Fear & Uncertainty

Ask anyone to play a competitive game and they will become anxious when the rules of the game have not been adequately explained prior. It is not uncommon to promote a fear response due to situational uncertainty. This fear response triggers one's "fight, flight or freeze" response, causing an involuntary physiological response called the 'Amygdala Hijack'. The response reprioritizes the brain's allocation of cognitive resources. It does this by redirecting precious cognitive processing power (usually utilized for creativity, complex problem solving, and prioritization) and replacing it with decisive sub-conscious-led action. Simply put, when people experience uncertainty, it promotes stress. As leaders, we must be acutely aware of this physiological response. But what is a reasonable remedy for uncertainty? The answer: Structure Where we cannot predict the future, we can build systems to combat it. Where we cannot mould our environment, we can develop an approach to navigate it. Boundaries, acting as 'the rules of the game’, provide some semblance of certainty inside changing or tumultuous environments/situations. In this way, they re-unlock people's creativity and autonomy. In discussing boundaries, we will cover three different aspects:

• Personal Boundaries
• Team Boundaries
• Project Boundaries

Personal boundaries

One of the most common terms cited during divorce cases is 'resentment.' Resentment forms when people feel:

• Their expectations are not being met
• Important discussions are not being had (this can link to a lack of assertiveness)
• Regretful about past actions

An uncomfortable question that follows such breakdowns is, 'did you explicitly communicate your boundaries to your partner?' A commonly repeated response, 'it was obvious, they should have known…' If life has taught me anything at all, it is: ‘nothing is obvious.'

Relationship Survivability

John Gottman (one of the world's premiere relationship psychologists) developed numerous mechanisms for determining predictions for relationship survivability. One of the most effective means was measuring positive vs negative interactions (averaged out over time). Not surprisingly, too much negativity resulted in marriage breakdown (Ratio of 1:1, Negative: Positive). People have a natural negative bias which prompts them to remember the negative before identifying the positive. A 1:1 ratio, despite being balanced on the surface, was not good enough to save relationships, ultimately leading to a ‘fail’ prediction with around 90% accuracy. As we might expect, sliding down the scale (more positive vs negative), we see increased survivability rates, with the optimal number landing on 5:1 (Positive: Negative). But what is not commonly represented in discussions of Gottman's work is what happens next… If we slide further down the scale (Positive: Negative), the survivability likelihood begins to decrease. "Not only does excessive negativity (a ratio under 5:1) threaten to undermine the marriage, excessive positivity does too. The disintegration of the relationship also begins to occur when the positive to negative remark ratio exceeds 11:1." (Loer, 2008) Why, you may ask? Because after a point, the avoidance becomes just as damaging. Nothing gets fixed. Personal boundaries are getting trodden on as daily occurrences, and the novelty wears off. Ultimately, being too critical is signing the same failed contract as being avoidant. This means we need to be able to communicate our boundaries and expectations so that others might abide by the mutually agreed rules of the game. This is, of course, working on the assumption that we genuinely want the relationship to survive.

Team boundaries

Successful teams are glued together by their culture. Our ‘culture is comprised of the behaviours we reward and punish. But how do we know what to reward or punish if we haven't articulated the rules? It is impossible to do consistently.

Culture eats strategy for breakfast.

– Peter Druker

Setting Boundaries - Within the Military

There is a common romantic misconception about the military. That there were no personal or team boundaries, and we all just lived in some utopian shared community with shared possessions and time. This couldn't be further from the truth. In practical terms, it manifested in rules such as:

• Do not rummage through other people's equipment when they are not there
• Do not comment about people's families, finance, or religion unless they have invited you to do so
• Do not volunteer people's personal time without talking to them first

The rules were protected by the other members of the team and it scaled across multiple teams as well. For example, when a new mission was being formulated, and multiple organizations were being crammed into the same place, it became the mission of leaders to convene and coordinate the boundaries that would ensure mutual coexistence. New rules were set and enforced and were contextually specific to each scenario. The more complex things got and the fewer personal freedoms we had, the more the boundaries became relevant. The importance of boundaries grew proportionately with the increased value of personal freedoms. The same applies outside of the military in corporate or commercial settings. People's individual boundaries are nested within a team setting. What one person does affects people around them. No rules result in chaos. As leaders, this is a unique opportunity to lean in and demonstrate our value. We can assist in the development of practical means of coexisting. But to do so, require forethought and communication. Boundaries must be explored and defined.

Project boundaries

Project management is an interesting beast both from a planning and implementation perspective. How do we ensure the best outcome while giving our people the best opportunities for growth and development?

When people set boundaries with you, it's their attempt to continue a relationship with you. It's not an attempt to hurt you.

- Elizabeth Earnshaw

The temptation exists to bury our people and teams in endless tasks while conveniently removing their ability to make decisions at the lowest level. The 'do anything to ensure project success' narrative is convenient, seductive, persuasive, and even manipulative. Leaders and managers run the risk of micromanagement. It does not provide the required boundaries to achieve project success adequately. Or where it does manage a successful outcome, it lacks the resolution to achieve higher levels of performance by integrating a 'boundaries instead of tasks' methodology whereby we consider guiding borders in:

• Physical – Where to/not to operate
• Temporal (Time) - Deadlines
• Logistical – Resources available/not available
• Legal – Governance and compliance
• Moral and Ethical – Behaviours accepted/not accepted
• Stakeholder – Who can/cannot be communicated with
• Roles and responsibilities – The role's effect and requirements

Including such boundaries reduces endless task lists while promoting proactive decision-making and acceptance of risk at the lower levels. The flow on consequences includes increased momentum, early identification of risk and opportunity, reduced single points of failure and expedited decision-making cycles.

Conclusion

The establishment of boundaries or 'The Rules of the Game' govern how organisations and teams do what they do without constraining people to individual tasks. It is the difference between an average team and the next level – high performance.

Boundaries will set you free

– Common military mantra

If you want micromanagement, information silos, protracted decision-making, and a cumbersome organization which is slow to adapt to an ever-changing and dynamic environment – focus on tasks. If you want proactive decision makers, increased influence, and teams capable of operating autonomously - focus on boundaries.