Micro Organizational Behaviour

Type “Competition + Process Improvement” into the News section of your favourite search engine, and you will likely get a story (or a press release) that talks about a company overcoming new-millennium hyper-competition. The focus is on the solution (especially if you land in a press release), but one can imagine the work that goes into getting to solution. Not to mention, sustaining it. You may be living that “work” right now.

The classic problem-solving methodology is very straightforward: (1) identify the problem, (2) generate possible solutions, and (3) pick the best one. A prerequisite is to maintain a rational and objective focus, along the lines of “Getting-to-YES” style negotiating. Emotions cloud those operating “in the moment,” but in situations where parties (willingly or not) have to collaborate, distortion can come from many different – and surprising – places.

Rightly or wrongly, we have all pushed back (or been pushed) with a challenge to the legitimacy of our interests. Parents talk about “needing vs. wanting” ice cream after dinner (remember all those children that go to bed hungry); in the workplace, we ask people to separate “nice to have” from “need to have.” In all of this, the message is that “need” trumps “want,” which may cause some subtle limitations to successful results.

Too often, “need” identifies one potential solution (”We need a better inventory system”), while “want” can get to the root goal (”We want to remain competitive with as few changes as possible”). The wording and semantics may seem a better fit with strategic visioning than with everyday discussions, but think of the “want” behind some of these “need” statements:

• “We need more budget to do this project.”
• “We need to reduce head count.”
• “We need support from management/other divisions/the union.”

At the risk of treading into a discussion on inspirational leadership, visions talk about wants (or hope) that would offer almost-universal solutions. Each of our above “need” messages offers a solution that will become a problem for at least one other party:

• Extra dollars come from someone else’s budget;
• Head-count reduction hits “Joe Plumber” pretty hard, and
• Support takes other people’s time and energy.

The first thing to identify is a problem that we can all address. The corporate vision statement may do it, but the responsibility may fall to leaders and micro-leaders.

• “We want this company/unit to remain in business/this country.”
• “We want to reach a sustainable operating size.”
• “We want our company to be more responsive to external change.”

Far from being flowery, these may convey the real, wider-reaching need for change and improvement.With a recent MBA class of mine, the discussion focussed on an idealistic entrepreneur’s encounter with venture capitalists (from CBC’s Dragon’s Den). In the “identify the problem” stage, the initial class consensus was “she needs money,” (which, by the way, is the whole reason for going on the show in the first place, right?). I would (and did) argue that a focus on what you want to accomplish changes the discussion from “give me your money” to “do you want to help me do what I want to do?”

The difference can be very subtle, but can be extremely important. The latter offers more options, including, for example, referrals to other contacts or organizations if the dollar return happens not to be there. Money is one answer, and it may be the only one. You risk not finding out for sure unless you explain your vision.  It is not simply a matter of substituting words (find and replace “need” for “want” won’t do it). Try switching the approach to the problem…from mine to ours. Some leaders/vision statements do it well; other times, those in the day-to-day discussion have to help identify shared problems.

This originally appeared in the October 2008 e-Newsletter for the Canadian Supply Chain Sector Council (www.supplychaincanada.org).

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 “How the World is Changed,” which carries interesting ambiguity: does this refer to “how changes happen in the world” or to recent trends that have changed the world? It doesn’t really matter.

In my understanding, “Getting to Maybe” entails prolonging the discussion. The emergence of a “yes” or a “no” indicates are hard stop or start in direction. Some examples of conversation endpoints are:

• “No, we are not going to pursue this partnership,”
• “Yes, we need to develop a new offering,” and
• “Yes we need growth, but, no, your ideas for growth are beyond our capabilities.”

Depending on who is involved and how those individuals operate, the time involved to reach these end-points could be minutes or months. A “maybe” is not an end, it is a continuation, extension, or hiatus. There is an understanding–on both sides–that the dialogue will continue or resume.

Recently ending a lengthy run for the development of 3Ms “Post-it” as the most overused business cliche is the Google 20 per cent rule, whereby employees must devote one day a week to unrelated projects. This could easily be termed “maybe time,” which would allow those bringing forward the above ideas to:

• Continue exploring future possibilities for “this partnership” to take shape;
• Tinker with the current offerings to recreate relevance with an existing market segment; and
• Examine the fluidity of our capabilities to explore novel growth strategies.

The power of “maybe” 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’s these things ripen… or rot.

I have run into friends and colleagues whose strongest motivation was to combat a perception that he or she “couldn’t” do something. Maybe time legitimizes a pursuit that would either be done “underground” or would be a nagging “shoulda” 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.

To “get to maybe” also demands those in authority (formal or informal) to recognize and pull back from “gut feeling” decisions, when maybe is a viable option. Backing up from a knee-jerk decision takes self awareness or deft positioning of the “maybe” or both in order to further the dialogue.

No matter who is working together, the right ideas can emerge if information flows well. At different stages “Yes,” “No” and “Maybe” from all sides of the interaction can support that information flow. Go ahead, call me naive.

August Busch IV said “While the process was at times difficult for all parties, in the end, the right outcome happened for everyone” as comment on the recent acquisition of his family’s company by InBev. I would love to have a glimpse into some of those “difficult” discussions and if there were any personal bests set in depths of facial redness or heights of blood pressure readings.

There will certainly be opposition from other areas, as well. From a business perspective, the deal appears to be solid, as indicated in a description of the Wall Street Journal account of the deal, but will no doubt face opposition when the potential efficiencies start to be realized and, as Tom Pirko of Bevmark consulting says here the company is forced to behave like other global companies in pushing workers and suppliers to market levels. Busch’s “everyone” likely does not include suppliers of hops and electricity that will bear the brunt of increased “buyer power” from this new entity.

Can we assume that this is an objectively good deal?

If so, all parties, including workforce and suppliers, should be content: benefits are reasonable, and any heartache was eventual. The dollar figure ($70/share or $52 billion) gets a lot of attention, but as always there is much more to the deal than the price. I am intrigued by the decision to rename InBev to include the legacy of the Busch family. “Anheuser-Busch” is much more recognizable, I have to assume, to Bud drinkers than “InBev” is to those imbibing Stella-Artois, let alone any Labatt product.

Perhaps we will never know what it was that tipped the scale on this negotiation, but if August Busch IV was able to move the company into the future more easily given that the family name will live on, more power to him and to those who were at the table to close the deal.

This is obviously not all about ego and family legacy. Busch et al have two seats on the Board, and InBev will be able to benefit from this hands-on experience in further exploring the US market, as well as bringing Bud products to the rest of the world. It is fascinating, however, to see the subtle indications of what were obviously emotionally heated discussions. I am not surprised that a couple of cold ones were cracked at the end of it all. Well deserved!

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.