|
One
of the factors I talk about in "Getting Traction"
is the difficulty in working through complex and abstract
issues. In the paper I briefly mention a management
team that had spent more than a year spinning on one
issue without getting resolution. This is an in depth
look at this case study and how the situation was
resolved.
THE
PROBLEM
At almost every management team meeting an argument
developed over what to do about the key competitor.
The CEO wanted to buy them out, while others thought
this was a waste of resources and would distract the
company from the effort to keep innovating ahead of
the market. Typically a few members of the team geared
up for a fight and the others sank in their seats
trying to stay out of the line of fire. The arguments
were the same every time and after more than a year
the team had yet to make a decision. The argument
ate up time and seemed to stymie progress on a number
of related issues. The team had split into opposing
camps and had started to tune out anything that the
other side had to say, even on unrelated issues.
APPROACH
After witnessing several "rounds" of the
battle I wrote up my best understanding of the two
opposing views. I met with individuals to walk through
the issues and make sure I fully understood what they
thought and why they thought it. The "why"
included all their data points – conversations
with customers, past experiences, news reports they’d
read, market data, analogies they’d drawn with
other industries, and any other assumptions they had
made in reaching their conclusion.
After
the one-on-one meetings, I outlined all the issues
including data points, assumptions, lines of reasoning
and conclusions. I identified and broke out 3 sub-issues
that had been shmushed together in previous discussions.
(Yes, "shmush" is a technical term that
the experts use – don’t try this at home.
Some practitioners prefer "shmurgle", but
I think
that clouds the issue.) The sub-issues were (1) the
power of a particular competitor, (2) the business
model used by a number of competitors, and (3) how
much value customers put on different bundles of products
and features.
Once
I’d fully analyzed the issues, I met for a day
offsite with three of the key players. I had put each
idea, data point and
 |
|
Like
this article?
Sign
up for our newsletter that features a
new original article each month.
We
NEVER sell information. Privacy
Policy. See our Archives.
Unsubscribe
at ANY time.
|
|
| |
|
assumption
on a separate, over-sized index card. At the offsite
I mapped out all the arguments on a large "sticky
wall" – a piece of parachute silk coated
with artist’s mounting spray. This format allowed
us to move ideas around and identify connections as
our thinking developed.
At
the offsite, we started by clarifying our goal: the
company had a 3-year growth target that the whole
team had agreed on. They had also agreed on the product
direction that was most likely to achieve that target.
We then looked at each of the 3 sub-issues and talked
about how they might impact the larger goals. Throughout
the day, whenever the discussion got off track, I
returned to the shared goals and asked how the discussion
was related to these goals.
We walked through one issue at a time, one index card
at a time, and focused first on understanding rather
than agreement. As we surfaced the assumptions, people
talked more about what had led them to these conclusions
– data points, assumptions, lines of reasoning.
As they started to understand the different perspectives,
they were able to let go of rigidly held ideas and
come to agreement on a number of points. This focused
the debate on a few narrow issues that could be talked
out.
We
also identified competing assumptions that needed
to be resolved. For example: the competitor boasts
that it has over 700 customers. How much does each
customer buy? What features do they value? Are they
large enough to buy our more expensive product? We
narrowed these questions down to a few critical ones
that needed answers. The next step was some focused
market research and informal discussions with partners
and customers to answer these questions. Once that
data was gathered, the team was able to reach agreement.
OUTCOME
The conflict was resolved. The management team was
able to agree on the exact nature of the threat posed
by the competitor. They identified 3 potential responses
and were able to agree on the one that made the most
sense and went ahead with implementation. They then
turned their attention to other issues that had been
ignored while they were spinning on this area of conflict.
In
addition, the team now has an approach that it uses
to resolve other sticky issues.
WHY
THIS WORKED
| 1. |
Created
a Setting for Open Discussion |
|
| |
We
met on a Sunday with just a small group. Without
the usual audience there was very little grand
standing and people felt free to "think out
loud". It was also easier for them to open
up to different points of view without losing
face. |
| |
|
|
| 2. |
Focused
Everyone on a Shared Goal |
|
| |
We
started with a shared goal that everyone agreed
on. This made them partners in solving a common
problem, rather than opponents in a zero sum game.
The simple structure of seating everyone in a
semi-circle facing the sticky wall put them mentally
on the same team with the wall being the problem
to solve. Rather than beating each other with
competing ideas, they worked together on a single
problem. |
| |
|
| 3. |
Depersonalized
the Debate |
|
| |
Breaking
everything down into units of thought on index
cards served to neutralize the discussion. We
could move around, combine and revise the cards.
The discussion was around the ideas not which
person was right or wrong (or stupid or pig-headed).
In addition, once the ideas were in writing and
up on the wall, the individuals stopped making
repetitive speeches – their ideas were legitimized
and preserved. They could let down the vigilance
they’d had about being heard and remembered. |
| |
|
|
| 4. |
Increased
Listening and Understanding |
|
| |
As
I presented all the cards and arguments, everyone
heard their ideas spoken out loud by a neutral
party. I was careful not to promote one idea over
another. Because I’d prepared with one on
one interviews, I’d captured all the ideas
and was able to feed them back to the group. The
group listened without the usual interruptions
and arguments. I encouraged questions for clarity
and understanding. So we started the day with
everyone having the feeling of BEING HEARD AND
UNDERSTOOD. This immediately increased their willingness
and ability to understand and consider opposing
views. In "Seven Habits of Highly Effective
People" Stephen Covey says "Seek first
to understand, THEN to be understood." I
find the book a bit hokey and even simplistic,
but this single statement is THE secret to resolving
conflict. |
| |
|
|
| 5. |
Broke
the Debate Into Manageable Pieces |
|
| |
When
I was in law school we called this "slicing
and dicing the issues". On exams we’d
be presented with a complex set of facts and
be asked to identify and resolve the multiple
legal issues involved. To do that we had to
separate out the relevant facts for each legal
issue and develop separate lines of reasoning.
You failed if you shmurgled them together.
The
cards helped us break things out and then group
them into the relevant issues. This also helped
depersonalize the discussion. As we "see"
the debate mapped out, we start to understand
and "own" it. When we don’t understand
something, we simplify and label it – usually
as "John’s stupid idea".
|
| |
|
|
| 6. . |
Surface
Unspoken Assumptions |
|
| |
As
the discussion progressed we challenged each other
to get clearer and clearer on why we each believed
something to be true. This surfaced assumptions
that had not been articulated before. Once they
were made explicit we could share multiple data
points that both supported and contradicted these
assumptions. Unspoken assumptions can’t be
resolved – the first and most important step
is making them explicit. We also set a norm that
no assumption was stupid, but also that no assumption
was sacred – everything was open for debate.
|
| |
|
|
| 7.
|
Explore
Multiple Options |
|
| |
The
discussion loosened up rigidly held ideas. This
paved the way for considering multiple options.
Research has shown that the quality of decision
making rises dramatically when teams consider
more than just 2 options. Multiple alternatives
leads to a richer and more creative discussion. |
|
| |
|
|
|
Untangling
complex issues is hard work, both intellectually
and in terms of team dynamics. The approach
described here is one way to create a space
for doing this difficult work.
|
FOR THOSE WHO WANT MORE: Resources on Conflict
One
of the classic books on conflict is "Getting
to Yes" by Roger Fisher and William Ury. It sets
out some of the basic groundrules that I find very
helpful whenever I do conflict resolution. It is available
from Amazon through the link below.
Getting
to Yes: Negotiating Agreement
The technique of breaking down beliefs into underlying
data points, assumptions and reasoning, is captured
in a concept called The Ladder of Inference. A good
description of this concept is found in "The
Fifth Discipline Fieldbook" by Peter Senge, et.
al. It is available from Amazon through the link below.
The
Fifth Discipline Fieldbook
One of my favorite articles from Harvard Business
Review is "How Management Teams Can Have a Good
Fight" by Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, et. al. You
can download a .pdf version of this article through
the Harvard Web Site at the link below.
http://www.hbsp.harvard.edu/hbsp/prod_detail.asp?97402
How
Do I get Started with My Own Team?
GETTING
STARTED: Untangling a Current Issue
Identify
an important issue that your team seems to be stuck
on. Ask individuals to pick an opposing view and describe
it as fully as possible so that the person holding
that view feels fully understood. Keep going until
all the views have been fully articulated TO THE SATISFACTION
OF THE PERSON HOLDING EACH VIEW. If even one person
doesn’t feel fully understood, you need a more
in-depth process to surface and validate all the assumptions.
|
