Sunday, October 26, 2008

Learning to Identify the Resolution

A critical discussion is one in which something is being criticized – that is, evaluated from multiple perspectives for the purpose of coming to a shared understanding. These discussions are vital if we are to come to an agreement about the nature of something, or to agree upon a definition, or to agree on what should be done in a given situation. Fortunately for us, some of the great minds of the ages have put a good deal of thought into this process and have refined the process into something simple enough for me to understand and relate to you all. It is my intention to do this over the next few newsletters.

Let’s start with the model of a controversy. We start there because, if there is no controversy, we already have a shared understanding and have no use for critical discussion. However, if we choose to challenge presumption (reference my newsletter from August 31st), then we need to acknowledge controversy.

First we start with a simple statement describing a point of view (“Capital punishment is murder”, “We are products of our environment”, or “We should bail out Wall Street firms”). There is no thought at this time whether or not these statements are correct – they just represent one side of a controversy. It doesn’t matter if we believe them or not because in examining them, we are IMPARTIAL. We do NOT advocate a position. Rather, we assume only that they are issues complex enough to require analysis in order to be fully understood. This is challenge #1 and runs contrary to our training to “have the right answer”. We recognize here that we are seeking the answer and no more. This simple statement is called the “resolution”. It is not the ANSWER to the controversy (although it certainly could turn out to be); it is just the place we start our analysis.

So, when we begin feeling a disagreement brewing, we immediately try to formulate a resolution. We may ask “So, what you are saying is…..” and then express the statement a simply as possible in a neutral and temperate tone, and without adding charged language. If someone indicated that the Wall Street bail out was a reasonable course of action, your attempt to express that position as resolution would be expressed “So, what you are saying is we should bail out Wall Street firms?” and not “So, what you are saying is we should let the criminals on Wall Street off scot free?” The latter is clearly adding charged language that was not originally there. If possible, it is best to express a position without any charged language because it is more objectively analyzed.

I am going to close for now because it is critically important for you to understand just this much:

1. A critical discussion is one in which we are trying to explore various perspectives surrounding a given controversy.

2. A resolution is the principal claim to be explored in a controversy. It is a simple statement that expresses a point of view.

3. The resolution should be expressed in one or two simple sentences. If it cannot, then you should try to view the subject as multiple controversies to be resolved serially.

4. PRACTICE formulating resolutions for the next week. When you find yourself in a disagreement, ask the question “So, what you are saying is….?” to practice clarifying your understanding. Keep track of how many times the other party amends or adjusts the resolution. It is interesting to see that many times, we really didn’t understand just what the other party meant when we started our disagreement.

5. After you both agree on the resolution, refrain from expressing your opinion. Instead, ask them to tell you more about theirs. Simply say “What makes you say that?”, “What do you have to go on?”, “Tell me more” or whatever is natural and appropriate for you in the circumstance.

The reason I want you to do #4 and #5 is because it is important to practice when there is no great emotional load in the disagreement. If we practice the skills on a regular basis, we will have little problem calling on them when the stakes are a little higher. Get in the habit of clearly understanding the topic being discussed and exploring the other party’s position first.

We’ll discuss more next week.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Decisions, Decisions

Thank you all for being so loyal in reading the newsletters. There are almost 1,000 people reading them now and it is very gratifying for me to read the email you send in. Many of your emails would be of interest to others that read this blog. Feel free to leave them as comments. I always come back to answer any questions left in a comment, and you can be sure that if you are unclear on something here, you are not alone. If for any reason you feel your comment is sensitive, feel free to email it to me. I will not share anything that is emailed to me without your express permission.

The motto for Pathfinder Communication is “Better Communication, Better Decisions, Better Results”. I have dedicated most of the articles to communication. This one is about decisions.

There are generally four ways to make a decision in business, with minor variations depending upon which text you read. Here are the four:

1. Command (We are told what to do)
2. Consultation (We are asked for input before someone else decides)
3. Vote (Majority rules)
4. Consensus (Everyone agrees to a decision)

A Command decision is the kind that is typically handed down (“we need to work this weekend”) from a superior to a subordinate. It is distinguished by the fact that there is no give-and-take to between the superior and the subordinate in it formulation. That is its greatest weakness. Its greatest strength is the speed at which it can be made – instantly. It can be used where it is very unlikely that more information is going to influence the quality of the decision (if the boat is sinking, there is likely no amount of debate that will yield a decision other than “Abandon Ship!”). This is best for simple decisions needed quickly in which buy-in is not a great concern, or is automatic (like the sinking ship example).

In order to make a command decision a bit easier for a subordinate to accept, the decision maker should try to leave some elements flexible (what hours we will work this weekend, splitting shifts, bringing kids to work) and the subordinate should always ask which elements are flexible.

A Consultative decision is one in which the decision maker gathers ideas, evaluates the options, makes a choice, and then reports the decision. This is another way to arrive at a decision quickly and has the added strength of utilizing more than just the decision maker’s information. This is best when 1) the consequences of the decision will lie solely with the decision maker 2) buy in is not the highest priority 3) the problem is more complex; 4) the topic is not strictly in the decision maker’s field of expertise, and so on.

In deciding between a consultative or command decision, remember NOT to pretend you are consulting when you have already made up your mind. Likewise, do not use intimidation to drive a person to give you a certain opinion. The people with whom you consult will not feel valued if you do either of these things. Also, announce that you are consulting from the beginning so that others don’t feel that your decision has to include their point of view. They are just providing ideas and offering options – you are deciding.

Voting is a familiar way of making a decision, but not widely used in business. It is most likely to produce a good result when the team that is voting is responsible for the consequences of the decision, and when the team is well-versed in the differences between the options being voted on AND share a vision of what a desirable end result would be. It is important that all options are pre-screened so that they are all acceptable. That is, there is no option that any team member would not support if it were selected. Voting is a fast way to get a group decision on a subject with a few, roughly equivalent choices. Remember that after a vote, there are winners and losers. The losers should not be made to feel like outcasts for not agreeing with the majority opinion.

A Consensus decision is one in which everyone agrees to support the final decision. It is used for high stakes and complex issues. Consensus requires debate and, as a result, is not about everyone getting their 1st choice. It is about UNITING a group behind a decision and usually is the slowest of all of the methods. Its great strength is that all members of the group contribute to the collaboration and end up with an equal share of the responsibility for the consequences of a complex decision. Its great weakness is the relatively long time it takes and the high level of communication skills required to arrive at a consensus.

In the making of a consensus decision, there can be no “martyrs”; each consensus is independent and each participant in the final decision must participate actively in the collaboration. After a consensus decision is made, there can be no private post-decision lobbying, and no “I told you so”.

Who should be involved in making decisions? Just answer the following four questions:

1. Who has a stake?
- Don’t involve people that aren’t affected or don’t care
2. Who has information?
- Invite people with expertise or information
3. Who must agree?
- Those whose cooperation is beneficial and relevant
- You do NOT want influential people to be surprised by a decision and then be openly resistant
4. How many to involve?
- The minimum set to get a good decision and sufficient commitment

Finally, after the decision is made, understand the WWWF (Who, What, When, and Follow-up). Document a plan that is only as formal and complex as needed. Include interim follow-up actions so that as you implement the decision, you can see that it is unfolding as expected. Surprises in the implementation may be an indicator that the decision needs further consideration.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Monday, October 13, 2008

'Tis the Season

Lately, I have had more than the normal amount of difficult conversations at work and home, with peers, elderly parents, and impossible children. Let's see if I can recall the more grievous mistakes I have made in them:
1) Withdrawal - I recently had a conversation in which I felt sufficiently attacked that I chose to withdraw. That is, I chose to ignore my true feelings and just agree rather than try to share my side of the story. This is a fairly significant mistake because the relationship is one that is very important to me and by choosing not to tell my side, I am choosing not to make it better.

What should I have done?

I teach in the classes that the right thing to do is to take a break; to express that the conversation is very important and the issue must be addressed, but I really can't right now. I need to sort through what I think, separate it from what I feel, and talk more later. I really wish I would have followed my own advice.

2) Assumption - I have assumed that I knew a person's side of the story when i didn't. There was a subtle shift in language and BANG! I was engaged in a full scale verbal war without warning. In the end, we agreed with each other and worked through our differences, but this is a "rookie" mistake that I should never have made.

What should I have done?

I teach that you need to be, above all things, seeking to understand the other side. I let up for just a minute (long enough for my collaborator to process more information and change their opinion) and actually lost track of their position....in SECONDS. When I sensed the change in language, I should have asked "What makes you say that?" or "Tell me more" but I didn't. They had just gotten that piece of information that changes everything and I didn’t catch it.

3) Misjudging my collaborator - I engaged with someone that has a history of pure advocacy - seldom thinks through a conversation critically, and tends to keep score as "wins" and "losses" rather than "good decisions" and "poor decisions". I felt they were going into a situation only partially prepared and was questioning their strategy. I was dealt with as if I was attacking them. In this relationship, I am expected to offer this kind of input.

What should I have done?

This one was tricky. I teach that you need to have the right "purpose, position, and clarity" formulated when you begin, and I believe I did. I actually made two mistakes: a) tried to convince them of my position in one conversation (almost never happens) and b) tried to hold a critical discussion with someone not usually open to critical thinking. I needed to preface my remarks FAR more carefully, to build safety, and to be crystal clear that I was not challenging but trying to help. I could have done all of these things better.

So there are a few lessons here. First, we all make mistakes and need to look hard to learn from them. Second, the classes teach all we need to know to have great communication BUT you have to APPLY what you learn to get the benefit. Third, if you ever think that the other party is the ONLY contributor to your communication problems, think again - we almost ALWAYS have some hand in the problem AND the solution.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Monday, October 6, 2008

SO Many Differences

I am speaking on October 29th on the subject of “Working with Difficult People” and spent some time this weekend working on that presentation. If you have been to a Pathfinder class, you know that I teach that what makes people appear difficult are the differences between them, which I categorize loosely as Rules, Perceptions, Beliefs, Preferences, and Styles. It always surprises me (although it shouldn’t) at how little we believe these impact us. We acknowledge that there are differences, but feel most of them are trivial and really don’t interfere with our ability to communicate. I will say here for the first time that this is probably the single largest mistake we can make!

These differences may usually be small, but they invade our communication in such numbers that they quickly combine to overwhelm almost any serious discussion except for the most logical (for instance, discussions about math or science) and can cause us to lose sight of the facts. Here is what I mean – imagine that you and a sibling are sitting in a class with me. I ask you both to write ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a series of questions like this one:
1 – Is a sofa a piece of furniture?
2 – Is a chair a piece of furniture?
3 – Is a wooden stool a piece of furniture?
4 – Is a wooden cube a piece of furniture?
5– Is a wooden crate piece of furniture?
6 – Is a cardboard crate piece of furniture?
7 – Is a piece of cardboard a piece of furniture?

Around questions 4, 5, & 6 the concept of a piece of furniture is raised. You and a sibling may agree on this. Maybe not. Would you and all your peers at work match up? You and someone from another country?

Remember, this is a question about the concept of furniture – something we form very early; something very familiar and concrete. Are we all on the same page? How about with something a more abstract – would you expect that you and your peers agree on what comprises professional behavior? Freedom? Art? Business results? As the subject gets more abstract, the more radical the differences between people becomes. Even on fairly concrete things, we vary widely.

We also have differences in the way we think things will play out over time. If you have a general rule that "things usually work out for the best", your boss has a general rule that "what can go wrong, will", and your peer has the idea that "nothing we do is really important", do you think it might affect the way you approach projects and your impressions of each other's work?

These differences exist within nearly every concept that we hold. What I think is assertive leadership, you may feel is bullying. With so many differences it is difficult for me to see how we EVER get past them. The answer is, we usually don’t and many of us just “put up” with what goes on, believing that we are right and others wrong. The thing is, keeping score that way is pointless and counterproductive.

If you want to understand “Working with Difficult People”, recognize that they are only difficult until you understand them. I mean understand them in a way that they KNOW you understand them, which generally means you can explain their position TO THEM and have them say “Yeah….you got it!” If you do that, you have asked questions, listened carefully, let them talk, considered what they had to say, and repeated it back to them. You asked them to correct you if you had it wrong. You made their point of view important – not right or wrong, but important enough to work to understand.

If someone did that for you, how difficult would you be?

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication