Help Me Understand: Three Powerful Little Words

Preparing for a Meeting: You Do Better When You Anticipate Conflict

source: pexels

This week, I read an interesting interview with several scholars from the Kellogg School of Management. In the interview, Professor Cynthia Wang describes an interesting study that she conducted with Denise Loyd, Katherine Phillips, and Robert Lount, Jr. They published their findings in an Organization Science paper titled, "Social Category Diversity Promotes Premeeting Elaboration: The Role of Relationship Focus."   Wang reports that people tend to prepare better for meetings when they anticipate interacting with others with whom they expect to have conflicting views.  This preparation and introspection leads to better decisions.  Here's Wang commenting on the research:

Sometimes conflict can actually be productive. When you go into a group meeting with somebody who is very different from you, the assumption that there’s going to be a conflict actually leads to better outcomes because you prepare better. For example, in one study, Katherine Phillips and I gave people tasks and said, “Hey, you’re going to be working with a stranger from the opposite political persuasion.” We then saw that knowing this leads you to start preparing a little bit more for the discussion, because you assume that there is going to be conflict. This drives better decisions in the end, because you’re more prepared and more introspective. On the other hand, if we come from the same group, we don’t challenge each other as much.

What If We Have to Argue the Other Side's Position?

Imagine that your team has arrived at an impasse.  After a constructive debate about two viable options, the dialogue begins to deteriorate.  People's positions begin to harden, and two polarized camps emerge.  Individuals begin restating their arguments, often forcefully, rather than sharing new information or analysis.  Voices and tensions rise.  What can you do as a team leader in these circumstances?

Here's one interesting strategy you might consider.  I learned about this technique from the leader at a non-profit organization several years ago.  The senior management team had arrived at an impasse.  The leader adjourned a contentious meeting one day by giving team members some homework.  He asked the members in each of the two entrenched camps to come back the next day with a memo and presentation that made the case for the option for which the opposing camp had advocated.  In short, he asked each subgroup to step into the other side's shoes.  

He wanted them to try to understand the other side's perspective, line of reasoning, and assumptions.  He felt that they had stopped listening to each other and ceased trying to understand one another.   Asking them to swap roles could deepen mutual understanding, and in so doing, perhaps help the team uncover common ground or opportunities for compromise.  

In the end, the exercise did not immediately end the impasse, but it led to a much more constructive dialogue and debate.  Ultimately, they chose a course of action with which everyone could live, and for which all team members agreed to cooperate on implementation.  Everyone did not get all that they wanted, but they felt that they had been heard and understood by their colleagues and their leader, and thus, they could commit to the final decision.   

Four Models of Management from Legendary Rock Bands

Source:  Wikimedia Commons

Ian Leslie has written a terrific story for The Economist's 1843 magazine titled, "A rocker's guide to management."  In the essay, Leslie describes four models for organizing a great rock band and draws some conclusions about how to run a start-up and later a more complex business. Leslie writes, "The history of rock groups can be viewed as a vast experimental laboratory for studying the core problems of any business: how to make a group of talented people add up to more than the sum of its parts. And, once you’ve done that, how to keep the band together."  He describes four models for how to run a rock band:

Friends: "We Can Work It Out" - example: The Beatles

Leslie cites research demonstrating that having friendships at work can enhance employee engagement and job satisfaction. Moreover, he notes that the intimate friendships of John, Paul, George, and Ringo meant that they could literally finish each other's sentences.  Of course, working with your closest friends has its costs and risks.  Differences of opinion on issues can turn emotional and interpersonal in a hurry.  Fractures can result within a team.  

Autocracies: "I Won't Back Down" - example:  Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers

Leslie notes that Tom Petty used to lead the band in a very egalitarian fashion.  He shared all profits equally.  Soon, though, he realized that trying to operate as a team of equals proved problematic.  He shifted toward a more top-down approach and no longer shared profits equally.  People had a hard time accepting his decision at first, but eventually, they worked through their differences and remained a cohesive, productive band for decades.  Leslie also points to "The Boss" - Bruce Springsteen - as an example of an autocratic approach. Springsteen once said, “Democracy in a band...is often a ticking time bomb. If I was going to carry the workload and responsibility, I might as well assume the power. I’ve always believed that the E Street Band’s continued existence is partially due to the fact that there was little to no role confusion among its members.”  Some famous founders have operated autocracies successfully, but of course, autocracies come with serious downsides as well.  The lack of empowerment can be very demotivating in many circumstances.  Moreover, if the leader makes questionable decisions, and they remain unchallenged, team performance can suffer greatly.  

Democracies: "Everybody Hurts" - example:  R.E.M.

Democratic approaches in rock bands, as in startups, can be problematic at times, as people do not understand or accept their roles.  Members find themselves stepping on each other's toes, and they fight over who deserves the credit.  However, democracy worked for R.E.M. and for Coldplay.  Leslie writes, "The democratic model depends on individual members believing that each has the group’s interest at heart, not just their own... R.E.M.’s decision-making process meant they exhibited confidence in each other every day. There must also be a belief in each other’s competence. Tony Fletcher, the biographer of R.E.M., says that “usually in a band there’s someone the others think isn’t good enough, or isn’t pulling their weight.” But that was never the case with R.E.M., all of whose members were skilled in multiple ways. “Everybody Hurts”, the band’s biggest hit, was largely written by the drummer, Bill Berry."  

Frenemies: "It's Only Rock 'n' Roll" - example:  The Rolling Stones

The Rolling Stones learned to respect one another and to divide up their responsibilities clearly.  They each had a defined role.   Mick Jagger ran the business, while Keith Richards focused on music. He didn't always like Jagger's decisions, but he deferred on business matters to this bandmate.  They didn't always get along, but they tended to benefit from a level of constructive conflict and tension.  One reason that they managed to survive as a group for so long is that they didn't let disagreements fester beneath the surface.  They argued it out.   Finding that perfect balance of conflict and compromise can be very challenging though.  Many groups cannot prevent their issue-based disagreements from spilling over into the personal.   

Disagreeing with the Boss

Source: maxpixel.net

Vivian Giang has written a useful article for Fast Company about how to disagree effectively with your boss or other senior leaders in your organization.  She draws on the expertise of Priscilla Claman of Career Strategies, Inc.  Giang provides several recommendations:

1.  Know Your Boss' Decision-Making Style

Are they influenced by data and formal analysis?  Do they worry about how their decisions affect interpersonal relationships?  In short, you need to know what type of argument or presentation will be most influential with your boss.  Speak and make your case in a format and style that will make the most impact with that person.  

2.  Recruit Credible Allies

Don't go it alone.  Find others who can rally behind your argument and stand with you.  Perhaps they can even join you in making the case to your boss or other senior leaders.  Or, perhaps, you can identify the leader's confidante or trusted adviser.  Make your case first to that person, as they may be your best channel for presenting a constructive dissent and persuading your boss to listen carefully.  

3.  Identify Your Baggage

Consider your past experiences and your reputation/track record.  Now put yourself in your boss' shoes.  What will they automatically assume about you and your argument?  What will they expect of you?  If you can recognize any baggage that you may bring to the conversation, you can anticipate roadblocks and objections much more effectively.  

How Might We?

Too often, we find it easy to poke holes in a proposal put forth by colleagues.  We find all the flaws rather easily.  However, we don't provide feedback that actually helps strengthen the proposal, nor do we offer any plausible alternatives.  In those moments, team leaders need to consider what might be the best secret weapon at their disposal. It's a simple question:  How might we?   In those cases, when the discussion is quite negative, focused only the flaws in a particular idea, the leader might interject by asking:  How might we make this idea work?  How might we address the shortcomings that have been identified?  How might we find a different way to achieve the same objectives?  How might we deisgn a test or experiment to validate the assumptions that are being scrutinized here?  The goal with a good "how might we" question should be to encourage the team to consider new possibilities.  Moreover, it should help shift the dialogue and the mindset from "it will never work" to a "maybe we can find a way to get this done."  

Source: Blue Diamond Gallery

The question, of course, presumes that the group agrees on the goals and objectives, but simply disagrees on the path to achieving those outcomes.  What if the team doesn't actually agree on the goals?  Then the leader needs to step back, put aside the proposals on the table, and try to clarify why alignment does not exist.  In some cases, leaders may be taken aback by lack of agreement on core goals and objectives.  It may be because people feared speaking up and expressing their disagreement regarding a particular goal.  A lively dialogue about goals need not be a negative occurrence.  Sometimes, such discussions can really help clarify the strategy moving forward.  From time to time, it's useful to check in and make sure that a team is aligned with regard to the outcomes it is trying to achieve.  A shift or evolution in the goals might just be in order.  

When is Conflict Likely to Erupt?

Henning Piezunka, Wonjae Lee, Richard Haynes and Matthew Bothner have conducted a unique empirical study regarding how and why conflict can erupt between two individuals at times.  They hypothesize that conflict is more likely to escalate between two people if they have similar status.  They describe this condition in which people are at very similar levels in the organizational pecking order as "structural equivalence."   They explain: 

Unlike those in obviously hierarchical relations—manager and subordinate, for example, or professor and student—for whom norms of deference are fixtures of the social background, dyads marked by structural equivalence are susceptible to ambiguous conceptions of their relationship and thus to incompatible rules for interaction. Competition for deference and status may then escalate dangerously,

The scholars developed a novel approach to testing their hypothesis.  They decided to study Formula One drivers competing in Grand Prix events in hopes of being crowned World Champion.  The researchers collected data on 732 races from 1970 to 2014.  They measured conflict by identifying the incidences of race-ending collisions between drivers.   The scholars measured structural equivalence by examining past performance.  If two drivers had performed in a very similar fashion in past seasons, then they were rated as more "equivalent" than if one driver had a far superior record to a peer.  Sure enough, the results confirmed their hypothesis.   Collisions occurred more frequently among drivers of simliar status (i.e. past performance).  

What's the lesson for leaders?  Be aware of situations in which lines of authority as well as roles and responsiblities may be ambiguous.  We often bash hierarchy as ineffective and stifling.  However, this research supports the findings of a series of recent studies demonstrating some important benefits to a clear hierarchy.  In particular, dysfunctional conflict is less likely to arise when people understand clearly where they stand in a pecking order. When people are vying to be the "alpha dog," you could have real trouble.  One such study, for instance, found that NBA teams with clear status hierarchies tended to outperform those where you had a group of players more similar in status.   Do not mistake these results though.  They do not suggest that we should have command and control organizations.  They simply suggest that some clear delineation of roles and authority reduces the risk of destructive conflict.  

Confronting Unethical Behavior in the Workplace

I recently read a thought-provoking piece by Darden Professor Mary Gentile about what she calls values-based conflicts in the workplace.  Gentile argues that we often hear a series of rationalizations if and when we try to raise concerns about the ethics of certain behavior in organizations. Gentile argues that it is worthwhile to step back and try to understand the nature of the objections and rationalizations. In so doing, one can formulate a more effective response and can speak up more effectively. Here are the questions we should consider according to Gentile: 

• What are the main arguments you are trying to counter? What are the reasons and rationalizations you need to address?
• What’s at stake for the key parties, including those who disagree with you? What’s at stake for you?
• What levers can you use to influence those who disagree with you?
• What is your most powerful and persuasive response to the reasons and rationalizations you need to address? To whom should the argument be made? When and in what context?

I think these four questions are incredibly helpful.   Moroever, I'm particularly interested in the second question.  I think that question pertains to any conflict in the workplace, even if it has nothing to do with ethics.  Suppose you want to question a plan of action proposed by another manager.  Asking yourself what they have at stake in this situation, how invested they are in this plan, can be important, as it may help you understand the extent to which they will be defensive.  Moreover, it will help you understand what might trigger interpersonal friction and conflict in this situation.  If you want to engage others in a productive debate (i.e. constructive conflict), it's crucial to understand how high the stakes are for the other party, to understand where their passion and emotional investment resides.  

Find a Sparring Partner If You Want To Innovate

In Harvard Business Review this month, Professor Roberto Verganti of Politecnico di Milano argues that innovation isn't about ideation and deferring judgment. Criticism, he argues, plays a crucial role in helping to create breakthrough ideas.  I don't think it's either/or.  In my view, great innovators combine the principles of brainstorming/ideation with good practices of constructive conflict. They defer judgment at times, making it safe to generate many wild ideas. At other times in the creative process, they engage in healthy dissent and debate. In all circumstances, the key is for leaders to create a safe environment for both wild idea generation as well as constructive critique. Verganti argues that innovation often comes from working with a "sparring partner" to sharpen your ideas. The concept makes good sense. Here's Verganti:

The peer acts like a sparring partner, providing a protected environment in which the person can dare to share a wild or half-baked hypothesis without being dismissed... The first daring experiments in impressionism, for example, were conducted in pairs—by Claude Monet and Frédéric Bazille and by Pierre-Auguste Renoir and Alfred Sisley, and later by Monet and Renoir. Farrell also mentions the authors J.R.R. Tolkien (The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings) and C.S. Lewis (The Chronicles of Narnia), who discovered that they shared an interest in what Lewis called “Northern-ness.” Recent history is full of pairs who created legendary companies: Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, Bill Gates and Paul Allen, to name a few. I’ve found that pairs can also play a key role in the innovation process at established organizations. 

What does it take to find a good sparring partner? Trust and respect between the two individuals is a must. A prior working relationship often helps, because that provides a foundation of interpersonal trust and understanding. Some degree of difference in background and perspective can be helpful, in that it generates cognitive diversity. A thick skin is crucial. You don't want someone who has a hard time taking criticism. You want someone who isn't going to play it safe, afraid to hurt your feelings. Finally, you are looking for someone who has similar motivations and objectives. Are you on the same page in terms of what you are trying to accomplish?

How to Deal With Skeptics

Matt Forrest Abrahams and Burt Alper have posted a Stanford Business piece titled "How to Handle Audience Skepticism."   They argue that reframing can be a powerful technique for addressing criticisms, objections, and tough questions.  Here's an excerpt focused on how paraphrasing can help when responding to a skeptic:

Paraphrase to address emotional skepticism. Paraphrasing is a listening tool where you reflect back what others say in your own words. Effective paraphrasing affords you several benefits (e.g., ensures that you heard someone correctly, values the other person’s contribution, allows you time to think, etc.). As a framing technique, paraphrasing allows you to acknowledge the emotion of someone’s question/objection, then pivot your response to the world of logic.

In my work, I've written about how reframing and redescribing can be powerful tools for handling contentious situations.  They can be methods for helping keep conflict constructive.  Here are two excerpts from my book, Why Great Leaders Don't Take Yes for an Answer:

On reframing: 

 When individuals seem to be locked into their positions, leaders need to find a way to alter the way that people perceive the situation. Too often, when debates get heated, individuals begin viewing the situation as a contest to be won or a test of wills. They believe that they are playing a zero-sum game, when, in fact, win-win solutions still may be achievable. Individuals stop thinking about new sources of information that might be examined or the possibility of new alternatives that might prove superior to any of the options currently being debated. They begin to worry more about losing face if the decision does not go their way rather being concerned about the impact on the organization. In these circumstances, leaders need to shift the focus back to the problem that needs to be solved. 

On redescribing:

Sometimes conflict becomes dysfunctional because one set of individuals tries hard to convey an important idea, but they cannot present the supporting evidence in a persuasive manner. They become increasingly frustrated, because they do not understand why others do not find the data compelling. It seems so obvious to them! Soon they begin to attribute the others' inability to comprehend their argument to a personal deficiency on the part of those they have failed to persuade. They think, "How could an intelligent person not understand this point?" Cognitive psychologist Howard Gardner, a pioneer in the study of the multiple dimensions of human intelligence, has argued that people can avoid these frustrating situations through a strategy that he calls redescription. As Gardner writes, "Essentially the same semantic meaning or content, then, can be conveyed by different forms: words, numbers, dramatic renditions, bulleted lists, Cartesian coordinates, or a bar graph. Multiple versions of the same point constitute an extremely powerful way in which to change minds."

Five Great Questions to Ask When a Team is Stuck

Suppose your team is stuck.   The group has discussed two main options for moving forward, but it can't agree on which course of action to pursue.  Two factions have emerged, and the dialogue has become contentious.   People have become entrenched in their positions.  What types of questions can you ask as a leader to help the group become unstuck?  Here are five great questions you might pose to the group:

1.  What other options might we consider, beyond the two proposals currently on the table?

2.  How might our principal rivals in the marketplace look at this issue?  How might they approach it differently?

3.  Are we trying to solve the wrong problem?   What we if we framed the issue and/or defined the problem/opportunity differently?

4.  What if you had to argue for the option that you currently oppose?  What are the main arguments you would make for that course of action and why?

5.  What if you were the CEO of this organization (as opposed to looking at it from the perspective of your division, department, discipline, etc.)? How might you look at this issue differently? 

More Interpersonal Conflict in Virtual Teams

Stanford Professor Lindred Greer has conducted research on conflict in virtual teams.  She has found that virtual teams are more likely to see task-based disagreements become interpersonal in nature.  According to Greer, 

“They can’t see the context or the nuance or even the facial expressions of the person who is engaging in this task conflict.  When people lack information — when they are uncertain about why someone disagreed with them — they are much more likely to take it personally.  This means they are going to be more emotional and their response is going to be more aggressive and more likely to escalate the conflict than what would happen with face to face teams.” 

 Greer has some tips on how to improve the functioning of virtual teams. She advocates a face-to-face kickoff of a team project whenever possible.  She argues that it can help people understand where others are coming from, and it can help prevent a knee-jerk reaction to attribute negative motives to those with whom we disagree.  Here's a video with more information from Greer on this topic:

Saying No at Work

Tina Fey - The "yes, and" Rule of Improv

In this terrific interview at Google, Tina Fey explains one of the basic rules of improv (starting at around 2:46).  Fey describes how actors and actresses use the "yes, and" rule in improv comedy.   In other words, you are trained to build on others' ideas.  Accept what they have said, and take the idea further.  Do not reject what someone has said.  Eliminate the "yes, but" mentality that can derail a sketch.  The "yes, and" rule is instrumental for teams in the workplace too.    It can help make brainstorming sessions more effective, and it keep debates constructive.  

Margaret Heffernan: Dare to Disagree

Resolving Team Conflict

In Warren Bennis' terrific book, Organizing Genius, he suggests a simple method for intervening productively when conflict emerges within a team.  He learned the method from Robert Taylor at Xerox PARC.  Taylor used to refer to Class 1 and Class 2 disagreements.  In a Class 1 disagreement, the "combatants" cannot even fully explain the other sides' position.  In a Class 2 disagreement, the parties can clearly articulate the other side's views.  When a conflict emerged, Taylor would urge group members to shift toward Class 2.  In other words, he would ask them to articulate clearly and concisely the other side's point of view.  That method seemed to take the temperature down a bit, and it often helped pave the way toward a resolution.  Bennis argues that it helped the members find common ground.  Moreover, he explains that it may have used the principle of cognitive dissonance to Taylor's advantage.  In other words, the simple act of understanding and then stating the other side's position and rationale may have made opposing members more likely to embrace key elements of it. 

General Petraeus: Welcoming Dissent

I've enjoyed reading Tim Harford's excellent book, Adapt: Why Success Always Starts with Failure.  I find the overall argument of the book quite compelling, and the I love the stories and examples that Harford uses.  Some assertions are maddening, but you have to just push through on the occasional bizarre pronouncement. For instance, he writes that it's wrong to assume the Soviet planned economy failed because it lacked the profit motive or the creativity of private-sector entrepreneurs.  Huh?  He argues that the failure was due to an inability to experiment.  Somehow, in Harford's mind, the inability to experiment didn't have anything to do with a lack of profit motives and private sector entrepreneurship.  I don't get it.

The book is excellent overall though. He makes a great case for the importance of experimentation and the willingness to tolerate failure.  Harford also makes a strong case for why leaders must embrace conflict and dissent.  Take the story of General Petraeus that Harford tells us in the book.  Petraeus organized a conference on counterinsurgency in Fort Leavenworth during the Iraq War.  He invited many people, inside and outside the Army, who had been quite critical of the Army's strategy to that point.   It was a highly unusual meeting for the U.S. Army.   Petraeus also often invited lower level officers to email him directly about their observations and insights regarding how things were going in Iraq.   He wanted to circumvent the usual gatekeepers and hear directly from those on the front lines. 

Apparently, Petraeus learned the importance of inviting dissenting views from Major General Jack Galvin, a man to whom Petraeus reported back in the early 1980s.    According to Harford, "Jack Galvin also taught Petraeus that it is not enough to tolerate dissent: sometimes you have to demand it."  Music to my ears!  I have argued that same point for years.  Just telling people you want to hear from them doesn't always surface the full range of divergent views and perspectives that you need to hear.  When he's telling these stories, Harford is at his best.  I strongly recommend the book.