Barry's SuperBlog » Psychology

Phil Chambers on How he Uses Mind Mapping in his Business

Barry Mapp — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 17:26:59 +0000

Here colleague Phil Chambers talks about how he uses Mind Mapping in his business. Phil and I trained in Mind Mapping with Tony Buzan back in the mid 1990′s. Phil was also Chief Arbiter when I competed in the World Memory Championships back in 1997.

Tweet This Post

UK Coalition Government -could this be the seed for a Global Empathic Civilization?

Barry Mapp — Mon, 17 May 2010 16:26:35 +0000

In this RSA video, Jeremy Rifkin looks at what he calls the emerging “Empathic Civilisation”. He says that in the last ten years there have been many developments in Evolutionary Biology, Neuro-Cognitive Science, Child Development and many other forms of research that are beginning to challenge some of the long-held assumptions we have about human nature and the meaning of “the human journey” and this information challenges the institutions that we have created based on many of these assumptions – our educational institutions, our business practices and our Governing Institutions. So could our new coalition Government with its brief beyond traditional Party Dogma be a seed for the start of such a revolution in our thinking?

Tweet This Post

Have Big Banks heard about this “Bonuses” study sponsored by Fed Res Bank?

Barry Mapp — Mon, 17 May 2010 15:04:16 +0000

I have blogged many times about the “iatrogenic” effects from paying big bonuses. Like when “Bonus Culture” inhibits creativity in the organisation and the observation that rewards sabotage people’s intrinsic motivation and sabotage good customer service. The idea of using rewards to drive/modify behaviour comes from the Old Psychology models. To get to understand the nature of intrinsic human motivation we need to look to New Psychology models.Well the RSA have just produced this video summary in their Animate series from Dan Pink which summarises some of the other problems about paying bonuses, including a study at M.I.T. sponsored apparently by the USA Federal Reserve Bank.

Tweet This Post

How Rewards Sabotage Creativity

Barry Mapp — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 13:24:29 +0000

The best creativity arises from intrinsically motivated individuals – those who are doing something for the satisfaction within the task itself or for the satisfaction from the completion of a task. Intrinsic motivation is driven by curiosity and the desire to make a difference. Extrinsic motivation is driven by the temptation of a carrot or the fear from a stick.Intrinsic motivation is sabotaged by rewards. It’s almost that simple.With rewards, the focus is on the reward not on the desire to complete a task or to make a difference. People start to do the tasks for the reward rather than the satisfaction of doing something of value.Old Psychology demonstrated that animals do things for reward or to get away from pain (the carrot or stick approach). Old Psychology holds when the animal has survival needs unsatisfied (the hungry cat can be tempted but the satisfied cat can’t) and the theory of manipulation by carrot or stick holds true (Skinner’s original work with animals actually only worked when they were frightened and half-starved).New Psychology is different. Creation Companies are those that are becoming more and more tuned in to New Psychology and New Thinking Principles. A Creation Company will recognise that when a human being has most of their basic needs met, carrot and stick is not as effective as Old Psychology predicts (thought those that would say they are ‘hungry’ for success can be tempted by the really big rewards).But as Alfie Kohn and now Daniel Pink have affirmed there is very little evidence that rewards improve human performance in the long-term. And the main reason is that extrinsic motivators sabotage intrinsic motivation. Linking pay to performance therefore sabotages long-term performance. The Banking Crisis is an example that partially arose when companies, and individuals, focussed on the carrots and not on the service. Lose sight of the task and you lose sight of the potential disastrous consequences of doing things for the wrong reasons. Thus it is not therefore a question of moderating the bonus culture, with legislation if necessary, (as Politicians and Business Leaders would suggest) rather the question is how can we abolish the bonus culture.We need to find mechanisms whereby people benefit from the long-term success of an organisation rather than rewarded for the profit they make on behalf of the company as individuals. We need this for companies to become Creation Companies that produce goods and services for the general good and well-being of people, life and the planet. That do things for the seventh-generation long term and not next year’s wage packet.If you are a leader and you are not convinced by the idea that rewards sabotage intrinsic motivation (and thus also sabotage creativity and creative thought) then read Alfie Kohn’s “Punishment by Reward” or view Dan Pink’s video on the surprising science of motivation here Now is the time for leaders to wake up to the fact that much of what we do in the guise of ‘management’ is detrimental to improvement (see here the Seven Deadly Diseases of Management)

Tweet This Post

How Creation Companies differ (New Science, New Thinking)

Barry Mapp — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:52:52 +0000

How Creation Companies differ from Compliant Companies (New Science, New Thinking and Creation Companies)The concepts and research from the “new sciences” challenge our current thinking (theories-in-use) and challenge some sacred beliefs and ethos about how best to do good business. Creation companies (whether they realise it or not) embrace new psychology and new science ideas. This thinking is in line with other iconoclast thinkers of our time such as, Russell Ackoff (Systems Thinking), Edward de Bono (Design Thinking), Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi Flow Thinking), and Eric Jensen (Brain-Based Thinking)Let’s look at some of the major differences between Compliant and Creation Companies:COMPLIANT Companies tend to have the following characteristics:

Leadership Style that is Command and Control
Order maintained by Policies and Rules
Competitive Internal Departments leading to sub-optimisation
Focus on Activity and the need to work faster, and measuring the things that can be easily measured but may not be that important
Asking people to improve but not giving them the method or means by which to do so (carrots and sticks offered rather than a method for improvement)
Lack of Trust (Old Psychology suggests that people cannot be trusted -extrapolated from the 1% or less who can never be trusted)
A Blame (and Fear) Culture. Asking, “who went wrong” (If things are not working, look for what the people are doing wrong and then give them a rollicking). Little opportunity to learn in a Blame Culture
People (particularly the leaders) confuse models with reality
The valued thinking is “Expert Mind”
Risk Avoidance
Black and White Thinking (shades of grey are discouraged)

Creation Companies tend to have the following charateristics:

Leadership Style - Freedom from Command and Control
Order maintained through Principles and Relationship
Co-operative, Whole System approach (optimising the whole)
Focus on outcomes and improving outcomes. Aware that most of the important things can’t actually be measured through “activity”.
Allowing people to improve the systems and processes by giving them the methods and resources by which to achieve the improvement
Built on Trust (New Psychology suggests that people can be trusted – extrapolated from the 99% who given the right conditions can always be trusted)
A No-Blame Culture. Asking “what went wrong”(If things are not working, find out which processes need to be changed. In a no-blame culture the business can learn from mistakes
People understand modelling and use many models
The valued thinking is “Beginner’s Mind”
Opportunity seeking
Multiple Possibility Thinking

Summary

The focus of Compliant Companies is on “conformance”. Compliance is maintained through the rules and structures, the management mechanism is mainly command and control, there is a blame culture for mistakes. Conformance (to standards and best practice) is a cultural principle. The focus of Creation Companies differs, in that the people have guiding principles rather than rules, there is a noticeable freedom from command-and-control mechanisms, there is a no-blame culture, and there is continuing positive change and joy in the work.End Piece: And of course Creation Companies will know about and understand the factors that encourage humans to be creative. The next posts in this series look at some additional to creativity ‘Identifying and Nurturing Personal Creativity’ and ‘The Circumstances for Creativity’. The real Creation Companies are also likely to be very aware that the reward culture sabotages creativity and also the consequences of paying large bonuses to make things happen (unfortunately they make the wrong things happen and select the wrong people to best do the intended work)

Tweet This Post

On Creating Creation Companies -an overview

Barry Mapp — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:22:23 +0000

Creating Creation Companies(Adapted from a Paper presented by Barry Mapp in 1994 at the ERIK Network European Conference “Regional Successes in Creating and Connecting Companies – European Union Perspectives”)Let’s take a preliminary look at the differences between a “Compliance Company” and a “Creation Company”. These are terms that I like, that were first penned by Tom McGehee in his book Whoosh. Today a key business challenge is to recognise and realise the full potential of each organisation. However when we continue to lead and manage our organisations in the same way as we have always done, we are going to get what we have always got. The call to lead and manage in a totally different way – to transform “western management”- was first issued by W.Edwards Deming. Many have cherry-picked from Deming’s ideas but few have attempted to transform management along the lines that he proposed. Most organisations continue to be run in “the old ways” based on “old psychology”,“old science” and “old management” principles (each of these terms will be explored more fully in later blogs). As Russell Ackoff pointed out a few years ago, most business schools are part of the problem because they still teach “old way” approaches. However more and more iconoclasts of our era, from different fields and domains, are backing the need to transform management thinking. Tom McGehee is one of many calling for a change in our thinking. He calls the transformed organisation a “Creation Company” and the old-style organisation a “Compliance Company” – terms that I will use also. Compliance Companies, whether they realise this or not, erect barriers to change and innovation by insisting on control of (1)information, (2)resources and (3)decision making, in order to preserve the status quo. In such companies (which remain the vast majority) people have never been trusted to supervise themselves and inspect their own work. People are never able to do their best efforts because the management systems get in the way.Coming Next: So what makes a “Creation Company”?

Tweet This Post