Read in this column why we and our co-partner, Stephanie Borgert, are convinced that the RIDA-loop is an impactful didactic approach to complexity and organizational excellence. This text comes from a series of her LinkedIn posts.
“Your navigation system does it first, why don't we?”
You intend to get from A to B. What do you do? You start the navigation system in your car and enter the destination address. ”The route is being calculated.“
However, if you are traveling on foot in the mountains, the hiking map helps. “You are looking for the route.“
Whether a navigation system or a hiking map, it is clear what has to happen before the route is calculated: the location has to be determined. You or your electronic assistant first establish where you are. “Your status quo is determined.”
We won't mention anything else that is so obvious. So far, it has been unproblematic. However, it becomes problematic when we omit the status quo determination, as in many projects, changes, and transformations.
“Now we want to go somewhere, achieve a certain goal. Let’s not dwell on what we’ve done so far. If we want to learn, we’ll do a retro.” (Original quote)
The often nicely facilitated retrospectives are only of limited help if the insights gained do not result in learning. “Learning means changing behaviour, reflecting on the norms and structures in place.” If these are not conscious and remain unreflected, noteworthy information for route calculation is missing. My hypothesis: the probability of success of a change stands and falls with the determination of the status quo when it comes to fundamental change.
For this reason, the R in RIDA stands for Reflect.
With the organizational discourse, people become more aware of their collective patterns of thinking and evaluating. This requires some practice to distinguish between observation, interpretation, and evaluation. We are well-trained in talking to each other about opinions and judgements. So that it can be difficult to describe them at first. But never mind, let's practice. At the same time, we are much better at speaking than listening. Here, too, willingness and practice helps.
A good first step can be to explore and illuminate the common language used. Which terms on topic XY have positive or negative connotations for us? How distinctly do we talk about the subject? What are the basic assumptions behind our judgements? How does fast evaluative language help us in our collaboration?
“I want to stay the way I am”
What do the human brain and an organization have in common? The answer to the question of whether they like to try something new: Oh, no!
Both (brain and organization) are complex systems. Their patterns and routines, once they have proven themselves, are gladly retained. That does make sense in terms of energy and efficiency.
Usually, the respective brain carriers do not say this; they are unaware of it. And so, an executive sits in conversation with a consultant who raves about SCRUM as an agile working method, for example. He hears the words and sentences while his brain is busy sorting them away. The long-familiar categories are utilized to interpret stand-ups or planning poker so that "it's nothing different from what we already do." This is assimilation. We all know it, we can all do it, we all do it, it's quick and easy.
But how can something new even appear as such on our perceptual map? This newness must be irritating and disturbing. It must not be pleasing to us, but must be downright outrageous. Then there is a chance for accommodation. Instead of sorting things into familiar categories, we reorganize our brain circuits. We assign new meanings to things, change our perspective, and suddenly think differently.
As individuals, we only do this if the "thing" in question is relevant to us. Without relevance, there is no resonance. Only then does the necessary energy arise, without which we simply lie back down in our thoughts again.
Irritation (RIDA-loop) must not leave us alone.
Organizations are no different. Without constructive disruption, an irritation, change cannot occur. Irritation comes with no guarantee for learning or change. It is the opportunity for it, no more and no less. Every irritation can also be answered with "I want to stay the way I am".
How does this work in practice? Changes of perspectives, critical thinking, spinning around, science fiction, creative methods, pro and contra debates, constructivist-systemic questions, or reframing. This is what happens in the organizational discourse. If not, change becomes less likely; the more similar the conversation, the more similar the questions, the more familiar the workshop procedure is, the more homogeneous the opinions, the more familiar the reasons, and the more harmonized the group of people.
"We need the negative feeling of dissonance as a path to coherence." (David Bohm)
“The truth is not found; it is created” (in complexity)
A group of people who engage in intensive and meaningful conversation create their common social truth. The D in the “RIDA-loop” stands for Declare. The different points of view become apparent, and arguments and opinions can be fought over without a quick agreement or 'Oh, it's not so critical now; let's continue later.' Declare means arguing constructively. I briefly outline two critical aspects for this to succeed: The courage to speak the truth and respect.
Speaking the truth
You could take it for granted, but then you would be blind to all the entanglements, tactics, and politics at work in an organization. For the philosopher Michel Foucault, the courage to speak the truth was necessary to be able to speak freely and bluntly. Courage is always necessary when the truth shakes up the established or decreed, and can thus create a headwind. This must be resisted. A significant challenge in many organizations that prefer to work together harmoniously, without conflict and lovingly. An illusion, no question. But one that is maintained in many places by any means available.
Would you like a little litmus test for your next round of talks? Then, start with yourself and observe how you speak. The truth comes in direct words, short and to the point. I am the one who thinks this and that - the speaker is also the subject. Wrestling for social truth in a group in this way will always create tension. Expect it.
Respect
Respect as a buzzword has also found its way into company guidelines and visions. Unfortunately, respect is often lacking if you look closely at the hustle and bustle of everyday working life. We probably can't free ourselves of this. Are you always aware that you are dealing with a human being? Not a resource, a headcount, or an FTE?
At the same time, we all want to be respected. In my opinion, there is precisely one cause-and-effect relationship: respect comes from respect. It gets even trickier in groups. Where many different opinions and truths come together, and tensions arise, we are challenged neither to insist on our opinion nor to level it.
Try to endure the tensions, even as a group. Use them to explore differences. This is a training program that we can't get enough of.
“Fast agreement, little impact”
Agree is at the end of the “RIDA-loop” and it sounds like it's finally time to reach an agreement. Yes, but not thoughtlessly, please. Stay alert to the motives behind the agreement. 'Took enough time', 'we need a consensus', 'arguments without agreement are a waste of time'. Whatever your individual and collective beliefs may be, please don't ignore them.
Ultimately, the aim is to pour all the thoughts and views formulated in the process so far into common ideas for implementing the change project. Sounds simple? But it is not.
At this point, I would like to draw your attention to the impact of your ideas and present a "hit list of leverage points" according to Donella Meadows (Thinking in Systems, 2010).
Take another look at your ideas and plans together. The following leverage points are listed from low to high impact:
Parameters
More turnover, fewer sick days, or more new employees ... what sounds like a suitable solution quickly loses its impact.
Negative/Positive feedback loops
They have a balancing or escalating effect. There are no complex systems without feedback loops.
Information
Transparency instead of intransparency is the motto. Who needs to know what, when, and why? Fast, clear information flows make appropriate action possible.
Rules and principles
If a clear decision can be made between right and wrong, it makes sense to establish appropriate rules. The accountability lies with the rule-maker. Principles are needed at the latest in complex situations. They provide a framework for action that can be interpreted by the people involved. The accountability thus lies with the person acting. Principles provide orientation, rules give instructions.
Targets
Whether it is the explicit sales target or the implicit "harmony is paramount", targets have an effect.
Beliefs
They have the most significant impact because structures, goals, rules, and parameters are derived from convictions, prejudices, and stereotypes. They form the foundation.
At the end of this short series of posts, it is clear that organizational discourse is not a pony farm. Nor should it be. 𝐈𝐭 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐢𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞, 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐩 𝐚𝐯𝐨𝐢𝐝 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨𝐨 𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐜𝐤𝐥𝐲.
The "RIDA-loop" can serve as a stirrup, but you have to get into the saddle yourself.
As always, a space is needed for these intensive reflective discourses. If you like, we as qohubs offer such a space - precisely on the topic of “Change conversation in the organization.”
With this in mind... We wish you successful work.
If you are interested to finding out more about the practical discourse, drop us a line via meet@qohubs.com or contact us to schedule an Experience Session now.
Comments