I was called “naive” this past week during a conversation with a client.
The context of the comment was skeptical rather than critical because I had suggested that it was possible to have productive conflict conversations where teams neither like nor trust each other. My optimism/naivety comes in no small part from three books, whose titles and approaches complement. Below is the list, and at the risk of minimizing each work’s unique contribution, I provide one essential take-away from each:
- Getting to Yes: Use objective criteria as support; be receptive to objective support for the other position.
- The Power of the Positive No: Distill what is unacceptable (e.g. your “No”); pursue the acceptable/desirable.
- Getting to Maybe: Dialogue creates opportunities; extend the dialogue by latching onto the “Maybes”
So how does this help a conflicting senior team discussion when all niceties and “benefit of the doubt” are long gone?
You don’t have to have “the answer” (e.g. the Win/Win “Yes”) to provide support to a position. Those at the top of the org chart should be prepared to explain their rational, even if it is: “I don’t know for sure, but I think we need to do something and this approach is closest to the strategy that we are all working towards.”
MAJOR ASSUMPTION #1: One hopes that this can be correctly interpreted as, “If you don’t want to do this, you will have to change my mind.” Our org-chart topper has to be truly open to having their mind changed, provided the counter proposal is grounded in objective information… no matter who brings it forth.
MAJOR ASSUMPTION #2: One also hopes the dissenting second-in-command has intrinsic motivation for the venture to succeed. This motivation doesn’t have to be financial, but certainly could be based on self-serving profit sharing. It could also be interest in job security, emotional investment in the project/team/venture, pride in overcoming a challenge, etc.
Remove either of those assumptions and hope for a quality result is, indeed, naive.
If you are the team CEO, project head, team lead, etc., are you really open to dissenting opinion from those that report to you? If you are not ready to listen, you better be “enlightened.”
If you are on the team and you don’t like the direction: (1) are you motivated to express your dissent (as opposed to holding out for a personally satisfying “I told you so” opportunity); and (2) are you prepared to back up the position to move from “I told you so” to “I tried to show you so” with objective support?
Look up or forward to thoughts on “No” and “Maybe.”
I was surprised to see that the lead story on CBC’s The National last night was about the fight for the right to use the Hockey Night in Canada theme song. I started to get suspicious when the story concluded with by suggesting that proposed the CBC could run a contest to pick another theme song.
As a student of the negotiation process, I thought I smelled a BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement). The theory suggests that if you have a good BATNA, let the other side know it! And if you have a medium such as the CBC network, let others know it, too.
At first blush this BATNA seems pretty good, but when you think of the branding equity built up 40 years in “da da da da dah,” you quickly realize that the best is not all that good. When I was in grade 5, the city of Ottawa ran a contest for a city song. The winner was a really good song called, if memory serves, “Ottawa, the place to be.” I can’t recall hearing it since, and a quarter century out, I could find no reference to this song today, which is no surprise.
The contest, should it happen, would no doubt generate a great new song, jingle, theme, etc. Reality TV has proven there is some real talent in the masses. As good as it could be, it would not replace branding imprint of the predecessor. As the market for spectator sports gains competition from the likes of soccer, especially, I think the CBC should hang onto all the HNIC equity it can.
Without knowing both sides it is impossible to comment on the bulk of the negotiation, but from the public declaration of a viable alternative, I would gather the CBC has made a calculated bet to pressure a deal. I hope they get it, and I hope they realize what’s at stake.
“When is too much choice a bad thing?” is up for discussion in this front page story on the 2008 Congress of Humanities and Social Sciences. The argument put forward appears to be individuals that are given more choices do not necessarily obtain a result that is optimal for their preferences. In the era of “access to information,” individuals may find themselves unaware of the trade-offs that they are making. (e.g. A child should be given choices within healthy eating options rather than being given the choice of what to eat because children may not understand the consequences of eating, say, candy exclusively).
In retail transactions, I recall a friend of mine (A) was buying golf clubs through an employee purchase plan of his friend (B) who worked for the Canadian distributor. Like many employee purchase plans, you can get great stuff cheap, but you have to know exactly what you want. (Imagined phone dialogue; B is inputting data online.)
A – I want Driver, 3-wood and 3-iron through SW of Such-n-Such model.
B- Great. Right-handed; Standard length and lie, right?
A – You got it.
B – What shaft flex do you want?
A – Regular.
B – Where do you want the kick point?
A – What is that?
Obviously, you need a degree of sophistication to buy golf clubs this way; it’s the Dell model of “tell us exactly what you want; you will get it cheap.” I am afraid that cheap overshadows the value that others can add by making some decisions for you: “I shoot in the mid to high nineties. I tend to slice my driver, fairway woods and long irons. I will hit a good drive 280; and from 150 yards out, I swing a 6 iron. What have you got for me?” The knowledgeable retailer can steer me in the right direction, and gently try to sell me the clubs that are at the upper end of my budget, but I have to be ready to pay a little more.
The trends that remove the value-added information in return for lower costs (which is usually the trade-off), gives people more choice because they choose to choose. Do they realize that if you don’t know enough to choose what’s right, your satisfaction hinges on choosers being able to say “Can you tell me the difference between the two?” and choice-offerers having the knowledge to say, “Your choice here is really a trade-off between A or B?”
It may be the old claim that you can have it “cheap, good or fast, but you have to choose two of three,” re-written as “do the work up front to know what you need, then tell me; OR pay a little more and I will translate your wants into what you need.” Again, trust has no small role in these exchanges because you have to trust that the person is looking out for your best interest more than their best interest.
There should be no mystery as to why more choice reduces satisfaction. It takes a lot of work to be informed enough to make those decisions.
Last month, I wrote about working with a volunteer board of directors who were having challenges functioning. This was part of my assisting a friend of mine in a volunteer consulting project for Management Advisory Services (MAS). I paraphrased an interaction between A and B that illustrated that, at least unilaterally, the “benefit of the doubt” being extended was zero. Obviously, this makes for a difficult, if not unworkable, situation. This past week, we returned to work with a larger group that included the board and other interested volunteers.
From the outset of the engagement, it was clear that much of the tension and frustration that had driven the board’s challenges arose from delays and non-responses from stakeholders, which included different levels of government. Large bureaucracies can take time to navigate, so the delays and the frustrations are understandable. Unfortunately, the delays continue, and the frustration remains. Interestingly, the focus of the frustration shifted completely.
The group had had interactions over the past few months that did not include myself or the MAS representative that I was working with, but the group dynamic was almost unrecognizable. In their book “Inside the Boardroom,” Richard Leblanc and James Gillies examine the architecture of an effective board in light of governance requirements. The governance stakes are a bit lower for this group than in many of the cases from the book; however, as subtle as the shift from “you” to “we” can be, this particular board’s effectiveness was greatly increased, in my opinion, by the development of an in-group mentality. This shift provided an external focus for frustration, which tends to bring motivation rather than tension.
I was thrilled to be able to observe this shift. Like the parent who is less aware of changes in the children they see everyday, the members of the board may not be aware of when it changed, but it certainly did. The good news is, it’s much easier to maintain an in-group dynamic than it is to win it back.
What I really enjoy about John Ivison’s discussion of contraband cigarettes is the realistic approach to a complex problem. There are several sets of views, priorities and values at work. Two of those are Stockwell Day and the U.S. law enforcers, who have differing views of how strictly to apply the laws governing production and sale of tobacco products.
Rather than saying, “the law is the law,” Day asks the public to stop buying bargain-basement contraband cigarettes. He appeals to the greater good, imploring that money from such cigarettes fuels more dangerous illegal activity. Demand reduction is a great strategy for stemming market economy problems. If there is no demand for contraband cigarettes, the market will disappear. What you run into is summed up in dialogue from the movie ” The Break Up,” whereby the plea “I want you to want to wash the dishes,” (Jennifer Aniston) receives the reply (Vince Vaughn) “Why would I want to wash the dishes?” Day wants smokers to want to pay punitive taxes… and it may work! My grandmother, who lives in a border town, has always factored “made in Canada” into her purchase decisions. Frugality has lost to patriotism, whenever possible, and, increasingly, where “made in Canada” is discernible. Day is counting a great deal on prioritizing “societal good” over “money in my pocket.” (This notwithstanding that people will actual believe him!)
Assuming Day had there attention when speaking, the U.S. Enforcement Agencies reply suggesting they have bigger fish to fry makes no sense. They are more likely discounting the argument because (a) it is flawed and there is not connection between cigarettes and the “big fish”, or (b) they have additional priorities beyond upholding the law of the land. Assuming Day has it right–so no (a)–one could speculate endlessly as to what those (b) priorities might be: appease a potentially volatile First Nations community? provide some air cover to local manufacturing jobs? allow criminal activity to continue until there is a “big bust” that will survive the court system?
On the surface it would be confusing to see why Day would not get buy-in from U.S. law enforcers: they appear to both want the same thing. It is not that easy, nor should it be, but until there can be a clear discussion of what each party wants, there can be no resolution. Clear objectives may demand some heated internal discussions, and hopefully take into account other interests. At some point the First Nations community should be asked what they want from the situation, as well. Entering into negotiations, there is risk in clearly stating your objectives, appealing to the “greater good” and creating an in-group dynamic, may enable objectives oriented toward sustainable solutions to some of these incredibly complex issues.
There are still some simple things in life. Despite the continuous blurring of our “lines in the sand” from the waves of globalization, some issues are tough to straddle. We can no longer discuss things in the safe harbour of “well, it depends.” You are “in” or you’re “out.” (For a great discussion on a surprising range of “lines in the sand” see this editorial piece on clothes drying.)
The labour-union/management debate is rich with long entrenched lines (trenches?) in the sand. I would suggest that deep down, each one of us is either with “the worker” or with “the man.” Maybe not. I won’t tell you which side I’m on. The split between these views carries ample political baggage. Look for it in these two editorials: (1) Buzz Hargrove’s piece in the Toronto Star, Not the Better Way to Bargain; and (2) Robert Fulford’s response in the National Post, This is why we hate unions. (Between the author, the newspaper, and the title, you will be able to guess which is which, and arguably much of the content, without even reading!)
I wrote earlier about “moments of truth,” whereby the right information surfaces. Not “right for the worker” or “right for the man,” but just right in the larger scheme. Idealistic? Absolutely! Unrealistic? Probably! Worth a shot? Why, not?!
The problem is that the “sides” in the argument have their own interpretations of things like “fair” and “reasonable,” and are quick to point out “isolated incidents” (Buzz on the two-day strike) or “sneak attack” (Fulford’s view of the same). The more polarized the divide, the noisier the discussion because “give them an inch and they’ll take a mile” becomes “try to take a mile because we should be getting at least and inch and half!” Zero benefit of the doubt is exchanged (or warranted), and the discussion spirals aimlessly back to “the worker” vs. “the man.”
Those ignorant of the history may repeat its errors, but I believe Mr. Hargrove’s references to the history of collective bargaining are irrelevant and dangerous. Too much has changed. Look at Canadian politics and ask, “who does a pro-union person vote for?” The answer has to include “it depends” (e.g. the line has blurred).
So, what is the answer for the TTC? Those running the system have to have sufficient funds to do so safely. Those funding the system have the right to demand the resources be used as effectively as possible. Those working in the system must receive a fare wage. Those using the system have to contribute their fair share. It is classic triple bottomline problem. To get even close to the “right” solution, (to even see the three lines!) the parties have to get the noise out of the dialogue.
This will require sufficient leadership (from somewhere) to foster mutual trust. This also means that everyone is vulnerable, and will rightly balk at any perceived breach of trust. Someone has to start the process, but until it gets going, the discussion will remain noisy, polarizing, and unproductive. Toronto needs a better fix soon.
You can’t take politics out of the health care system, which would suggest that George Smitherman gets some latitude in his public commentary, as do all politicians. Who takes politicians comments at face value? At some point, however, the gamesmanship and negotiation-style posturing will get in the way of achieving a sustainable system. This position receives support from Dr. Yoel Abells in his column in today’s National Post. Dr. Abells rightly scolds Minister Smitherman for using a confrontational approach to negotiating funding with hospitals. The basis for the criticism is that the Minister is picking fights that the LHINs—the funding messengers—are going to have to finish.
NOTE: If you are asking, “What’s a LHIN?” as many a layperson will, visit www.lhins.on.ca for details on the newish player in Ontario health care.
I wish that more people shared Dr. Abells’ perspective; he is in the community and in a hospital. He also takes enough interest in the solution to share his views with the public. I think that his arguments are valid, but I believe that assigning blame defeats the purpose of any health care reform.
Previously, I have written about the movie Apollo 13 (here): is there any clearer example of necessity mothering invention? Ed Harris’ statement “Failure is not an option” is taken as gospel. This type of collaboration (us and us; not us vs. them) fosters true innovation. Making the most of the available resources gets beyond the status quo gamesmanship whereby hospitals grumble in March about under funding only to be topped-up in April for by a government looking for political points.
The LHINs are at the front lines of reform. Granted, posturing from the Minister and his office doesn’t help the situation, nor do tactics from hospitals. Both will have to reach across the fence for things to work for the long term. Time will tell if the LHINs gain enough credibility to broker these handshakes.
It is an exchange that is short and sharp, but you can tell that very quickly the focus has shifted to absolutely the right area.
The reason this stands out for me is that it is an example where the person who actually has “the answer” is able to convey it to others, and the others are actually listening. This is a phenomenon that I would suggest is rarer than it should be. Understandably, it is tough to replicate because it demands that:
1 – there is an absolute answer;
2 – someone actually knows it;
3 – others listen; and
4 – others believe the person who is telling them the answer.
I hope to focus this blog on examples when the (objectively) correct information makes it through. Yes, there will be times that it doesn’t, and we can certainly discuss those, too. I hope to find a suitable tag/title for this moment; something like “moment of truth,” maybe M.O.T. The quest for the John Aaron moment is on!
CBC Radio One’s The Current today featured Chris Hunter, a bomb defuser who has written accounts of his travels.
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent
He talks of being able to get a detailed confession and explanation out of one of the terrorist bomb “artists” by stroking his ego and calling the bombs “masterpieces.” I would argue that he created a very strong “in-group” bond with the bomber. “You see, we are alike. We are the only ones who understand your talent…” The fellow-artist bond trumped the more natural “out-group” identity of terrorist vs. Western crusader. Hunter puts it down to ego; I disagree.
Also, Mr. Hunter is fairly straightforward about how Canada could be under imminent threat of a homeland attack. This is due to the pattern of terrorist organizations attacking countries that display internal division (e.g. conflict over relevant foreign policy). The natural example would be the attacks in Spain and England that followed debate over whether or not to engage in Iraq, etc.
One would hope that given his degree of credibility that he exhibited in the interview–and presumably through the book–that this is an objective statement, rather than a soft “plug” from someone who, as counter-terrorist consultant, could benefit greatly from a perceived threat. I do not presume to say that Mr. Hunt is overstating the situation for his own good, but the temptation must be great.
- November 2011
- October 2011
- February 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- Recent Posts
- Blogroll
- Meta
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Nov | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | ||||
