On this episode of Leading Through Listening, I’m joined by Paul Mastrangelo, president and owner at First Domino Consulting. Paul brings a wealth of knowledge as an organizational psychologist, specializing in workplace behavior and the transformation of organizations through employee insights. In this conversation, we dive into how listening — not just hearing, but truly listening — can be a game-changer for leaders aiming to foster real change in their organizations.
Leaders, especially in western cultures, don’t traditionally ask questions because they perceive that as undermining their authority. “There’s an expectation for leaders to be leading and knowing the answers,” Paul says. “So I don’t want to ask questions, because that makes me appear as if I don’t know.” But asking the right questions the right way can make all the difference.
Tune in to our first episode to hear Paul’s take on humble inquiry and why it’s critical for leaders who want to build trust and drive meaningful change.
Subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts:
![Image that reads "Listen on [Apple] Podcasts"](https://talentmap.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Listen-on-YouTube-Music-3-300x94.png)
The Magic of Humble Inquiry
A fundamental concept of good leadership, Paul says, is humble inquiry — a powerful approach where leaders ask questions not to assert authority, but to genuinely understand and connect with their teams. It’s about stepping back from the need to have all the answers and, instead, showing curiosity and respect for your team’s knowledge. “If you’re trying to lead the witness, you can bring that person down a path which may not be accurate,” Paul says, emphasizing the importance of asking open-ended, neutral questions to get honest and complete responses.
Humble inquiry, Paul explains, involves leaders admitting when they don’t have all the answers and inviting their team members to share their perspectives. This approach not only enhances the quality of the information gathered but also builds stronger, more trusting relationships. “The people who need to define the culture are the ones who are in it,” Paul explains, highlighting how crucial it is for leaders to ask questions that allow employees to express what really goes on in the organization.
Creating Psychological Safety
Building an environment where people feel safe to speak up is a cornerstone of effective leadership. Paul explores the concept of psychological safety, explaining how humble inquiry fosters honest and open communication. “I’m going to put you in a box in terms of leading you towards just giving me the information I want, and maybe you’re filtering, right, because you don’t really want to vary from what I’m trying to lead you to,” he says. “I’m asserting this authority and you now can’t be open. You can’t really say it like it is. You have to say it the way I framed it.” This close-mineded approach, he says, can stifle openness.
Paul also highlights the role of vulnerability in leadership. To foster a culture of openness, leaders must first demonstrate their own vulnerability. “In order for us to really have this type of relationship where you not only answer my questions in an open, honest, and accurate way, but you’re even giving me information I hadn’t even thought to ask about … I have to share a certain amount of vulnerability.” This willingness to be vulnerable creates a space where employees feel more comfortable sharing their true thoughts and concerns.
Leading Change from the Ground Up
Paul introduces a fresh take on change management with his concept of designing “infectious change,” which focuses on engaging influential employees to drive change throughout the organization. This approach contrasts with traditional top-down change management strategies. Paul suggests that leaders should bring those closest to the work into the conversation. “If I can change a small group of folks and get them on board, but they’re influential, they’ll get other people on board,” Paul explains. This method empowers employees and increases the likelihood of successful, sustainable change.
One of Paul’s key strategies involves forming peer-nominated teams to help lead change. He describes how leaders can ask employees to nominate peers who are well-respected and influential to work alongside them in developing and implementing changes. This creates a ripple effect. When influential employees buy into the change, they naturally bring others along with them. This bottom-up approach ensures that change efforts are more organic and better received by the entire organization.
Paul also emphasizes the importance of creating a space for creativity and adaptability. “Creativity, contrary to popular belief, is not something you have or don’t have. It’s a muscle that you can build and develop.” Leaders need to foster environments where employees feel safe to experiment and share their ideas. This approach not only sparks innovation but also ensures that change efforts are grounded in the reality of what will work best on the front lines — a question that people in those roles are best-suited to answer.
People in This Episode
Paul Mastrangelo: LinkedIn
Resources
Humble Inquiry: The Gentle Art of Asking Instead of Telling
Transcript
Paul Mastrangelo:
In order for us to really have this type of relationship where you not only answer my questions in an open, honest, and accurate way, but you’re even giving me information I hadn’t even thought to ask about, so I’m really gaining information there, but in order for us to do that, I have to share a certain amount of vulnerability. Because really you’re being vulnerable, so in that situation that we’ve been describing, there’s some accident or incident that’s taken place. And if you’re going to say, “Well, to be honest, Paul, we don’t always adhere to what the manual says.” Now you could imagine if I blow a gasket, “What do you mean?” That’s an action. But you’re trusting me, you’re saying, “Hey, I’m going to be honest with you, Paul, here’s the situation.” Well, the only way you’re going to do that is if I’ve done the same back to you.
Sean Fitzpatrick:
Welcome to Leading Through Listening, the podcast that explores how great leaders don’t just speak, they listen. Hi, I’m Sean Fitzpatrick. I’m here to explore how the simple act of truly listening can revolutionize your leadership and transform your organization. And the goal is really to discover innovative ways to build stronger leaders in organizations by really asking the right questions, understanding your people, and then involving them in meaningful change.
And I do want to welcome Paul Mastrangelo. Paul is an organizational psychologist and has got a wealth of experience in this area.
Paul Mastrangelo:
Thanks, Sean, appreciate it.
Sean Fitzpatrick:
Before we dive deep into some of the topics we want to cover off today, I want to talk a little bit about how to really ask good questions, how to really bring the concept of humble inquiry to leadership. But a lot of our listeners might not really know what an organizational psychologist is, even if they exist. So maybe you might just want to tell us a little bit about your background. Tell us what an organizational psychologist studies, why they exist in the world? And maybe just touch on a bit of your background over the years. And I think that’ll set the stage for some context of questions that we have coming up.
Paul Mastrangelo:
Sure, it sounds good, Sean. An organizational psychologist is someone who studies behavior, like all psychologists, but it’s really about the behavior that occurs in the workplace. And that can be anything from who do we hire, how do we develop them, how do we motivate them, how do we get them to form teams, become leaders. It’s all in there, there’s almost nothing that doesn’t take place in the workplace in terms of human behavior. And of course, we work about a third of our lives. And so it’s pretty good stuff, it’s important.
In terms of specifically how I fit into that world of organizational psychology, it was back in 2002 when I left academia and actually took a consulting position. And it was with a firm that used the employee survey as the impetus for change, like a catalyst for change. And we were working with some very large companies at that time, and I won’t go through all the ins and outs, but there was an acquisition, there was a merger, there was this, that and the other. And that led me to where I am now.
So as you know, I actually have my own firm, First Domino Consulting, where we’re concerned with what happens on the other side of the survey, how do we actually take this information and create change and transformation in an organization. And of course I’ve been working with TalentMap along those same lines as well, which I know you know well. So yeah, that’s how I fit in.
Sean Fitzpatrick:
That’s great. Well, thanks, that gives me a better sense. So you’re someone, and people like you, organizational psychologists, it sounds like they have a lot of deep, specific knowledge around understanding behavior. And I suspect there’s a lot of learning and experience you gain on how to ask questions to understand behavior.
What are some of the things you’ve learned about asking questions and thinking about how to solicit the type of information? Because I think about when I go to a doctor, of course they ask me a whole bunch, how’s your blood pressure, how’s this, how’s that? How’s your heart rate? They diagnose a whole lot, and then they might prescribe something.
How do you guys go about doing it, from your perspective and your thinking around that?
Paul Mastrangelo:
So we’re thinking about how to measure a particular construct. How do you measure love? How do you measure employee engagement, whatever that is? Personality?
The wording of the questions that we’re asking is critically important, and even one word or the arrangement of words can make a difference in how [inaudible 00:04:50] respond. And so you’ve got to make sure that you are being, I guess, neutral in the way that you ask a question. Because if you have a certain bias, you’re trying to lead the witness so to speak, then you can bring that person down a path which may not be accurate. They’re responding, you asked a question, and they have responded, and yet the information you’re getting is somewhat tainted or not quite complete. And if you don’t recognize that, then the information you provide could be faulty or could be misapplied or even counterproductive to what you’re trying to do.
Sean Fitzpatrick:
So how you ask a question, whether it’s in a one-on-one interview or in a discussion with staff or managers or even on a survey, it sounds like it’s a really important component of the process. And maybe not every manager, every leader, every HR professional goes about doing that correctly, which could have caused problems or what is an example of where it could cause problems?
Paul Mastrangelo:
So we were talking earlier, and I think you mentioned Humble Inquiry, which is for those who don’t know, a book by Edgar Schein and Peter Schein towards the end of his life.
Sean Fitzpatrick:
And Edgar Schein was quite well known also, he’s an academic I understand. And he also wrote a lot about culture, and really started to frame the concept of culture really well and well accepted for what I understand.
Paul Mastrangelo:
You are exactly right. A good addition to the conversation. He is very well known in organizational development, a researcher, has written several books, has defined what culture is that many people consider the definition, artifacts and values and assumptions, etc. So he took a lot of that rationale and interactions with people.
Sean Fitzpatrick:
I know when we work with our clients, and probably when you work with some of our clients also, and with yours as part of First Domino Consulting, if you ask HR professionals or leaders about them defining culture, would they use some of Schein’s concepts or how do they think about culture? Because if you go into thinking about measuring culture, one of the things I think you probably are talking about is having a pretty good definition of the concepts you’re measuring. Or at least the better you define the concept, maybe the easier it is to measure.
Paul Mastrangelo:
For culture, I think a lot of folks do recognize, oh yeah, there’s this sense of how we do things here. And how we do things after a while can become what I call a shared habit. It’s like after a while we’re not even thinking about it. Oh, I see you, you see me, we sit at the same spot around the table, we do things. We don’t even have to ask each other certain questions because we already know. And that starts to spread among other people in the organization. And I could try to take a sidetrack around that. Certainly culture is now used in a non-academic way. Like, “Hey, how’s the culture around here? Is it good?” And I’m sure Schein would say, “Well, good for what?” Good for innovation, good for getting to know people, good for customer service. And there’s so many ways to answer that.
Sean Fitzpatrick:
That’s often how it’s used. Even when you’re let’s say going recruiting people or interviewing people, “What’s the culture like there?” A candidate might ask. But culture can be a very specific thing.
Paul Mastrangelo:
That’s right. So let me connect it back. Originally you said, “Oh, let’s talk about questions.” And it’s funny because what Edgar Schein would say is the people who need to define the culture are the ones who are in it. You need to ask them in an open-ended way, hey, what goes on here? How does it work? And that’s a question, but it’s a question that’s very neutral and open-ended obviously.
So it speaks to the cultural aspect because a lot of times what people really want to say or what they think about or how they would respond can be shifted one way or the other the way that question is formed. So going back to his book, Humble Inquiry, one of the things that he’s saying is leaders, particularly in Western society, leaders are set up, I guess, there’s an expectation for leaders to be leading and knowing the answers. So I don’t want to ask questions because that makes me appear as if I don’t know.
However, if I am going to ask questions, I’m going to make sure I’m going to ask it with authority. ‘Sean, what happened here? Why did you not press that stop button the way you should have?’ And so his point is there’s a bit of a catch-22 that goes on for leaders, again, particularly in Western society. So this idea of, well, I’m not going to ask a lot of questions. I’m going to do more talking than asking or listening. And when I do ask, I’m going to limit you, the person I’m asking, I’m going to put you in a box in terms of leading you towards just giving me the information I want. And maybe you’re filtering, because you don’t really want to vary from what I’m trying to lead you to. I’m asserting this authority, and you now can’t be open, you can’t really say it like it is. You have to say it the way I’ve framed it.
Sean Fitzpatrick:
So I have to almost respond, what does my boss or my leader want to hear almost is what they typically-
Paul Mastrangelo:
Yes.
Sean Fitzpatrick:
Why do they ask that way, why aren’t they more open, I guess?
Paul Mastrangelo:
I can think of some reasonable explanations and maybe some not so … something I can’t quite stand behind. So in certain settings, we really do have to get right to the point. Imagine if you’re talking to a doctor in the emergency room. Hey, tell me exactly what happened during the accident or how much blood did he lose? Obviously that’s going to be very specific because I need it fast, fast and it has to be connected. And I think leaders find themselves in that situation, I only have so much time.
Sean Fitzpatrick:
So in some cases it’s okay to ask that way, it’s not always bad.
Paul Mastrangelo:
Exactly.
Sean Fitzpatrick:
Okay. Because you were inclining that we’re taught one way, as leaders, generally in western countries, western society, Europe, North America and so on, to be strong in terms of how we ask questions.
Paul Mastrangelo:
You’re exactly right. It’s almost like we’re taught to use the one tool, but we’re not really taught or encouraged to use some of the other tools. So this idea of saying, “Hey, how’s it going? What’s going on?” So let me explain the two words, humble and inquiry, and then we can get to an example.
So the idea of an inquiry is, I don’t know, I have to express my ignorance. You’ve got information and I’d like to know about it. But it’s done humbly in the sense that I’m not trying to exert any authority over you. I’m trying to respect you. I value our relationship. So it’s almost like there’s this connection here. It’s like, wow, Sean, what’s going on? Can you give me a sense of how you’re doing? Or can you give me a sense of what the situation here is?
And you could imagine a situation where let’s say there is some sort of accident or production shutdown or something that you can imagine a leader being tempted to go, “What the heck’s going on here? Why didn’t you do this?” And maybe there’s an urgency there that requires some of that.
Whereas the opposite approach, this humble inquiry, as I said, would be something like, “Can you give me a sense of what happened, tell me what you’re feeling?” And of course these could be things about a situation, it could be the emotions. “What are you feeling right now?” Or maybe something else that’s in terms of directing what the conversation is, but still doing it in a way that’s very, again, curious, humble. And saying to you, I’m here, you are the person who’s got the information, I just want to know what’s going on from your point of view. And so it relaxes people. It’s a part of that psychological safety concept that we hear about, the ability to speak up.
Sean Fitzpatrick:
Okay, yeah. What are some of the positives around that? So one is maybe you get better information or insight as to what happened and what’s going on. Hopefully they’re less guarded in terms of what they share with you, more open and honest. Any drawbacks of that approach versus our more telling type of questions approach?
Paul Mastrangelo:
So you hit the nail on the head in terms of the honesty and accuracy. I can say, just to add on one more line there, I think one of the benefits is, if we have established this relationship over time where we have this humble inquiry exchange frequently, you are now probably feeling comfortable enough that you don’t even need to wait for me to ask. You’re going to just offer up some information. “Paul, I think you should know that the machinery here is old, but some of our employees don’t always adhere to the safety policies. And perhaps that’s what happened.” So I think there’s that aspect.
In terms of disadvantages, and I even hesitate to use that word, but you have to be prepared to have an openness, a transparency, an authenticity. So one of the things that they’ll talk about is, in order for us to really have this type of relationship where you not only answer my questions in an open, honest, and accurate way, but you’re even giving me information I hadn’t even thought to ask about. So I’m really gaining information there. But in order for us to do that, I have to share a certain amount of vulnerability because really you’re being vulnerable.
So in that situation that we’ve been describing, there’s some accident or incident that’s taken place, and if you are going to say, “Well, to be honest, Paul, we don’t always adhere to what the manual says.” Now you could imagine if I blow a gasket, “What do you mean?” That action. But you’re trusting me, you’re saying, “Hey, I’m going to be honest with you, Paul, here’s the situation.”
Well, the only way you’re going to do that is if I’ve done the same back to you. “Sean, gosh, tell me more about this situation.” Or your family or a previous experience. “Oh gosh, I had that same experience.” And so now we’re starting to relate to each other at a different level in terms of the relationship.
I don’t know if all leaders are ready for that. They got to prepare themselves. That’s a different kind of relationship for many folks, not for all, but a lot of folks would have to think about, boy, do I want to open myself up to have more of these conversations and be a little bit vulnerable so that I can learn more about what’s going on and maybe even learn more about myself?
Sean Fitzpatrick:
Interesting. If you look out five, 10, 20 years plus into the future, and now there’s so much change going on, but one of the fundamentals, beliefs we have when we work with organizations is those closest to the work have some of the best ideas on how to improve the work. So those doing the job, whether it’s on the line or as a software developer or a marketing specialist or whatever, they have lots of great ideas. What you’re talking about is creating an environment, whether through how you ask the questions, humble inquiry, being inclusive and including people, psychological safety, for them to start bringing those ideas forward.
I guess if I think about some of the work that’s happened in management over the last 30, 40, 50 years even, often when you became a manager, it’s because you were really good at a job, and you did all aspects of the job and then you got promoted to that leadership role and so on. And that worked well maybe. When things didn’t change as rapidly, you maybe could pick up the new things that evolve.
Things now are … with AI and all the machine learning that’s going on and technology, plus all of the disruption and uncertainty in the world, things have evolved and changed so quickly, I don’t know how a manager could keep up and do the job that all their direct reports are doing.
So I’m wondering if the way work has changed, gotten more complex, lot more specialists, lot more deeper insights that people have when they’re doing the work, how does a manager get the best information to do the best work for the organization? And maybe humble inquiry or starting to move down that way is really a mindset or a philosophy they should start to think about or embrace.
Paul Mastrangelo:
I think you’re spot on, Sean. And it connects to a couple of different things that I’ve been working on and working with our clients and some other clients over the years. This idea of leadership needs to change. It’s not just about me telling you what to do, it’s about me being there when you need me. It’s about me leading when you need me to lead. And yet sometimes, sometimes I need to be the follower and you’re the leader because you have that specific information about your expertise or your area or about your market, whatever that is.
And so one of the things that I know I’ve been talking with our clients about, and I’ve been doing this for, oh gosh, when did this first start? It might’ve been about 15 years ago. This idea of a peer-nominated team to work with a leader.
So for you and I, we often work with companies who have just done some survey, an engagement survey, and they’ve gotten results back, and maybe they’re thinking about making some changes. If I can stereotype for a second, the stereotype, what I was talking before, about this western leader, I will sit down and I will come up with what we will do to change the situation, I will communicate it, I will tell you why this is so important and you will just follow. You’ll do as I say.
Sean Fitzpatrick:
You’ll do it.
Paul Mastrangelo:
That’s right, that’s right. Now imagine a different kind of leadership style, which is me saying, “All right, yes, thank you so much for your survey feedback. I recognize there are some things that we need to change. I really think this is the important area and I’d like to try to hit this particular metric or this benchmark, this level of performance for us.”
But I want to involve more people who are closer to this issue. So if it’s something about customer service and the connection there, let’s get some folks who work with the customers, and I want to work with them. And if you’re saying that it’s not just your group, but maybe we need some other part of the organization, perhaps the service department, perhaps it’s some folks in sales because maybe there’s a gap between what sales folks are saying and the actual product and services we’re delivering.
Sean Fitzpatrick:
You talked about peer-nominated groups or bringing in people that are closer to the work to solve. What does that look like from or what could it look like in terms of following up on feedback and survey feedback and so on?
Paul Mastrangelo:
One of the things that I would say to a leader is, let’s ask the employees — it could be through an email, it could be something very informal — could you identify one or two people who could represent your (and it might be department, it might be location, it might be part of a process) one or two people who could represent your area to work with me, the leader, so that we can start to address this particular issue that’s coming up, maybe from the survey itself. And so people will do that. And you don’t have to treat it, it’s not like an election or anything so specific, but now you could say, “Wow, wow, Sean is definitely one of the people who folks respect, he must be knowledgeable, he must be someone who will speak up.” And so he’s going to represent them and maybe he represents one or two of the groups that I need on my team, the location and a function for example.
So if I collect folks like this and start working with them, it’s interesting, unlike when I identify who’s going to be on a team or when someone volunteers to be on the team, now there’s a little bit of pressure. If you’re on the team, Sean, you’re going to feel some pressure from the people who nominated you. Like, “Well, I got to speak up, I’m sort of there representing them.”
And yet there’s also a bit of responsibility. So here we are as a team and we’re saying, “Wow, you know what? I guess it’s not the problem that we thought it was. It’s actually something like this. Let’s try something different.” Now you’ve got to go back to the group who put you there and say, “Wow, as it turns out what we thought was the cause, it’s more complex than that. We’re doing something a little different. Let’s try it out. Let’s commit to it for a little bit and you give me the feedback. And if it’s not right, I’ll bring it to the team.”
Again, there’s a trust that they have with you, and they may not have it with the leader, whoever that person is. So again, asking the right questions of certain people, but those people were brought together from everyone else in the organization or at least everyone else that’s close to this particular problem. It really helps accelerate that trust-building and the change process, improving the workplace. And that’s what it’s about.
Sean Fitzpatrick:
What would a manager’s role then be in this approach where you’re involving people on the frontline in different roles, in terms of taking the data that you got from the survey, for example, and in trying to understand it better. What’s a manager’s role in that? What do they do, how do they play?
Paul Mastrangelo:
I almost split it into two categories. If you are the leader of our team, you might say, “All right, there are some things that are within my span of control, and I want to do some things and we can work on that as a unit.”
On the other hand, there might be something that’s at the organization level, a macro level action plan. And so I think if you are in a situation as the leader of our team, maybe you just don’t happen to be one of the folks that’s on that peer-nominated team, not everyone can be on that team, but yet you can actually be thinking about, how do I support this and how do I coach the people in my team? So they start to understand more about how our actions and their actions actually contribute to what we’re trying to achieve at that macro level.
So I almost feel like in one role, they’re modeling, if you will, what they see at the top. “Okay, for this macro level problem, I can see this team. All right, I’m going to do the same thing with my department or my team. I’m going to see if I can hear, ask some questions, maybe form this group, start to try things and be successful.”
But on the other hand, they’re also, they’re leading that role, but now they’re following, they’re saying, “All right, there’s something else going on here. And so I want to make sure that I am contributing when I’m called upon. How can I help us fit in line, maybe provide some information or be a part of it even though I might not be leading that particular change.” So they’re asked to do a little bit of both. Maybe all employees are, we’re all leaders and followers in a certain extent. And that’s just a great example of it.
Sean Fitzpatrick:
Depending on the situation. Yeah. Now let’s push that a little bit further. Say you put together a group for a team, peer-nominated or someone that, I like that idea where they have suggestions and ideas going back to, okay, customer services is not doing very well within the organization, how do we improve it and get people that are closest to the work involved in coming up with further ideas on how do improve it? Because maybe the survey just identified symptoms but not fully the root cause of those symptoms. They need some kind of framework or structure.
Because you’ve worked with teams, you bring people together and all of a sudden they start brainstorming and then generating solutions right away and then say, “Oh, that’s a stupid idea, that can’t work.” And you get people shut down in these teams. What kind of methodology or framework do you have to help move a team of people, professionals, which means some might be hourly workers, some might be professionals, some might be all in different environments and skills and knowledge, to work together to solve something that they may have not worked together before on to solve?
Paul Mastrangelo:
I think a lot of folks have read about change methods and models that are out there. My humble opinion, a lot of those popular change models are actually not based on empirical evidence. In other words, it might be their experience and then they’re saying, “Hey, this is what’s worked well for me and you should do it.” And that’s fine. They’re not horrible.
But one of the things that I’ve done over the past decade or so is I tried to do it in reverse. I tried to say, “Well, do we have empirical evidence of how people can influence others and change their behavior?” Whether it’s a sales position, a counseling position, if it’s leadership development, whatever the situations are. And so you put that together.
And the model or methodology that I started talking about, I use a metaphor with a theater. So if you’re trying to produce a particular show, you’d want to write the script, you’d want to build the cast, you’d want to rehearse for ideas, you’d want to set the stage, you’d want to engage the audience, and then plan for some sort of improv, some improvisation.
And just to be clear, so writing the script is basically saying I need to know how this thing’s going to end. Even when you watch Saturday Night Live or a comedy skit, there’s a lot of improv, but they always know how the skit’s going to end. And it’s the same thing with change. We need to know what the definition of success is so we know when we have gotten there. And I need to make sure everyone understands this is what success looks like.
We want to build the people who I’m going to be working with. And we talked about that already. With a peer-nominated team, folks who are close. But making sure that they’re influential to others too. We want to rehearse for ideas. Once I’ve got this group, I can actually create an environment where they can be creative. Creativity is, contrary to popular belief, it’s not something you have or you don’t have, it’s a lot about a muscle that you can build and develop. So we can work on that and try to be better about creating ideas.
And we can then set the stage, the idea of using nudges and persuasion, either in our communication or in our leadership style to try to arrange things so people will inch closer to the right types of behaviors. And then engaging the audience. Basically what that means is that we’re getting people to feel that they belong with people who are changing. “Hey, what’s going on there?” “That’s just some flavor of the month, blah, blah.” But if we can get them to just slowly try some things and aspects and then come back to them and say, “Look, you’re doing exactly what we’re asking for, we’re on the same team.”
And then finally, this plan for improv, this is a way for saying that all of us, human beings, when we change our behavior, we do it in stages. And sometimes what looks like resistance, so you might be seeing me, “Gee, why isn’t Paul doing the behavior that he needs to do?” But it could be because I fully want to, I’m planning to do it, I’ve got to own it on my own, I got to figure out my style. How am I going to talk to my team about this particular initiative that you’re leading? So there are ways that I’ve got to be going through these stages. And maybe if you are my manager, you’ve got to understand those stages and help me get through them to progress.
So you put all that together, and I feel like it’s empirically-based, it’s evidence-based, but it’s a lot different from some of the other things that you read out there in terms of how do you organize a change.
Sean Fitzpatrick:
It sounds interesting, it’s almost like an organism evolving and changing as the change happens. But it also comes across for a manager, if you’re a manager, you’d be like, “Ooh, how do I control that? That sounds messy!” Because going back to what we talked about at the beginning, in North America, western Europe, a lot of our culture’s around control, even that … managers, often they control systems and control processes. So they would maybe look at this and go, “Ooh, I’ll have no control over how this goes.” So how do they guide it or lead it in a leadership way, in a humble inquiry type of way and not in a direct telling type of way? Or is this methodology better than ADKAR and some of the more traditional change methodologies that are out there, which are maybe more of a built on the telling type of approach and this is more of a humble inquiry type of approach?
Paul Mastrangelo:
I certainly think so. The approach that I just described, that methodology, is something I called ‘designing infectious change’. This idea that if I can change a small group of folks and get them on board, but they’re influential, they’ll get other people on board. And we’re using all the techniques that pave the way for that to occur.
It’s funny, in working with some of my associates, we’ve been talking about that. If you’re the change agent, you might be part of the survey team or maybe the HR person who’s working with the leader, the senior-most leader in this change effort, how do you prepare the leader? Say, “Hey, you can’t slam your fist down and say this is the way it’s going to be. In fact, we need something very different where you’re humble and listening more than speaking up.”
So part of that is the preparation I think, that’s almost like coaching from within, and having that relationship between that change agent and the leader. But if I can go back to the survey for a second, Sean, and I know we’ve talked about this. There’s this concept of a lot of times leaders think about survey results as if it’s a report card. You can imagine a million and one scenarios, Covid, return to work, different issues that are going on, changes in law, in products, in consumers, there’s so many things going on right now, and certainly in the way we work itself, of course employees are going to say, “I’m not feeling so good right now. I don’t feel good about this. We could do better here.”
And so if you could get the leader to say, “Look, don’t think of this as a report card, think about it like it’s a scouting report or reconnaissance.” So you know as the leader, you’re trying to navigate them, guide them through some challenges that are coming up.
But if the feedback is, oh my gosh, they’re really hung up about something that happened a year ago. Oh gosh, this other policy change, that really hit them hard. Well, in order for me to make sure I can hit my goals, I got to make sure that I’m calming them down, I’m getting them re-energized, re-engaged. And if that’s what’s holding them back from this survey, it’s not about me, it’s about us. And I got to make sure I can change them.
And so I think if we can present the survey to leaders in that way, that helps relax them. Now suddenly I don’t have to be defensive, I can suddenly think, oh, I see, this is information. I use information. I know what my goal is. This is just people information. And so it’s almost, we’ve come full circle. It’s the way that you position the context around this. If everyone has that same goal, then there’s no need to fret. We can calm down. We’re going to hit this challenge and we’re going to work together and we’re going to hit that goal.
Sean Fitzpatrick:
Interesting. I like that idea that the survey’s not a report card. But a lot of leaders are still hung up on the scores and want a higher score and whatever. As opposed to, I like the idea of positioning it as a scouting report, a reconnaissance or just information gathering to understand where we’re at and where we got to go. And the survey can help in part inform that. And it’s also a dialogue. Often when we talk to customers and clients, and you know this, we often talk about a survey as a, it’s a starting point, a catalyst for discussion, for ongoing conversation as opposed to a score. And I think that’s such an important aspect.
Well, Paul, I really thank you for your time. Thank you for being involved. Maybe you could tell listeners how to reach you, where you are and what type of work you’re moving towards as we wrap up here.
Paul Mastrangelo:
So first of all, thank you for having me on. Love the work that I’m doing with TalentMap, that’s good. If you’re interested in more about that infectious change design, you can check that out at firstdominoconsulting.com. You could reach me at paul@firstdominoconsulting.com. So that’s easy.
Sean Fitzpatrick:
And are you on LinkedIn, Paul also?
Paul Mastrangelo:
Yes, sir. You’ll find me on LinkedIn as well, that’s Paul Mastrangelo. It’s spelled just like you say.
Sean Fitzpatrick:
Excellent. Good. Well, thank you.
Paul Mastrangelo:
Thanks so much, Sean.
