Subscribe via Email
Preface: Martin Prouix, President of Pyxis and an organizational coach, posted this article on his blog, Analytical-Mind.com, this past fall. For years, I have asked students, people I coach, and sometimes even myself whether they would rather be right or effective. Martin poses essentially the same question by asking, “is it better to be right or to be helpful.” His example on what can go wrong when trying to build effective relationships is worth sharing.
Jean
Preface: Workplace Undercover is a recurring segment of this blog, featuring a workplace scenario and a response by a guest consultant. In the previous post, “How to Deal with Stress at Work When People Let You Down,”Vicki screams at Saul for not getting a draft document to her at the time he had promised.
She collapses nearly in tears, wondering whether she was the only one in the company who cares. Saul apologized and then secretly fumed, “Why didn’t someone do something about Vicky?” The case is discussed by Dr. Jo Bowens Lewis, a certified teaching and supervising transactional analyst, and a Leading Consciously practitioner.
We continue with Jo’s case analysis.
Read the rest of this entry
Preface: Workplace Undercover is a recurring segment of this blog, featuring a workplace scenario and a response by a guest consultant. The scenario below was written by Eillen Bui, our research associate. Jo Bowens Lewis, a licensed psychologist, organizational consultant, and Leading Consciously practitioner will respond.
Preface: This continues the previous post, How to Reduce Stress at Work through Conscious Use of Self: Oprah Winfrey, Jennifer Hudson, and the Blizzard, Part 1, in which I described how Oprah Winfrey coped with an nerve-wracking incident at work. Superstar Jennifer Hudson was unexpectedly late for a scheduled taping of the Oprah Winfrey show, throwing off the entire day’s schedule. The unfolding events were shown in “Episode 116” of Season 25, the highly acclaimed reality show.
In Oprah Winfrey’s 25th and final season of her award-winning show, superstar Jennifer Hudson was scheduled to appear to discuss her amazing weight loss. Unfortunately for all of them, the taping was scheduled a day after the largest blizzard that Chicago had seen in 25 years, resulting in a textbook-like study of stress at work.
A behind-the-scenes look at what transpired that morning was shown on “Episode 116”of Season 25, the highly acclaimed reality show showing the makings of The Oprah Show’s 25th season.
Employee motivation is a recurrent problem creating stress at work for managers, employees, and just about everyone who works with people. In this post, Professor Jeffrey Ford, an expert on personal leadership effectiveness, succinctly describes how to delegate a task to ensure clarity and increase motivation.
As an added bonus, readers of Reframing Change will recognize that these are a great set of questions for testing assumptions about expectations – whether you are the delegator of the task or the person to whom the task is assigned.
I am grateful to Professor Ford for giving me permission to reproduce this gem of a post.
Get Better Results from Other People
By Jeffrey Ford, on January 27th, 2011
One of the persistent questions I get from people in my classes and training sessions is “What can I do to motivate people to give me work that is complete, accurate, and on time? I am tired of the excuses.” Fair question, though I think it is misdirected. It attributes the problem to their motivation rather than to the quality of the request and promise being made.
If you want to improve the quality and timeliness of what you get back from people, then start making good requests and getting good promises. By good requests and promises, I mean ones in which both parties are clear they are in a performance conversation for giving their word and are awake to what they are committing each other to. All too frequently, people make “drive by requests” and “drive by promises” – ones that are made on the run or while doing something else and where at least one party is not completely present to what they are promising. The result is that what gets delivered is not always accurate, complete, or timely. Making good requests and getting good promises are integral to personal leadership effectiveness.
A good promise is one that is made in response to a good request, and here is how you make a good request:
Step 1:
Request what you want, by when you want it, and explain why it matters.
Step 2:
Get answers to each of the following questions:
1. Do you have any questions about what I want, when I want it, or why?
2. Are you available to do this? Do you see when you could do the work? Are you aware of anything that could keep you from completing it on time?
3. Do you have some ideas as to how this might be done? [This is particularly important when requesting something they haven’t done before.]
4. Do you have the necessary information and resources or do you know where to get them? [This can change over the duration of a project as things that were not known become known – one reason why you would want to schedule progress reports.]
5. Are you accepting my request?
When you get answers that leave you confident the work will be completed accurately, completely, and on time, you have a “good” promise. If you are not confident, explore the answers that give you concern until you are confident. It is better to withdraw a request you are not confident will be completed than to “hope” it will get done.
Peter Bergmann suggests that the secret to ensuring follow through is to create and use a checklist when making each request. Using a checklist (see Bergmann’s checklist) as a matter of policy increases the likelihood of making good requests, increases consistency (which builds trust), and makes the interaction easier.
Reproduced with permission of Jeffrey Ford, Professor of Management in the Max M. Fisher College of Business at The Ohio State University, and author of The Four Conversations, www.professorford.com
What happens when someone hasn’t developed good listening skills? Here are some typical conversations that create stress at work and home:
Example 1: Manuel sits down with Chris, one of his direct reports, to describe a new assignment. As he explains, the nature of the job requires that Chris weighs the quality of the project against the ultimate goal of meeting costs and timelines. When he finishes the explanation, he asks Chris if he is prepared to take on the assignment.
Example 2: Daud and Malika have been discussing a two-day car trip they are planning to visit Daud’s relatives. Malika has explained why she is looking forward to visiting a historical site that is about half way to their final destination. Daud sits and listens, puzzled and not a little annoyed. To him, going out of the way to visit the site would put them in town very late, but he does want Malika to enjoy the trip as well.
In both conversations, someone ends up sighing in frustration and confusion. What could the listeners do instead to find out the information they were seeking?
The secret of going into inquiry
The skill they each could use here is inquiry –active investigation of the other person’s thought processes from a position of curiosity. Simply asking someone to explain the same thing over and over again is unlikely to yield useful information.
Inquiry is one of the four building blocks for effective relationships that we describe in Reframing Change. The other three are powerful listening, openness, and feedback.
Inquiry is a powerful tool. It is also harder to learn than you might think. As a skill, it appears deceptively simple: when you are unclear about what someone is saying, you ask questions to discern their underlying meaning, preferences, and fears. The problem is, sometimes people think they have been crystal clear in their explanations to you when in fact they have not.
The secret, then, to go into inquiry by asking for detail and contrast so that the explanation can be placed in some kind of context.
Asking someone to explain again and again is about as useful as giving someone directions by telling them to go over the hill and around the corner to get where they are going. Directions work if you give people detail and guideposts to contrast where they are with what they should look for:
At the top of the hill you will see a railroad crossing. After you get there, take your first right. At the corner is Elmo’s Old Fashioned Townhouse Store. Then drive about half a mile and look to the right and you will be there.
Similarly, when someone is saying something that you don’t understand, you go into inquiry by asking the person to give you contrast and detail so that you may have points of comparison. It’s important that your tone of voice conveys genuine curiosity.
Here are examples:
Chris: When you mentioned “weighing the quality against the costs and the timelines,” could you explain this part further? For example, could you describe a situation in which someone did or did not properly weigh the quality against the costs and timeline?
Daud: The part I’m puzzled about is why arriving late doesn’t seem to be that big a deal to you. Would you please explain your thinking about this?
Chris: When we worked on the Wiseguy account, you told me that high quality was the prime consideration. Now you seem to be saying that more emphasis should be placed on costs and timelines. Would you please explain how this situation is different from the Wiseguy account?
Daud: I’m not clear as to what are the advantages to visiting the site on the way there rather than on the way back. As you compared the two options, what were the factors you considered?
Chris: It seems to me that your basic concern is meeting the client’s timeline and that as long as the work is satisfactory, we won’t worry about whether it’s super high quality. Is this what you mean?
Daud: I’m wondering if you are afraid that if we don’t visit the site on the way there, something will happen so we won’t have time to stop there on our way back home. Is this what’s underneath what you are saying?
Why don’t people go into inquiry more?
There are several reasons people don’t go into inquiry more often:
The name of the game is improving the dynamics of your interpersonal relationships. It’s very difficult to have an effective relationship in which the other person carries all the vulnerability. Inquiry shows your active engagement and caring.
Here’s another way of thinking about it. As a technical communications expert once explained to me: A big receiver and a small transmitter work much better than a big transmitter and a small receiver.
Questions:
Reference: Reframing Change, Chapter 4
Yesterday morning, my niece called me. With rage in her voice, she explained that her thirteen-year-old son had received a text message from a friend saying, “You f**king n****r”. “I called his mother — they’re Mexican American,” she explained. “I wanted to know if they understood the significance of that word.”
Many people are confused about what term is appropriate to use when referring to different others. I provided examples of this in Part 1 of this series on bridging cultural differences. This topic is a hornet’s nest because a term that is appropriate in one context may be inappropriate in another. Choosing the right word can be a daunting task for who wish to avoid offending others and are horrified at thought of being judged.
This recently happened to Oprah Winfrey. For her 25th and last season on network television, Oprah arranged for behind the scenes taping of how each show was produced the entire season. The tapes are now part of a new series, appropriately called Season 25, on her recently launched network, OWN — or the Oprah Winfrey Network.
Episode 103 of Season 25 provided a behind the scenes look of an incident that happened during the taping of an interview with Terry McMillan, author of How Stella Got Her Groove Back, and Jonathan Plummer, her ex-husband who had announced that he was gay after 6 years of marriage to McMillan.
During the taping, Oprah made this comment to Plummer:
“What’s interesting if I may say this and I mean this only in the best way and obviously I have a lot of gay friends and don’t mean any offense — you seem gayer than you were [during a previous interview].”
After the taping, Lisa Halliday, Oprah’s head of public relations called Oprah to tell her that she thought that the comment would offend gay people. The discussion afterward provided a vivid illustration of what can happen when someone with the best of intentions is accused of making an offensive comment.
Clipping Path copyright PaltoUsed under license from Shutterstock.com
As might be expected, Oprah at first was incredulous that her motives would have been mistaken:
“Everybody knows I am very gay-friendly…. My intention was not to be inappropriate. My intention was to say you have obviously come out and come out in a very big way and now you are feeling your ability to be your authentic self.”
Halliday persisted, “I just say that it’s a very naïve statement, that’s all.”
Clearly still stunned, Oprah then asked her producer to find some gay staffers to solicit their opinion.
Three gay people came into her office, one after another. To each, Oprah asked a variation of the same question: “Was the comment offensive and should it be struck from the tape?” In explaining her rationale for asking them, she commented, “I have my own opinions about things, but when other people weigh in strongly, I’m willing to listen and do a gut check on it.”
What was striking about the ensuing discussion was that most of the staffers appeared to feel free to express their opinion even though Oprah was their boss. Although their nonverbal behavior toward her was deferential, two of the three gay staffers stood firm in their position that her comment indeed had been offensive. I was also struck with how light and friendly the conversation remained, even though it was obviously quite serious. They laughed and joked throughout the discussion, a sign that they had had similar conversations before. One staff member even humorously demonstrated how he had done a double-take when he heard the comment.
When Oprah asked him to explain why her statement had been offensive, he responded:
“It implies that gay is an action and not who you are as a human being. You’re born black, you’re born gay. To allude that our action determines your sexuality is offensive. For someone who is battling his sexuality, I can see it would affect him and some of your viewers who are in his same position.”
As most people would do in her shoes, Oprah repeatedly defended herself by explaining that she had the best of intentions with her remark. The staff responded by reassuring her that they knew this:
“I know that you didn’t mean anything offensive about it.”
“People know your heart and spirit and your intention is not to offend them.”
Once Oprah accepted that her statement had been offensive to some no matter her intentions, the next question was whether the comment should be deleted from the tape. After more back and forth, she thanked the staff and the discussion ended.
In explaining her final decision about whether to keep or omit that comment from the viewing, Oprah said:
“I ended up allowing myself to be censured on that comment because I am not gay and I don’t understand fully what it means to be in that position. So I think, well, gay people will know better than I. And the gay people in the building said ‘you’re wrong, so I was wrong.”
Multicolored plasticine hands on a white background copyright MaleWitchUsed under license from Shutterstock.com
The clip has now been posted on her website. Viewer comments about her decision illustrate how challenging are such situations:
“I say we all need to lighten up a bit. It was funny. Stop being hyper sensitive.”
“I thought that word “gayer” when she said it, was funny. People shouldn’t be offended by it, just because of the way she said it. It was obvious she meant no harm there…..geeeeez!!!”
“The comment was offensive because it reduces being gay to one specific expression of “gayness” (an effeminate man) as if gayness could be reduced to its stereotypes.”
“That was a good call… because Great moments often catch us unaware—beautifully wrapped in what others may consider a small one. People may not remember exactly what you did or what you said, but they will always remember how you made them feel.”
Here is what was so remarkable about the outcome:
If you want to know more about testing assumptions, see Reframing Change, Chapter 2. For more about distinguishing intent from impact, see Chapter 5, “Bridging Differences,” pages 131-132.
The young woman’s eyes filled with tears. “Neither of my parents really cares about what I do or think. I’m not even sure they love me. Maybe they didn’t even want me. It hurts me in my stomach to think about it.”
The conversation above is nearly true. (I changed a few details to protect my friend’s privacy.)
Not feeling cared for or recognized in the way we expect can hurt for sure. I know. For a good part of my childhood and young adulthood, I was convinced my parents didn’t love me.
The proof for me was that they never gave me a birthday present. I was born on Christmas Day. Every Christmas morning, my sisters and I would awaken and rush into the living room to see what presents Santa and our parents had given us. Everything we wanted and more were always there — except for one thing: a birthday present for me.
On my ninth birthday, the only birthday card I received was from an older woman down the street. That was proof enough for me — no one really cared about me. Never mind all the Christmas presents, the clothes that I received throughout the year, all the driving to take me places. In my mind, they did those things out of obligation. If I didn’t get a birthday present, that must mean they didn’t love me.
“Love Currencies”
Fast forward a couple of decades. I became friends with Jo Bowens Lewis, who was then studying to become a transactional analysis therapist. She explained to me how people with different “love currencies” can fail to recognize love offerings from one another. If you are in a French restaurant and try to pay in Brazilian currency (reais), chances are the restaurant won’t accept it because reais are not seen as money. So you keep offering something valuable to you and they think you are offering them junk.
Love, praise, and recognition work that way. One person offers help and another offers gifts. Still another offers hugs and lots of “love you’s,” and a fourth offers it by working quietly behind the scenes. I was expecting my parents to demonstrate love at Christmas through a birthday gift. They were offering it through Christmas gifts.
Supportive feedback in the Workplace
Fast forward another couple of decades and I’m talking to an up-and-coming star in his organization whom I’ll call Don about Eliza, his new manager. “She never recognizes me,” he explains. “I just completed a major project — I pulled a miracle in finishing it on time and in budget considering all the headaches we had with the subcontractors. All she did was sit me down and explain the next project she was assigning me. Not a word of thanks or praise or anything.”
“Did she know how challenging an assignment it was?” I asked.
“Oh, yes, she knew. When she gave it to me, she told me that she didn’t know if I would be able to pull it off. I was insulted even then because of the way she gave it to me.”
Was Don seeking supportive feedback in the same currency as Eliza was accustomed to giving? Possibly not. I suggested that he test his assumptions about her by asking, “What if?” (Reframing Change, Chapter 2). “What if Eliza thought by assigning you a new more challenging project, she was giving you the highest praise possible?” His eyes grew wide with surprise at that.
“Oh, no, really?” he said, clearly bemused by the very thought. “How would I find out?”
“How would you?”
The logjam was broken and he was now considering the possibility that the praise currency he was seeking was different from the one she might be using.
“What is the praise currency that is used most frequently in your organization?” I asked.
He paused to reflect on this. “Sometimes before or after a meeting, someone will start talking about how he had accomplished this or that. And then others will chime in with their successes.”
“Do you ever join in?” I asked.
“Of course, not,” he responded instantly. “It reminds me of little boys standing by a building trying to see who can pee the furthest. I never wanted to join the game.”
I stayed silent, knowing he would figure this one out without any prompting.
“Okay,” he finally said. “If this is the praise currency that they use, I suppose I should also.”
“Either that,” I responded, “Or decide you will go on a campaign to get them to recognize and use your currency.”
“In other words,” he teased, “I shouldn’t wait 20 years for someone to finally give me a birthday card?”
“You got it.”
After I finally told my mother that I had missed getting a birthday gift during my childhood, she responded that if she had known it was that important to me, she would have wrapped any one or two or three of those Christmas presents with a big bow and given them to me as a birthday present. She hadn’t done it because I never told her.
What to do if we’re not getting the recognition we are seeking?
When we are looking for recognition or attaboys and not getting it, we do have options. The major option is to not just accept that this is the way it has to be, especially if there is the possibility that others don’t know we are missing it. Here’s what we can do:
There may be other ways as well.
References:
1. See Reframing Change, Chapter 2, for how to test assumptions
2. Gene Chapman’s Five Love Languages proposes a concept similar to “Love Currencies”.
Jennifer Joyce, co-founder of LeadershipSmarts, is this week’s guest blogger.
———————————————————————————————————
Coaching is often a pivotal step in a person’s career. It represents a large investment of time, money, and personal work. So how does one get the most out of such an important venture?
During my 15 years as a coach, I have found three keys to creating a successful engagement:
A clearly articulated over-arching coaching goal is often referred to as “the big A agenda.” It is usually a longer term goal such as learning how to improve business results or improving one’s ability to manage a team or creating a successful relationship with the boss. Once we know our goal we can define what success will look like. Knowing our goal and our success measures will keep the coaching sessions on a steady track.
For example, my client Susan is a smart young project manager in the high-tech industry. She has a natural ability to see the interlocking pieces of a complex project.
Nonetheless, she felt that her colleagues did not listen to her when she pointed out barriers to the success of projects they worked on. As a result, critical project issues did not get addressed until much later. The delay caused financial hardship to the company and its clients. They ended up with unnecessary project setbacks and increased budgets.
Susan established her “big A agenda” as “gaining the confidence to effectively stand her ground and make sure she is heard when bringing up important project issues.” She set up two success measures:
As you can imagine, her coaching goal would not be achieved overnight.
Once the long-term coaching goal is established, the direction for coaching is set. Now we can work with our coach to figure out the particulars of what has kept us from that goal in the first place. If we discuss the goal in a general fashion, we won’t get traction on figuring out why the same problem keeps popping up.
Susan can’t lament only about how others don’t listen to her. She must figure out what happens that causes others not to hear her. Only by exploring specific examples of when our particular problem manifests will we gain understanding about how that dynamic works.
These specific examples are called “little a agendas.” They give us a picture of all the microcosms of our lives that add up to keep us from our “big A agenda.” By exploring the “little a agendas” we begin to identify the patterns of behavior that are getting us what we don’t want. More importantly, they give us the opportunity to explore the patterns of thinking and assumptions that drive our behaviors.
The issues we bring to our coaching sessions are historically intractable so there is something deeper to uncover than just a change of behavior. After all, if it were an easy thing to change, we would have already changed it. We can’t see the origin of the issue because the assumptions that drive our behaviors are so automatic we can’t see them. Yet those assumptions are directing our lives.
The bottom line is not to change only our behaviors. The real work is to uncover and challenge those automatic assumptions that are driving our behaviors.
Let’s go back to Susan’s issue – not being heard on important matters. What was it about Susan’s behavior that continually led to the problem with her colleagues not listening to her concerns? As we explored one specific example (little a agenda) when Susan did not get her point across, we recognized that she expressed her concerns in a general and deflected manner.
We worked to uncover the thoughts she had just before speaking up, which Susan identified as a fear of speaking her mind. She had an automatic assumption that said if she spoke up, people would get angry and yell at her. She knew how important expressing her opinion was but when she did, her point was so watered down that nobody got it.
By role-playing the scenario, Susan was able to test her assumption that speaking up would cause problems in her organization. She began taking baby steps to more clearly state her concerns with her colleagues and achieved good results. In that way she began to shift her internal assumption about the danger of speaking her truth. As her ability to clearly state her opinion improved, so did her project results.
This article focuses only on the work of the client, not on the people or the situation surrounding the client, because coaching is always about helping us find our power to create the results we want in life. If we think that power lies outside ourselves, with other people or situations, then there is nothing we can do.
As we learn in Matt’s story in Chapter 1 of Reframing Change, once we learn to “consciously use ourselves to bring about change,” we no longer “feel powerless to make a difference.” By exploring our internal thought process that leads to our behaviors that lead to our results, we find the root of our power to change our circumstances.
Susan came to coaching ready and willing to look at what was happening within her. She was willing to explore the possibility that it was her behavior that led to the results she didn’t want. As she surfaced and challenged the assumptions she was making about speaking up, she calmed the fear that kept her communication ineffective. She is now listed as an important high-potential employee whom her colleagues value.
————————————————————————————————————————
Jennifer Joyce, cofounder of LeadershipSmarts.com, is a leadership development consultant and coach. She specializes in diversity, continuous quality improvement, team effectiveness, change leadership, strategic planning, meeting design and facilitation, leadership development, and executive coaching. For more information, see www.leadershipsmarts.com
Preface: In Jean Ramsey’s and my book, Reframing Change, we explain how to test your assumptions at the interpersonal level. Bill Brenneman, today’s guest blogger, specializes in helping work teams identify and test assumptions that may cause severe, even life-threatening, situations. In this post, Bill provides an introduction to his rigorous field of work.
————————————————————————————————
As Jean and Jean point out in Reframing Change, Chapter 2, assumptions can lead us astray without our knowing it is happening. This is a problem–and an opportunity–that come up every time my colleagues and I try to find the cause(s) of complex problems or failures in industrial or organizational settings. This is why:
It is a widely held assumption (there’s that word already) that professional and technical people are fact based and logical. In fact, it is just as common for engineers and other technical folks to find themselves “in the answer” (rather than “in the question”) as it is for non-technical folks. Often, people with long years of experience in both technical and non-technical fields are seen as (are referred to as, and think of themselves as) “experts.”
What do we generally go to experts for? Questions? Generally not. We go to experts for answers. Uh oh. Looks like exactly the sort of trouble Jean and Jean observe in interpersonal interactions among coworkers.
I mention this so that we can lighten up about the fact that no matter how hard any of us try, we will, as human beings, necessarily make assumptions, no matter how smart or “expert” we may be. Assumptions keep things running by allowing us to move quickly in performing activities that are familiar and more or less routine. So is there a problem?
Actually, making assumptions is much less of a problem than not knowing we are making assumptions. In other words, when we make the assumption that we are not making assumptions, we open ourselves to serious errors. Assumptions ‘squared’ turns out to be the big problem.
Antidotes to the Assumption of No Assumptions
There are two main ways to guard against the danger of running on assumptions for too long before checking. The first way is the path Jean and Jean call “Putting yourself in another’s shoes,” that is, empathy. I have found that my willingness and ability to do this has come from the hard reality of having too often found myself to be wrong when I knew I was right. Experience is a good teacher when we pay attention with humility.
The second path Jean and Jean share is the one I would like to expand on. It is “Choosing to Test Assumptions.” This is first cousin to another technique they suggest of generating alternate hypotheses. This approach is useful in interpersonal issues, but it is essential when dealing with problems. The distinction is the increased rigor required when the facts we are checking are hidden deep under the surface of a complex occurrence.
How might we use rigorous fact-based analysis to test our assumptions when, for example, a machine stops working? When all of the obvious (generally assumed) failure causes have been checked out and have been ruled out by physical data and tight logic, but the equipment still doesn’t function, what do we do?
The first thing we need to do is clearly define the problem. This is the point where, for example, Ford people say, “There’s a problem because it’s a Chevy,” and Chevy people say, “There’s a problem because it’s a Ford,” etc. Or both might say, “There’s a problem because Jimmy doesn’t have the right attitude.”
In any serious inquiry into “What is causing what?” such obvious bias-based assumptions have to be rejected, but this isn’t always easy. People often hold on to their assumptions about machines as strongly as they hold on to their assumptions about their home team. In that situation, we need a strong discipline to get everyone working together to find true cause and effect.
The discipline I describe here is called Fact-Based Causal Analysis, a fancy word that means “getting to the root cause of the problem without fooling myself with my assumptions along the way.”
So how do we define a problem? The way to do this is to ask, very specifically, “What is the ‘object’ that is not working?” and “What is the standard it is not meeting?”
In the care of a car the “Problem Statement” could be:
“The car — Isn’t starting.”
Or, more specifically, “When the engine turns over – There is no ignition.”
Or, “The starter —Isn’t engaging.”
Or, “When I turn the key – Nothing happens.”
Or, “The report – Is not complete on time.”
Or, “He – turned away when I started to wave [instead of waving back as I expected].”
Once we have a statement of “The Problem” we can take the next step in the rigorous process.
In the second step, we ask the big question, “Why?” This is when we can all feel the assumptions coming on:
“It’s a Ford” [or a Chevy]
Or, “He screwed up.”
Or, “He’s mad at me.”
We could be charitable and call these all hypotheses. But a real hypothesis is not about having the answer, it is about being in the question so that we can be accurate by searching for facts that confirm or contradict the hypothesis.
In a rigorous process this is just the beginning, as we look at the available data and brainstorm the possible hypotheses that might explain the occurrence of the problem. That is why the problem statement has to be as narrowly focused as possible or our hypotheses will be all over the map.
Obviously, these two steps are just the tip of the iceberg about a truly rigorous process. My aim here is to introduce the existence of such processes so you can look for and access a good process and the resources to make it work. That is the only way to have hope of finding true cause in complex problems, most way more complex than these quick examples.
In future posts, I will explain how to use some of the truly useful technology for testing assumptions at the systems level using Fact-Based Causal Analysis.
————————————————————————————————
Bio: Bill Brenneman consults in two major areas: (a) organization effectiveness, structure, and strategy and (b) fact-based deep cause failure analysis.
s Jean and Jean point out in Reframing Change, Chapter 2, assumptions can lead us astray without our knowing it is happening. This is a problem, and an opportunity, that comes up every time my colleagues and I try to find the cause(s) of complex problems or failures in industrial or organizational settings. This is why:
It is a widely held assumption (there’s that word already) that professional and technical people are fact based and logical. In fact, it is just as common for engineers and other technical folks to find themselves “in the answer” as it is for nontechnical folks. Often, people with long years of experience in both technical and nontechnical fields are seen as (are referred to as, and think of themselves as) “experts.”
What do we generally go to experts for? Questions? Generally not. We go to experts for answers. Oh, Oh. Looks like exactly the sort of trouble Jean and Jean observe in interpersonal interactions among coworkers.
I mention this so that we can lighten up about the fact that no matter how hard any of us try, we will, as human beings, necessarily make assumptions, no matter how smart or “expert” we may be. Assumptions make things keep running by allowing us to move quickly in performing activities that are familiar and more or less routine. So is there a problem?
Actually, making assumptions is much less of a problem than not knowing we are making assumptions. In other words, when we make the assumption that we are not making assumptions, we open ourselves to serious errors. Assumptions ‘squared’ turns out to be the big problem.
Antidotes to the Assumption of no Assumptions
There are two main ways to guard against the danger of running on assumptions for too long before checking. The first way is the path Jean and Jean call “Putting yourself in another’s shoes,” that is. empathy. I have found that my willingness and ability to do this has come from the hard reality of having too often found myself to be wrong when I knew I was right. Experience is a good teacher when we pay attention with humility.
The second path Jean & Jean share is the one I would like to expand on. It is “Choosing to Test Assumptions.” This is first cousin to another technique they suggest of generating alternate hypotheses. This approach is useful in interpersonal issues, but it is essential when dealing with nonhuman problems. The distinction is the increased rigor required when the facts we are checking are hidden deep under the surface of a complex occurrence, for example, a machine that stops working. When all of the obvious (generally assumed) failure causes have been checked out and have been ruled out by physical data and tight logic, but the equipment still doesn’t function, what do we do?
The first thing we need to do is clearly define the problem. This is the point where, for example, Ford people say, “There’s a problem because it’s a Chevy,” and Chevy people say, “There’s a problem because it’s a Ford, etc.” Or both might say, “There’s a problem because Jimmy doesn’t have the right attitude.”
In any serious inquiry into “What is causing what?” such obvious bias-based assumptions have to be rejected, but this isn’t always easy. People often hold on to their assumptions about machines as strongly as they hold on to their assumptions about their home team. In that situation, we need a strong discipline to get everyone working together to find true cause and effect. The discipline I describe here is called Fact-Based Causal Analysis, a fancy word that means “getting to the root cause of the problem without fooling myself with my assumptions along the way.”
So how do we define a problem? The way to do this is to ask, very specifically, “What is the ‘object’ that is not working?” and “What is the standard it is not meeting?” In the care of a car the “Problem Statement” could be: “The car — Isn’t starting.”
Or, more specifically, “When the engine turns over – There is no ignition.” Or “The starter —Isn’t engaging.” Or “When I turn the key – Nothing happens.”
Or, The report – Is not complete on time.” Or, “He – turned away when I started to wave [instead of waving back as I expected].”
Once we have a statement of “The Problem” we can take the next step in the rigorous process by asking the big question, “Why?” This is when we can all feel the assumptions coming on,:“It’s a Ford” [or a Chevy]” or “He screwed up.” Or, “He’s mad at me.”
We could be charitable and call these all hypotheses. But a real hypothesis is not about having the answer, it is about being in the question so that we can be accurate by searching for facts that confirm or contradict the hypothesis.
In a rigorous process, this is just the beginning as we look at the available data and brainstorm the possible hypotheses that might explain the occurrence of the problem. That is why the problem statement has to be as narrowly focused as possible or our hypotheses will be all over the map.
Obviously, this is just the tip of the iceberg about a truly rigorous process. My aim here is to introduce the existence of such processes so you can look for and access a good process and the resources to make it work. That is the only way to have hope of finding true cause in complex problems, most way more complex than these quick examples.
In future posts, I will explain how to use some of the truly useful technology for testing assumptions at the systems level using Fact-Based Causal Analysis.
In the previous post, we met Tracy who is having a hard time getting along with Sasha. As Tracy complained to her partner, “how am I supposed to work on a charity event with someone who has nothing to say and has such a superior attitude?”
The response today is by Sandra Lopez, a licensed clinical social worker and consultant.
———————————————————————————————————————————————————
Tracy’s scenario is just so typical of what any one of us might encounter. Clearly as she shares her feelings with her partner, we can see that Tracy has become frustrated, stressed, and is even experiencing some sense of helplessness in knowing how to make the situation better. Like many of us in these kinds of predicaments, she has formed negative assumptions about her co-worker. Given the current status of her relationship with Sasha, she raises a good question in wondering how she will survive the stress of working on this charity event.
How do we work through these challenging interpersonal conflicts when they happen? Tracy can relieve a great deal of her stress in this working relationship by consciously using herself to more effectively manage the situation.
I want Tracy to know that there is hope for improving her relationship with Sasha. I want to first invite her to sit, talk, and share what she’s feeling without any judgment. It can be helpful to simply talk things out with someone you trust and who will listen attentively. Perhaps in Tracy’s exploration of thoughts and feelings, she might hit upon something that gives her insight into these circumstances. Once Tracy has had this opportunity, I want to suggest she turn up the volume on her self-awareness — she obviously is having a pretty serious reaction to Sasha.
Why is this Tracy? She has allowed Sasha’s behavior to influence how she acts and this can potentially undermine Tracy being herself.
She could benefit from identifying her emotions and understanding how her actions and words are being influenced by her reactions to Sasha. In our conversation with Tracy we can help her to see where things went wrong and even support her in getting the emotional attachments out of the way. It might be helpful for Tracy to talk about when did this first start and when did she first notice that she was having a reaction to Sasha. This step is all about helping Tracy to stop and to take stock in what is happening in these interactions with Sasha. Having had similar experiences myself, I know that once we go into a place of being triggered by these emotions, it is so easy to lose sight of the real issues.
I want Tracy to see that she is making assumptions about Sasha that may be inaccurate. She thinks Sasha has a superior attitude and that she believes she is better because she is on the executive team. Do we know this to be true? Or, is this more about Tracy’s perception of Sasha?
Tracy also is beginning to participate in a detrimental behavior by aligning with another employee in making disparaging remarks about Sasha. Comments about Sasha having 9 cats and no husband are demeaning and can hurt the relationship building process.
I want Tracy to put herself into Sasha’s shoes. What is it like to be the VP’s Top assistant at the corporation? What about Sasha’s part in the charity event? She seems invested in the event as she volunteered to help. Could there be other reasons why she is not engaging with Tracy? Could she be shy or introverted? Could she be intimidated by Tracy’s outgoing personality? Does she feel pressure to project a serious demeanor at work because she fears she might lose her job?
We really don’t know, do we? If we make an effort to understand the other person, it can prevent us from making those inaccurate assumptions, and ultimately free us from some of the frustration and stress.
Two last points I want Tracy to consider. First, it is far more productive for her to focus on identifying her part in the poor interactions with Sasha as opposed to blaming Sasha for everything and viewing herself (Tracy) as the victim. It takes sincere reflections to realize that when we react we often aren’t thinking clearly in that moment—we are all about “feeling” and “reacting”.
Although many of us have been raised in having the good guy bad-guy mentality, we don’t have to view it this way. It takes courage to be willing to look at one’s contributions into a nasty situation. If we can remind ourselves that it takes two to “dance” in a relationship, we can move towards some beginning sense of understanding of the other person.
So when we put ourselves into Sasha’s shoes, we might wonder what is it like for her to be the VP’s top assistant at XYZ Corporation. How does she perceive her role in the planning of the charity event? Is her office behavior more about being shy and introverted? Does she have difficulty in creating work friendships?
All of these questions at least invite Tracy to consider that Sasha may have certain reasons for her behavior. It is obvious that Sasha must have strengths as she is the top assistant. Hopefully such an exploration will allow Tracy to let go of some of her reactions towards Sasha and to begin to see other possibilities.
Through self-awareness, thoughtful exploration, stretching to understand Sasha’s perspective and exploring her contributions, Tracy will have a good jump start for the road back to rebuilding the relationship with Sasha. With a commitment to this process, I am hopeful that Tracy will be able to effectively work with Sasha on the upcoming charity event — and who knows? — these two may even develop a far better working relationship.
Bio: Sandra A. Lopez is a Licensed Clinical Social Worker with a clinical and consulting practice in the Houston area. She also serves as Clinical Associate Professor at the University of Houston Graduate College of Social Work.
Reference: “Conscious Use of Self”, Reframing Change, Chapter 6.
Tracy’s scenario is just so typical of what any one of us might encounter. Clearly as she shares her feelings with her partner, we can see that Tracy has become frustrated, stressed, and is even experiencing some sense of helplessness in knowing how to make the situation better. Like many of us in these kinds of predicaments, she has formed negative assumptions about her co-worker. Given the current status of her relationship with Sasha, she raises a good question in wondering how she will survive the stress of working on this charity event.
How do we work through these challenging interpersonal conflicts when they happen? Tracy can relieve a great deal of her stress in this working relationship by consciously using herself to more effectively manage the situation.
I want Tracy to know that there is hope for improving her relationship with Sasha. I want to first invite her to sit, talk, and share what she’s feeling without any judgment. It can be helpful to simply talk things out with someone you trust and who will listen attentively. Perhaps in Tracy’s exploration of thoughts and feelings, she might hit upon something that gives her insight into these circumstances. Once Tracy has had this opportunity, I want to suggest she turn up the volume on her self-awareness — she obviously is having a pretty serious reaction to Sasha.
Why is this Tracy? She has allowed Sasha’s behavior to influence how she acts and this can potentially undermine Tracy being herself.
She could benefit from identifying her emotions and understanding how her actions and words are being influenced by her reactions to Sasha. In our conversation with Tracy we can help her to see where things went wrong and even support her in getting the emotional attachments out of the way. It might be helpful for Tracy to talk about when did this first start and when did she first notice that she was having a reaction to Sasha. This step is all about helping Tracy to stop and to take stock in what is happening in these interactions with Sasha. Having had similar experiences myself, I know that once we go into a place of being triggered by these emotions, it is so easy to lose sight of the real issues.
I want Tracy to see that she is making assumptions about Sasha that may be inaccurate. She thinks Sasha has a superior attitude and that she believes she is better because she is on the executive team. Do we know this to be true? Or, is this more about Tracy’s perception of Sasha?
Tracy also is beginning to participate in a detrimental behavior by aligning with another employee in making disparaging remarks about Sasha. Comments about Sasha having 9 cats and no husband are demeaning and can hurt the relationship building process.
I want Tracy to put herself into Sasha’s shoes. What is it like to be the VP’s Top assistant at XYZ Corporation? What about Sasha’s part in the charity event? She seems invested in the event as she volunteered to help. Could there be other reasons why she is not engaging with Tracy? Could she be shy or introverted? Could she be intimidated by Tracy’s outgoing personality? Does she feel pressure to project a serious demeanor at work because she fears she might lose her job? We really don’t know, do we? If we make an effort to understand the other person, it can prevent us from making those inaccurate assumptions, and ultimately free us from some of the frustration and stress.
Two last points I want Tracy to consider. First, it is far more productive for her to focus on identifying her part in the poor interactions with Sasha as opposed to blaming Sasha for everything and viewing herself (Tracy) as the victim. It takes sincere reflections to realize that when we react we often aren’t thinking clearly in that moment—we are all about “feeling” and “reacting”.
Although many of us have been raised in having the good guy bad-guy mentality, we don’t have to view it this way. It takes courage to be willing to look at one’s contributions into a nasty situation. If we can remind ourselves that it takes two to “dance” in a relationship, we can move towards some beginning sense of understanding of the other person.
So when we put ourselves into Sasha’s shoes, we might wonder what is it like for her to be the VP’s top assistant at XYZ Corporation. How does she perceive her role in the planning of the charity event? Is her office behavior more about being shy and introverted? Does she have difficulty in creating work friendships?
All of these questions at least invite Tracy to consider that Sasha may have certain reasons for her behavior. It is obvious that Sasha must have strengths as she is the top assistant. Hopefully such an exploration will allow Tracy to let go of some of her reactions towards Sasha and to begin to see other possibilities.
Through self-awareness, thoughtful exploration, stretching to understand Sasha’s perspective and exploring her contributions, Tracy will have a good jump start for the road back to rebuilding the relationship with Sasha. With a commitment to this process, I am hopeful that Tracy will be able to effectively work with Sasha on the upcoming charity event — and who knows? — these two may even develop a far better working relationship.
Bio: Sandra A. Lopez is a Licensed Clinical Social Worker with a clinical and consulting practice in the Houston area. She also serves as Clinical Associate Professor at the University of Houston Graduate College of Social Work.
Preface: Workplace Undercover will be a recurring segment of this blog, featuring a workplace scenario and a response by a guest consultant. The scenario below was written by Eillen Bui, our research associate. In the next post, Sandra Lopez, Clinical Associate Professor at the University of Houston Graduate College of Social Work, will respond.
Tracy walked through the front door of her workplace and passed the desk of her VP’s top assistant. Sasha looked up from her computer but did not even acknowledge Tracy. She just went back to what she was doing earlier.
When Tracy first started working at XYZ Corp., she would always smile and greet Sasha but stopped after a few weeks. Sasha would only acknowledge her with a slight nod of her head and continue working. Tracy didn’t feel as though she should make an effort to keep being friendly to Sasha if Sasha wasn’t even trying to be cordial. Read the rest of this entry
Preface: Workplace Undercover will be a recurring segment of this blog, featuring a workplace scenario and a response by a guest consultant. The scenario below was written by Eillen Bui, our research associate. Mary Harlan of Harlan Consulting is guest consultant for this scenario.
————————————————————————————————————————————————
The scenario: Thomas just began working at XYZ Corporation and still had not met everyone who worked there. Today he decided to eat in the cafeteria instead of bringing his own lunch and sitting alone in his office. He spotted Michelle, someone that he had spoken to briefly the other day and decided to go over to say hi. Michelle was sitting with a group of her friends and they seemed to be in a deep conversation. As soon as he got near though, the group at the table suddenly became quiet and no one would even look up at him.
Thomas felt uncomfortable so he passed by the table without even acknowledging Michelle. At first he felt saddened by the fact that his new coworkers were being unfriendly to him but then he became angry. “Why are all Asian girls so stuck up and rude?” he thought. Read the rest of this entry
