Archive

Advice sought

The Tough Reality of Making Lives More Wonderful

Why is Helping People So Hard?

I’ve dedicated three decades to pursuing a vocation of helping people. Although the need for help is often evident, the willingness to accept it is far less common. This dissonance creates a nuanced and sometimes difficult environment in which to operate. The challenge lies not only in the provision of help but also in the varying levels of receptivity I encounter.

Why Don’t People Want Help?

On the surface, the equation should be simple: as a general rule, people have needs, and I support them in finding their own solutions. However, in my years of experience, I’ve found that most individuals aren’t actually seeking help, even when they could benefit from it. There’s a persistent gap between the need for assistance and the willingness to engage with it. This chasm often converts what should be a straightforward transaction into an intricate dance, requiring careful and compassionate relationship building.

What Keeps Them From Asking For Help?

The reluctance to seek help is a convoluted issue involving various emotional and psychological elements. Among these are:

  • Caution: A fundamental wariness often deters people from exposing their vulnerabilities. Opening up to someone else—especially a relative stranger—requires a leap of faith that many find daunting.
  • Pride: The ego can be a significant obstacle. Admitting the need for help can feel like admitting defeat or incompetence, and pride can get in the way of taking that step.
  • Shame: Some people feel that asking for help highlights their inadequacies and failures, making them less worthy in their eyes or the eyes of others.
  • Guilt: There’s often a sense that one should be able to manage on one’s own and that needing help is a sign of weakness or failure. This guilt can suppress the act of reaching out.
  • Fear: The fear of being judged or stigmatised for needing help can be paralysing. It can deter people from seeking assistance even when they genuinely require it.

Additionally, societal norms, which frequently penalise vulnerability and appearing “needy”, serve as another layer of hindrance. This creates an environment where needs go unexpressed, which, in turn, increases the complexity of helping. Helping then requires detective work, identifying hidden needs, and diplomace, navigating sensitive emotional terrains.

Why Can’t People Accept Help?

Even when the stars align and an offer of help coincides with a recognised need, the final hurdle of acceptance remains. The act of accepting help exposes vulnerabilities and can trigger fears of indebtedness or losing autonomy. As such, this step often presents its own unique set of challenges. It necessitates a nuanced understanding of individual psychologies and social dynamics, to ensure that well-intended aid is not just offered but also accepted. Those in the medical professions have long understood the gulf between capability and getting patients to follow treatment regimens (Adherence).

Even when a need is acknowledged and help is readily available, accepting that help is another obstacle entirely. The complexities associated with this final step are multilayered:

  • Exposure of Vulnerability: Accepting help usually necessitates revealing weaknesses or inadequacies, which many find deeply uncomfortable.
  • Fear of Indebtedness: Accepting someone’s assistance often comes with the implicit or explicit expectation of reciprocity, which can create pressure and stress.
  • Loss of Autonomy: Some fear that accepting help means ceding control, undermining their sense of independence or self-sufficiency.
  • Negative past experiences: Many people may have experienced being “helped” in the past, with associated negative experiences.

It’s worth noting that this struggle with acceptance is also common in fields like medicine. There, practitioners have long grappled with the difference between having the ability to treat a condition and getting patients to adhere to the necessary protocols.

Therefore, to ensure that help is both offered and accepted, a deep understanding of individual and group psychology and broader social dynamics is essential. It involves a balanced, nuanced approach that considers both the rational and emotional dimensions of human behaviour.

How Can We Adapt to These Challenges?

Over the years, I’ve realised that adaptability is key. Each person is a unique confluence of needs, fears, and social conditioning, requiring an equally unique approach. Employing a blend of empathy, patience, and non-judgment allows us to better navigate the various obstacles that arise in the helping process. This tailored approach aims to dismantle some of the barriers people erect, making it easier for them to both access and accept the help they need.

To sum up, helping people is far from easy, but the complexities make it all the more important. And the outcomes make it so worthwhile. The disconnect between needing and accepting help isn’t a shortcoming but rather a complex interplay of human factors that we must skillfully navigate. The challenges are significant but so too are the rewards for everyone involved.

Summary

Recently, I’ve found it useful to refine my focus within the broad panorama of “helping people.” After decades of navigating the complexities of human needs and resistance, I’ve refocussed my attention on “making lives more wonderful.” This compelling phrase, originally coined by Marshall Rosenberg in the context of Nonviolent Communication (NVC), succinctly conveys a more targeted, positive approach. It not only gels with my longstanding vocation but also addresses the crux of what most people truly desire, even if they can’t articulate it. By focusing on making lives more wonderful, I’m better prepared to handle the challenges that come with helping people. That makes my life more wonderful, too. And I could really use your help in that. 🙂

Does Advice Change You or Just Interest You?

What’s Really Behind ‘Interesting’?

Why do we often find ourselves engrossed in ‘interesting’ content? It grabs our attention, taps into our emotions, and perhaps even stokes our ego. But what actionable change does it actually bring about in our behaviour? How many folks even seek actionable change in behaviour?

What Makes Something ‘Useful’?

Useful is a powerful term. It denotes something that brings about or strengthens a change in behaviour. Is that our goal when we seek advice, especially in the digital sphere crowded with unsolicited suggestions?

Why Do We Confuse the Two?

How is it that ‘interesting’ content often tricks us into believing it’s ‘useful’? Could it be the algorithms designed to keep us scrolling, or perhaps it’s our own failure to critically evaluate what and how we consume?

How to Differentiate Between ‘Interesting’ and ‘Useful’?

When scrolling through a sea of advice, what are the questions you should ask yourself to separate what’s genuinely useful from what’s merely interesting?

  1. Is This Actionable?: Will the advice lead to new behaviours or strengthen existing ones?
  2. Who’s Behind This?: Are the sources credible enough to trust for behavioural changes?
  3. Does It Apply to Me?: Is the advice relevant to your life and circumstances?
  4. Is It Concrete?: Does the advice offer specific steps for change?
  5. Is the Impact Long-Term?: Will this advice deliver enduring benefits or is it a short-lived trend?

What’s the Real Cost of Opting for ‘Interesting’?

When you spend your valuable time on ‘interesting’ content, what opportunities for meaningful change are you missing out on? Is the real cost just time, or is it a loss of potential growth?

Why Should You Care?

In a world where your attention is a coveted asset, what is the benefit of choosing ‘useful’ over ‘interesting’? Could the key to meaningful life changes lie in this simple choice?

Zeitgeist

What is the Zeitgeist of the software industry, and software community?

I thought I knew, but upon reflection, I’m pretty sure I don’t have a clue.

If I had to guess, I’d say it involves indifference, learned helplessness, and a Mexican standoff between management and developers. But I could be way off base.

Your thoughts, observations?

– Bob

 

 

 

Agile Coach to Organisational Psychotherapist

My thanks to Beatric Düring for her recent Twitter question:

“If I wanted dive deeper into org psychotherapy – what would be crucial knowledge I would have to acquire working as an agile coach? Where can I draw the line requiring professional psychotherapy education/training?”

Is it feasible to transition from an Agile Coach into the Organisational Psychotherapist role?

Considerations

Given that I was an Agile Coach for years before making the shift myself, I’d say it’s demonstrably feasible. Why might any Agile Coach consider making the shift?

Organisation-wide Scope

For me, it was down to an increasing dissatisfaction with the (limited) value I was able to deliver in the role of Agile Coach (and latterly, Enterprise Agile Coach). Over a number of years it was becoming clearer and clearer to me that the real dysfunctions in any organisation lie outside the domain of any one functional silo. In the white space between people, and between silos, if you like. It became obvious that to deliver real change, change that’s worth having, change that makes a significant impact both on the lives of everyone involved and on the bottom line of the organisation, a more holistic, systemic intervention pays major dividends. And the Organisational Psychotherapist role implies the necessary whole-organisation scope to do that more effectively, and more often, than the Agile Coaching role.

It’s the Client’s Agenda That Counts

There was also, for me, the increasing realisation that I was not actually helping things for a client by making suggestions and having an agenda (a bunch of my ideas about what future would be best for them). Organisational Psychotherapy allows us to cut through that particular Gordian Knot.

It’s About The People

Organisational Psychotherapy is about people, and their relationships – with each other and with the collective psyche of the organisation. I hear from many Agile Coaches that this is a dawning realisation that creeps up on us over several years, at least. Process and management issues fade in importance the more we coach. Ultimately, into utter insignificance.

The Questions

So, to Beatric’s two questions:

What Knowledge is Crucial?

What knowledge, accessible to an Agile Coach, is crucial to diving deeper into Organisational Psychotherapy ?

The journey, for me, was eased by various spells as an Enterprise Agile Coach. This helped me acquire a practical angle on the whole Lean / System Thinking / Synergistic perspective, looking at organisations as a whole, rather than being limited to intervention horizons within a single function (most often, the Software Development or Software Engineering function). Maybe an Agile Coach could transition into Organisational Psychotherapy without that system-wide appreciation. I’d be interested to hear about folks’ experiences in that regard.

On the other hand, there’s a whole world (more than a hundred years in some cases) of work and results across the more than 400 different schools of therapy that comprise the world of psychotherapy as it pertains to individuals. Much of my learning has come from reframing individual therapy techniques for application in the organisational context. I wrote a post some time ago, describing some of these, entitled My Organisational Therapy Toolkit.

Where to Draw the Line?

How far can the Agile Coach progress in his or her personal journey towards mastering Organisational Psychotherapy, before it makes sense to seek professional psychotherapy education/training?

As far as I know, there is no recognised professional education or training for Organisational Psychotherapists. I’m entirely self-taught, and most of my most profound learning has come as a result of interacting with real live clients in real live situations. I do try to share my learnings with others, and when the demand is there I’d be happy to make that more formal, if needed.

I guess one could train as a “normal” psychotherapist, although that looks like a six to eight year full-time study commitment, at least. And I wonder just how useful much of that individual-therapy training would be useful in the context of organisational therapy?

Personally, I’ve always favoured apprenticeships or communities of practice over education/training per se.

And then there’s the whole can of worms labelled “certification”. I’m sure I could rattle up a two day “Organisational Psychotherapy Master” (COpM) certification course, with an honest-to-goodness certificate at the end of it. £2000 a pop seems like a fair price for that. But REALLY? Certified Mastery of Organisational Psychotherapy in two days? I doubt. It’s taken me ten years so far, and I’m still only scratching the surface (and being so far from Mastery, even now).

I’d feel more comfortable seeing folks apply themselves to the subject, gain some early practical experience – possibly under the wing of someone with some relevant experience – and build their own skills and experience through application and interaction. I’d suggest the watchword here is “congruence”:

Congruence means that the therapist is genuine and authentic, not like the “blank screen” of traditional psychoanalysis:

The first element [of the three core conditions of the person-centered approach to psychotherapy] could be called genuineness, realness, or congruence. The more the therapist is himself or herself in the relationship, putting up no professional front or personal facade, the greater is the likelihood that the client will change and grow in a constructive manner. This means that the therapist is openly being the feelings and attitudes that are flowing within at the moment. The term “transparent” catches the flavor of this condition: the therapist makes himself or herself transparent to the client; the client can see right through what the therapist is in the relationship; the client experiences no holding back on the part of the therapist. As for the therapist, what he or she is experiencing is available to awareness, can be lived in the relationship, and can be communicated, if appropriate. Thus, there is a close matching, or congruence, between what is being experienced at the gut level, what is present in awareness, and what is expressed to the client. (Rogers, 1980)

– Bob

Further Reading

Carl Rogers On Person-Centered Therapy (pdf article)

An Intention Announced

In line with the advice process, I’m posting here my intention to set up a new WordPress.com site to provide us with a dedicated online space for our interactions and archives. This will provide us with a shared home, replacing the use of my blog for this purpose, and is both in response to and anticipation of requests from our fledgling community of principle for such a facility. How long this facility will prove useful before we choose to move on again, I can’t say. I suspect somewhere between several weeks and a year or more.

I intend using the P2 theme on this site.

Would you be willing to provide some advice before I act on this intent? I intend to act on this intention circa: Monday 16 Nov 2015, Noon GMT.

– Bob

 

A Deliberate Approach

“Take time to deliberate, but when the time for action has arrived, stop thinking and go in.”

~ Napoleon Bonaparte

In response to your kind questions and comments regarding my previous post, I mentioned that I would be writing a post to address some of those questions and comments. This is not that post (I’m still in the middle of that).

In the meantime, and hopefully to preserve some sense of momentum, might I invite you to advise me on your feelings about approaching the journey ahead (e.g. building a thing we may come to refer to as a community of principle) with a modicum of deliberate intention? Specifically, it has been my habit to follow an approach evolved over many years for this sort of thing. Presently this bears the name “Javelin”. There’s a paper on Javelin which you might care to read. Please accept my apologies in advance for labelling it a process, and for its anachronisms.

In a nutshell, the approach entails, at its heart:

  • Choosing a name, for easy referencing of “this thing which we have come together to build/grow” (Name).
  • Discussing our various perspectives re: our (common) purpose, leading to a Statement of Purpose.
  • Listing key stakeholders and their respective needs (what they say they need, not what we’d like them to need).

The approach aims to address a bunch of risks inherent in this kind of endeavour, including the risk of spending precious time and effort on building the wrong thing(s).

Put another way, what’s the minimum amount of structure that will serve us in approaching our joint endeavour?

How does this sit with you? What advice can you offer me? Upon receipt of this advice I will be better placed to decide whether this kind of  approach might fly, and what else to do instead or in addition.

– Bob

Further Reading

Our Javelin Process ~ Bob Marshall