Transparency and Corporate Politics
Joan entered the boardroom followed by Warren galloping behind her. She had had bad meetings in her professional career. She did not know this would be the worst one.
Upon entry, Robert Smith was the most dominant person in the boardroom. The tall handsome man in his forties was the founder of West Star and Chairman of the company. He was a college basketball star who made it to the news when he declined an offer to play professionally for the Los Angeles Lakers. He decided to focus on a business which he’d started during college.
“Good morning Joan and Warren” smiled Robert. “Good morning” greeted Michael Johnson, the CEO of Star West and co-founder of the company. Robert and Michael had been friends since college. They played basketball and started the business together. They expected an IPO last year but the growth of the company stalled. Then they hired Joan and started focusing on a new start up in Los Angeles.
Joan noticed a new face in the room. “Joan, Warren, allow me to introduce you to Susan. Susan Taylor is our new Board member effective today.” Hello Joan. Hello Warren. Nice to meet you.” The three shook hands firmly.
“Let’s get straight to business. I will do a formal introduction” said Robert. “Good morning Ladies and Gentlemen. I would like to open the first Board meeting of the year by introducing Susan Taylor. Susan comes to us from Goldman Sachs after deciding to move home after 10 years in Hong Kong and China…and…ah… take a break of investment banking” Robert stopped, chuckled and continued “We are lucky to have her on board. Susan, please tell us about you.”
“Good morning everyone. Thanks for the warm introduction Robbie. I am grateful for the opportunity to help you guys grow the business and support your IPO aspirations. I was born in China and immigrated to US when I was 5 year old. I graduated in Physics from Princeton and a MBA from Wharton. I start working for Goldman Sachs after that. They relocated me to Hong Kong and then to Shanghai. I covered your industry as analyst and later managed IPOs for Chinese and Hong Kong companies now listed on the NYSE and NASDAQ. Please don’t hesitate to contact me directly. I promise to be in your face every quarter” Susan smiled.
Joan was the only person in the room that didn’t laugh. Susan Taylor looked like trouble. “At least it’s only once a quarter” thought Joan, not knowing that in just 24 hours she will see Susan all day every day. She also didn’t know that it would not be in the office. Not even in the US.
“Thanks Susan,” said Robert. “You already met my partner and CEO Michael Johnson over breakfast. Michael, please introduce the executive team of Star West.”.
“Thanks Robert” said Michael. “On my left is Joan Wilson, the Chief Operating Officer. Joan joined us almost a year ago from our competitor. She runs the operations of Star West. She’s responsible for Star West’s growth domestically and internationally, developing infrastructure, supply chain and strategic planning.”
“Warren Jones is the Chief Financial Officer. Warren is the first employee of the company. He has played a critical role in our success. Warren is a details fanatic. He knows the industry inside-out and he is a wizard at funding and cash flow management.”
“Emma Moore is the Chief Information Officer. She turned around our management systems and led the integration of our front and back office operations”.
“Alexander Miller, the CTO is responsible for the product development. He successfully patented our core technology in USA and Europe”.
Michael continued to introduce the rest of the executive team. “James Miller is the Vice President Sales. Samantha Anderson is the Vice President Marketing. Ashley Jackson is the Vice President Customer Service.” Each nodded their heads as Michael introduced them.
Michael is proud of the executive team of Star West. All of them are experienced professionals and well known in the industry. But as much as all of them as individuals were stars they have not yet performed well together as a team. The impact on the bottom line is pretty obvious. The star team of Star West was so far a losing team.
Michael opened the agenda with some remarks on the significant drop in sales and asked Warren to take it from there. Warren artfully navigated the business results without attracting attention to the heavy losses of the project. Joan continued by presenting the growth plans in USA and Europe.
The meeting went smoothly with minimal enquiries from the others. James’ presentation was weak as usual. It was obvious he was nervous. His list of accounts did not show growth and his plan to get new accounts was dull. It was Sam who saved face with a brilliant presentation of the industry seasoned with charts and facts supporting the sharp decline of the sales in the whole industry.
It was almost lunch time. They plan to break early because Robert invited all of them to a basketball match between The Golden State Warriors and Houston Rockets in Oakland. With the expected crowds at the stadium they will need to leave early.
During the presentations Susan was writing notes but didn’t ask even a single question. Joan looked at her from time to time. Susan frowned at her notes like she was trying to solve a riddle. Eventually she spoke just before Robert intended to wrap-up the board meeting.
“I have yet a lot to learn about your business but may I ask a question and excuse me if I jump the gun early”. “Go ahead Susan. Feel free” Robert encouraged her subconsciously glimpsing at his watch.
“Have I missed something? I cannot find any market share information in the Directors package” said Susan quietly.
There was silence in the room. Michael looked at Samantha. “Sam, do you want to take this?”
“Sure. I tried to consolidate some market information but it was unreliable. It is too pre-mature to present invalidated data.” Sam voice didn’t sound persuasive, even to her own self.
Susan looked like a cheetah running toward its prey. “The market information is a public domain. You are right that the market volume went down last year but how do you know you haven’t lost market share to the competition?” Sam flashed red but Susan continued.
“Not only may you lose market share without even knowing it, you may build your business in low growth regions as Europe and USA while your competitors flourish in China”. Sam opened her mouth to reply but Susan wasn’t finished yet.
“You are running the wrong plan at the wrong time and in the wrong place. As great as your product is, it won’t save you”.
You could have cut the tension in the room with a knife. There were seconds of silence that seemed like hours.
Joan was the first to break the hush. “We have a plan for China but we deferred the presentation to the next Executive Committee because there are some technical details that have to be resolved. We definitely are clear that China is our market”.
Warren joined in, “Thanks Susan. That’s a valid point but we already have a plan although Joan did not present it today”.
“Can you outline the plan informally? Susan asked Joan. “We will ask to take it out of the notes and without resolutions.”
Joan felt like she was about to cross a minefield. She was not emotionally ready for it.
“Is it a trap” she thought. But she could not ignore the challenge. In the following minutes she explained Star West’s plan to relocate the China head office form Hong Kong to Guangzhou with the management and account managers, to get closer to the customers, and recruit new account managers and service engineers in Guangzhou.
“Why Guangzhou?” interrupted Susan. Market reviews claim that the future growth will be in north China. Your plan doesn’t cater to this growth and your operations are primarily Cantonese speakers” Susan pushed.
Joan looked at Michael and Robert, but no help came. James and Sam also looked paralyzed refusing to make eye contact with her.
As much as Susan was a trouble-maker, her questions were sharp and to the point. She knew the business very well. But, Joan was a skilled fighter.
“Between the choice of putting resources on forecasts that might or might not happen, we decided to put our resources where the business is right now. When the growth in the North materializes, we will assess and take action” Joan explained with an inpatient tone.
The turning point came from an unexpected direction.
“Joan, I asked Steven Chen, Taiwan country manager, to send me a plan for China and he also support to establish our China head office in the North. More specifically – Shanghai”, said Robert.
“What? You asked Steven to submit a plan without informing me? This is inappropriate!” Joan felt uncomfortable confronting the chairman in front of the Board but she felt strongly about it. “We would have asked Steven’s opinion about China if we had thought it is needed. You were not transparent with us Robert” Joan spoke sharply at her Chairman.
“You are getting too emotional about this issue Joan. Steven has known me for many years. He just offered his help”.
“What a mess” Joan thought. “Now we have two plans. I bet Steven wants China and he plans to push Wei Ming Li, the China and Hong Kong country manager. This is unbelievable. Two country managers want China. Wei Ming plans to manage China from the South and Steven plans to take over from the North. This is not only two plans. It is also two personal agendas”.
Robert cut into her thoughts. “Susan suggested that you will fly tomorrow to Shanghai to meet with Wei Ming and Steven. She will also introduce you to some of her contacts in Shanghai.” Robert said quietly.
“Well it looks like all this was already set-up before the meeting, right?” asked Joan.
“We had a long breakfast” Robert chuckled.
Joan was still stunned at the unexpected China trip. She just acquired some confrontation skills early morning and now she has to find out how to facilitate confrontation between two ambitious country managers and handle a new director that is closer to the Chairman than all of the executive members. She couldn’t believe that only 6 hours had passed since her morning dream.
Joan was very upset about the new plan that seemed somehow to get support from Robert and Susan. Although it was a painful experience, she successfully detached from her emotions. She was determined to make lemonade out of a lemon. She will fly to China to fine-tune the plan.
She didn’t guess that tomorrow she will sit 13 hours and 6 minutes next to Susan on their flight to Shanghai.
Confrontation Deflation
Joan took the Fremont Street exit from Oakland Bay Bridge and stopped at the traffic light.
“How am I going to confront Warren” she thought again. Then she decided to ask her advisor…Google.
She typed “ground rules of confrontation” in her smartphone and looked through the results raising her eyes randomly to the traffic light. Some of the results referred to Vijay Eswaran’s ground rules of confrontation.
“Never heard about the guy” thought Joan. ”He is probably a confrontation guru”. She clicked on the link and browsed and was relieved to find that the webpage had only 10 bullet points.
She managed to read the first rule before the light turned green and she moved slowly with the early morning traffic.
Rule No. 1: Check your emotions at the door.
“This is merely impossible. Warren is my best friend. Many communication books recommend starting confrontation with what we feel about the situation. This is completely the opposite” thought Joan doubting about whether she could confront without emotions in this situation.
Joan stopped again at the 3rd Street junction and read the next rule.
Rule No. 2: Never confront the person, always the issue. Avoid using the ‘I’ and ‘you’ word in the discussion.
“Avoid using ‘you’ is also recommended by other communication experts who promote using ‘I’ instead of ‘you’. Is it really possible to avoid using ‘I’ and ‘you’?”
Joan turned right to 3rd Street, drove 3 blocks and stopped at the Market Street junction passing Dave’s which has been her favorite lunch restaurant. She read the next two rules together:
Rule No. 3: Never argue your point for the point’s sake, only lawyers do that. Discuss it instead. The objective is communication not domination.
Rule No. 4: Which means equal parts listening to talking.
Joan smiled while she read the third rule. She had heard too many lawyers argue their point for the point’s sake. Some of her team did it as well. She wanted to achieve collaboration rather than domination. She promised herself to listen more and talk less in the coming confrontation.
Joan turned onto Market Street and then into her office at Number 595. She read the next rule while swiping her card at the car park entrance.
Rule No. 5: Begin by listening. The more you listen, the more effective you become in addressing.
Joan thought that listening is her biggest weakness. She is busy all the time. Her thoughts start to wonder within seconds if her companion doesn’t get right to the point. She has a tendency to talk rather than listen.
She parked her car in the reserved space and headed toward the elevator while reading the next rule.
Rule No. 6: Confrontation with egoism, lust, anger, hatred, jealousy or malice of any kind will always fail. Even pity as a motive is self-defeating as an objective.
Joan figured out why she has to “check her emotions at the door”. If she lets her anger, disappointment and frustration sneak into the confrontation; it will heighten Warren’s emotions and lead to a conflict just before the Board meeting.
She read the sixth rule in the elevator.
Rule No. 7: Always confront with love, failing which you can also do so with kindness, compassion or even understanding.
She exited the elevator into the lobby not noticing Marvin, the security guard, welcoming her as usual with a big smile.
Joan was thinking how far she was of embracing love in her work relationships. She embraced kindness. She tried unsuccessfully to be more compassionate. Love did not exist in her corporate jargon.
“Good morning Ms. Stanton” Marvin announced almost laughing at Joan walking blindly toward the tower elevator while reading something on her smartphone. “Busy morning Ms. Stanton?”
“Oh, good morning Marvin” Joan replied, surprised she was already in the lobby. “Busy indeed. Have a great day” she replied trying to read the last rules of confrontation before arriving on her floor.
Joan was relieved to enter an empty elevator. She was embarrassed having been caught off guard while memorizing the ground rules. She also didn’t want to be interrupted. Even though she hadn’t digested all the rules yet, she got the gist of the method. She decided to follow these rules while confronting Warren.
She had 30 seconds to read the last 3 rules:
Rule No. 8: Ultimately never digress. It will be highly tempting to bring other issues in. Resist and remain focused. Make only one point at time.
Joan reminded herself to keep the confrontation only on the accountability issue related to the investment.
Rule No. 9: Never forget who you are doing it with or what you are doing it for…yourself.
“Absolutely” agreed Joan.
Rule No. 10: Confrontation without compromise is only possible for a principle, never for personal gain. If you are getting emotional at any juncture, always try to get someone to do it for you or at the very least have a neutral third party present.
“Be open to compromise” Joan told herself.
When the elevator door opened, she was confidant in her ability to confront Warren without letting things get out of control or seriously affecting their relationship.
Joan entered the office, greeted Samantha at the reception and walked straight into Warren’s office still carrying her bag. She managed to evade her executive assistant Andrew’s morning routine of signatures and messages.
She took a deep breath outside Warren’s door, smiled while she “checked her emotions at the door”.
“Good morning Warren” Joan greeted with a strained smile.
“Hello Joan” Warren replied, eyes glued to the monitor while typing some last changes to his presentation.
“Can I have your attention Warren?” asked Joan disturbed with the rude reception.
“No ‘I’ Joan!” she scolded herself noticing her first mistake. “We…we…we…we…!”
Warren raised his head surprised at her tone of voice.
“Warren, we have a serious situation regarding the $3 million loss in the home-care investment. Not only that the loss is exactly the same as the company net loss but we haven’t discussed who is accountable for this loss” Joan took a deep breath again.
Warren’s face turned red. Joan also noticed his forehead vein popping out – his famous anger signal.
“Are you referring to me? Do you mean that I’m accountable for this loss?” Warren said with a heated tone of voice.
“You…Ah…we generally have accountably problem in our team and specifically in this project” Joan replied correcting quickly herself.
“Well, look who’s talking. What have you taken accountability for?” Warren raised his voice higher.
Joan didn’t expect such an explosion so fast. She thought that following the rules of confrontation would diffuse the situation. But Warren hasn’t read the rules of confrontation. She shouldn’t have expected him to control his emotions, avoid using ‘I’ and ‘you’ and stick to the point rather than making it personal. She will send the rules of confrontation to her team later on.
“Warren, we have not confronted each other enough regarding this project. We rarely confront each other at all” Joan voice was soft. She was proud of keeping up the rules.
Warren was silent. Joan, as usual, intended to continue but then stopped herself.
“Listen more than you talk” her inner voice whispered her. She held on waiting for Warren’s reply patiently.
Warren thought for a while and since Joan didn’t say anything he said “I thought we were on the same page all the time”.
“We weren’t. It was our mistake putting our relationship ahead of our responsibilities to confront each other when we disagree” Joan reflected on herself but still using ‘we’.
“Listen Joan, I drove the project because the product group dropped the ball. We have to discuss it further with the rest of the team. There is an accountability problem here but this project is the least of our problems. The loss in the books is a reporting issue mainly for tax purposes. We can sell the plant for a profit. It won’t be the biggest issue in the Board today.”
“Yes, it will” replied Joan standing up to leave Warren’s office after seeing the worried text message from Andrew “Where are you? The chairman is already in the boardroom”. It was 8:53 and she decided to go to the boardroom to greet the chairman and the other directors. She relaxed resolving the project issue.
“Warren, we’re safe If you can convince the Board that this investment is not a total loss and it can be recovered” Joan said heading to the door.
“Hold on Joan. This project is not our biggest problem!” said Warren but Joan was already outside the room.
She was quite confident with her new confrontation skills and decided to use them frequently even with the board members.
She was leaving Vijay Eswaran’s website noticing he was the Executive Chairman of QI Group of Companies taking a mental note that she would send him a thank you email later on. After all, he was more than just a confrontation guru…
Joan saw Andrew waiting for her at the boardroom door with heavy stack of documents for the Board meeting and nervous face. “Good morning Joan. I didn’t know what to tell them.”
“Good morning Andrew. No worries”.
“This day is getting better” thought Joan.
She didn’t know how wrong she was. In 2 short hours she would find out how bad things can get; Worse than her worst expectations.
To Be Continued…
Colleagueship and Friendship
It was raining heavily.
Everything was soaking wet.
She was freezing.
Joan was still in bed when the hole in the roof allowed the cold rain to flood her bedroom…
Then, bizarre thing happened. Joan woke-up, jumped off her bed and stood there shivering between dream and reality. She was really wet. The bed sheets were wet but there wasn’t a hole in the ceiling.
It was sweat.
It was a Board day.
The one day she wanted to avoid more than anything else in the world.
Things have gone from bad to worse in the 12 months since she became COO of Star West. Sales were skiing downhill. Profits were skydiving. Cash flow became a crash blow. The Board has started to lose patience.
There was also a big, dark cloud, which in good days probably wouldn’t be noticed. It was a miserable $3 million investment in a new home-care product that didn’t meet expectations. In other words…a total loss.
In the good old days this loss wold be dismissed with a notice that innovation efforts were unsuccessful…blah…blah…blah. The terrifying fact was that the first quarter net income was in the red…exactly $3 million. Poor Joan!
Joan was still standing in front her bed shivering, trying to believe that the roof was fine and she had to get ready for what was emerging as the worse day of her professional life.“
“Warren was the one who lobbied heavily for this investment. I knew that the chances of this project were very slim. Why didn’t I stop it?”
“Why didn’t I stop it?” she asked herself again while fixing her makeup in front of the mirror.
The boiling coffee helped clear her mind. She knew the answer but refused to acknowledge it. It was the photo in the dining room reminding her where the problem was. Joan and Warren were smiling at the camera on their last year ski vacation with their families.
Joan and Warren were best friends.
They played Golf together entertaining business partners and key customers every month. They spent many days traveling together on business trips. They went on vacations together. Joan’s husband and Warren’s wife were both IT professionals who had a lot in common. They lived in the same neighborhood and their kids studied in the same school. Joan thought it was great…but not this morning.
She has just started to figure out that her friendship affected her leadership and ultimately Star West’s business performance. She recalled some of her attempts to confront Warren’s decisions. She failed to cross the threatening impact on their friendship. He was very defensive and took disagreements personally. She eventually gave-up and lived in fear that one day the inability to confront her best friend’s professional decisions would damage her own career and Star West.
This fear was grabbing her firmly this morning. Warren has not taken any accountability for this lost investment. His emails to Board members were definitely reflecting indirectly that Joan was accountable for this project ignoring the facts that he was the major driver.
“I should have confronted him” thought Joan reversing her car from the garage to the early morning quite street. “I should have confronted him” she mumbled again a few times without noticing.
Joan recalled a workshop she attended more than 10 years ago about work-life balance. It was in the 20th Century. Life is so different with mobile communication and 21st Century management career lifestyle. “Work is life and life is work. Separation is unnatural” thought Joan while taking the ramp to highway 24 from Walnut Creek to San Francisco.
24 miles to the office!
Joan thought about Patrick Lencioni’s book “The Five Temptations of a CEO” she just finished reading last week. One of the temptations was choosing popularity over accountability. “That is exactly the problem” said Joan like she was talking to an invisible passenger beside her. “I prefer to be a popular friend rather than seeking accountability. We are such good friends in the management, that friendship becomes more important than accountability. We even call ourselves a family forgetting that we run a business. We behave like we don’t carry responsibilities and accountabilities toward shareholders, customers, employees and business partners.”
“We should not let friendships at work cloud accountability” decided Joan conclusively. But just before she started to gain back her self-confidence she recalled another temptation of CEOs – choosing harmony over confrontation.
Many situations she avoided confrontations of issues she hadn’t agreed on flashed Joan’s mind. In many of them she compromised her own beliefs and did not speak out her disagreements. It wasn’t only with Warren. It was almost with everybody. She remembered an employee joking that the management “scratch each other’s backs”. It was true. Harmony was definitely more important than confrontation. She even couldn’t recall the last time they had passionate, vocal confrontation or even an emotional outburst.
“That’s over. I won’t repeat this mistake again” though Joan. Friendship will never be again on the account of accountability. Friendship will not be on the account of confrontations”.
She was already on the interstate when she calculated that she would be in the office one hour before the Board starting time. “This will be enough time to confront Warren” Joan thought.
She dialed Warren’s speed number. “Good morning Joan. How’re you doing?” Warren greeted.
“Not so good Warren. I would like to discuss it with you before the Board”.
“I’m already in the office reviewing the slides. Can we do it after the Board?” Warren pleaded.
“Warren, we have to discuss it before the Board. I will be in the office in 10 minutes. See you” she hanged the call not allowing him to object.
“Now, how will I confront him?” she thought.
She‘s having 10 minutes to figure it out. But she already resolved within herself the most important reasons for her failure. She does not confront colleagues who she has friendship relationships. She does not define accountabilities with her friends at work letting accountability floating without ownership.
The worse day of her life started to emerge as the best lesson of her life.
Discussion is Not Decision Making
Joan was driving home from the office when her cell phone rang. She usually doesn’t take calls while driving. She let it ring for a long time but the determined caller was not giving up. So, in the end, Joan ignored her own rules and took the call.
The unusual tone of Warren’s voice alarmed her.
“Joan, have you seen Ken’s email?”
“I’m driving Warren. Couldn’t it wait till tomorrow?”
“No! Ken just sent email to a wide distribution that we had agreed to proceed with the China project. He instructed them to proceed with the implementation.”
“Are you kidding, Warren? We actually decided to hold the project until Ken would provide a white paper summarizing the various alternatives and execution plan. The project is just not ready for implementation” Joan reflected anxiously.
“That was also my understanding” replied Warren thoughtfully.
They both kept quiet for a moment. “How did this happen?” thought Joan.
Joan has been the COO of Star West for almost a year. It isn’t the first time she has chaired Star West’s Executive Committee. And, it wasn’t the first time her team left meetings with completely different, sometimes opposite, understandings. It wore her out!
“Are you still there?” Warren asked. Warren is Star West’s constantly worried, CFO. He has big concerns that things will get out of control when a large project moves forward without official sign-off.
“Warren, I don’t really get it. Wasn’t it crystal clear that we support the project but we want to assess the 3 alternatives? Ken didn’t give a presentation, a white paper summary or any kind of proposals. How could he conclude the project had been approved?”
Warren shrugged but Joan couldn’t see it. “Let’s talk about it tomorrow, I will read his email tonight. Thanks for calling”.
“What went wrong?” thought Joan. “How could an agreement by the committee to continue the assessment of the project be interpreted so differently by Ken? This is a complete mess. I must clarify any misunderstandings and announce that the project is still under evaluation.”
“Again, the ExCo will be perceived as a dysfunctional team. I wonder if this is a hidden agenda by Ken? Is it my leadership?” Her thoughts continued to wander while her car crawled slowly in heavy traffic over the Oakland Bay Bridge.
“Warren either has a personal agenda to manipulate the management team or his passion for the project filters out negative messages. If it is the latter, he missed the message that the project was not ready yet” Joan pondered.
Joan was still analyzing the communication glitch when she arrived home 30 minutes later. “Most likely, the dialog was perceived by Ken as a decision because I haven’t made clear that the committee’s dialogue had not moved to a firm decision”.
The following morning began with a miserable email exchange between Joan and Ken escalating the confusion to new levels. Ken claimed that Joan was blocking his initiatives and that they are losing precious time on non-decisive meetings. The gap between the two grew bigger and bigger.
So what’s the problem, really?
Joan’s team definitely doesn’t realize how the decision process works. They also believe that no decision gets made during long meetings. Decisions drag forever.
These two problems require that Joan and her team decide…how to decide.
We should not allow people to assume that a dialog is a decision making. Good dialog encourages people to speak openly about ideas, opinions, plans and agendas. They feel safe they are doing so. It does not guarantee a resolution will be reached.
Things go wrong when people’s expectations are violated. They don’t heartily commit to any decision if they do not understand how it was made. Managing expectations is a crucial step in the decision process. To avoid violation of expectations we should clearly separate dialog from decision. We must clearly define how decisions will be made, who will participate in the decision process and why.
Decide How to Decide
There are four common methods of decision-making:
Command
Command decision-making doesn’t involve others in the decision. We just give an order to somebody or receive an order from somebody. When we receive a command decision we can clarify what elements are flexible and what elements are not flexible. When we give a top-down order we can explain the reason for the command. The accountability lies with the command decision maker. “Buy-in” does not exist. Commitment may or may not be there. The higher in the corporate hierarchy a command decision is taken, the lower the chances of good execution are.
Consult
We make consult decisions when we get advice or ask for feedback but eventually make the decision by ourselves. The worst are decision makers who make up their mind and then consult just for the perception that the decision was made collaboratively. Our people are smart. They will figure out that we command but pretend to consult. If we have already made up our mind, let’s announce the decision and take accountability for the results.
Vote
Voting decision-making is when an agreed percentage is the threshold for a decision to be accepted. Decision making by voting does not guarantee a good decision. It reflects popularity rather than thorough critique, comprehensive assessment and methodical evaluation. Every percentage between 50-75% still leaves us with a significant group that lost the vote and is not necessarily committed to the decision. Voting is a good indicator for how far we’re from reaching across the board to commitment and how much more dialog is needed.
Consensus
Consensus decision-making is when everyone comes to agreement and fully supports the final decision. It is the most time consuming, exhausting, lengthy decision-making process. Through this process original proposals are amended and compromised to address the concerns of the participants in the decision process. It is the process that promises the highest commitments of the team members. But it can be easily manipulated if the Dialog rules are not followed carefully: Keep it safe and ask for every member’s opinion if they don’t speak out. Consensus is not achieved in silence. It is achieved in vocal conversations. It is achieved in fierce confrontations.
These four decision-making options represent increasing degrees of involvement, which result in increasing degrees of commitment. Of course we pay with decreasing degrees of efficiency.
What should be our preferred decision making process?
It depends on the situation. The more critical the speed of the execution is, the more we will tend to reduce involvement of other people to achieve prompt execution. Commitment is not there yet. Results may be poor. Sometimes instant actions are required. Sometimes we have to get things done promptly, without hesitation, usually during a crisis. If we explain carefully the reasons for the rush, we may even get commitment.
The complexity, width and depth of the subject also matters. The more complicated the execution is and the more resources it requires, a consensus decision-making process will provide a better accountability platform for the execution.
When we have more time, we should prioritize effectiveness over efficiency. Although the decision process will be lengthy and more people will be involved – the chances of successful implementation is very high. The extra time and effort by all involved to dialog thoroughly up front will save time, money and the stress of fixing mistakes later. Everyone contributes – everyone benefits.
The Reality Dialog
What is the key to making a dialog genuine and honest?
We have learned from experience that implementing a plan can be a tentative experience unless key individuals bring into the Dialog their various, sometimes conflicting, opinions and realities. Unless the realities of these key individuals are explored, we will spend a lot of time, money, energy and emotions to clean up the mess of plans that were rejected by these individuals. They will resent our plans because their personal experiences, knowledge and beliefs were not taken into account when we decided to turn plans into actions.
When we make a proposal, suggest a course of action or brainstorm solutions, we are risking failure if we make a decision before we explore the realities of all key individuals involved.
Why do we need to discover everyone’s reality? Wouldn’t everyone speak out about their feelings without being asked? Although they might, many are knowledgeable but afraid to introduce a controversial opinion or are silent because they have a different personal agenda. As leaders, before we move into the decision process we should check individually for understanding and agreement.
Check for Understanding
To check for understanding means to invite questions and clarifications. Just asking “what do you think?” does not check understanding. We ask specifically for clarifying questions and if a person is silent or seems confused we approach him or her directly. For example, ask “Melinda, what questions do you have?”
Check for Agreement
Once we are certain that everyone understands the proposal, we can check for agreement. We can say “before we move forward to make a decision about the right course of action, some of you may see it differently. If you do, please speak out. My enthusiasm may make it hard for you to challenge this, but we need your input to make the right decision for the organization”.
When this approach does not work, and sometimes it doesn’t, we ask every individual at the table personally for their opinion. For example: “Mitch, what’s your perspective on this? Silent individuals are more dangerous to the process than vocal ones. Every individual involved in the process should feel safe and encouraged to express his/her agreement or objection.
Personal requests work better because we publicly and openly invite people to challenge us. When we encourage people actively to share opposing views, we show that we are open to rational influence – that their feelings and opinions matter. Then, we can continue the process following the sharing of others’ ideas. “Paul, what is your perspective on Mitch’s idea?”
Susan Scott explains in her book Fierce Conversations the “Mineral Rights” conversation model. “If you’re drilling for water, it’s better to drill one 100-foot well than 100 one-foot wells.” This kind of conversation interrogates reality by mining for increased clarity, improved understanding and driven change.
The Mineral Rights conversation ensures that we question reality and perspective in a way that doesn’t miss hidden agendas, unexplored options and resentful individuals.
It is not as easy as it sounds. Often, we fall prey to our emotions, agendas, fear of resentment and the “need” to be right. We can stop this uncontrolled tendency. We can change our communication styles by continually asking ourselves questions. These questions will help us detach from negative emotions and perpetuate the process of identifying reality.
Some of the questions we can ask ourselves: What is the most important thing? What is the underlying issue? What are the current results? What is at stake if nothing changes? What is our contribution to the situation? What is the ideal outcome? What’s the next step?
By questioning ourselves we can stop drifting into emotional rants during crucial conversations. Asking questions helps continue the process of understanding other people views and seek agreement while enriching relationships and enhancing learning.
Dialog! Decision! Action!
D.W. Griffith has been called “the father of film technique”, “the man who invented Hollywood” and “the Shakespeare of the screen”. He established United Artists with Charlie Chaplin and was the first to use the phrase ‘Lights, Camera, Action’ in 1910 on the set of “In Old California”. ‘Lights, Camera, Action’ is still widely used in Hollywood!
Similar to Hollywood, where shots have been taken following ‘Lights, Camera, Action’ for more than one hundred years, things are not getting done in organizations without following ‘Dialog, Decision, Action’.
Nothing really gets done in business, politics or communities without methodically going through a process of ‘Dialog, Decision, Action’. It’s quite different from a battlefield where commands are executed in split seconds. It’s different from flying airplanes where swift actions are matters of life and death. It’s different from complicated medical surgeries when human being lives are on stake.
‘Dialog, Decision, Action’ is a key success factor in the business world. Is it reasonable to expect actions when decisions are not clearly defined or are not taken?
Do we attend meetings that end with an unclear course of action and subsequently with procrastination? Yes, we do.
Do we leave meetings with a different opinion regarding the course of action and consequently take action in completely different directions? Yes, we do.
Do we participate in the same conversations but eventually reach entirely different conclusions? Yes, we do.
How can we avoid these miserable situations which end with leadership fiascos and business disasters?
Engaging in ‘Dialog’, deciding how to ‘Decide’ and executing the ‘Action’ agreed upon will save us from embarrassing catastrophes.
The coming 3 blog posts are dedicated each to “Dialog! Decision! Action!”.
Dialog
Interestingly, dialog is the important part of the three. It is where we ‘buy-in’ or ‘buy-out’. When we don’t ‘buy-in’ we’ll naturally decide-not-to-decide and of course we won’t take any action.
It’s sad, but it is the naked truth.
What happens in most dialogs is that we reach the point of silence or violence. Silence feels different from violence but is actually the same. The first form is passive-aggressive and the last form is active-aggressive. Nevertheless, the end result is that the dialog is interrupted and the chances to make any decision whatsoever are slim.
In their book, Crucial Conversations – Tools for Talking When Stakes are High, Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan and Al Switzler claim that people who move into silence try to avoid potential problems by withholding meaning from the dialog. People that move toward violence attempt to convince, control or compel others to accept their point of view.
The three most common forms of silence are masking, avoiding and withdrawing:
- Masking consists of understating our real opinion or presenting it in a sarcastic way so the true meaning is hidden.
- Avoiding involves steering completely away from sensitive issues or “beating around the bush” without addressing the real issues.
- Withdrawing means pulling out of the conversation or exiting the room.
The three most common forms of violence are controlling, labeling and attacking:
- Controlling consists of forcing others to our way of thinking. This includes cutting other off, overstating facts, speaking in absolutes, or changing subject abruptly when the discussion is not in our favor.
- Labeling tags people or ideas to create negative stereotypes so they will be dismissed and not taken seriously.
- Attacking includes demeaning and threatening.
We have probably demonstrated or have seen others demonstrating silence or violence. Silence and violence kill the chances to move on to the next stage of decision making. How do we overcome silence or violence? Crucial Conversations authors suggest that when others move to silence or violence, we have to step out of the conversation and create a comfortable, safe environment that allows everyone to share their opinions. Only then can we go back to the issue at hand and continue the dialog.
It’s not so difficult to observe people and find out who moves to silence or violence. It’s much more difficult when we ourselves move to violence or silence. Often, we become so emotional we’re not even aware that we are silent. We’re not even aware that we’re violent. Restoring comfort can be very difficult when we are causing the problem!
Controlling Our Emotions
A proven way to control our emotions is to stop and ask ourselves questions which will help us get back to the dialog. We first ask ourselves what we are really doing.
“Am I in some form of violence or silence?”
“What emotions are causing me to behave in this way?”
“What position do I take because of these emotions?”
“Do I have any facts or evidence to support my position or have I invented some assumptions?”
These questions help us to catch and take corrective action. No one will dare continue the dialog until we make it safe do so.
Make It Safe
If we lost control of our emotions, we can make it safe by acknowledging, apologizing, smiling, or even asking for a “time-out”. We make it safe by asking everyone to share their ideas and suggestions. We have to ask for people’s opinions to get their involvement. Silence does not equal agreement.
The faster we find mutual purpose and mutual respect, the faster we clear the way toward a powerful dialog.
The Power of Discernment
We wake up every morning to a new day of challenges. Some are minor issues that could have been resolved by others. Some are important matters that require our decisions.
Minor issues have short-term and non-recurring impacts. Major issues have long-term repetitive impact. The first ones don’t really make a difference in our life. The latter ones do make a difference and need utmost attention.
Let’s take for example a $5,000 dollar business expense. A business trip that costs $5,000 is a minor matter because it is a one-time expense. Yet, a new employee with a $5,000 monthly salary is a major matter because it is a long-term recurring cost which over 10 years will accumulate to more than a $1 million.
Purchasing a single $1,000 dress is just a one-time expense but a $1,000 monthly mortgage will cost us $0.7 million in 25 years.
Mistakes we make in small matters don’t make a significant impact on our lives. Right? Yet, blunders on some matters can turn our lives up-side-down. Marry the wrong person and your life is miserable for years. Choose a profession which doesn’t make you happy and you end up unhappy for years. Select the wrong business partner and you risk a successful business. These decisions are life changing. They take us on completely different life journeys. Good or bad.
People who lack discernment are seldom in the right place at the right time in their life journey.
Some people appear always to be lucky. It’s more likely that these people create their own “luck” by being discerning about what is most important.
Discernment is determination of the value of a certain matter or event. We are going past mere perceptions, to make judgments about the matter or the event.
A discerning individual possess wisdom and has good judgment; especially with regard to matters often overlooked by others. Discernment is crucial for leadership success and nobody ever seems to talk about it.
Here is a 4-step blueprint for moving toward being a discerning leader:
Switch from the lower brain to the upper brain
Our brain has 3 layers which have evolved over millions of years. They interconnect but actually act independently and are often at war with one another.
The lower “reptilian”, primitive brain is the “fight-or-flight” part. It is all about acting and reacting without a lot of thinking. This is the brain that causes us to respond immediately to danger.
The middle “mammalian” brain is the place of our emotions. It’s where strong feeling such as love, joy, sadness, anger and jealousy arise.
The upper or “primate”, logical brain is the place of rational decision making. This brain collects data, analyzes it and makes practical decisions.
We don’t want to make decisions when our primitive brain is in control nor when our emotional brain is in charge. These two are responsible for a state of mind that might not be right for the issue at hand. How do we move to the logical brain? Just….STOP. Detach from the situation and wait until we are back to the rational, logical, lucid zone.
Distinguish facts from assumptions
Many times, we rush decisions based on assumptions rather than facts. We have so many perceptions which are accepted as truth while in reality they are based on assumptions. Assumptions and perceptions create false reality. We have to be free of this dangerous state of mind.
We are capable of making smart decisions based on facts if we take the time to switch from the primitive and emotional brain to the logical brain. It is impossible to look at facts and eliminate assumptions when we are in an emotional state of mind.
Find the root of the matter
Every day we solve problems. Then, we are surprised when we face the same problems over and over again.
Why?
Because we rarely take time to think “what was the root-cause for this issue?”; “what is the one thing that if done different the problem will not occur again?” or “what’s the one reason that things happen the way they happen over and over again?”
Listen to your gut
How many times has our intuition “spoken” to us and been correct?
How many times have we not listened?
Listening to our gut is not a guess work. It requires silent reflection. It requires contemplative vigilance. It requires asking introspective questions. We must trust the answer will reveal itself when the time is right. We hold off making up our minds until the truth emerges.
Above all, we want to be alert to the signs placed in our path and follow them with vision, intuition and an open mind. Being blind to our insights might be more restrictive than being physically blind.
Let’s try the 4-step blueprint to become more discerning in our work and personal lives:
- Switch from lower brain to upper brain
- Distinguish facts from assumptions
- Find the root of the matter
- Listen to your gut
After all, we all know a single wrong decision can change the course of our entire lives.
Beyond Expertise
Our life journey funnels us toward our ultimate expertise. We are programmed to become experts in one field. We start our formal education in a wide variety of subjects that narrow down to one expertise. In elementary and middle school we learn geography, art, history, physical health and many other topics. However, as we grow, the education system provides us with less width and more depth in our potential area of expertise. For example, many high school students are required to choose their tendency toward science studies focused programs or social studies focused programs. American universities define the major after the sophomore second year while English universities require a decision of the major even before admission. Medical doctors start with a wide variety of sciences narrowed toward medical studies to become a general practitioner. Then, they continue the long ride toward expert certification.
Business management is no different. An accountant must be an expert in accounting. An engineer must be an expert in mechanics, electronics or other specific field. We are told that the greater our expertise, the higher we will climb the corporate ladder. Right?
Wrong!
Our expertise starts working against us in a very confusing manner. High expertise leads to professional growth and fast track career path up to middle-management. The first decade of our professional career teaches us that expertise provides sound-track career. It is true if we want to be stuck in middle-management. If we wish to grow beyond this point toward organizational leadership, then expertise works against us. It prevents us of growing to the next level for the following reasons:
- Expertise encourages a narrow view and a disconnection from the organization’s other functions
- Expertise causes a single-dimension problem solving because we are not aware of the impact of our expertise function on other functions
- Expertise blocks us from engaging other experts as we believe that our expertise is the crucial one (we all believe so even we don’t admit it. Isn’t it the reason we chose this expertise?).
It is very hard to make a conscious decision to stop doing something which has been the key factor to our success. Isn’t it? Yet, it is highly unlikely we will be promoted beyond middle-management unless we change our mentality mid-career and expand our knowledge towards new areas and broader interests.
The faster we understand that the key to success lies in multi-disciplinary professional growth, the faster we will breakthrough to effective leadership in our organizations.
Most professional managers are stuck. They are locked in their expertise safe-box rather than flying out, seeking new competencies and developing inter-disciplinary knowledge. The most formal multi-disciplinary business education is a Master in Business Administration. MBA programs receive criticism of being too theoretical and less effective than businesses would like but it is an opportunity to gain multidisciplinary business knowledge. In the past I have recommended it to colleagues. Only a few took the challenge and made the effort. Others felt that further expertise will be the key for their career path. They said that when they need a complementary knowledge they would approach other experts. They didn’t feel the need to learn new competencies since there were other experts they could engage on demand.
Here is the problem. Other experts analyze issues and provide solutions without seeing the big-picture. Calling other experts to complement our single dimension expertise will eventually lead to bad decisions and higher failure rate.
An MBA is not the only way to gain multi-disciplinary competencies. Books, audios, seminars, workshops and other informal education can give you the same knowledge. It is more about changing our mentality rather than learning new topics.
Believe it or not, attending meetings with other functional experts with curiosity, really listening and focusing can give you knowledge and competencies in the other areas of the organization. It’s common for us when discussions are shifting to other areas, to divert our attention to emails, text messages or just leave. Who hasn’t thought “It is none of my business” and “tuned out” before? It is probably none of your business if you want to do the same thing until you retire. It is your business if you want to become a leader.
Organizational leadership does not grow through expertise. It grows as we get involved in the broader aspects of our organization. It grows when we assume responsibilities for new functions. It grows when we expand our expertise towards new disciplines where we haven’t been trained before.
Whether we are in science, business, education or any other industry, the future belongs to those who have the knowledge and depth provided by multiple disciplines. The next scientific breakthrough will come from scientists who combine biology, chemistry, physics and sciences that don’t even exist yet. The next educational breakthrough will come from educators that integrate teaching with information technology (IT).
Our career breakthroughs will happen when we expand our horizons and develop a multi-disciplinary approach to our career covering all aspects of business.
Is Multitasking a Myth or a Required Skill?
There was a time when I envied super multi-tasking executives. The first impression I had was that they succeeded to outpace everyone else by juggling various tasks at the same time. They wrote emails while chairing meetings, text messages while they were talking, browsed the internet and completed calls before understanding the topic discussed. It is only when you look at the quality of their work, the lack of details, the shallow ideas and the low attention to everyone and everything, that you start wondering whether these super multi-taskers achieve anything at all.
Can we REALLY do multiple things at once and be more productive?
Studies show that multitasking is not as effective as concentrated times. These studies have disclosed that people show deficits in performance even doing two very simple tasks at the same time. Our brain simply cannot focus on more than one simple task at once. For example, we can chew gum while we work, but cannot simultaneously focus on multiple complex tasks. Our brain must switch its attention from one thing to another. Every time we do this, our brain undergoes a process that takes time.
When it comes to paying attention, multi-tasking is a myth. The brain naturally focuses sequentially, one thing at a time. We are biologically incapable of processing attention rich inputs simultaneously.
John Medina explains in his book Brain Rules that when we attempt to complete many tasks at one time, or alternate rapidly between them, it takes longer to complete tasks and they are subject to errors. In the interim between each exchange, the brain makes no progress whatsoever and we lose time in the process. Although the brain is complex and can perform a myriad of tasks, it does not multi-task well.
Medina also shows that it takes 50% longer to accomplish a task for a person who is interrupted. Not only that, he or she makes up to 50% more errors. Evidence about how bad we are at multi-tasking is the performance of people who drive while talking on their cell phone. According to Brain Rules “cell phone talkers are a half second slower to hit the brakes in emergencies. In a half second a driver going 100 km per hour travels 20 meters. Only drunk drivers have more accidents than people talking on cell phones while driving!
We often see people texting while engaged in conversation. He or she who texts while in conversation, will miss a great part of what is said. In addition, by not maintaining eye contact and paying complete attention to the conversation, the texting person conveys that they aren’t interested and does not care for what the other thinks.
We don’t have to be multitaskers to be high performers. We have to be extremely organized, meet deadlines, have a list of things we want to do and make sure they get done.
Here are some ideas on how to be more effective and more creative. First, turn off the email alerts in our computers and cell phones. Also mute the text alerts (and emails) in our cell phones. Second, close the internet browser windows which we don’t use, especially social media and communication such as Skype or Windows Live. Third, limit unscheduled colleague interruptions. Fourth, block time to check e-mails and block separate time for creative work, important project and high-priority tasks.
E-mails are like chocolate – they are irresistible, often of no real value, and there is no such thing as eating just one.
If we don’t want to be like Pavlov’s dogs responding to every interruption, if we don’t want to look like a circus juggler, if we want to be less stressed and more effective…let’s stop trying to do a million things at once.
Courage to Challenge – Dare to Change
The leader’s main job is…change.
To make change happen, we actively seek ways to make things better, to grow, innovate and improve. We seek opportunities to get extraordinary things done – sometimes shaking things up. Other times we just have to grab hold of the adversity surround us and just make things happen. And to make new things happen, we rely on ideas outside the boundaries of familiar experiences.
Certainty and routine breed complacency. Hardships present to us who we really are and what we are capable of becoming. It is essential to experiment and take risks in order to create a climate of change and renovation. It is the toughest to change in times of prosperity when people are in a comfort zone. It is easiest to change is times of adversity because crisis forces people to change. It doesn’t leave too many choices. A crisis might come in the form of global economic turmoil, destructive technology or other external forces. What about internal forces? An unexpected retirement of a charismatic founder whom the business depends heavily on is a good example. Did the retirement of Bill Gates affect Microsoft? Sure it did. Will the retirement of Steve Jobs impact Apple? Probably yes.
Is the courage to challenge and drive change personality or behavior driven?
James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner are professors at Leavey Schools of Business, Santa Clara University. In their book The Leadership Challenge (4th Edition) Kouzes and Posner argue that our behavior supports or distracts us from reaching our desired destination. The foundations for behaviors that drive change are Purpose and Values.
If we build our house on sand, it will be unsteady. If we build our house on a solid rock, it will survive adverse conditions. A strong sense of purpose and deeply held values form a solid rock foundation that shapes our behavior. This foundation is the compass that directs us.
Discover Your Purpose
Call it what you want – vision, mission, legacy, dream, aspiration, or even personal agenda – the point is the same. If we are going to be catalysts, we have to be able to imagine a positive future. When we envision the future we want for ourselves and others, and feel passionate about the legacy we want to leave, then we are much more likely to take the first step forward. If we don’t have the slightest clue about our hopes, dreams and aspirations, the chance to lead is nil.
Discovering the central theme for our lives takes time, effort and focused attention. We reflect on our past, attend to the present, ponder the future and figure out what excites us the most. We’re onto something when we feel the passion.
However, here is a caveat. If our purpose is self-centered and disconnected from other people’s desires, it won’t be leadership. People want to hear how their hopes and dreams will make a difference. They want to see how they fit into the future we envision. Then, and only then, our purpose will touch them. By defining those things that are meaningful to everyone in the organization, we join together with purpose and move boldly forward.
Identify Our Values
To stand up for our beliefs, we have to know what we care most about, what we believe in, and who we are. To earn credibility, we must first be able to clearly articulate deeply held beliefs. Then in any challenge we face, the values will be there to direct us in the right direction. We will have the courage to go against the herd when our purpose and values are shining in the darkness like a lighthouse. Clarity of values gives us the confidence to take charge of our lives.
If we stress the principles for which we stand, people will feel our sense of purpose. If we communicate the values we hold, people who identify with those values will allow our leadership.
Behavior speaks louder than words. We must model our values or lose credibility.
A strong foundation of purpose and values gives us the courage to challenge the status quo and lead change. Change cannot happen in a vacuum. Change happens when everyone holds the same sense of purpose and deeply held values. Leading change means understanding what’s meaningful to others and working to align the organizational purpose with the values and dreams of everyone.
People commit to causes, not to plans.
Causes lead to commitments, not KPIs.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Recent Comments