For over 15 years we have had the privilege of working with a wide range of clients on some fascinating and challenging change projects. We have grown and developed capabilities we could not imagine when we started. We’ve realised that we need to embrace change ourselves, like all of the organisations we have worked with.
We have decided to create a new sister company, Visual Meaning Ltd, to enable both companies to specialise in their own areas, to develop their offerings and deliver even better service to our clients. We’ve noticed that the kind of change work clients request comes in two distinct forms, and we will now be able to respond to that with two dedicated teams.
Delta7 will focus on culture change, employee engagement, and leadership development, using our Visual Dialogue approach, led by Julian Burton. It now occupies new offices in Bermondsey: Unit 1.1.3, The Leather Market, Weston St, SE1 3ER and is contactable on the same phone number – 020 7199 7099.
Visual Meaning will focus on the system and process mapping side of the business, offering a range of products and services that help clients make sense of complexity. This will be led by Steve Whitla and occupies new offices in Oxford: Unit 3 Kings Meadow, OX2 0DP. Further information about Visual Meaning and its plans can be found at www.visual-meaning.com, and they can be contacted on 01865 582 006 or through email@example.com.
We firmly believe that both companies address important elements of change and so will continue to work closely together in service of our clients. You may contact either company with an enquiry and we shall endeavour to deliver the appropriate approach for your requirement.
This is an exciting time for us – we look forward to telling you more about the change and how it enhances our capabilities.
We’ll be in Portsmouth at a CIPD event sharing a piece of engagement work we recently did in partnership with BAE System’s change team and steps.
The ‘engagement team’ will share their journey, from aligning the board to enacting the behavioural changes that needed to be made throughout the organisation. The presentation will be interactive and combine the skills that we used throughout the project.
Wednesday Feb 11th, 6pm, Portsmouth Business School
There’s nothing quite so demotivating as sending people the message that their ideas and insights are not welcome.
What stops your employees from speaking up?
How can you find out?
Excuse me, did you know there’s an elephant on your back? It appears to be controlling you, please put it down.
The metaphor of carrying an elephant that only others can see (and we ignore or are unaware of) is for that stuff which, in the drama of a working relationship, appears to be just too big to discuss.
I drew this illustration while attempting to make sense of some experiences of conversational awkwardness within organisations. The dynamic of the conversations felt heavy and as though it were controlled by people’s judgements and ideas about each other and themselves. Despite an intention to have open, honest conversations in an environment of trust and respect, some important things remained unspoken.
A colleague pointed out to me the irony of having drawn this from an external perspective, implicitly locating myself outside the picture frame, like an objective critic. It was a helpful reminder to be open to feedback myself!
Disclaimer; All elephants appearing in this work are metaphorical. Any resemblance to actual pachyderms, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
When looking for possible explanations of human behaviour, we often revert to models of humanism or systems theory, which can tend towards overemphasising individual autonomy or environmental factors respectively. Iain Mangham advocates the dramaturgical model, which allows for the reciprocity inherent in our interactions – ‘it is the person who creates or sustains the influences to which [they are] to some degree subject’. This model suggests that we improvise our performances within ‘the often very broad limits set by the scripts society makes available’1.
On an organisational level, we can see the appeal of this model – the employee is tasked with a role to play, on a stage with a demanding audience, reading a script that allows varying degrees of improvisation.
But if ‘all the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players’, do we pay enough attention to the actor behind the role, the person behind the job title? Do we respond to their attempted identification and development of that character? Or do we dismiss the question of motivation, reducing the answer to ‘Your Salary’2?
Every actor dreams of Hollywood and the riches it can bring. But there must be something else that drives them; something meaningful that gets them out on stage day after day, night after night, week after week. The performance, the timing and the delivery offer challenges whether the audience numbers 9 or 900. The audience reaction, the reviews and the applause offer vindication of efforts whether expended in The Old Vic or the old village hall. When an actor is on their stage, profit is no motive at all.
1 Mangham, Iain (1978) ‘Interactions and Interventions in Organisations’: Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
2 Alfred Hitchcock, “If [an actor] says ‘what’s my motivation?’ I say ‘your salary’”
Everyone loves a hero. In the ultimate hour of need the hero appears, saves the day, gets the plaudits and sleeps soundly in the knowledge that the world appreciates them. A very attractive role, if you get the chance to play it.
The benefits are numerous and immediate – an adrenaline rush, exposure in a flattering light, positive feedback, instant gratification. In a business context, there are further benefits – the normal rules of bureaucracy get relaxed, there might be paid overtime to fight the fire, maybe even a performance bonus for putting the fire out.
But is the role too attractive? It’s considerably more appealing to fight fires than prevent them. Is the idea of being a hero so appealing that on some level, we seek to create the conditions that require it?
A situation that seems to be impossible to act upon because it contains two opposing commitments.