Empty-Vessel Approach

Interview with Donald Fann, Managing Partner

• How did you get the field of organizational healing?
• The circumstances I've worked in have all been with organizations that have experienced some degree of trauma. The healing aspect of it evolved from doing other strategic types of activities. When you go into an organization, you can't operate in a vacuum. As a management professional, you have to rely on the staff to do the work. If the staff's been disempowered or emotionally abused by an executive, then you don't have the staff as a tool to implement the strategic or mechanical changes that need to happen.
• So when you work with an organization, you focus on relationships as well as on systems?
• Yes. It's good to have the systems, obviously. But it's the people that run those systems that are the trump card.
• What is your overall perspective on organizational systems - how they work; why they break down?
• Systems are interconnected. So if you have a provider paperwork system that's feeding into a billing system, that's feeding into a financial management system - you do the work; you collect the money, and then you process the money. There's a continuum of systems and how those systems connect with different people; and within the boundaries between those systems is where the solutions often come up - not within the micro-cosmic system that may be reflecting the problems. The more you allow interaction and input across those systems, and invite suggestions and feedback, rather than isolating people, the more efficient and healthy the entire organization will be.
• Do you find that in order to bring about healing for an organization and the people who work there you sometimes have to change the systems themselves because they're causing some of the conflict?
• Yes. Rather than re-impose another system, even if it's a better system or an appropriate system, it's better to get the staff that will be running the system to co-develop that system with you, so the there's instant buy-in. If you say, "Here's what we're going to do. I can guarantee you that this will be better," it doesn't solve the issue of the staff being disempowered.
• So you're saying that an organization functions better when the staff and the executive co-create the systems in an organization? Your approach, which you call Open KI Management, seems to indicate that you don't agree with the traditional authoritarian model. Is this one of the primary reasons an organization needs healing?
• Yes, absolutely. Even just from a purely data input point of view, management people who hang out at the top in an organization often don't have all they information they need to make a good decision or design a good system. It's people on the "front lines" who are actually interacting with the clients and the vendors (the people who refer clients that have that "hard-core" core data because of their experience. Management people often don't work with that level of detail.
• Why do you think such a disconnect occurs between management and staff?
• The disconnect occurs primarily when an executive isolates himself and defines himself as someone who tells people what to do, but doesn't do any actual "work". For example, a captain of a large ship doesn't actually have his hands on the wheel; he's telling the navigator where to go. The navigator plots the course. The steersman actually turns the ship. In small or mid-sized non-profits, you don't have that layer of diversity of management so that you can have a person that doesn't do any work.
• How do you feel about leaders who micro-manage the staff and their time?
• If you treat people like children, then they will act like children. If you try to restrict them and their movement, they will not perform as exuberantly as they might if you give them room. A good leader delegates authority and initiative; a good leader doesn't have time to micro-manage or control everything because he/she is involved and is a player on the team that is actually moving the work along. A good leader serves on the team as a conceptualizer, a writer, a supporter, a problem solver and ultimately, a decision maker. But not in a vacuum. So the more self-initiative a leader demands, the more flexibility is needed by that leader. In the case of exempt employees, there are compelling labor laws that demand a certain amount of flexibility, where flexibility is allowed. People respond very well to being able to schedule their lunch on any given day when it is appropriate and convenient for them, without having to ask someone. The key in terms of communication is that everyone informs everyone when they're scheduling their downtime. It's not "Is it okay if I take my lunch now?" Rather it's "It appears that this is a good time for me to take my lunch. I'll be back in an hour or so."
• Do you find people who are given that kind of autonomy can also handle the responsibility that goes with it?
• I've found that to be true. However, if you observe behavior in an employee where the more freedom you give him the more he strays away from his commitment or their job, this person really begins to stand out. Often it's the team members themselves that rally in and confront the person, rather than the leader.
• So it's more of an organic process with its own checks and balances.
• Exactly. If you look at the way human groups behave, to some degree, they're self-regulating. If you put people in a room and require something of them, such as sharing food, the group will work out a way to accomplish that task.
• Why do you think so many non-profit leaders use this authoritarian or closed system approach?
• Most leaders fail in two areas. One is personality and character. The other is confidence and proficiency. If there's no confidence or proficiency in the multiple areas in which a leader must operate such as systems, communications, finances, personnel, strategic and daily planning, marketing in sales, etc., then personality flaws come out in an attempt to cover up for those deficiencies. The way those personality flaws typically appear is in the area of authoritarianism. In the extreme, it comes out in the form of abuse and bullying, which results in a traumatized staff working in a constant state of crisis.
• How would you define a leader in a healthy organization?
• Someone who supports the line level staff to do the work that serves the clients. In that sense, the organizational chart really should be up-side down, because it's the people who are interfacing with the clients that need to be supported. They need to have enough money to do what they tell the public they're going to do and be supported in a way that they can provide that in a safe, comfortable, inspiring environment. It's up to the leaders, both upper level and mid-level administration to support the actual practitioners who are delivering the services to the organization's clients.
• So the leader is there to refine and clarify the goals, but then to give it to the team, so that they can create a way to work together to accomplish those goals.
• In addition to that, the goals and objectives and specific actions are also drawn from the pool of knowledge of the whole team or whole staff, because no one person can possibly retain all the details, all the perspectives and opinions necessary to come up with best solution.
• Can explain how your Open KI Management model works?
• The way I implement this model has less to do with any pre-conceived ideas, and more to do with what I feel is appropriate, which is, fundamentally, determined by what the situation requires. So I may go into a meeting, knowing that there may be a handful of problems that are going to come up in the meeting, but I don't prescribe, even to myself, the solutions to those problems or how I would like the outcome to unfold. That openness is a kind of empty vessel approach, that allows the best solutions to emerge, rather than having a pre-conceived idea of how you want to fix something and imposing that on people. In the early days of my career, prior to the time I was in a leadership role and part of a group of employees, I saw first-hand, how most executives ran entire meetings or work sessions dictating how things were going to be done and then delegating tasks to the various people in the room. When objections would arise and valid points were made questioning the viability of the plan, the executive would unilaterally override those objections, saying, "This is the way it's going to be". The leader in those situations had obviously made decisions in a back room somewhere in a vacuum. Inevitably, major problems erupt using this closed system approach.
• The Open KI Management model is based on the premise that win-win solutions emerge when approached with an open mind and an inclusive outlook. In a traditional closed system model, organizations become compartmentalized, so that when problems do arise, there is a tendency to solve those problems in a vacuum without considering the needs of others or the organization as a whole. This is further complicated when an organization has an overwhelmed and overburdened staff, resulting in a reactive, "putting out the fire" approach, that can, over time erode the foundation of that organization and even threaten it's survival.
• With CenterPoint's Open KI model, problems are seen as symptoms of an organization-wide imbalance or trauma that need to be addressed at the source. This involves creating an environment of trust and inquisitiveness where problems can be discussed and options can be explored with honesty and accountability. Input from all levels of the organization is crucial as the best solutions emerge when there is a feeling of co-creation and ownership as well as an investment in the outcome. This process continues as the walls come down and new relationships are forged, fortifying the success of the organization as well as the individuals who work there. Management and line staff begin to harness the power of what we call "real time assessment" in the decision-making process, as opposed to static strategic planning confined to the pages of an often neglected document. Problems become opportunities for change, rather than obstacles to be overcome.
• In the Open KI model, organizations rediscover strengths and regain excitement about the unique contributions they are making in the world.
• To be continued…check back again soon.