We are all creatures of habit. In our personal and professional lives, we strive for things that are repeatable and predictable. Even the most ambitious change agent needs tools, people and processes they understand in order to move their businesses forward. When we move away from things that are predictable and fully understood we become uneasy and possibly nervous about the task we are trying to accomplish.

This fact brings about a question – How long has it been since you were nervous about something you were doing at work? At home?

I have always had a goal to be nervous about what I am trying to accomplish; I strive to be in this state at least every few months. I don’t want this to be an everyday occurrence as that is not healthy and productive. However, nervousness is a sign that the “expected and understood” tendency is being challenged. When we are challenged, improvements (changes from the current norm) typically follow. Leaders who embrace intelligent disobedience should feel nervous now and then, it is a sign of striving for success by changing things that may have become the norm.

When was the last time you were nervous? Have you been avoiding something because it makes you a bit nervous? Is that nervousness a sign of what you actually SHOULD be doing to improve your personal or work life?

The best leaders feed off of their nervousness to push them forward. What should your personal goal for “becoming nervous” be to help you pursue your ambitions?

In our daily lives we are presented with many opportunities to multi-task. We expect this of ourselves, as we try to produce as much as we can – both professionally and personally – in the average day. But how effective are we – really – at doing this? In a fabulous book called Your Brain At Work, David Rock addresses how our brains are wired, and how we can best use our brains to the greatest extent in the workplace. Where does multi-tasking fit in? For the most part we stink at multi-tasking and ought to use multi-tasking very selectively. In his book, Rock discusses how amazingly ineffective we are when we try to multi-task. We simply shouldn’t do it, except in certain well understood circumstances.

The Mindavation team have long referred to this as the 98/2 attention span. We may be sitting in a meeting or “listening in” on a conference call while having a side discussion, or answering emails on our smartphone. Are we multi-tasking in this instance? Well, yes, we are, kind of. Are we actually paying attention to two things at once? Hardly. You’ve seen it and experienced it – someone is in a meeting pecking away on their smartphone and someone poses a question to them. No response. Someone then calls out their name, and suddenly, they are attentive and participating in the meeting once again, putting down the smartphone! This embarrassed person was genuinely multi-tasking, but that doesn’t mean they were effectively PARTICIPATING in two things at once. 98% of their attention was diverted to the smartphone email, and 2% (maybe) was still in the meeting – enough to respond when their name was called, but not enough to know a question was posed to them. Had this person truly been multi-tasking, it would have been obvious that the meeting question was directed toward them and no calling out of their name would have been necessary.

We constantly fool ourselves into thinking we are multi-tasking. We just aren’t effective at performing two things at once. We are working on one thing and “presently interruptable” for another – lending 2% of our focus on the lesser activity. Next time a task or meeting or conference call requires 2% of your attention, go for it and multi-task. However, if you need more than 2% of your focus to accomplish what is required, you should chuck multi-tasking out the window and PRIORITIZE what you do at any one time to give each task the focus it deserves.

Intelligent disobedience often involves saying “no” in situations where it is not an expected response. We should all be saying “no” more often when we are expected to be engaged in more than one thing at a time. We are fooling ourselves when we think we believe we can split our focus.

In our Intelligent Disobedience workshops we regularly discuss the risks associated with engaging in acts of Intelligent Disobedience. Why would a person take those risks? The answers our workshop delegates provide are varied and often personal in nature. Examples include addressing a long standing issue that reaches such a level of frustration that people are compelled to act or to address a pressing need to take action to protect a valued manager. The most common and compelling reason for taking the risks associated with acting via Intelligent Disobedience however is the need to take action to preserve one’s integrity or moral stance.

“It was simply the right thing to do” is the best expression that describes this motivation. Engaging in extraordinary acts where one’s personal integrity was at stake push the boundaries outward for acceptable actions of Intelligent Disobedience. True leaders are compelled to ensure the appropriate business outcome is achieved, or to ensure a shortcoming of something viewed as “wrong” was quickly corrected.

These moral stance positions represent the most significant acts of Intelligent Disobedience conveyed to us by workshop participants. They are inspired by a compelling requirement to “be true to one’s self.” The leader in this mode simply cannot get up and go to work with a feeling of integrity if their objective is not pursued.

This surfaces a healthy question for leaders to ask the person in the mirror – is our hesitance to engage in an act of Intelligent Disobedience compromising our integrity at work (or at home)?

Recently, we had a potential client ask us a very pointed question…”What will I see in my organization on day one after my staff sits through one of your Intelligent Disobedience workshops?”

It is a great question…yet I hope our answer was even better, and reflected our embracing of Intelligent Disobedience by saying something different from what is expected (yet conveys the truth). What was our answer? Nothing, you won’t see a difference at all on day 1 after a workshop.

Training workshops, ours or others, dealing with an “edgy topic” such as Intelligent Disobedience or a basic Project Management techniques course provide significant POTENTIAL for improvement on day 1. What causes improvements in an organization is the development of new habits – new habits that are coached and reinforced over several months in order for them to become commonplace. Those new habits should then be reinforced by a change or adjustment to performance measurement systems so the new habits and techniques being proposed are embraced, and their value realized.  Only then is improvement going to appear.

In our Intelligent Disobedience workshops we encounter many people who are looking for new and improved techniques for influencing others, communicating critical needs and dealing with emotionally charged issues. For most, the techniques we present do not disappoint. Others, however, will come to our workshops looking for a risk-free approach or guarantees that they will get results that they feel are positive. In many of those cases, our attendees are holding onto inflated, extreme expectations of what “bad will happen” should they try something out of the ordinary, or challenge a person in a leadership role with a new idea. These fears – such as being fired on the spot – are in the vast majority of instances exaggerated visions of consequences that have a very low probability of occurring. Yet, they serve a purpose  for the person who is hesitant to “stick their neck out” and try something new…these fears conveniently allow them to be safe, “not make waves” and as a result – underperform at work (and potentially in their personal relationships as well).

We aren’t targeting this blog entry to those that hold these “convenient fears”; this is an appeal to those who read this blog that are leaders. How many good ideas are you missing because of hesitant followers? What aspect of your processes and procedures could be improved if your staff members spoke up about changing long held and treasured business practices?

A potentially huge opportunity awaits here– if you can set the right example, respond favorably to criticism and  new ideas, and reduce the fear by embracing new approaches.

In his latest book Linchpin, Seth Godin discusses making a significant mark in your workplace by doing things differently.  Godin says “We need you to stand up and be remarkable. Be human. Contribute. Interact. Take the risk that you might make someone upset with your initiative, innovation, and insight – it turns out you’ll probably delight them instead.”  (Go to www.sethgodin.com for more of Seth’s wonderful thoughts.)

In our Intelligent Disobedience workshops we concentrate quite a bit on helping people realize the capabilities they have, but might have forgotten or “put away” as being too risky. As we are influenced by cautious thoughts in a struggling economy, we are less apt to “rock the boat.”

We at Mindavation are of the firm belief that those who simply keep their heads down and do what they are told are MORE at risk of getting laid off – as their contributions are not notable. Those that engage in Intelligent Disobedience – and are doing so for the sake of improving their businesses and in turn, their lives – make a difference. They stand out from the crowd. And people who stand out from the crowd are rarely the ones who are laid off.

Many people hesitate to engage in acts of Intelligent Disobedience because they believe they increase their risk of being fired. We firmly believe that acts of Intelligent Disobedience that improve the posture of your business and the success of your manager will end up doing just the opposite – they will make your position in your business more secure, and improve your status.

Don’t just follow the crowd – TRY something different!

Some of the best conversations we have had with influential stakeholders involved suggested actions that were ultimately rejected. In most cases, these were proposed acts of “intelligent disobedience.” Why were they still great conversations? Because they helped us as individuals stand out. As an employee, they reflected a desire and willingness to step away from being an every-day, replaceable “part in a process” and demonstrated initiative.

Often, these “failed suggestion” conversations bring new information to light, and other actions are proposed that improve a given project, or smooth the operation of a business process. Some of the very best ideas we have thought of for acts of intelligent disobedience were never executed at all, rather they served as catalysts for improvement by enlightening a senior leader, or causing a group to frame a problem in a different manner.

In an economy where the “manufactured piece” is continually being moved to markets where labour is less expensive, the products we can bring to work that are of greatest value are our ideas, innovations and perspectives. Intelligent disobedience involves removing  all but the legally binding boundaries from our thinking. This helps us come up with different means of serving our businesses and our clients. Frequently, all this  takes is the courage to surface an idea  and make a suggestion.  This could put your career in a whole new light.

This story came from a friend and colleague in Brisbane, Australia. I’d love to hear from someone in the rail industry to substantiate this story - it is a good anecdote for thinking twice about following “the rules.”

Good news: It was a normal day in  Sharon Springs, KS, when a railroad crew boarded a  loaded coal train for the long trek to Salina, KS.

The Bad news: Just a few miles into the trip a wheel bearing became overheated and melted, letting a metal support drop down and grind on the rail, creating white hot molten metal droppings spewing down to the rail.

The Good news: A very alert crew noticed smoke about halfway back in the train and immediately stopped the train in compliance with the rules.

The Bad news: The train stopped with the hot wheel over a wooden bridge with creosote ties and trusses.

The crew tried to explain to management but were instructed not to move the train! They were instructed “The Rules” prohibit  moving the train when a part is defective!  The molten metal droppings made short work of the wooden bridge - it quickly caught fire and collapsed, taking a number of train cars along with it.

RULES  IS RULES!

(Don’t  let common sense get in the way of a good disaster!)

Sometimes the most powerful way to engage in Intelligent Disobedience is to say no, especially when a task “opportunity” enters your office.

You are busy, juggling priorities and multiple initiatives, and you have an ambitious manager. At the same time we want to approach our managers, the business, and ourselves with integrity. Does it reflect high integrity when a task opportunity comes your way and you don’t know how you will accomplish it and you neglect to say something like…I can’t do that?

Intelligent Disobedience doesn’t mean we should be needlessly difficult. It does mean we should be true to ourselves and those around us. One of the most effective ways to do that and relieve undue stress, is to stop trying to juggle too much. If a work opportunity comes your way, and you don’t know how you will accomplish it, say no OR ask which of your major projects (or significant to-do items) you can “suspend” in order to accomplish this new task. You owe that brand of truth to your boss, your peers, your own sanity and your family!

The Harvard Business Review published an excellent article with this same theme - in fact it is in the top two best selling reprints in the history of the Harvard Business Review magazine. You can access the article via this link: http://hbr.org/1999/11/management-time-whos-got-the-monkey/ar/1

Recently, a colleague of mine turned around a situation with her manager by posing a VERY powerful question. She had been struggling with an ever expanding workload due to a senior manager with ambitions that outreached his ability to prioritize. What was this impactful question she posed to her senior leader?

“To be sure I’m not going to conflict with your actions, what are YOU doing to help bring this objective to fruition?”

What a question! It was posed with a focus on her own work effort so it was not directly threatening, yet it brought home the point that he was not treating this latest “great idea” by directing any of his own time towards it. The resulting discussion about the workload that my colleague was trying to manage, along with the priority of items in that workload was significant, setting a direction for her area of the business and her personal agenda.

This also established a tone for future discussions about new initiatives. All it took was one question; one well crafted question, driven by a desire to share information which was delivered with courage, to make a significant difference in the work environment for herself and her organization.