Facilitating Change

This week’s newsletter brings episode 18 of the Cyb3rSyn Labs Podcast, featuring Jan Lelie, the founder of Mind@Work.

Highlighting the paradoxes of problem-solving and the significance of facilitation, Jan shares profound insights on building effective organizations, improving communication, and driving innovation.

He discusses the importance of courage, trust, and collaboration, providing real-world examples and transformative case studies. Jan’s journey and unique insights and worldview can profoundly influence how you think about problem-solving, communication, and organizational dynamics. It was an awesome conversation, packed with deep insights and fascinating stories, and I'm excited to share the key takeaways with you in this blog post.

Tune in to uncover the power of facilitation and the importance of embracing paradoxes...

Members of the Cyb3rSyn Community can watch/discuss the podcast episode on the www.cyb3rsynlabs.com portal or the mobile app (iOS and Android).

In this episode, Jan Lelie, discusses his unconventional approach to problem-solving and organizational dynamics, drawing heavily from his background in experimental physics and biophysics. He champions the idea that problems cannot truly be solved but rather lead to new ones, advocating for a shift in our perspective.

Lelie emphasizes the importance of communication, trust, commitment, and cooperation within organizations, and how facilitation, particularly through the Socratic method and "clean language," can help groups identify and address their true underlying issues, rather than superficial symptoms.

He critically examines mainstream management practices, highlighting the pervasive nature of paradoxes in human communication and organizational life, and the detrimental effects of fear and the expectation of “knowing all answers” on effective leadership and innovation.

Jan's professional journey is anything but conventional. He initially studied experimental biophysics and, after finishing his degree, chose to pursue an MBA in the early 1980s. This background in physics profoundly shaped his approach to business analysis. He started as a consultant with the Royal Dutch Air Force.

However, a pivotal experience at AT&T and Philips Telecommunication, where he was brought in to fix a failed manufacturing resource planning system (an early form of SAP), revealed a crucial insight: most projects failed not due to information system issues, but due to problems with communication and trust between departments. Trying to solve these with IT systems only made them harder. This realization set the stage for his unique philosophy.

One of Jan's most profound assertions is that "problems cannot be solved. They will only lead to other problems". If you don't like the result, you must "start looking at it differently". He illustrates this with the idea that "my problem is a symptom of your solution," linking it to complex global issues like climate change. Attempting to solve problems using the same methods that created them is futile.

Instead, Jan advocates for a different approach: bring all involved parties into a room. He notes that people have a natural resistance to proposed solutions but are remarkably less resistant to helping someone else in their situation. By fostering understanding and communication among those in the room (and only those in the room), his team once resolved 87 change requests within six months using an agile-like approach.

Jan's work with a computer-supported brainstorming tool provided another fascinating insight into human communication. Unlike traditional brainstorming with cards, participants typed their ideas, could see answers appearing on screen, and, crucially, could edit their answers after typing them.

Jan, as an experimental physicist, observed that people would edit their ideas, realizing that when writing on a physical card, they wouldn't change something if they felt it wasn't quite right, fearing others would notice. On a screen, anonymity allowed for refinement. Even more profoundly, he noted that typing something into a screen projects a conscious message onto the subconscious, acting as a "kind of mirror". This reflection helps people realize "what they were meaning to say," underscoring that we often search for words to express what we mean, rather than words simply meaning something. The meaning of a sentence, Jan emphasizes, depends on its context, both social and physical.

A core part of Jan's facilitation method involves the delicate task of naming clusters of ideas during brainstorming. He observed a paradox: "the closer the questioner is to the actual problem or the actual situation... the more general the name becomes". Concepts like "management," "vision," "communication," or "trust" emerged.

To get to the heart of the matter, Jan employs "clean language." If someone says "improving communication," he'd ask, "Improving communication is like what?" or "Could you add a verb to it?". He emphasizes patience, slowing down, and repeating the question until someone, often an "introvert," provides a concrete, actionable statement like "we should listen to the customer better". This approach prioritizes what people mean over abstract terms.

He shared a powerful example where a client, refused to involve their customers in a brainstorming session. When two customers were finally allowed in during a break, they quickly pointed out that the 30-40 internal ideas they had were irrelevant, and they only wanted two specific things. This vividly illustrates how internal assumptions can diverge wildly from external reality and the critical importance of involving those directly affected.

Jan’s physics background, particularly his exposure to chaos theory and its focus on cycles, led him to think in terms of "positive and negative coupling" rather than simple cause and effect. For instance, better communication positively couples with trust (trust goes up, communication goes up, and vice versa). Trust, in turn, negatively couples with lead time (more trust, shorter lead time). Lead time negatively couples with inventory (shorter lead time, less inventory). And then, inventory negatively couples back to trust (more inventory, less trust because "inventory is not an asset but a liability").

He offered a brilliant real-world example: a supplier was delivering high-tolerance aluminum frames that were consistently damaged. Jan's factory had to unpack and sort through many defective items because they didn't trust the supplier. Yet, the same supplier provided perfect frames to Audi.

Jan believes mainstream management often fundamentally misunderstands dynamics. He argues that "goals are not opposing" and "people always want to cooperate". Opposing goals, like "developer velocity versus security" in tech, are often defined as such, leading to that reality. He shared an anecdote of a manager who started a reorganization meeting by saying, "I suppose you won't like this," predictably resulting in opposition. Instead, managers should ask, "What would you like?" and let the team generate solutions.

A powerful critique Jan offers is about the concept of "psychological safety." While a popular buzzword, he references W. Edwards Deming, considered the father of total quality management, who emphasized that "the task of management is to drive out fear". Jan argues that "psychological safety" can actually make things worse if it implies an absence of anxiety. True safety isn't about avoiding fear, but about being able to discuss anxieties and fears.

He recounted a session with experienced facilitators where a couple claimed they didn't feel safe. Despite creating rules, they still didn't feel safe, ultimately leaving. Jan's insight: "We cannot make somebody safe. If people feel unsafe then they have to deal with unsafeness... It's all right to feel anxious, to be afraid, to not know anything". Leaders should embrace "I don't know" rather than fabricating answers, which creates a culture of blame and stifles learning. As a physicist, he learned to "always question your assumptions". Failing, he noted, is a far more important teacher than success.

Jan offered a fascinating perspective on language: "We don't think in language; we think in what I call metaphors or images, visions". The brain is constantly forming expectations, and "problems" arise when there's a discrepancy between expectation and what is seen.

He also posited that "we created a viral system which is language, and it is now taking over the computers. It's called AI". He differentiates between AI "fabulating" (making up fables or stories) and humans "hallucinating" (checking our internal models against reality). He also says that our brains use conditional probabilities, like Markov chains, to predict the future and maintain existence. He highlights the continuous, necessary process of making mistakes and dealing with inconsequential things as essential for learning and evolution, a process we often inhibit in our quest for security and safety.

In facilitation, he emphasizes exploring the use of metaphors people employ, again using clean language to prevent the facilitator from imposing their own meaning. The overall discussion around metaphors reminds me of the earlier podcast with Nippin Anand.

Jan sees facilitation as a "practice" or a "calling," not merely a "profession". It requires vulnerability, the ability to "stand in front of a group" and be open to "what do you think is wrong with me?". He stresses the importance of learning to "fail graciously" because shared failures make both individuals and groups stronger.

A key practical advice for facilitators: "go slow." "If you think as a facilitator you're going to slow, you're probably still too fast". Writing things down, for example, forces a slower pace, aligning with the speed at which people can truly understand each other.

He also highlighted the importance of ending sessions effectively. Rather than just agreeing on actions, he asks two powerful questions: "What are you going to do differently tomorrow/Monday?" and "If you're failing, what are you going to do then?". This preemptive approach acknowledges the realities of post-meeting life and encourages immediate, actionable changes and contingency planning.

This conversation with Jan Lelie was a masterclass in shifting perspective, embracing paradoxes, and understanding the profound impact of true facilitation. It's clear that the path to greater effectiveness, lies not in merely solving problems, but in understanding their deeper dynamics and facilitating genuine human connection and cooperation.