Sunday, September 27, 2009

Pathfinder's LinkedIn Group

Don't forget to join our LinkedIn group Pathfinder Communicators. We have a steady stream of articles from the Harvard Business Review, a great source of information about communication and leadership.



Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Keep it Safe

Creating safety in a conversation is critical. Once we lose safety, we need to immediately stop and try to regain it. How do we know when the safety is draining away, and how do we go about establishing it again.

One big clue is when a participant in the conversation starts to talk about something other than the TOPIC of the conversation. For instance, imagine you are talking about the difficulty in correctly scheduling resources for a given project. Your counterpart says “I don’t know what your problem is. Why do you feel the need to control every little detail?”

We aren’t talking about the project anymore, are we? We are talking about YOU.

There are several ways you can respond here. I want you to think about some that you may have heard:

- “Controlling every little detail is called ‘doing the job’. Maybe if you tried it, you wouldn’t have so many failed projects!”
- “What’s MY problem?? What’s YOUR problem?!”
- “Wow – are YOU ever defensive!”

Let’s say you responded with this:

“I hear you saying that you think I might be controlling insignificant aspects of the project. Is that what you’re saying? How do you see me doing that?”

-By NOT responding to what could obviously be interpreted as a challenge, you give the benefit of the doubt.
- By asking if you understood properly instead of reacting, you are showing that you are interested in understanding their point of view
- By asking for more information, you show that you value them.

At this point, most people will feel safe again – enough to continue to talk about the TOPIC. This is how you will learn what they see, and add it to your own perspective. Or, you could also give them one of the OTHER responses we talked about. We both know that won’t help.

Learning THE SCORE and integrating that perspective into your communication style will change the way you are perceived by others. You will be “safe to talk to”. That way, you will be recognized as someone who helps others get all the information out on the table so we can make better decisions.

That’s who you want to be. That's what you want to make happen.


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Monday, September 21, 2009

Speaking Engagement Alert

Please note that I will be speaking at the Society for Software Quality on September 22, 2009. The subject will be "THE SCORE" and a little about "Inductive Inquiry".

September Meeting Announcement Society for Software Quality

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Result-Killing Biases

When I talk about “mastering conflict” (as opposed to avoiding it), a lot of people are initially confused by my meaning. This week I’ll explain this a little further.

Patrick Lencioni’s landmark book “The Five Dysfunctions of a Team” presents a hierarchy of conditions that must be met prior to achieving results. After establishing safety and trust, Lencioni’s hierarchy addresses mastering conflict. This is not AVOIDING conflict, but managing it so that it is productive. We get all of the good ideas out in the open where we can examine and compare them. If in the course of deciding on an action, the collaborators can air their differences in an honest and meaningful way, there is a good chance that they will be able to make a commitment that is meaningful.

Sometimes we avoid conflict by just “going along” with a decision, even when we think it won’t work. Projects that are dependent on too many of these kinds of “commitments” have a low likelihood of success, just because the important information that would have allowed us to make a better decision isn’t shared. It isn’t that we don’t KNOW what to do; we just don’t feel comfortable in sharing it. As you all know, that’s why Pathfinder Communication was founded; in order to teach principles necessary to help us make better decisions.

When we study the nature of decision making errors, we see that avoiding conflict is high on the list. Conflict is how we test each other’s ideas before we implement them. This testing is very easy and inexpensive at the “talking” stages of a project and gets much more difficult as we move through it. I have mentioned several times that the biggest reason that we don’t collaborate is that some of us fear that we will look weak by doing so, or that it will end badly with someone getting irreparably upset. So we are concerned about how someone will behave if we disagree.

As I have written about before, our behaviors are a product of our values and beliefs. Personality inventory tests (like Myers-Briggs for example) ask you about your behaviors and from that will derive your values and beliefs.

Below are some beliefs and values that you may encounter when you are collaborating. It is important to recognize them for what they are and understand that you need to question them if you recognize them in your statements or in the statements of others:

1 – Overconfidence bias. Sometimes, we believe we can do something just because we believe that we SHOULD be able to or because we NEED to or we WANT to. That doesn’t mean we can, and when we find ourselves projecting that we will be successful at something, we should question why we think so and assure that there is some reason to believe it.

2 – Sunk Cost effect. Sometimes, after we have put money or time or effort into an activity, it starts to become apparent that we may not succeed; that maybe we shouldn’t have started it in the first place. We may make a decision to continue to pour effort into the task even when it becomes unlikely that there will be a reasonable return. This difficulty to stop on a task we are invested in, this desire to throw “good money after bad”, is called the sunk cost effect. Remember that if during the course of a project information is revealed that indicates the project is unlikely to produce a reasonable, you need to be responsible enough to shut it down. It is a bad idea to try to “will the project” into becoming productive.

3 – Recency effect. Sometimes, when we look at data, we tend to emphasize recent events over more distant events. Sometimes this is appropriate and sometimes it isn’t. It is always appropriate to question why we think that recent patterns will continue and justify why past patterns won’t repeat.

4 – Confirmation bias. Sometimes when we conduct research, especially when we are hopeful that we will arrive at a given conclusion, we tend to gather or give undue weight to data that tends to confirm the conclusion we want. It is appropriate to gather data that is representative of the range of data available and not just that which supports our position.

5 – Anchoring bias. Sometimes when we negotiate a price may be mentioned by the other party, and we begin to think in terms of that price (instead of the value of the item to us). For instance, a car dealer would like for you to look at the manufacturer’s recommended price and negotiate in terms of that price (“I would like a 15% discount from that price” for instance). The recommended price has become the “anchor” upon which you will base the negotiation. It is appropriate to question the validity of any such anchor.

6 – Illusory Correlation. Sometimes, people represent that there are strong connections (correlations) between events for which there is actually little evidence. For instance, several books have been written about the so-called “Zero Effect” relating to the fact that every US president from 1860 to 1960 that was elected in a year ending in zero (1860, 1880, 1900, 1920, 1940, 1960) died in office. These books offer “reasons” for this pattern, but since Reagan (1980) and Bush (2000) failed to conform, it is clear that whatever reasons were given were illusory. You may laugh at this, but wait till next time someone tells you what stocks to buy based on the outcome of the Superbowl.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Monday, September 14, 2009

Curiosity

When another person is presenting an idea, maintaining your curiosity sends a number of messages.

1) Genuine curiosity shows a willingness to learn from someone, and that prompts the other person to explain their perspective as fully as they can, because they can SENSE that if they do it well, they will be fully understood. We human beings work hard to be understood and will give it all we’ve got if we feel the chances are good.

2) Curiosity implies to the other person that their perspective is valued, even if it is not adopted. We appreciate being listened to, and it makes us grateful and engaged.

3) Curiosity shows the other person that our mind is not yet made up – that we are open to being influenced.

These three things create a bond between us. They make us feel safe to exchange ideas. That is the power of curiosity. So how do we show we are curious? There are lots of ways.
  1. We speak about our own idea tentatively, to show that we haven’t made up our mind yet.
  2. We listen to what the other person says. We fight the urge to compare their idea to ours, and just listen.
  3. We listen with empathy. Sometimes, if we try to understand the other party’s point of view, we can see their justification for their idea right away.
  4. We help them find better justification for their idea (while remaining authentic).
  5. We see if we can become open to favoring their idea.
  6. We ask questions that help us get just the amount of information we need to understand their perspective.
  7. We ask how their idea fits with long term goals.
  8. We ask if they feel their idea addresses the cause of the problem or the symptoms.
  9. We try to form a hybrid idea, a new idea that combines elements of different ideas into a new one.
  10. We ask ourselves “what would be harmed if we went with their idea”?

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Monday, September 7, 2009

Exposing Hidden Agendas

When we think of the term “Hidden Agenda”, our minds tend to run to something nefarious or manipulative. A hidden agenda may be that, but it may not. A situation that I am asked about over and over again usually deals with one party having trouble with a counterpart over something that was never said. In other words, one party assumes that they understand something and move forward AS IF they are fully informed. Unfortunately, they may not be.

In many cases (most) this yields no trouble. In other cases it can be disastrous. We have all done this – been sure that we knew what the other person was saying and then suddenly find ourselves in a two person pileup!

We need to learn some prevention and some correction for these instances:

Recognize that it is difficult to know just what the other person is feels or means except in very simple circumstances. Usually it doesn’t matter, and so we may get complacent in our “seek first to understand” listening skills. If your counterpart is exhibiting signs of frustration or impatience, these are EARLY WARNINGS that you have already begun to demonstrate to them that you aren’t hearing them. If they are raising their voice or withdrawing from the conversation with clipped answers, you are likely headed for the RED zone. STOP AND CHECK to make sure you are on the same page. ASK QUESTIONS and be READY to “RE-UNDERSTAND” what may have been meant. CHECK YOUR EGO and make sure you are OPEN to hearing them as if for the first time.

Once you understand – REALLY understand – their perspective, you can ask them all about why they feel the way they do. Until you understand it, recognize that by incorrectly telling them what they REALLY mean, you are only demonstrating to them that you haven’t been listening. If you start off by stating that you need some help understanding their perspective, you will be better off UNLESS they are already frustrated. So catch them BEFORE they are “too far gone” by watching for warning signs.

These are great for “accidently hidden” agendas, but what about “deliberately hidden” agendas?

Recognize that the purpose of a deliberately hidden agenda is to manipulate you (or someone else, using you). If you suspect that this is the case, you can start using Inductive Inquiry techniques to work through these. I did a series on Inductive Inquiry last year (starting here). You can also learn them by attending the High Performance Communication class in January 2010. More information on THAT here and here.


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication