Hack:
The Judgment Factory: Reverse engineering dangerous judgments in turbulent times
In turbulent times like a recession or a post-merger integration, the issue of low trust can escalate from a chronic condition to a major flare-up. In a flare-up people imagine the worst, jump to conclusions, and make dangerous judgments. An org practice that helps people reverse engineer their dangerous judgments can help an organization ride the turbulence to a higher level of trust.
Low levels of trust in many organizations are akin to a chronic condition, and chronic conditions can be much harder to treat than acute ones, because, well, “they are not that bad. It’s not that big of a deal.” So acute flare-ups, as difficult as they are, provide a unique opportunity to treat a chronic condition. And there are plenty of flare-ups. Major changes in organizational context (e.g., recession, new competitors, new regulations, M&A, change in management) often put a particular kind of stress on an organization and feed people’s worst fears.
The period between the announcement of a merger and the end of the first couple of months of the integration process is a perfect litmus test for the level of trust and fear in an organization. While the merging companies are trying to clear regulatory hurdles and get Board approvals, information tends to be scarce. No matter how perfect the integration planning process, it is difficult to plan out every detail and think through every possible angle, especially if you have tens of thousands of people involved. The higher the level of trust, the less time people spend worrying about their future (“I trust my manager to stick his neck out for me.”) The lower the level of trust, the more time people spend worrying about their future role, title, etc., and the rumor mill often kicks into high gear and feeds an underground factory where people use a mix of facts and rumors to manufacture preemptively negative judgments in accordance with their worst fears (“I need to know what’s going on because if I don’t take care of myself, my manager certainly won’t.”) Things can get ugly fast.
The treatment plan could be as follows: First get initial intel on the judgments manufactured at the judgment factory by simply talking to a representative sample of people across the organization—what do they make of the merger? What are they excited about and why? What are they worried about and why? Organize and share (anonymous) responses with the leadership team. If the level of trust is low enough, the responses will probably be colorful enough to create momentum for action.
The treatment itself could then be framed as introducing a new organizational practice. Call it “the Judgment Factory.” The objective of the practice is to shed the light of awareness on and give people the language and tools to look at how they arrive at their conclusions about each other (“we”) and about what’s going on (“it”). Here is what the practice entails:
- Recognize the output of the Judgment Factory: a judgment!
- Avoid debating the judgment.
- Instead, double click on the raw data. What was the raw data that they are basing their judgment on? What did they see, hear, or experience?
- Double click on the manufacturing process: what did they make out of this raw data?
- Ask: is this the only possible interpretation? Is this a representative sample?
- Send them to the source armed with inquiry.
Judgments are not instrinsically bad. The real issue is that most of us have an unexamined and automatic manufacturing process. It's automated! Hasty judgments based on a poor relationship to the facts and distorted interpretations lead to the the bulk of the problem.
Here is how this practice could look in real life between an employee and his manager. [It makes sense to try the practice out first on the judgments people manufacture about business challenges (“it”) rather than on interpersonal issues (“we”) because to reverse-engineer judgments about each other typically requires a greater level of trust, which is short supply in a low-trust situation.]
Tom (employee who is afraid that the merger will lead to a significant curtailing of his freedom): “Company X is a big machine. Things take forever—it's slow moving, bureaucratic. I’ll just be another cog in the machine.”
Paul (Tom’s manager): We might have a case of the Judgment Factory going on here, Tom. Is now a good time to look at this?
Tom: Yeah, sure.
Paul: Give me some raw data. Explain to me what you saw, heard, or experienced.
Tom: “I had a meeting with my counterpart at company X. I wanted to make a simple decision. He said that he didn’t think the two of us could decide on this by ourselves and that he would have to check in with his boss first. If I’m not empowered to make the simplest decision I used to make all by myself, I will suffocate in that place. That place is so hierarchical. I am out of here.”
Paul: “Ok, I get it, you’re pissed, but let’s slow down. So the data that you heard was that he needed to check with his boss, right?”
Tom: Yeah.
Paul: Ok. Then you interpreted that in a particular way: that he was not empowered to make that decision, right?
Tom: Yes.
Paul: And based on that interpretation you manufactured a judgment: that you will be a cog in the machine if you work for X.
Tom: Yeah, it sounds weird when you say it that way, but that’s true.
Paul: You may be right, he may not be empowered to make that decision and you may become a cog in the machine, but I don’t know that yet. Is your interpretation the only possible interpretation of what happened in that meeting?
Tom: What do you mean?
Paul: Well, is there some other way to interpret the raw data? Is it possible that the guy had some good reasons to want to check with his boss first?
Tom: Oh, I never thought about that. I guess so. Yeah. Ah, well, maybe he just wanted his boss’s opinion. Maybe they collaborate on stuff. I don’t know. I guess it could be a whole lot of things.
Paul: Right. Exactly. It could be a whole lot of things. And even if it is true that he was not empowered to make that decision, should you jump to a judgment about an entire organization based on a single conversation?
Tom: Yeah, that does seem kind of ridiculous now.
Paul: Hey, we all do it. What do you think about going back to this guy and asking him what he meant by his comment and finding out more about how decisions are made around there?
***
So, that’s the basic idea behind reverse-engineering the output from the Judgment Factory. Now, how do you scale it, how do you turn it into an organization-wide practice? In the context of an integration, the Judgment Factory could be introduced to everyone involved in the integration process and to all the leaders whose teams are undergoing the most significant changes. It could then be the leaders’ job to introduce this practice to their teams. Unlike the usual resistance to treating a chronic condition, leaders may be way more likely to pick this practice up and put it to use because without it they don’t have a way to control the inevitable fallout (e.g., major diversion of energy and attention, drop in performance, and talent walking out the door, etc).
The Judgment Factory is, in essence, a practice for collective reflection. It gives people the language and tools to look into or reverse-engineer the judgments they often hastily manufacture about their circumstances and about each other (sometimes their judgments turn out to be accurate, but most often not). Few bosses are intentionally evil and de-humanizing, although that is exactly what many employees conclude. Few employees are intentionally lazy and initiative-less, although that is exactly what many bosses conclude. Both sides usually have reasons but are rarely aware of what the other side’s reasons are. The Judgment Factory could be used to help an organization treat the acute flare-ups of fear but it could also become a practice that—if carried forward—could help deal with chronic low levels of trust.
Here are some early reports from a clinical trial we’ve conducted to treat an emotionally charged post-merger integration:
- People are using the Judgment Factory to keep cool in an emotionally charged acquisition. People see that they are jumping to conclusions. As one woman said, “I feel like I have a pause and rewind button. I may still decide that company X is not for me, but it won’t be based on some underground Judgment Factory. It will be based on a well-examined choice.”
- People have begun to use The Judgment Factory in other ways—it went viral. Now, when people put forth ideas about how to solve a problem in a team meeting, people don’t always ignore or dismiss an idea that they do not like. Instead people ask questions like, “What is the raw data that you are you basing that idea on? Are you seeing something that I am not seeing?” That means that people are now exchanging a different kind of information: they are exchanging raw data (intel from the field which everyone desperately needs) and what they make out of that intel (which means that they can challenge each others’ assumptions rather than their conclusions), and they tend to avoid the rarely-productive judgment debate.
- Misunderstandings are inevitable in even the best working relationships. They are normal. Instead of misunderstandings dividing people and instilling suspicion, fear, and paranoia, people are using the Judgment Factory to get a reality check on their own private (and often distorted) interpretations, clear the air, uncover new ways of looking at the same issue, and to build stronger relationships. (e.g., "You know you said something the other day in our team meeting that made me a bit angry, and I created this whole story in my head. When I realized what I was doing I thought I would come back to you and just ask, what did you mean when you said that?")
On a small scale, anybody can simply launch their own trial of the Judgment Factory.
To stage an organization-wide adoption of the treatment, timing is everything—an imminent flare-up or the early stages of a flare-up are often the perfect time. The steps and the contents of the treatment are described under “Solution.”
- Log in to post comments
- Log in to post comments
- Log in to post comments
Annie,
It is so interesting that you credit Kegan and Lahey. As you were describing your Hack I began thinking of their work. I also began to reflect on the work of Heifetz at the Kennedy School on adaptive leadership as well as appreciative inquiry.
I love the term Judgment Factory - it really describes the issue perfectly. It has been my experience that using affirming questions can have greater impact when a person unskilled with handling the mind frame of the one who is emotionally charged. I think I get the idea that the training is around making it more concrete rather than the narrative the employee is telling themselves. I am curious if you avoided the questions regarding your worries and concerns and focused more on what are the opportunities you see ahead? How might this present a greater reward for you and your career? When have you been in a similar situation that you had a positive outcome? Using these type of questions to change the narrative to a positive. It is my experience that many people have these narratives to upload in their own experiences and they will not have to go outside to someone else’s story. And the reality of a merger is that regardless of what is real or false, things change fast and false hope is not comforting (meaning trying to make a concrete data point when that may be ignored by the powers that be based on the narrative they are playing). It seems that helping the employee see that the change in the world is constant and it has both effects – so which one can they get focused on.
When you go down the road of the negative and if not handled by the manager well it could spin out of control. Additionally, what if disequilibrium is what the top leadership is looking for – that disharmony is going to create the tension that is needed to make the changes required?
Annie, I only point to the critical in an effort to contribute to the Hack and it is obvious based on the comments and your success what a terrific idea this is and a great contribution to organizational development. Thank you for your willingness to contribute to all of our growth in such a complex issue.
- Log in to post comments
- Log in to post comments
Annie and all, Thanks for the way you are helping all of us to see the problems in traditional feedbacks, and in the exchanges these promote. Based on the wonderful challenges, and on my own work to cultivate well being for more innovation, I tried to follow up today in a barrier that raised some of the issues - and started a brief solution.
The solution would take wisdom from all of us -- but it could also segue into the innovation era we all crave. For that reason I'd love to invite your own wisdom, and to hear your practical suggestions for HOW TO BEST RATE A GENUINE INNOVATOR.
When we figure the finest innovative way to rate innovation with quality and integrity -- we will jettison forth with the many amazing offerings of leaders such as this circle. Not easy but the highest innovative challenge and the MIX is more than capable to engage and perfect it! What do you think?
- Log in to post comments
Hi Annie, This is a good one. The problem is so real. Two questions for you: Would you suggest this as a 'Voluntary Practice' or would you mandate it during the integration process. Do you see this in any way fast tracking the integration process (through removal of mistrust). If it fast tracks integration, then you can get senior executives attention
- Log in to post comments
- Log in to post comments
Possible you have missed my comment in this new format so am following it up. Actually, my last comment accepts your response: "We find that usually in the companies that we work for that there are no good guys, there are no bad guys... there are a just bunch of people who either don't have the tools or take the time to understand each other's intentions." Today i see it in a different light. You will always have bunches who either lack the tools or the time or the energy or all of them. And as organizations grow this lot will increase. I see this as a systemic or emerging chronic problem. Your hack offers the way to neutralize their negative potential but can it scale? It is possible we are heading for a situation where we must find a way to manage Knowledge interactions reliably regardless of size, chaos, spacial distribution and volumes. Failing that perhaps we will not be able to put our wisdom to good use.
Regards,
Dhiraj
- Log in to post comments
- Log in to post comments
"The purpose was to inject self-reflective capacity into the organization" -- that's a beautiful goal. I think you've laid out your hack very clearly and eloquently and I loved the fact you included a conversation -- a very concrete example. If the concept and practice cause people to take a look at their negative assumptions and not catastrophize change, that's really fantastic. Where I was taken was also helping people look at the default characteristics of the organizational cultures that might also be in place, such as embedded views of this or that group, management, employees, marketing, sales, engineering, etc. So while I think you are totally right that the dynamics come up more visibly during big changes such as mergers, the extension would be to use a similar technique when times are not so turbulent, this in turn facilitating a deeper examination of the old paradigms, some undoubtedly based on mistrust and self-protection, that have perhaps placed limits on creativity and adaptation for a very long time.
- Log in to post comments
- Log in to post comments
- Log in to post comments
- Log in to post comments
Dear Annie,
The circumstances you have described so vividly are real. The timing of effecting a cure is well chosen. Reading the hack brought two seemingly different thoughts to mind:
1. M&A is being used as an event to set right a chronic condition. Thus low trust is not really related to the M&A. The M&A only reflects it. Then, is the judgment factory really being used to identify the people who are poisoning the system? The judgments being corrected are unique to the M&A and so not relevant to the chronic condition. Will correcting these people be enough or will the solution be a system for superior collective thinking?
2. I was reminded of the sinking of the Titanic as depicted by James Cameron. The orchestra members chose to play on to do their bit for soothing the nerves on board and restoring dignity to people rapidly running out of options. It was a quality solution but perhaps overwhelmed by the numbers at play. And that brought to mind the disembodied flow of Knowledge presented by Nayantara in her barrier: http://www.managementexchange.com/barrier/need-progress-people-their-kno.... If a disembodied Knowledge flow were possible then just one reverse engineering expert would be enough to work the levers to identify the hot-spots and initiate mentoring action.
Enjoyed your hack. However, considering that in the 21st century interactions or 'Quantity' is gaining ground perhaps the first priority should be a system to bring the interactions under control so that quality may prosper.
Regards,
Dhiraj
- Log in to post comments
- Log in to post comments
Hello Annie,
We appear to be adept at confusing each other. I sought to view your solution in relation to the problem you defined. I thought the core of the solution was: 'So acute flare-ups, as difficult as they are, provide a unique opportunity to treat a chronic condition.' Hence I decided your solution aim was to identify who or what was creating the chronic condition. But when I wrote that in you have responded: 'We find that usually in the companies that we work for that there are no good guys, there are no bad guys... there are a just bunch of people who either don't have the tools or take the time to understand each other's intentions.' Would I be right in concluding that the purpose was to cure this bunch? Would that imply that the chronic problem would now be resolved? That the chronic problem is often some puny misunderstanding and not Systemic?
The Titanic occurred to me cause the situation on deck was typical of a high pressure situation - numbers whizzing past, events happening at speed and heading towards a tragic conclusion. Titanic was a lesson: prepare for disaster in advance else it cannot be dealt with. Your hack sensed a chronic ailment, You understood the need to isolate it for study and I presume develop measures to eradicate its root in time. So far so good. Made a lot of sense to me. Then I lost the thread. What did you study and conclude in the acute situation that had a bearing for the System? Did you face a barrier in confronting your problem? Was the problem intractable? How does the problem relate to MIX? What was new and 21st century about it? Since this is a hack I expected the solution to have 21st century overtones. But I could not conclude what was the solution.
I am happy there was no tragedy in the scenario you had abstracted. I do not like tragedies. But I do like lessons and I could not find it. In fact I was all prepared to read how your hack dealt with 'quantity' since I am concerned about 'quantity' of interactions steamrolling quality in the 21st century. 'Quantity' was the first word that occurred to me when I read your use of 'dangerous'. .
Regards,
Dhiraj
- Log in to post comments
ALEX'S COMMENT: "I would also caution that, although the act of minimizing judgements helps, on its own it is insufficient for building trust."
ANNIE'S RESPONSE:
The purpose of this org practice was never to minimize judgments. The purpose was to inject self-reflective capacity into the organization and give people an org wide, culturally acceptable practice (meaning one that they felt was congruent with THEIR culture and THEIR values) to get people to both question their assumptions and talk to others about the meaning (often distorted) that they were making of events around them.
Over the last decade I have seen many trust building initiatives fall flat on their face for a variety of reasons. So instead trying to "build trust," we decided to inject a practice specifically aimed at instilling doubt... in one's own conclusions. The side effect seems to be that it is building greater trust, but the clinical trial is not over yet.
As far as your contention that on its own this practice is insufficient for building trust, I don't quite know how to respond because I don't understand how you define "sufficient" or "trust." For this organization, in this particular case, I am not yet willing to join your conclusion. The clinical trial is not over.
- Log in to post comments
Annie -
Sounds like a great start in the right direction. Do you think the manager should first build his own awareness of the situation before running through this exercise? How do you eliminate the manager's bias? Also, in the example you provided you show a case of an employer "coaching" an employee by asking questions. This is a great approach! Do you think being able to coach by questioning is a prerequisite to your system working? Do you need outside facilitators to do this or do you think this idea could work with regular managers?
- Log in to post comments
Annie,
Granted, there are only two ways to build trust. They both involve validation. The first is validating from "interpretive" (subjective, analogous to expert witnesses in court) sources of trust, and the second is "experiential" (objective, analogous to eye witnesses in court) sources of trust. So then the challenge is to empower relying parties to identify the sources they trust to validate the information based on each of the two categories.
However this only works, as I mentioned in my original build suggestion, if there is information to be validated in the first place. If management has nothing to say on a subject and there is no information about it (such as whether there will be layoffs next year) then there is nothing to validate. People can only speculate. I suspect your study will reveal that speculation is futile, and even counterproductive, in the absence of sufficient information. This, on its own, would be a valuable lesson for all to learn.
If, on the other hand, you find that exogenous factors (such as economic forecasts) are fueling such speculation, management may be left with only one other option to overcome the damaging effects; risk transference (namely employing mechanisms or instruments that transfer risks away from employees fearing layoffs).
These insights are based on guidance provided by the Trust Enablement framework, described in the documents referenced in my hack "The Trust Extender: Enlarge the circle of trust by empowering stakeholders to trust and reciprocate trust" (see http://www.managementexchange.com/hack/trust-extender-enlarge-circle-tru...).
I look forward to learning about the results of your "clinical trial".
- Log in to post comments
ALEX'S COMMENT: "I would also caution that, although the act of minimizing judgements helps, on its own it is insufficient for building trust."
ANNIE'S RESPONSE:
The purpose of this org practice was never to minimize judgments. The purpose was to inject self-reflective capacity into the organization and give people an org wide, culturally acceptable practice (meaning one that they felt was congruent with THEIR culture and THEIR values) to get people to both question their assumptions and talk to others about the meaning (often distorted) that they were making of events around them.
Over the last decade I have seen many trust building initiatives fall flat on their face for a variety of reasons. So instead trying to "build trust," we decided to inject a practice specifically aimed at instilling doubt... in one's own conclusions. The side effect seems to be that it is building greater trust, but the clinical trial is not over yet.
As far as your contention that on its own this practice is insufficient for building trust, I don't quite know how to respond because I don't understand how you define "sufficient" or "trust." For this organization, in this particular case, I am not yet willing to join your conclusion. The clinical trial is not over.
- Log in to post comments
You are absolutely correct that people interpret facts in subjective ways, by making assumptions. Landmark Education (http://www.landmarkeducation.ca/) has a very powerful technique for helping people stop creating stories about events and focus on the facts, similar to your proposed hack. The book "The Three Laws of Performance" (http://www.threelawsofperformance.com/) by Steve Zaffron and Dave Logan uses the same principles and applies them to a business environment. I highly recommend these resources as a suggested build to round out your hack.
I would also caution that, although the act of minimizing judgments helps, on its own it is insufficient for building trust. Landmark helps in this area as well by addressing critical factors, such as integrity and authenticity. However, my hack "The Trust Extender" may also provide a useful build, by considering the information people are being expected to rely on. Too often, attempts to rebuild lost trust are in vain when management has nothing to say or promise employees (due to insufficient information, pending decisions, and/or unwillingness to disclose information), which leaves them with uncertainty (and causes speculation, as you mention). However, in these situations, inhibiting speculation will not rebuild trust. There is no substitute for providing the required information and the means by which employees can validate it in order to develop trust, and/or protect themselves from relying on it in order to begin the process of restoring trust.
- Log in to post comments
Matt -
Thanks for the questions. Every organization is different, so I'll abstain from making general comments and focus on the "clinical trial."
In our "clinical trial" of this practice we have used no outside facilitators. Not even us. We taught it to one person only, who was then charged with injecting it into the 3000 person organization. The practice happens not just between leaders and employees, but more often between employees. (I think the idea of the manager as the only one with people responsibilities is, in some cases, coming to an end). They now help each other become aware of the manufacturing process. They may not always get the words just right, but nobody seems to mind. Everybody catches the drift. Good enough works. Now most often people just say, "case of the Judgment Factory" and the person runs through the process by themselves without any help from anyone! But again, this is a new practice so let's track the results of the clinical trial to improve treatment.
Now, every organization is different, so just because this is the case in one place, doesn't mean that will be so every where. But in general, my preference is to do away with coaches and facilitators. Not always, but most often. If the practice relies on outside facilitation then it doesn't really "take." People have to be able to own it themselves. For that reason we invest a good deal of analysis and creativity in DISCOVERY & DESIGN. Which organization are we trying to change? At what level (Executive team, management, the entire organization)? What is their culture like? What do they value? What do they think is important? What do they pay attention to? How do they talk? What kind of language do they use? (For example, in another organization, we might very well keep the concept and change the language. Turning the mental process into a factory was absolutely intentional in this case, in some other culture, people might see that as "mechanical" and "industrial"--the point being that language matters).
If we don't answer all of these questions in the DESIGN of the practice, then most likely the organization will have an "immuno-response" and reject it. Why? Because it is foreign. It doesn't look like them. It doesn't sound like them. Or they simply don't care about it.
As far as managers needing to build their own awareness... I'm not quite sure what you mean about that. But let me tell you how I think in general, and it may answer the question: Don't wait for perfection. Everything is an experiment. Everything is an iteration. Try it. Track the results. Pay attention to the word on the street. Iterate. I imagine if the Judgment Factory really takes in this org, within a year it won't look like the practice we designed. That would be a sign of success in my mind. (If that doesn't answer your question or you meant something different, let me know).
And we don't try to eliminate the manager's bias or anyone else's for that matter. It would take to long. Nor do I think it necessary. Instead we focus on creating practice that everyone can do given that we are all biased.
- Log in to post comments
You need to register in order to submit a comment.