients (81). But because the drift in quality &alined over along periodof time, it was not perceived as a problem.

3. What are the standard operating procedures for correcting the gap?

Identifying the standard operating procedures (SOP’s) for correcting the gaps will give you a window into the kinds of corrective actions that are currently in place. You want to find SOP’s that may have inadvertently contributed to the slippage of goals. What are the things that have happened that may have caused the corrective actions themselves to erode over time?

4. Nave the goals themselves been lowered over time?

A key question is whether the setting of the goals has been linked to past performance. The idea is to have an asymmetric relationship between past performance and future goals. That is, when performance is continually improving, basing the next goal on the previous one can create cycles of continuous improvement. But this strategy can lead to disaster when performance begins to slip, creating a reinforcing cycle of declining quality.

At Ore-Ida, the actual Tater Tot quality and the quality standard were linked together in such a way that as the quality deteriorated, it affected the quality reference point (see ‘Slippery Slope’ of Quality”). So from year to year, the quality looked about the same even as it was decreasing (R3). One potential side-effect of sliding quality could be that as sales decrease (due to poor quality), the company might decide to cut back on investments in production process and materials. That would lead to lower quality, which would actually accelerate the deterioration of quality (R4). Breaking this cycle involves creating measures that will counterbalance such tendencies.

'Slippery Slope' of Quality

If actual quality and the quality standard are linked together, qualitymay appear toremain the same from year to year even as it decreases (R3). If deteriorating quality results in a decrease in sales, the company may cut back on investments, further accelerating the quality deterioration (R4).

5. Identify external frames of reference to anchor the goal

One way to keep goals from sliding is to anchor them to an external frame of reference. The reference point can’t be chosen arbitrarily, or it will be susceptible to change. Benchmarking provides an outside reference point. It won’t tell you how to achieve a goal, but it offers a frame of reference and shows what is possible in a given area.

The ultimate source, however, is the voice of the customer. At Ore-Ida, customer polls could have given a clear indication that sliding sales were a reflection of declining quality, not a change in consumer preferences.

6. Clarify the vision

Unless you establish a clear vision that is compelling for everyone involved, the improvement will be only temporary. You can motivate people and train them to use the tools that provide the corrective action, but if they really don’t understand what the vision is all about, at best they will only be complying. Over time, the system will slip back into making only the corrective actions that look good relative to what is being measured, regardless of the overall impact on the company.

7. Create a dear transition plan

After you achieve clarity around the vision, the next step is to explore what it will take to achieve that vision, and anticipate the expected time frame. Where are the goals in relation to that transition plan? If you’re currently operating at a level of 1 and you’re trying to get to 10, it is unrealistic to expect the change to occur overnight.

Unrealistic expectations about the time frame for achieving a goal can produce emotional tension and financial pressure which can undermine even the best improvement program. The question to consider at this point is how to make sure that the gap between current reality and the goal does not turn into a negative force. If we don’t carefully manage the effects of emotional tension, we lose the powerful potential of having a vision. In some ways, that’s the biggest challenge and potentially the greatest benefit of applying a “Drifting Goals” archetype.

Creative tension only works when somehow it taps into a level of motivation which is intrinsic. And that becomes a powerful leverage point for an organization whose creative forces have been tapped by the excitement of achieving the vision. The lesson of the “Drifting Goals” archetype is that in any attempt to achieve a goal or vision, you can’t bypass the emotional tension that results. But by channeling that tension into a creative force, you can transcend it and attain the vision.

The post Using “Drifting Goals” to Keep Your Eye on the Vision appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

OLYMPIAN PERFORMANCE PRESSURE

Many factors can distract a performer’s focus and disrupt her flow. Fueling these distractions and disruptions are outside forces such as a competitive reward structure, significant rewards and punishments, and the expectations of others. A vicious cycle (R1) operating within the performer’s psyche can exacerbate the effects of the outside forces. A balancing loop (B2) turns the performer’s own past successes against her.

Focus and Flow

The psychology of performance revolves around focus and flow. Focus represents attention to a single task. Our performance suffers if our focus is diffused by distractions, such as life events, concern for the consequences of success or failure, or self-consciousness. Flow is the execution of a well-learned routine without explicit attention to the individual steps of the task. If we’re anxious about performing well, we end up riveting our attention on each individual component rather than trusting our experience and training to see us through. But doing so disrupts our flow and can degrade performance. Even worse, when a performance is going poorly, our levels of self-consciousness and anxiety rise even further, leading to more distraction and disruption (see R1 in “Olympian Performance Pressure”).

Even past successes can indirectly increase performance anxiety, because they serve to raise others’ expectations—and boost the amount of pressure on the athlete (B2). Success at the Olympic Games holds the prospect of product endorsements, performance contracts, and many other rewards. Failure at the Olympics occurs on a world stage like no other, after sizable investments of time, effort, and money. The magnitude of these rewards and punishments raises the perceived stakes and generates intense scrutiny by others, especially the media.

In addition, by design, competition for prizes limits the number of successful outcomes, which can also raise performance anxiety. However many fine performers participate in the Games, there are only three medal positions in any single event. Further, high expectations can bound a performer’s definition of success; for instance, if he expects—and others expect him—to finish first, even a silver medal will seem like failure. If the skater only hopes to challenge the leaders, the number of outcomes that he might consider successful is much greater.

Leverage in Lower Expectations

When 16-year-old Sarah Hughes stepped onto the ice for her long program, she was the unknowing beneficiary of the dynamics discussed here. Disappointed by her poor short program—which left her in fourth place before the final event—this relative newcomer to world-class competition lowered her expectations for winning a medal and avoided the pernicious effects of the B2 loop. Further, Hughes had not received the same degree of media scrutiny as did the leaders, Michelle Kwan and Irina Slutskaya. The expectations placed on her were moderated, she was less self-conscious than she might have been, and her definition of success broadened to include simply enjoying the experience to the fullest.

On the other hand, Kwan and Slutskaya were almost unanimously expected to wage a high-stakes battle for the only outcome that either of them could count as success—the gold medal. Both faltered in the long program, presumably falling prey to the dynamics of the R1 and B2 loops, and they finished behind gold medalist Hughes, who gave the performance of her life.

This discussion does not detract from Hughes’ achievement. She still had to skate—and she delivered a beautiful, error-free program. However, because of these dynamics, Hughes had a psychological advantage over Kwan and Slutskaya. And now that Hughes has won one of the world’s premier skating events, she will not have that advantage the next time she competes. Since she has no control over the expectations of others, the glare of the spotlight, or the limited number of winners allowed, she can only strive to duplicate the mental state she had going into her Olympic long program—and focus purely on the joy of skating.

Richard A. White is the founder and president of Orchard Avenue, a consulting firm dedicated to helping individuals and organizations achieve greater levels of effectiveness.

The post Skating on Thin Ice appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.”
– Aristotle

• The way we treat people
• The way we approach challenges
• The way we spend our free time
• Our usual response to stress
• How we organize thoughts, tasks, stuff

The Good News

The really good news about habits comes from the study of the brain. Scientists have discovered that what happens in the brain when we repeat something over and over is that a pathway called a neural circuit is formed, and it gets stronger every time we think or do the same thing. Like a river cutting through a valley, the longer it flows in the same path, the deeper and stronger that path becomes. That’s how habits are made. So all we have to do to create a new habit is to do something else repeatedly. We’ve all heard that it takes three weeks to create a habit. Science now has the evidence. It takes the brain about three weeks to create strong new neural circuits, a new path for the river to take.

Adopting a New Behavior

Don’t spend a lot of time resisting the old pattern or trying to drop it. Brain research shows that focusing on something strengthens it—so better to put your energy into the new behavior.

Here’s a super tip: Simply thinking about the new habit—imagining it in your mind’s eye or thinking of yourself already having it—helps build the new habit. So when you’re committed to a new habit, spend a lot of time rehearsing it in your mind. Deal with feelings that threaten to derail you by mental note-taking. If feelings of frustration or anger, annoyance or fear knock you off balance, brain research offers this: Label what you’re feeling. Either silently or out loud, saying “I am nervous” or “I am frustrated” calms the brain so it can get back on track.

Sometimes we can develop new habits that indirectly get us what we want. An exercise habit can improve our health, a savings habit can finance a dream vacation, and building simple practices like hugging six times a day can enhance a marriage. Becoming a systems thinker can help us make better decisions. According to systems educator Linda Booth Sweeney, making systems thinking a life-long learning habit includes learning to ask different kinds of questions—for example, ones that get at patterns of behavior over time; that focus your attention on balancing or reinforcing processes; and that surface potential unintended consequences.

The best discovery of the recent research is that our brains have the ability to change dramatically throughout our lives, until the day we die. As simplistic as all this sounds, it is truly based on neuroscience, the study of how the brain works.

Coaching Questions

Look at your habits of thought, attitude, and behavior. Which ones do you want to reinforce and which would you rather replace?

• What’s a new thought or attitude habit you want to develop?
• What will you practice to make sure it sticks?
• What’s a new behavior you want to cultivate?
• How can you see that it reroutes a river in your brain?
• Why not make excellence a habit in your life, as Aristotle suggested?

Sharon Eakes is a trainer and executive coach with Hope Unlimited. She has a background in psychology and management. For 25 years, she worked at Gateway Rehabilitation Center in western Pennsylvania, where she was the vice president of treatment programs. Sharon is also chair of the board of directors of Pegasus Communications. This column is adapted from her free mini-ezine Fresh Views; to subscribe, go to http://www.hopellc.com/ezine.html.

The post The Neuroscience of New Habits appeared first on The Systems Thinker.