<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Micro Organizational Behaviour &#187; Interpersonal Communication</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.microob.com/tag/interpersonal-communication/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.microob.com</link>
	<description>Addressing misalignments that harm collaboration</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2011 18:06:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Yes, No, Maybe and Naivety &#8211; Part 3 (Maybe)</title>
		<link>http://www.microob.com/yes-no-maybe-and-naivety-part-3-maybe/</link>
		<comments>http://www.microob.com/yes-no-maybe-and-naivety-part-3-maybe/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jul 2008 20:11:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>chris</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Negotiations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Process Improvement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Getting to Maybe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interpersonal Communication]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.microob.com/yes-no-maybe-and-naivety-part-3-maybe/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This trilogy started with a discussion of three books, the last of which is Getting to Maybe, co-authored by Frances Westley, Brenda Zimmerman and Michael Quinn Patton. The subtitle for the book is &#8220;How the World is Changed,&#8221; which carries interesting ambiguity: does this refer to &#8220;how changes happen in the world&#8221; or to recent [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This trilogy started with a discussion of three books, the last of which is <a href="http://www.randomhouse.ca/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780679314431">Getting to Maybe</a>, co-authored by Frances Westley, Brenda Zimmerman and Michael Quinn Patton. The subtitle for the book is &#8220;How the World is Changed,&#8221; which carries interesting ambiguity: does this refer to &#8220;how changes happen in the world&#8221; or to recent trends that have changed the world? It doesn&#8217;t really matter.</p>
<p>In my understanding, &#8220;Getting to Maybe&#8221; entails prolonging the discussion. The emergence of a &#8220;yes&#8221; or a &#8220;no&#8221; indicates are hard stop or start in direction. Some examples of conversation endpoints are:</p>
<ul>
<li>&#8220;No, we are not going to pursue this partnership,&#8221;</li>
<li>&#8220;Yes, we need to develop a new offering,&#8221; and</li>
<li>&#8220;Yes we need growth, but, no, your ideas for growth are beyond our capabilities.&#8221;</li>
</ul>
<p>Depending on who is involved and how those individuals operate, the time involved to reach these end-points could be minutes or months. A &#8220;maybe&#8221; is not an end, it is a continuation, extension, or hiatus. There is an understanding&#8211;on both sides&#8211;that the dialogue will continue or resume.</p>
<p>Recently ending a lengthy run for the <a href="http://www.rakemag.com/reporting/features/twenty-five-years-post-it-notes-0">development of 3Ms &#8220;Post-it&#8221;</a> as the most overused business cliche is the <a href="http://www.google.com/support/jobs/bin/static.py?page=about.html&amp;about=eng">Google 20 per cent rule</a>, whereby employees must devote one day a week to unrelated projects. This could easily be termed &#8220;maybe time,&#8221; which would allow those bringing forward the above ideas to:</p>
<ul>
<li>Continue exploring future possibilities for &#8220;this partnership&#8221; to take shape;</li>
<li>Tinker with the current offerings to recreate relevance with an existing market segment; and</li>
<li>Examine the fluidity of our capabilities to explore novel growth strategies.</li>
</ul>
<p>The power of &#8220;maybe&#8221; is in accepting that no one knows for sure. Decisiveness is necessary, but can at times be limiting. There are times when keeping too many options open becomes counter productive. Given the speed at which things change, one might expect an increased need for decision. I would argue that with the state of constant flux, some things may benefit from being able to simmer for a little while.  Maybe time let&#8217;s these things ripen&#8230; or rot.</p>
<p>I have run into friends and colleagues whose strongest motivation was to combat a perception that he or she &#8220;couldn&#8217;t&#8221; do something. Maybe time legitimizes a pursuit that would either be done &#8220;underground&#8221; or would be a nagging &#8220;shoulda&#8221; when things inevitably turn south. Passionate and motivated employees will likely make their own maybe time, but will appreciate having it included among official activities.</p>
<p>To &#8220;get to maybe&#8221; also demands those in authority (formal or informal) to recognize and pull back from &#8220;gut feeling&#8221; decisions, when maybe is a viable option. Backing up from a knee-jerk decision takes self awareness or deft positioning of the &#8220;maybe&#8221; or both in order to further the dialogue.</p>
<p>No matter who is working together, the right ideas can emerge if information flows well. At different stages &#8220;Yes,&#8221; &#8220;No&#8221; and &#8220;Maybe&#8221; from all sides of the interaction can support that information flow. Go ahead, call me naive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.microob.com/yes-no-maybe-and-naivety-part-3-maybe/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

