We see our team not as it is, but as we are.
This quote is, of course, about how we view the world. The original states: We see the world not as it is but as we are[1].
This can be and should be applied to everything in our lives, and the teams we work in are no exception. But what does it really mean and how can we create positive change in a team when everyone has a different opinion?
Are your interpretations wrong?
In his book, The Mind is Flat[2], Nick Chater takes us through the process by which information is taken in and understood. These observations come from numerous experiments and can lead us to quite challenging conclusions. The following sequence paraphrases some of these ideas:
1. The mind can only observe one thing (or occasionally a small local cluster of similar things) at once. One colour. One part of a line drawing or image (not the whole thing). One sound. The perception, for example, of seeing a room is an illusion. Very small aspects of our perception of the room are ‘drawn through’ a highly serial input of data. While we think we see the whole thing, anything we are not focusing on in the moment is discarded.
2. The result of this input is then processed by a neural system (our mind) which looks for any previous pattern in the network that has similarity. We might think of this as a massively parallel computer. This is so good at finding similar data that it makes us masters of interpretation, allowing us, for example, to see faces in clouds or generate metaphor for almost any situation.
3. These results are processed and aggregated, such that we draw a conclusion about what we are seeing. The conclusion is reported as coming from an “I,” a sense of self, but it is actually an agreement between different parts of the neural network which our “I” is retrospectively identifying. This self-deception runs so deep that we are easily fooled by simple experiments into saying and doing things that we would not expect ourselves to do.
4. This result of our interpreted perception is then layered back down into the same neural network as a new memory. Its importance to us or its novelty may have an impact on how well we remember it in future, especially if it is related to our survival. We quickly learn to avoid flames that cause physical damage, and equally quickly avoid social situations that cause us embarrassment and therefore threaten our ability to function in social space.
The most important part of this process is the last part. Almost no perceptions are of the “raw” data stream. Our perception of reality is a best fit to previous similar experiences.
This mental shortcut in our perception of the world is so significant that we are sometimes unable to see things what we have not perceived before. There might be an object in front of you that is so outside of your perceptual framework that the mind simply does not report it back to you. Another possibility is the what is reported back is ‘best fit’ but not at all what is there.
This is, to put it mildly, a shocking discovery. So shocking that it is not mentioned in polite society. In a world that is now saturated in pop-culture references to UFO/UAPs and crypto-creatures, this should come as a revelation. If we didn’t evolve to see the objects we report, then it is entirely possible that we are not seeing what is actually there because we have no frame of reference. Our minds find a best fit… an egg in the sky, a shadowy figure that looks like an owl on legs -anything to bridge the gap between the known and the unknowable.
Donald Hoffman is an evolutionary biologist who’s thesis contends that the process of evolution optimises our perception for the best fit for survival in our ecosystem. But that very same best-fit can abstract our senses to the point where we only see what is relevant to us and discard the rest.
Some of the best academic minds in the fields of psychology, evolutionary biology, mathematics and philosophy are saying the same thing… the world we see is not the world that is out-there, but the world that is in-here, the world as interpretation.
Interpreting team dynamics
So where does this leave us when we are look at teams? We first have to admit to our own interpretive frameworks. These are multi-layered:
- Our socially constructed world
- Our current global cultural milieu
- Our native language and the one we are currently using and the flexibility or limitations of thought it allows
- Our childhood experiences
- Our experiences of working with other colleagues and friends, both good and bad
- Our experiences of working in challenging social situations
- Our interpretations of our previous experiences with individuals in our team
- Our self-similar experiences of other people that remind us of people in the team
- Our interpretations of previous experiences of teamwork in our team
It goes on like an endless nesting doll, and nowhere to be found is the actual reality of what is happening. Here. Now.
Given the flimsy nature of our interpretations, we are left, once again, with Fred Kofman’s leadership concept of Ontological Humility. That is to say that our starting point, indeed the only safe point of departure, is to admit that we don’t know.
Working toward solutions
All teams go through difficult patches because all teams are networks of interpersonal relationships or co-working arrangements. If a team is in trouble, then there are two approaches that will help.
The first is to stay in the moment. The here and now is where change happens. Previous performance, clients that were let down, targets not met… all of that will be up for interpretation. In a five person team, there will be five highly divergent ideas about what happened and why. This is the fallacy of problem solving by problem analysis.
The second approach is to take a solution focused perspective. By asking questions that look for strengths and resources, it is possible to short-cut through our interpretations and create a new landscape that is co-owned by the team. Yes, this too will be subject to as many interpretations as there are team members, but collectively, something will be created that has a ‘togetherness.’
Imagine asking your team this question:
“Imagine, in six months time, we do a team review, and discover that the issues we are facing today will have gone completely… Can you each tell me two things that you have been doing differently as a team that have brought us to this new and successful point?”
This is a simple question to ask, but not an easy one to answer. You’ll need to make some space for people to think. But it will start a mental journey that will shift the teams focus from what they don’t want to what they do what.
Each team has more skill, experience and resources in it than any one individual, and that will always be the strength of teamwork.
[1] This modified quote has a complex history. See article [here]
“We see things not as they are, but as we are.” — H. M. Tomlinson
[2] The Mind Is Flat, Nick Chater (2018), Penguin
___
Author: Joel Marks
Posted on Linkedin and https://nxtwell.com
Image credit: Pexels