<?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; PON Power of Positive No</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.microob.com/tag/pon-power-of-positive-no/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.microob.com</link>
	<description>Addressing misalignments that harm collaboration</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2010 13:31:40 +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 I (Yes)</title>
		<link>http://www.microob.com/yes-no-maybe-and-some-idealistic-naivety-part-i-yes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.microob.com/yes-no-maybe-and-some-idealistic-naivety-part-i-yes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:46:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>chris</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Negotiations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Getting to Maybe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Getting to Yes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PON Power of Positive No]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.microob.com/yes-no-maybe-and-some-idealistic-naivety-part-i-yes/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was called &#8220;naive&#8221; 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 [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was called &#8220;naive&#8221; this past week during a conversation with a client.</p>
<p>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&#8217;s unique contribution, I provide one essential take-away from each:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.penguin.ca/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780140157352,00.html">Getting to Yes</a>: Use objective criteria as support; be receptive to objective support for the other position.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.pon.harvard.edu/news/2007/book_positive_no.php">The Power of the Positive No</a>: Distill what is unacceptable (e.g. your &#8220;No&#8221;); pursue the acceptable/desirable.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.randomhouse.ca/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780679314431">Getting to Maybe</a>: Dialogue creates opportunities; extend the dialogue by latching onto the &#8220;Maybes&#8221;</li>
</ul>
<p>So how does this help a conflicting senior team discussion when all niceties and &#8220;benefit of the doubt&#8221; are long gone?</p>
<p>You don&#8217;t have to have &#8220;the answer&#8221; (e.g. the Win/Win &#8220;Yes&#8221;) 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: &#8220;I don&#8217;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.&#8221;</p>
<p><u>MAJOR ASSUMPTION #1</u>: One hopes that this can be correctly interpreted as, &#8220;If you don&#8217;t want to do this, you will have to change my mind.&#8221; Our org-chart topper has to be truly open to having their mind changed, provided the counter proposal is grounded in objective information&#8230; no matter who brings it forth.</p>
<p><u>MAJOR ASSUMPTION #2</u>: One also hopes the dissenting second-in-command has intrinsic motivation for the venture to succeed. This motivation doesn&#8217;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.</p>
<p>Remove either of those assumptions and hope for a quality result is, indeed, naive.</p>
<p>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 &#8220;enlightened.&#8221;</p>
<p>If you are on the team and you don&#8217;t like the direction: (1) are you motivated to express your dissent (as opposed to holding out for a personally satisfying &#8220;I told you so&#8221; opportunity); and (2) are you prepared to back up the position to move from &#8220;I <em>told </em>you so&#8221; to &#8220;I tried to <em>show</em> you so&#8221; with objective support?</p>
<p>Look up or forward to thoughts on &#8220;No&#8221; and &#8220;Maybe.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.microob.com/yes-no-maybe-and-some-idealistic-naivety-part-i-yes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
