Home Who We work with how we work Services workshops blog Resources About us Contact

“Working with Eric was a pleasure. We developed a good rapport and established a level of honesty and trust. I valued his counsel and recommendations. I find Eric to be very competent in a variety of disciplines. He is able to correctly diagnose organizational problems and suggest solutions that are on point. I found Eric to be a professional with the highest levels of honesty, integrity, and ethical behavior. I would not hesitate to engage his services again in the future.”

Kathy Lueckert,
former Corporate Services Director,
Department of Planning and Development,
City of Seattle
(Kathy is now Director of Planning and Finance for Advocacy and Communications at World Vision.)

“I've worked closely with Eric on developing and presenting the Leadership Eastside community leadership program. He has that rare blend of extensive real-world experience along with a very strong background in theory and research. He moves easily between big picture strategy and the tactical details. Eric brings a superb ability to plan, execute and follow-through, both as a behind-the-scenes planner and as an upfront instructor and facilitator.”

Annalee Luhman,
founding board member,
Leadership Eastside

 

Conflict and change: The blog

 Subscribe in a reader

 

1 July 2008

Retribution

At some point in your work life, you've probably felt a desire to "get someone back," to cause them pain for something they did to you. And, you may have had the experience of acting on that desire and finding yourself in a downward spiral of conflict with other person, each of you trying to outdo the other in payback.

There is a milder form that happens whenever management tries to change something (even something that might benefit employees). It is a form of resistance that results from people's unresolved anger at how they were treated last time management did something (whether it's last week or last year). Folks in this place often engage in subtle forms of resistance, like gossip, sniping or slacking off. Sometimes, they turn on their co-workers, creating a kind of Hobbesian environment of "everyone for themselves."

I often find it useful to looks around for this anger and see if it's still guiding (or controlling) people's behaviors. It can often explain a lot of underlying dynamics, especially in situations with a history of adversarial conflict (like labor-management relations).

This resistant and sometimes nasty behavior is driven by a desire for retributive justice. They want to set things straight by inflicting the same amount of pain they themselves experienced.

While the desire for retribution is understandable, it's not an impulse you should act on. It almost never makes things better and usually makes them worse—much worse. Exacting revenge always further degrades the relationship. So, what can you do?

If you believe that others have a historical grievance with you, then seek them out and listen fully to their complaint. Allow plenty of time. Paraphrase and make sure they see that you hear them. Then, sincerely apologize if you screwed up. If, on the other hand, they misinterpreted your intention, clarify (1) what you intention was not and (2) what you intention was.

If you feel aggrieved, then look for an opportunity to ask about the other person's intention. Tell them what you heard and how you interpreted their intention. Then ask what they're intention was. As above, be ready to listen, paraphrase, and ask questions. If you have trouble accepting their explanation, consider telling them that; it does no good to listen well to them if you don't tell them what's on your mind. Otherwise, you'll leave still angry.

In most cases, these steps will siphon off the desire for retribution and keep you both of ending up in that downward spiral. And, then, you both can get back to the task at hand.

 

23 June 2008

Are you ruled by your story?

Have you ever been swept off your feet by a story you were telling yourself?

If so, you might be like Betty (not her real name), a manager I worked with one time who was utterly convinced that Rachel (also a fake name), a co-worker of hers, must be fired. I had been brought in by senior leadership to work with a very dysfunctional work group, which involved several different sets of highly-skilled and dedicated professionals. Betty was the manager of one of these groups, and she wanted Rachel to go.

When I arrived on the scene, I talked with group members about what was going on, and learned that there were all sorts of latent conflict, safety and trust issues, and operational problems. It quickly became apparent to me that there was much to do before resorting to firing anyone.

Unfortunately, Betty was already past that point. There was no way that she would participate in the change project, or even stay in her job, if Rachel was going to remain. So, Betty quit.

I can't think of a better example of how our feelings and behaviors are ruled by the stories (conclusions, judgments or interpretations) we tell ourselves. Betty had concluded that Rachel must go. She regarded Rachel as a source of negativity in the work group. As she saw it, senior management was obligated to get rid of Rachel, and I was obligated to recommend it.

This conclusion on Betty's part led her to feel profound frustration and anger when that didn't happen. And, those strong feelings led Betty to decide to leave her job. She'd rather switch jobs than put up with the bitterness she felt.(Yet, she is the one who created the bitterness.)

Here's the path that Betty took: Rachel must be fired (story) —> Anger and frustration (feeling) —> Quit her job (action)

If Betty had been willing and able to acknowledge and examine her story, she might have been able to break its hypnotic power over her. She might have been able to entertain other stories—and maybe even entertained the possibility that she (Betty) played a role in the problem herself. Then she might've decided to keep her job.

 

20 June 2008

Emotions have no place at work

Can you remove emotions from the workplace? Should people just park them at the door when they come to work?

A workshop participant last week seemed to think so. I flatly told him that there is no way to keep emotions out of work. We can work to manage emotions, individually and organizationally, but the total eradication of feelings is absolutely, positively impossible. (That wasn’t the answer he was looking for.)

For many years, most of us had been told that emotions had “no place” at work. You put up and shut up. Get your work done. My favorite spoof of this school of thought was Dilbert’s boss saying, “Job satisfaction amounts to stealing from the company.”

More enlightening thinking these days acknowledges that emotions are in the mix when you’re dealing with human beings. We all got ‘em. Feelings have a big impact on how we make decisions. For better or worse, feelings guide all our behavior at work.

That doesn’t mean that we should be controlled by our feelings. They can often lead us astray. We create most of our feelings through how we perceive and interpret people’s actions, as well as the world around us. And, as most of us know, our perceptions and interpretations are often incorrect.

On the other hand, a big part of showing respect to other adults in the workplace is by allowing them to have their feelings and treating people with respect. This increases trust and morale. And, that can make a big difference in getting the work done. So, dealing well with emotions affects the bottom line.

And, of course, acknowledging and working with our own emotions is essential for mental health and strong personal relationships.

In short, we’ve got to work with our feelings and those of others, regardless of whether we think we should have to. Besides being a fact of life, successful management of emotions can even improve the organization’s performance.

 

19 June 2008

Why would a reasonable, rational, decent person do this?

You may be plagued by a person whose actions utterly perturb or confound you. This may be someone you have much in common with—shared interests, mutual goals, and a lot of reasons to work together. It would be so great if the two of you were able to work together in harmony.

And, yet, they seem to disrespect you, dismiss your ideas, and even attack you. And, frankly, you've had enough. Am I right?

You may be starting to think of this person as a scoundrel, as someone who hates your guts or, maybe just as worse, someone who doesn’t give you or your guts a moment's thought. You may characterize this person in all sorts of unflattering ways: as a jerk, bully, loose cannon, villain, or enemy-certainly not someone to be trusted.

And, yet, despite their seemingly inexplicable and unfriendly behavior, there may be another reason why they are behaving this way. They may be intending to come across entirely differently. They may actually be good people. I know that’s hard to believe, but it is possible, no?

So, ask yourself: Why would a reasonable, rational, decent person do this? Why would a reasonable, rational, decent person shut me down in a meeting? Why would a reasonable, rational, decent person work counter to their own interests? Why would a reasonable, rational, decent person make a big decision about my job without consulting me?

There probably are other explanations for their behavior—explanations that haven’t occurred to you. By asking yourself Why would a reasonable, rational, decent person do this?, you pull yourself out of a rut, open up to new ways of thinking, and even start to feel some release from stress. Your head starts to clear out, you’re thinking better, and getting more curious about the other person’s reason for behaving this way.

Now you’re getting ready to go talk to the other person, to explore their intentions and even to describe how you interpreted their behavior. I can’t promise that the conversation you’re about to have will be a cakewalk, but entertaining that question Why would a reasonable, rational, decent person do this? will make it easier for you to get to the truth and repair the relationship.

 

17 June 2008

Women who are athletes

Today, over lunch with a colleague, I learned of a recruiting firm that focuses on hiring women who are athletes. The founder decided that athletic women have the best blend of skills for successful recruiting: assertiveness and competitiveness combined with an ability to connect with people and be a team player.

Now, a broad statement of that can probably get a company into trouble for discrimination. I’m not sure it’s such a good idea to focus only on demographic categories like that. Couldn’t there be other demographic categories that produce just as suitable recruiters?

What I found most interesting about this theory that women athletes make the best recruiters is how it illustrates a “tacit assumption” of the culture in this firm.

Tacit assumptions are those taken-for-granted beliefs about what works, what the environment demands, and human nature. Tacit assumptions come to be shared and taken for granted by a joint learning process in the group or organization. In short, tacit assumptions are mental models that explain why the organization has been successful.

I think this women athlete tacit assumption warrants a closer look. I'd like to figure out a way to test it. Does it that really make the firm successful? Or, is it something else?

Each of us are in the grip of tacit assumptions that we use to explain why we and our companies are successful. What are your tacit assumptions? Which of them might need to be exposed and reconsidered?

 

11 June 2008

Don't ask for options

When you ask for input from your people, what do you ask for? Options or criteria?

In my experience, when seeking their people’s input, most managers start with the question: “What should we do?” Or, more generally, “What do you think?”

Both of these questions produce suggestions on what to do. Of course, you are looking for those kinds of ideas, but in many cases, it’s too early to be weighing options. Say you’re dealing with budget cuts. If you just ask for options you’ll get all sorts of proposals—some worthy ones, and some stinkers.

First, you’ve got to decide what makes a good decision: How will the decision be judged? What criteria does the decision need to meet? These criteria can be established in a group setting, or you, as the manager, can decide what they are in advance. In our budget cutting situation, these criteria might include that the cuts (a) meet a certain dollar figure, (b) preserve the core business or program, and (c) have the least long-term impact.

Once the criteria are in place, then it’s time to entertain different options for moving forward. The option that you choose should be the one that best fits the criteria. One of the benefits of clearly establishing the criteria is that when you explain your decision, your rationale is ready-made; all you need to do is show how your decision best meets the criteria.

By starting with criteria, instead of options, you reduce the risk that you’ll make a “hare-brained decision” and increase the transparency of decision making (even if you as the manager make the final call). This will increase support for the decision and satisfaction with the decision process.

 

9 June 2008

Kill your staff meeting

Is your staff meeting the highlight of your week, or something to be endured? If you dread staff meetings, you’re not alone.

Staff meetings I’ve attended as an employee and watched as a consultant share have one tragic flaw: too much time is devoted to going around to the table to have people describe what they are doing. These updates seem to go on forever. People have generally not organized their comments; they don't know what their point is. And, many go on and on; few folks pay attention to time. Go through six 5-minute updates, and you’ve burned a half hour of valuable time.

Here’s where I make a radical suggestion: Save the precious meeting time for real-time problem solving, where you need active participation to deal with some programmatic concern or even an interpersonal misunderstanding. In other words, don’t do updates.

“Then, how do we make sure everyone’s up to speed on what’s happening?” You update people outside the meetings using e-mail updates or a weekly report. These are things that your staff can read on their own time and at their own pace. Writing usually disciplines people to stick to the knitting and reduces the chances of going off on tangents. By briefing people asynchronously, you preserve staff meeting time for the really important stuff: tough issues, pressing problems, resolving conflicts.

In this day and age—with heavy workloads, double-booked schedules, frequent travel, and flexible work hours—team meeting time is at a premium. Don't waste that time just briefing each other when you could be dealing with important stuff.

 

8 June 2008

Happy with the outcome but not with the process?

Have you ever gotten what you wanted out of a decision and yet felt dissatisfied with it? If so, you are like the majority of people I put through a role play exercise Thursday.

The role play was designed to produce some of the real-life dynamics that occur around what I call “dangerous decisions”—decisions where people care both about the quality of the decision and also about having a role in the decision making process.

At the end of the exercise, which involved space planning, nearly half the group felt “satisfied” with the workspace they’d been assigned in the exercise, but only about half of them felt satisfied with the process. In other words, half of those who got what they wanted (a nice cubicle) felt unhappy about how they had been treated during the process.

This experience nicely illustrates the difference substantive satisfaction (I like the decision) and procedural satisfaction (I was treated with respect).

Many people don’t get the difference between these satisfactions. They are, in fact, independent of one another. People can be satisfied with a decision process that does not give them what they want, just as they can be dissatisfied with a process that gave them what they want.

You can’t usually give everyone the outcome they want (after all, in my role play exercise, there’s only one corner cubicle), but you can strive to create a process that treats people with respect and builds trust. Where to start? Take a look at the Dangerous Decisions handout on the resources page.

 

29 May 2008

Are you an agent, or merely an advocate?

So you want to make change in your organization? Are you a well-meaning person with a good idea, or are you a well-meaning person with a good idea who has support?

If you’re the former, you’re what’s known as an “advocate.” The first job of an advocate is to gain sponsorship for your idea about how to improve your unit or organization. You need to make your case to the hierarchy (or at least the highest person necessary to implement the change) and gain his or her support in order to move forward. This is where to focus your effort.

Even larger social change requires some kind of executive sponsorship to legitimize it and get people to take it seriously. Maybe the support of a key community organization—think the Southern Christian Leadership Conference for the civil rights movement.

An advocate who continues to push without gaining legitimacy risks being labeled an annoyance, and losing ground. Unfortunately, while working inside organizations, I had several experiences of pushing ideas without sponsorship. I thought my idea alone would carry the day, but it never did. I hadn’t gotten the sponsorship.

On the other hand, a “change agent” is someone who has a good idea AND support to implement it. This is the person who stands a chance of seeing their idea implemented for the greater good. They are the ones to watch because, if their executive sponsorship holds, their organization will take their idea to heart.

 

27 May 2008

What if you already have all the innovation you need?

Suppose that instead of being short on ideas in your organization, the place is brimming over with them. People have all sorts of thoughts and ideas, so many that there are actually few unique ones. The social environment inside your organization is producing the same or similar ideas in multiple people.

Over the weekend, I read an article by Malcolm Gladwell in the May 12th New Yorker that nicely debunks the premise that “big ideas” are rare. They actually are relatively easy to produce; moreover, most scientific discoveries have been made close-in-time by multiple people working independently.

Suppose this is also true in organizations. That the environment inside your organization is already producing bucket loads of ideas about how to improve operations, address problems, and make or save money?

“Wait a minute,” you say, “I’m not seeing a flood of new ideas." To that, I would reply “Why not?” If we accept the premise that the ideas are abundant, then they must be somehow trapped in people’s heads. People cannot or will not let them out—maybe because the conditions in the organization are not right.

They don’t feel safe sharing their ideas and fear ridicule. Their ideas need refinement in a nurturing environment, which doesn’t exist. They don’t think any of their ideas are any good. They don’t see others coming forward with brave ideas. Many of these conditions are present in most organizations, which impoverishes them.

Are you getting all the ideas you want from your people? Do you censor yourself? What can you do to invite people to share their ideas and develop them?