The WORD is mightier than the PROCESS!

As Frank Spencer regularly said in the 1970's BBC Sitcom 'Some Mothers do 'ave 'em' ...

"We're in a bit of a pickle"

Why? Because, leadership education (& language) is trailing the dynamic conditions in which we have to operate, by a country-mile ... and it doesn't look set to catch up any time soon.

We have the science to address the situation, yet the momentum behind the current approach is a leviathan, ensuring any attempt to challenge 'Norms' is dismissed as irrelevant ... The course is set and we will not deviate from the course!

Never mind the Iceberg lads, tidy up the deck-chairs!

It reminds me of the Ignaz Semmelweis story.

Working in Vienna 'Lying-In' hospital's maternity ward, Semmelweis was frustrated by Puerperal Fever.

(Also known as Child Bed Fever).

In 1842, out of 3287 births in 'Clinic 1', 518 deaths were recorded ... a staggering 15.8% of all expectant mothers who entered to give birth to their precious child, went out in a body bag!

In his frustration, Semmelweiss cycled between the Morgue, where he inspected the dead and the expectant mothers on the ward. Nothing he tried seemed to work ... the death rate stubbornly averaged 10% over the 5 years from '41-'46!

In Clinic 2, where he didn't work, the average was 4%.

In 1847 his good friend Jakob Kolletschka died after being accidentally poked with a students scalpel while performing a post mortem examination. Kolletschka's own autopsy showed a pathology similar to that of the women dying from Child Bed Fever and Semmelweiss immediately proposed a connection between cadervic contamination and puerperal fever.

Concluding that he and his colleagues must be carrying 'particles' on their hands from the contaminated cadavers to the women on the ward, he instigated a hand washing regime using chlorinated lime. In April 1847 the death rate had risen to 18.3%. Hand washing was introduced in Mid-May ... the death rates in June,July, August were 2%. A year later the death rate was zero over the same (May-June) period.

Semmelweis was understandably excited and published numerous papers on the subject, which conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time. The main clash was with Galen's 4 Humours theory, known as dyscrasia, for which the main treatment was 'Blood letting'... a theory and approach established approx. 1500 years earlier.

On the basis the 4 Humors were 'accepted' as right, Semmelweis's empirical observations were systematically rejected as irrelevant!

The main cause for this rejection is often associated to 'belief perseverance' (the psychological tendency of clinging to discredited beliefs). Other historians of science argue that resistance to path-breaking contributions of obscure scientists is common and "Constitutes the single most formidable block to scientific advances".

Other aspects of psychology are also noted in accounts of this rejection, for example, some senior medical practitioners (Doctors) are reported to have been offended by the suggestion they had to 'wash their hands!' ... feeling that their social status as gentlemen was inconsistent with the idea that their hands could be unclean.

Semmelweis was generally ignored for decades across Europe (Not so much in England) and branded a trouble maker despite his attempts to get people to recognise his findings. Years later, around the same time Louis Pasteur, Joseph Lister and others developed the 'Germ Theory' of disease, which ultimately confirmed his findings, Semmelweis couldn't take the continued rejection and attempts to discredit him and took to drinking seeing him become more of an antagonist than ever. He was eventually tricked into attending a mental institution to be incarcerated. Realising the deceit once inside, he aimed to leave, but was beaten severely by guards. Receiving no treatment for his injuries and kept in a straight jacket, he died 2 weeks later on August 13th 1865 aged 47, from a gangrenous wound.

From the time of Ignaz Semmeweis' 1st studies, it took the medical fraternity over 50 years to eventually accept 'Germ Theory' and put the 'old science' of blood letting and the 4 humors from their minds. Over 50 years to accept the new 'language' .. the language which enabled a new way of thinking.

Given that, and despite the technological advances in the last 100 years, it seems we are now in a very similar psychological / sociological situation ... in respect to Organisational Change, including Lean, Six Sigma, RPA and AI.

Let's quickly consider my BTFA cycle (Believe-Think-Feel-Act). This runs both ways to demonstrate CBT and PCT, because we humans are complex creatures... but what it basically demonstrates is that Human Action (Activity / Behaviours) are directly linked to the wiring and firing patterns in the brain ...

(You might say, "Der! Obviously! - try moving your arm or saying a word without your brain!" But you'd be surprised just how many people consider 'Action' and 'Behaviour' without making a mental link to the brain as 'root cause' and thus, fail to consider an entire system of systems behind the systems they try to alter).

Given the account above, in combination with my BTFA cycle, I hope it becomes apparent to the discerning reader that the famous quote from Wittgenstein holds water;

"The limit of my language is the limit of my world"

Basically, if we don't expand the language people [Leaders] use to contemplate their world view (i.e. to Think, the 'T' in BTFA, including Meta-Cognition et al and to 'Act', take action / speak), there is no way for their respective brains to alter their imprinted / established beliefs.

Expecting a difference in 'Action' (Behaviours) through the imposition of a logical method, which often opposes an imprinted world view ... is futile ... it's just not the way our brains work ... and ignoring it (like the Medical Fraternity ignored Semmelweis) won't make the current view of change right! (Just as it didn't make the 4 humors theory right).

We have the neuroscience and psychological knowledge to show how people resist change imposed upon them ... we have the statistics to show how a failure to consider 'culture' drives talent out of the door (especially during M&A), slowing the rate of change and increasing the cost of change & performance improvement initiatives, in a multitude of ways ... we even have 40 years of 'Change Failure' statistics from the biggest global consulting firms and the most advanced Government funded studies to rely on.

These all consistently show that the common approach struggles or fails, (imposing ideas upon the people required to adopt the new methods through the logic of project management) with other parameters of change (usually 'Culture') identified as the 'point of differentiation' in those companies and change initiatives perceived as successful.

We can demonstrate how people who feel oppressed by 'the system', or anything 'New' (which their brain sub-consciously perceives as a 'Threat') triggers them to 'shut down' (Learned Helplessness etc.) in approx. 75% of cases. (Usually the majority of the workforce).

It's almost Pareto - 80% of resistance toward change in the brains of our workforce, is created by the current beliefs (and associated actions) in the 20% of human brains leading (read: imposing) change.

In a stressed (resistant) condition, the human brain fails to innovate, is less productive, makes more mistakes (negatively impacting Quality, Cost, Delivery and increasing accident rates) and the presence of stressor hormones leads to more long-term health issues increasing the cost of 'Days Lost' (Cited as a cost to the economies of the UK and the US totaling 10's and 100's of Billions per annum. respectively) ... and yet the 'performance improvement 'solution' is still peddled as a set of tools and techniques to be applied to the work-place irrespective of the 'Transition' required in the people involved.

31.2 million Working days lost 
due to work-related ill health and non-fatal workplace injuries in 2016/17 
- The HSE

Conversely, we have some seminal studies like Kotter and Heskett's detailing the positive case ...

... Supported by Google's more recent Aristotle study, itself supported by other studies, like those behind the books of Jim Collins (Explaining level 5 Leadership et al).

All of these 'investigators' have used empirical data (Just Like Semmelweis) to show a 'Performance Enhancing Culture' and a sense of 'Psychological Safety' delivers not only the best performing teams, but also triple digit increases in Revenue, Stock Price and Profit for those organisations who focus on Culture Change (i.e. care for and understand the people piece) instead of accepting the Project Managed, Logical, approach to Change.

Despite all of this mounting evidence, the world of organisational change remains resolutely 'just like' the medical fraternity of the 1800's! i.e. Those who benefit from the established belief system are happy to ignore all the evidence and 'carry on regardless' ... Doctors, consultants or leaders in the 21st century are just as 'Human' as the Doctors, University professors and Leaders of the 1800's who dismissed Semmelweis as irrelevant... today's brains still have the same construct with the same major parts and so they respond in roughly the same way, i.e. emotionally & psychologically, as a result of their imprinted world view / wiring and firing patterns, perceived benefits and acceptance of the established order.

The psychological condition of 'Belief Perseverance' (mentioned above) and the interpretation of any proposed challenge to the accepted world view as a personal attack, ensures an expansion of the rhetoric in play, which could help us take a step toward an advanced way of thinking and significantly better results, is instead, seen as a 'change' to resist. This is despite the fact those resisting change at this level find it entirely acceptable to impose the logical change (which currently makes sense to them), onto others.

It's a mirror image across time; just as we saw Doctors avoid any suggestion their hands were unclean, no one want's to challenge their own way of thinking as potentially detrimental to progress... which can be demonstrated by the Industrial psychological language they reject.

In excel terms, I think this is what's known as a circular reference... or it's probably one of the logical arguments Aristotle defined .. Celerant or Barbera etc.

E.G. I can't comprehend change in psychological terms, because the language I use to lead change doesn't include psychology. If the issue of change as I approach it doesn't include psychological language, I don't need to change my language.

Hobbes’ Leviathan (1588 – 1679)

Without language, there would be no truth or falsehood, for ‘true’ and ‘false’ are attributes of speech.

Roger Bacon (ca. 1214 – ca. 1294) – Opus Majus 

In supporting an opinion, it is a mistake to argue from the wisdom of our ancestors, or from customs, or from common belief.

The world of leadership and organisational change is currently and systematically adhering to a set of inherited beliefs and practices (just like those at the head of the medical fraternity did in 1800's Europe)...

Those benefiting from the current approach to change systematically reject the need to adopt a deeper understanding of organisational change failure rates (Like Child Bed fever death rates) and the need for a new language to consider it (Like Germ Theory was new to those speaking about Dyscrasia). This guarantee's change is not considered or explained in psychological and neurological terms ... both of which, i posit, are essential if we're to adequately define culture, such that we can share an informed view in pursuit of 'Culture Change'.

If those in the global market of change were able to expand their language, to define the cultural requirements behind 'psychological safety' and the resultant 'highest performing teams', leaders of change would be able to practically address the reasons why 'Tools' fail to change 'Culture' (Like Semmelweis identified a Chlorinated Lime solution and a hand washing regime) ... and yet the 'establishment' rejects the idea that there is a need to know more about psychology & neuroscience. In the absence of this knowledge, leaders fail to define culture. The result is an increasing data bank of failure rate statistics, while those involved, suffering from the 'Optimism Bias' Tali Sharot detailed in her TED talk, think they will be the ones to succeed where others fail.

Given all of that, any so called 'Tipping point' for a new view seems to be a very long way off ... that is, unless we can change the language being used by the global 'proletariat' (often disguised as the elite) of organisational change, leadership and education.

The simple fact is, we're in a language definition crisis. We have allowed language to become so vague we assume words share meaning when in reality, we're spewing the same sounds with such little thought, there is no guarantee the message received is anything like the one sent or intended.

Ask 10 different people to define; Strategy ... Culture ... Competence ... Change ... Leadership ... Systems Thinking ... and you'll get 12 different answers for each.

We all recognize the benefit of standardization. We talk of DFMA and DFSS acknowledging there is a financial benefit to doing things 'Right First Time' with a common understanding, view and purpose.

In the event an error is carried over from concept stage, for every ￡1 spent, an organisation will spend ￡10 to rectify mistakes in the design stage, ￡100 at the tooling stage, ￡1000 at testing / commissioning stage and ￡10K if mistakes are to be rectified once a product is released to production / market. 

This is a recognised cost escalation scale in the engineering / design world. We all know, if you design an injection mould tool such that it gasses or flashes, the reject rates and cost's of quality control will detract from the overall contract value. What we don't do is acknowledge the cost of getting the design of our organisational culture wrong and the knock-on cost's we suffer when aiming to deploy a strategy, introduce change, cope with growth, innovate and launch into new markets etc.

We also talk about standard work, celebrating the concept of Takt Time .. we standardise colour-coding, walkway sizes, bench design, paperwork layouts ... we ensure we share standard parts across platforms, use the same size up-stands on circuit boards to avoid mixed stock and increase purchasing power through volume ... we standardize font types and define colour palettes to ensure we protect our brand ... in recent years, consultants have even introduced the idea of 'Leader Standard Work' in an attempt to ignore the human factors and use consistency of activities as a control mechanism in the form of a process ... and yet, despite our overt recognition of the benefits standardisation delivers, we fail to standardise the language (psychology / neuroscience) required to standardise a definition of Culture, which ensures leaders are aligned in both their highest level and most granular intent and purpose.

One more parallel to draw and then I'm done with this little observation ... Root Cause Analysis.

We use Pareto, 5y's, 5W1H and Ishikawa / CEDAC diagrams to understand anything and everything about the problems we face in business, from the 'Target Driven Behaviours' which can follow Throughput (Recoveries) accounting principles to the reason why a bearing on a drive shaft will overheat regularly and cause down-time in a 24/7 production facility ... and yet when it comes to the 'Root Cause' of change initiative failures, we only get to 1 or 2 why's before the analysis comes to a grinding halt.

Why did change fail? Because there wasn't the support from the Executive team ... because project governance wasn't adhered to ... because no one believed in the objectives ... etc. etc.

We never ask Why another 3 or 4 times. Why didn't the Exec team support the change initiative? Because, they had a preconceived idea that change was a requirement of others and not themselves. Why did they hold that pre-conceived idea? Because they have had sufficient life experience to wire their brains in that way. Why wasn't that world view challenged, such that it disrupted the neural wiring and firing patterns at play? Because No-one wants to talk about the psychology and neuroscience of change all the time the world accepts it can be implemented as a logical process irrespective of the Human Factors involved... etc.

We need the right language to be able to discuss, reflect and ruminate such that we share a highly detailed view of what 'Good' looks like. We have to use the right language is we're to get to 'Root Cause', i.e. the Human Factors [Brains] behind organisational performance. We need the right language if we're to understand and share an opinion about the conditions required to enable Human Brains to perform at their best (free from fear, blame etc. .. i.e. to be psychologically safe). We need the right language to be able to understand what works and what doesn't in respect to effective, efficient organisational change.

Where we fail to expand our language register and increase our vocabulary in ways which allow us to address real root cause behind culture and performance, we must consider what we're really doing to people ... it might look like DMAIC on the project management manifest, but the reality is, most logical project managed change provokes responses and emotions that more closely reflect the CINDI model ... and we wonder why our employees aren't supportive of the change we so often fail to lead by example, when we fail to consider change in ourselves.