Het Ongezegde in de Boardroom

This video explains in brief in a slightly different way then how I wrote about it, the theoretical background of my thesis. It refers to the dual mode of communication, issue-relevant and issue irrelevant information , the Theory of Mind (ToM), metacognition and the unsaid known, the emperor without clothes and the blind spot of the leader. It is all there but in a fairly simple way. I love it.

Highly skilled professionals are frequently very good at single-loop learning. After all, they have spent much of their lives acquiring academic credentials, mastering one or a number of intellectual disciplines, and applying those disciplines to solve real-world problems. But ironically, this very fact helps explain why professionals are often so bad at double-loop learning.

Telkens terugkerende problemen op het werk – medewerkers die constant dezelfde ‘fouten’ maken, die veel beloven maar hun afspraken niet nakomen, eindeloos vergaderen zonder besluiten te nemen, onvoldoende initiatief tonen, geen verantwoordelijkheid nemen, de gewenste veranderingen niet doorvoeren, geen feedback durven geven... Herkenbaar? Is er al van alles geprobeerd, maar blijven deze patronen hardnekkig aanwezig in het team of de organisatie? Met de case-methodiek van Argyris reflecteer je op je eigen bijdrage aan het instandhouden van deze ongewenste resultaten.

Als je begeleiding even niet het gewenste resultaat oplevert, wijt je dat misschien aan van alles en nog wat, maar niet aan jezelf. Toch vraagt professionalisering om zelfonderzoek en leren van je eigen fouten. Bijvoorbeeld met de methodiek ‘Reflecteren in Actie’.

Executives have a hard time with strategy because they are at a loss when the time comes to engage in strategic dialogue. Either their teams debate the organization’s values and goals when such issues should be settled, or they waste time on the details of specific projects that have yet to receive the green light

Wise Executives tailor their approach to fit the complexity of the circumstances they faced

Organizations expect to see consistency in the decisions of their employees, but humans are unreliable. Judgments can vary a great deal from one individual to the next, even when people are in the same role and supposedly following the same guidelines. And irrelevant factors, such as mood and the weather, can change one person’s decisions from occasion to occasion. This chance variability of decisions is called noise and it is surprisingly costly to companies, which are usually completely unaware of it.

Teams Solve Problems Faster When They’re More Cognitively Divers by Alison Reynolds and David Lewis

To an extent that the authors are only beginning to appreciate, most people at work, even in high-performing organizations, divert considerable energy every day to a second job that no one has hired them to do: preserving their reputations, putting their best selves forward, and hiding their inadequacies from others and themselves. The authors believe this is the single biggest cause of wasted resources in nearly every company today.

Fair process isn’t decision by consensus or democracy in the workplace. Its goal is to pursue the best ideas, not create harmony.

Senior teams find teamwork difficult. The competing viewpoints that promote sound decision making also lead naturally to conflicts that waste precious time and erode interpersonal relationships. Indeed, when substantial conflicts erupt in management teams, dysfunctional group dynamics followed by frustration and flawed decisions may be the rule rather than the exception. Clearly, realizing the promise of teamwork at the top requires finding ways to help management teams deal constructively with tough conflicts.

Prior work on board effectiveness has mostly focused either on directors’ incentives or motivation or the ability of directors. Forbes and Milikens' conceptualization of board barriers connects with both of these perspectives. Specifically, they agree with prior research and theory that the motivation of directors as well as their individual knowledge, skills, and abilities should influence board outcomes. However, they also believe that the structural barriers that they have outlined in this article should make it difficult for even the most motivated and most skilled board to monitor effectively. https://bit.ly/3iMrN4c