I have to be honest...I get triggered whenever I read this material.  I guess that's my inner Green?

I think the problem for me is that at some level we are being taught to stereotype: to take simple/surface information and make broad assumptions about a person based on that.  If someone drives an expensive car they probably feel a certain way.

That's not necessarily bad.  It's useful and probably inevitable that we make these snap judgements, but it seems to me that it is necessary that we recognize them for what they are - useful tools for a quick, easy and most likely incomplete or inaccurate categorization that can guide initial interactions but that needs to be supplemented with more information over time.

My 2 cents.

On Dec 7, 2017, at 12:41 PM, Steve Riley <Steve.Riley@ACISinc.com<mailto:Steve.Riley@ACISinc.com>> wrote:

I am still playing catch up on emails – been a busy couple of weeks – but I have to say I really appreciated the below email.  From my viewpoint, the reading assignments can be a little wordy with some good examples/nuggets that help my comprehension.  The below email really helped frame some of this for me.  Thanks Paul!

-Steve

From: okeeffe@stagen.simplelists.com<mailto:okeeffe@stagen.simplelists.com> [mailto:okeeffe@stagen.simplelists.com] On Behalf Of Paul Landraitis
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 7:03 PM
To: okeeffe@stagen.simplelists.com<mailto:okeeffe@stagen.simplelists.com>
Subject: Stereotyping IS harmful - so what is Stagen up to?

Jamie, Brenda, Matt, David and others have expressed unease with the use of simplified characterizations in the Understanding People material that seem like stereotypes.  We are glad that you are speaking up – thank you!  There is a danger of MISUSING this information as a set of stereotypes which limit rather than expand your perspective.  Stereotyping is where we take a few observable features of a person and conclude with certainty many things about who they are altogether as a human being.  This is especially pernicious when this generalization is limiting and negative.  We need to hold our STORIES about other people’s mindsets very lightly.   It is important to remember that mindsets are only one important factor in the complexity of every unique human being.

We welcome feedback and challenge.  With this posting I hope to clarify why we are sharing this material in this way by giving you some of the context and nuance we leave out of the initial presentation in an effort to not be overwhelming and confusing (I’m also attaching the info as a word doc since it is rather long).  I am not trying to defend our approach as perfect.  Far from it.  Your honest feedback is how we will get better at painting the whole picture more quickly and consistently for future ILPers.

Again, we agree that the human tendency to stereotype has led to enormous harm and oppression throughout history, and continues to do so even today.  So why would we risk adding to the misery by introducing you to an apparently over-simplified model of human beings?  Because we believe that research has now established that unconscious cognitive bias is much more pervasive and automatic than previous generations realized.  To effectively combat the evolutionarily ‘baked-in’ tendencies of our brains, leaders have to take a multi-pronged approach.  We don’t introduce U.P. until the 3rd quarter because we think it is necessary to have a foundation of practice in self-awareness, self-observation, and shifting from Reactive (automatic) to Conscious (deliberate) modes of constructing meaning to grasp the full significance of the Ladder of Inference and the different values mindsets.

The Nobel prize winner in behavioral economics Daniel Kahneman coined the term WYSIATI (What You See Is All There Is).  We perceive and attribute meaning quickly and automatically (jumping up our ladder of inference) unless we have practiced over time perceiving with more depth and nuance, or are making an effort to be mindful at the present moment.  Our default way of understanding what other people perceive, and want, and the motives for their behavior is to use our self as an unconscious reference point.

GENERAL DYNAMIC:  “If I did X it would mean Y, so when Bob does X it must mean Y.”
EXAMPLE:  “Bob keeps pointing out the risks and unknowns in my strategic initiative, he must be  trying to undermine me and derail my initiative.”

Recognizing our own and other people’s mindsets allows us to insert a critical step in our way of understanding people.  In the example, our more Conscious (and effortful) way of making sense might sound like this:  “Bob often adopts a Traditional mindset.  He values stability and tradition more highly than I do.  Maybe he isn’t trying to undermine my change initiative.  Maybe he is focused on minimizing unnecessary disruptions and preserving things of value that I am not even aware of.  I am going to set up a time for deep Active Listening to his point of view.”

Bottom line:  by taking into account the differences between mindsets we become much more able to accurately understand, effectively communicate and powerfully collaborate with other people.

ORIENTING GENERALIZATIONS ABOUT
UNDERSTANDING PEOPLE MATERIAL

AREN’T THESE MINDSETS STEREOTYPES?  There is a danger of MISUSING this information as a set of stereotypes which limit rather than expand your perspective.  Stereotyping is where we take a few observable features of a person and conclude with certainty many things about who they are altogether as a human being.  This is especially pernicious when this generalization is limiting and negative.  We need to hold our STORIES about other people’s mindsets very lightly.   It is important to remember that mindsets are only one important factor in the complexity of every unique human being.
While everyone who is strongly and consistently animating Achiever values share important characteristics, they are also different from each other in equally important ways.  Even an accurate read on a person’s Mindset doesn’t tell you whether they are HEALTHY OR UNHEALTHY, how intelligent or creative they are, or if they are introverted or extraverted.  For another thing, each person deserves to have the final say about what their own values and attitudes really are rather than being characterized by others.  This is another application of the practice of being NON – ATTRIBUTIVE.   Remember – you are seeing exterior correlates of the person’s values and meaning making: I can’t directly observe what you feel or think or value (and vice versa).

SEQUENCE - Play Notes then Chords:  Walk before running…  Start with identifying pure types (Cartoons…) and later you will be able to discern the full complexity of people’s values and meaning making.  Start by identifying mindsets in others through clues like clothes, cars, code words, expressed or implied priorities and preferences.

  1.  Begin Identifying Mindsets in others, and wondering  about your own values and preferences.
  2.  Then consider Message Translation – how to turn your native expression into the ‘foreign language’ of other mindsets.   First simple translating into each of the dialects of the four worldviews, and eventually ‘simulcasting’ to two or more at once.
  3.  As you understand more you can observe and Identify Leadership Styles associated with the mindsets.  See them in action in others.  Discern your own ‘default’ style.
  4.  More advanced practice is to expand your repertoire by finding and experiencing within yourself the strengths and healthy capacities of each mindset.

Remember you are GUESSING.  Remember – simply observing people you are never certain because there are almost always numerous possible internal drivers of observable exterior behaviors and signals.  None of us can see people’s thinking, values and meaning making directly (you are seeing exterior correlates UR of interior reality UL).   A person who seems to be super competitive may actually be less achievement oriented (Orange) than compliant with the expectations of their boss and peer group (Blue) to act competitive.  Don’t ‘jump up the ladder’ to certainty about others mindset.  Most certain way is if people sincerely express their values directly to you – THEY know their interior directly.

INTIMATES - Too Much Information:  Sometimes hardest to discern those you know best – you have too much information, you are too close to get perspective, you see their complexity.  Especially at first it is easier to practice at a distance or with caricatures or people in clear roles (Rambo, Gordon Gecko, the Pope).

SPEAKING & THINKING MINDFULLY ABOUT MINDSETS:  Resist the temptation to think and speak in shorthand jargon.  Don’t use the mindset colors (Blue, Red, Orange, Green) as shorthand labels outside the ILP context – “Bob is so Blue.”  Without context a person hearing you say, “Wow, I guess the new sales guy is more Red than Orange!” will likely feel you are being prejudicial and judgmental.  This leaves people feeling they you are initiated into a cult they are on the outside of.  All of that is the opposite of our intentions of understanding and connecting more deeply and authentically with other people.  So although the we are asking you to practice using shorthand sometimes inside the class in order to learn the model, in the long run we encourage you to make the effort to think and speak with more mindfulness and precision.  It is much better to say “Bob seems like he’s got Traditional values (or Achiever values)” or “Bob seems to value stability”  or “Bob is really committed to preserving our heritage.”

PLEASE DON’T SHARE OR TEACH this material until you have a lots of practice and advanced ability.

Grounding Mindsets in the LADDER OF INFERENCE

Let’s ground our use of mindsets in the Ladder of Inference, because mindsets affect all aspects of how a person makes meaning and chooses actions.  At the start of meaning making, at the bottom of the ladder, what DATA we lock onto and what data we ignore is highly influenced by our priorities and beliefs. Depending on what our values and mindset are, we are more likely to pay attention to data relevant to who has more raw power, or maintaining stability, or optimizing achievement, or unfolding potential.

Next, our ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS about the world translate even the same data into different conclusions about ‘What is really happening here?’  The each mindset is a set of assumptions about how the world works and how we should behave to be safe, happy and successful.  A common Orange assumption is – The world is a playing field of unlimited possibility where the best will ultimately win out…  A common Blue assumption is - The world is an ordered existence under the control of a higher authority and ultimate Truth.  These can lead to differing interpretations of even the same data.  Say that A lives and B dies in a tornado: Orange might think: “A must have been better prepared.”  Blue might think: “It was God’s will.”

Finally, once we CONSTRUCT OUR STORY about what is happening we have to decide how to act.  Here also our values mindset strongly predicts what we feel are appropriate and effective BEHAVIORS.

When it comes to LEADING each mindset has its own motto:
Red:  My Way or the Highway
Blue:  One Right Way
Orange:  The Most Successful Way
Green:  Numerous Equally Valid Ways

HEALTHCARE EXAMPLE:  in a healthcare setting the way leaders can ensure “Good Patient Care” is conceived differently by the mindsets:

  *   Watch me - and do what I tell you, when I tell you
  *   Follow the time tested approaches of master clinicians (or our institution)
  *   Follow evidence-based practice guidelines
  *   Treat the whole person, and include alternative medicine approaches
An Integrally informed healthcare leader of a large and varied system may well be working with employees, patients and treatment settings that call for using all of these at one time or another.

Every Color Mindset Gets Angry (Anger isn’t just Red)

What tends to make you angry?  People get angry when what they CARE about is hurt or threatened.  What pushes someone’s buttons indicates what they VALUE.  Sometimes we learn the most about what others (or even ourselves) most care about by having our anger triggered.

  *   Green hates seeing people marginalized because of anything it considers valid human differences (age, race, sexual orientation etc.). Green believes it is necessary to protect individual expression from group oppression (unless of course the individual is expressing intolerance of valid differences!)   Green flourishes in times when basic needs are met, and tends to recede when food, safety, and other survival needs come to the fore.

  *   Blue is especially sensitive to disobedience against or disrespect of what it considers legitimate authority (e.g., draft dodging flag burners).  Conforming to norms is necessary to ensure order, security and stability.  Blue may be enraged by having the ‘chain of command’ ignored (either by bosses or reports).  Blue thrives where Red needs containment and direction.

  *   Red thrives in chaotic, dangerous, uncertain conditions partially because of its spontaneity and easy access to instincts and bodily energy.  Red is more natively comfortable expressing aggression (as well as sexuality) and may therefore be less inhibited in showing anger, or being overtly forceful – even physically.  Healthy Red is more vulnerable to being “triggered” and acting out emotions than healthy Blue, Orange or Green.  Red hates being disrespected or excessively controlled (“nobody tells me what to do!”) and comes to the fore where strong actions can / must be taken NOW without time for extensive consideration or regulatory oversight (frontiers and wilderness of all sorts).

  *   Orange is committed to optimizing their results through rationality and effort in a meritocratic competition.  Orange achievement is not always money-centric, it is embodied by professors seeking the Nobel prize as well as by financial engineers on Wall Street seeking to maximize their wealth.  Orange hates having Blue traditions or Green sensitivities or Red chaos thwart its progress.  Orange thrives where there is still an active hunger to achieve prosperity and status and yet people feel secure enough to explore their individual potential (rather than primarily seeking safety and security by belonging to a stable dominant group).

More Key Points

  1.  Each mindset has healthy and unhealthy expressions.  This point requires extensive elaboration.

  1.  No mindset is inherently better or worse than another. Each mindset is a great functional fit with certain life conditions.   A naïve Green aid worker may be quickly killed or sidelined in the midst of violent inter-tribal battles on city streets in a war-torn country.  But the Red refugee may struggle when transplanted into Green liberal arts classrooms where there are implicit demands to freely reveal one’s vulnerabilities and patiently seek out the point of view of even the weakest members of the circle.

  1.  By using fully the potentials of all the mindsets Integral Leadership offers more degrees of freedom to act appropriately in a wide range of situations with diverse people.

  1.  A person is not generally locked in a single mindset, they usually run in combinations, although one often will be the dominant state.  People range from relatively open to quite closed in terms of broadening their ‘repertoire’ of mindsets.

  1.  People may spontaneously shift their thinking to fit different contexts and the role they are playing in them (tough Orange boss at work, indulgent Green parent at home, tradition-minded Blue parishioner at church).  Knowing a person in only one context will thus often not reveal their full profile.

  1.  People will often operate quite differently when under strong pressure or stress.  The most familiar or first learned mindset is likely to emerge under stress or when depleted.

  1.  Marketing efforts, strategic plans and M&A efforts often fail because the designers look into mirrors and assume the audiences and cultures they are attempting to reach share the same values systems they do.

  1.  Beware of finding simplicity that is not there.  Reality is more complex than this simplified introduction suggests.

  1.  Different organizations – companies and governments – need to develop managerial / governance strategies that match their people, their visions of the future and the jobs they perform now and going forward.

  1.  Successful organizations are in danger of failing if they continue to manage people in the ways that made them successful in the first place.

  1.  Young people need to be managed quite differently today because they have different mindsets than most of their bosses, teachers and even parents.

  1.  The question is not "how do you motivate people?" but how do you relate what you are doing to people’s natural motivational flows. A person has a right to be who he or she is, and in any case it is not possible to ‘transplant’ mindsets into people by force, although mindsets can be evoked through inspirational modeling.

  1.  Issues with productivity, quality, political instability, and restructuring are signs of growth and not decay that will force us to find new and innovative ways to manage people based on who they have now become.

  1.  Since people learn in different ways from different kinds of teachers, the task of education is to match learners, instructors, learning situations, and technologies designed for fit, function, and flow.

Paul Landraitis | Senior Executive Coach
Tel:  206.634.3880  Cell:  999-4763
paul.landraitis@stagen.com<mailto:paul.landraitis@stagen.com>

From: okeeffe@stagen.simplelists.com<mailto:okeeffe@stagen.simplelists.com> [mailto:okeeffe@stagen.simplelists.com] On Behalf Of Brenda Hargett
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 7:53 AM
To: okeeffe@stagen.simplelists.com<mailto:okeeffe@stagen.simplelists.com>
Subject: Re: Mindsets

I'm so glad someone else said this first. Matt and I had briefly mentioned similar thoughts to each other. I had been putting off posting anything because of my conflicted feelings on it.

Thanks. Brenda

Brenda S Hargett, CPA, CAE
Executive Director of Operations
Highland Park United Methodist Church
214-523-2163

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Jamie Beggs <JBeggs@huntconsolidated.com<mailto:JBeggs@huntconsolidated.com>> wrote:
I’ll be honest, I don’t really like the stereotypes associated with the mindset descriptions provided in the materials.  I actually believe I demonstrate many of the characteristics of all 4 mindsets depending on the situation.  However, if I had to choose 2 of the mindsets to narrow the field, the primary would be the achiever mindset (orange) and the secondary would most likely be a traditional mindset (blue).

Regarding the achiever mindset, I’m very success driven, but I do so with others in mind.  Perhaps you could call me an over-achiever and perfectionist :).  Regarding a traditionalist mindset, I wish we had more of that in the world:  order, stability, morally grounded, self-controlled.  However, we all have to adapt.  And that’s why in order for me to achieve, I need to also employ the green and red mindsets too!

Jamie A. Beggs
Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
Hunt Consolidated, Inc.
1900 North Akard Street<https://maps.google.com/?q=1900+North+Akard+Street%0D+*Dallas,+Texas+75201*&entry=gmail&source=g>
Dallas, Texas 75201<https://maps.google.com/?q=1900+North+Akard+Street%0D+*Dallas,+Texas+75201*&entry=gmail&source=g>-2300
jbeggs@huntconsolidated.com<mailto:jbeggs@huntconsolidated.com>
o: 214-978-8570<tel:(214)%20978-8570>
c: 469-442-8273<tel:(469)%20442-8273>