“In the endless debate about the relative merits of amateurs vs. professionals in a world the two have equal access to the tools of production, I think people miss a key point:

Amateurs self-select for the job. Professionals are selected. For most jobs, volunteers beat draftees.”

This statement can be just as true for the workplace – where ‘amateurs’ who volunteer for special assignment, often do a far better job at something than a committee of resident experts. One of the big difference s is the level of passion and ‘meaning-making’ that comes with the volunteer. The other can be their minds are unfettered by presuppositions about the ‘best way’ to do something. Of course there are situations where I’d prefer the experts to come on board first – say heart transplants and the like, but you get my drift I’m sure.

Despite that, a great many companies and team are still struggling with finding ways of flattening themselves out. That is to be expected. Evolution involves tentative steps and experiments with new forms. Making progress, even with the wisdom of mother nature at play , is a messy process.

There is, in my opinion a few convenient myths that team-leads and team members end up using as a way of avoiding making some of the changes that make a flattened organization a realistic goal. Below I have followed each ‘myth’ with another perspective on the same point.

• You have to change everything to change anything vs. when you change anything – you change everything.

• It makes no difference what I do vs. I can make a difference no matter what I do.

• I can create change without changing myself vs. All change comes from a change in the way WE are

• The truth is out there …and it will set us free vs. the idea that there is a single ‘truth’ is itself a lie -  there is no one ‘truth’ the world is made up of many. Niels Bohr stated that there are two kinds of truth the superficial where the opposite is false and the profound truth where the opposite is also true. In ‘Getting to Maybe’ the authors use the city of Jerusalem as an example. The city means different things to at least four different faiths – most significant differences are based not on ‘hard facts’ but how they are being interpreted/perceived.

• Self-organization does not work and leads to chaos vs. all natural systems including our own bodies use self-organization to adapt and cope with a rapidly changing environment very successfully – in comparison to our bodies a typical business organization  is very simple – as  complexity increases – hierarchy gives way more and more to hierarchy and self-organization, adaptive organizations will increasingly use a blend of these three ways of organizing work, energy and people.

• I have no power in this system and therefore cannot change anything vs. tension resides in the paradox of , on the one hand, accepting constrained personal power and responsibility in the face of larger system dynamics & macro forces AND YET on the other hand  believing that individuals can make a difference and are responsible and acting accordingly.

If we can surface our assumtpions about making chnage we are one step closer to playing an active part in it rather than playing ‘catch-up’ all the time.

Recently in the National Post (Canada):

“A professional bull rider has to hold on to an irate, 2,000-pound bull for eight full seconds in order to receive a score,” the Columbus (Ga.) Ledger-Enquirer says. “Not so outside of the bull-riding arena, where points are won and lost for everyone in just seven seconds, the average length of time you have to make a first impression. According to a study conducted at New York University, people make 11 decisions about others in the first seven seconds of meeting. Among these 11 decisions are perceived credibility, believability, competence, honesty and trustworthiness. …Most folks worry about what they will say, but your choice of words counts for only 7 per cent of your first impression.” This effect is well documented in Malcolm Galdwell’s book ‘Blink‘.

Face-to-Face First Impressions:

This research has been around for a long time – face-to-face meetings are heavily affected by information that is exchanged in the first 7 seconds. It makes you stop and think about how to prepare for meeting new clients, or new team members for example. We all know that we really can’t fool other people – probably because the first 7 seconds is conveying so much information.

When I am going to meet someone in perosn, for the first time, I imagine myself smiling at them and extending a ‘friendly’ energy toward them, this enables the initial meeting to go well most of the time. Nothing works all the time – otherwise we’d never learn new behaviors, but this process has helped me build initial positive rapport,  thousands of times.
In order to be able to imagine myself smiling – I have to do something else and that is suspend as many of my assumptions about the other person as I can. This may appear simple but it is not as easy as it sounds. It took me a bit of practice – consciously suspending my pre-judgements and focusing on extending that positive energy and interest. When I reviewed ‘first meetings’ with people I often noticed that it was erroneous assumptions that often made the first impression less than optimal.
Phone First Impressions:

When connecting with people for the first time on the phone – the visual aspect of your smile is lost, but the effect a smile has on how you sound has not. The ‘trick’ I used for preparing for meeting someone face-to-face still works. I still imagine how the other person looks (them smiling and being pleased to meet me etc.)  working myself into a ’smiling state of mind’, I then pick up the phone. I have also noticed that if I wish to convey energy and enthusiasm I can do this by standing up to have the phone conversation.

Seven seconds isn’t a long time – unless you are riding bull and then it might seem like a long time. Either way it is an important amount of time that can have a big effect on how successful we are at connecting with other. Of course creating great connection is central to building collaborative intelligence wherever we are.

“…acts of individual leadership are ineffective for changing a paradigm. It is a community-building process that must challenge and transform a collective worldview.” Gozdz

Strengthening our CQ (Collaborative Intelligence) is more than simply learning to get along with each other. It requires that we begin to look at ourselves in a new way. It demands that we see ourselves as deeply interconnected with all of life and especially with all of humanity. Embracing this way of thinking will have noticeable effects on how management and teams operate. The significant challenges facing our societies can be overcome if we embrace our deep connection and then act accordingly.

The Collaborative Intelligence Paradigm

Our society is changing rapidly. Intellectual intelligence (IQ) and emotional intelligence (EQ) are necessary but not sufficient in order to thrive in this world. Increasingly, we are expected to be able to harness the power of the group or network to achieve things. Collaborative intelligence or C.Q. has become increasingly important. The term ‘collaborative intelligence’ was coined by William Isaacs in his book ‘Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together’, C.Q. is defined here as the ability to build, contribute to and manage the power found in networks of people.

The development of our collaborative intelligence (CQ) requires us to embrace a new paradigm. This new paradigm involves viewing all living things as deeply connected – an idea called “entanglement” in quantum mechanics. It follows then that there exists a collective intelligence to which we all contribute and potentially all have access. Here is an example of what I mean: a room with 30 people in it, whose average age is 35, represents a total of over 1,000 years of life experience. Processes that are designed to tap into the ‘collective life experience’ of this group can develop the team’s collaborative intelligence.