TAKING YOUR SIDE

A recent thread on our Authentic Conversations Facebook page addressed one of the conversations skills that people really struggle with. It began with this statement posted by Jamie:

“Here's a thought: Taking the other person's side demonstrates understanding and is the heart of collaboration.”

The first response to this posting came from a long-time, dear friend — a skilled and seasoned organization development consultant. He wrote:

 

“Hey Jamie. I have another thought. Listening to the other person's side is at the heart of collaboration. Not taking their side. Especially when you don't agree. If you take their side and don't agree you are just being in pretense! Just another thought!”

He raises one of the most common push backs that we hear when we talk with others about this concept. Our friend is right — if  ‘taking the other person’s side’ is done as a technique for winning the argument or getting your way, the pretense is the same as any other form of manipulation.

Here is why in the book and in our work we advocate stating — out loud — the other person’s point of view during a conversation:  

• To deepen your understanding of their point of view, whether you agree with it or not


• To demonstrate you are listening (you can't accurately restate if you didn't really hear it)


• To give them the opportunity to feel truly understood

Doing this gives their point of the view the same validity as yours, and it doesn’t mean you have to agree with it. After taking their side you can then state say something like, "I have a different point of view that I’d like to share.” Or, "Here are some distinctions I want to draw."

Why are people reluctant to take the other side? It usually boils down to fears that doing so will:

• Give your point of view more power than mine


• Validate your position in a way that will keep my argument from prevailing


• Lead to a conclusion that I actually do agree with you

These concerns have to do with wanting to win or be right, which are stone-cold barriers to collaboration. We suggest that if you feel strongly about prevailing, just state that upfront along with the rationale for your position. This way your intentions are clear.
 
Collaboration means caring as much about the good of the whole as I do about winning my position. Taking the other side is a powerful way to be collaborative in the moment.
 
Want to join our Facebook conversation? Check it out, we'd love to have your participation!

JOB CRAFTING AT 2 A.M.

Jamie often tells the story of the month in 1986 that he spent living in the Ronald McDonald House at Children’s Hospital in Detroit when his baby daughter, JR, was having up to 15 seizures a day. He is quick to credit the doctors and nurses for the excellent care they provided, but he remembers having an epiphany at 2 a.m., when adrenaline rushes and fear kept sleep away.

In June of 1985, JR had a 40-minute seizure after a DPT shot and incurred a permanent brain injury. Much of the “patient care” his daughter had received in the eight months since was delivered by the often “invisible” hospital workers — the lab technicians, the candy stripers, the environmental service workers, the kitchen staff, the nurses aides, the social workers. At 2 a.m., when he couldn’t find a diaper or something else he needed for JR, it was often the guy sweeping the hall or the woman cleaning the bathrooms that went out of their way to help him. They would bring what he needed to JR’s room, and then stay to chat with Jamie in a way that eased his mind for awhile.

Clearly this had a positive effect on Jamie and his family’s experience, but he remembers that these acts of service brought pleasure to the workers as well. And they happened every day. It is a beautiful example of job crafting, which is a relatively recent addition to the workplace vernacular. Although the term has been around for more than a decade, it appeared on our radar several times in the last several weeks. An article in Time magazine created a buzz in the blogosphere, including a couple by one of our favorite bloggers, CV Harquail on Authentic Organizations. She wrote about the phenomenon here and here. The latter post included the Pink Glove Dance video, which has been seen by more than 13,500 people in YouTube. When we saw the video, it reminded Jamie of his experience watching over JR so many years ago, and the people at the hospital who crafted their way into his heart.

POSITIVELY HiGH-PERFORMING

We have learned that if you can personally commit to:

• Seeing others as free to choose and accountable for outcomes


• Using language for disclosure and engagement


• Choosing accountability for the success of the whole


• Forgoing compliance for consent and commitment


• Grieving and letting go when necessary

And you conduct yourself by:

• Sharing your point of view truthfully and with goodwill


• Taking the other’s person side


• Owning your contribution to a difficult situation


• Framing choices for yourself and others


• Acknowledging doubt, concern and failure

Then you will be having authentic conversations that build highly effective teams, organizations and communities in which we can believe. We believe and teach this,  and our experience has proven the effectiveness of this strategy. Recently discovered a 1999 study by Marcial Losada, cited in the Nov. 20, 2009 Ottawa Business Journal by Craig Dowden, that supports our experience. Team performance was assessed on three metrics: profitability, client satisfaction and 360-feedback scores. Dr. Losada examined the “interpersonal dynamics” (conversations) and coded statements by the meeting participants as positive (content of the message was supportive, encouraging or appreciative) or negative (content of the message conveyed disapproval, sarcasm or cynicism). For the highest performing teams the ratio of positive to negative statements was 5.6:1 and for the lowest the ratio was 0.36:1 (3 negatives for each positive).

Dr. Losada found  “ . . . the single most important factor in predicting strong team performance was the ratio of positive to negative statements,” says Dr. Dowden. By using advanced analysis techniques, he also was able to show that positive communication (conversation) patterns caused the high performance – not the other way around.

Positive statements are not code for insincere platitudes, nor does it mean that it’s unacceptable to raise difficult issues. You can be positive by focusing on the content of the conversations, managing yourself using the commitments and conversational skills listed above, and choosing for goodwill — even when things get tense. The commitments and skills of authentic conversations allow any of us to engage issues directly while being respectful and empathetic to each other. And that is the foundational step for building high-performing teams.

A CONVERSATION THAT IS ALL WRITE

As I contemplated a career change a few years ago, I figured the writing and editing  I had done as a newspaper journalist would be valued transferable skills no matter where I landed. As a consultant, teacher, author and blogger, they have come in handy almost every day. But I had an insight about these skills while working with clients last week — the rules of good writing can apply to managing authentic conversations as well.
 
Writers are often advised to consider their stories through these three lenses:

• Who cares?


• Show me, don’t tell me


• Less is more

Who cares?
In conversations about how people will work together, it’s important to let them know why they should care about what you have to offer. How does what you offer connect to the results they care about and those needed by the enterprise? It’s not enough to talk about what you bring to the table unless it’s something that will fulfill the others’ needs and wants. How will what you offer help someone improve their results?
 
Show me, don’t tell me.
Being specific about what you want from a coworker or client is essential to good consulting and building effective working relationships. When you say you want to develop a strong partnership, how will you both “see it” when the partnership is working well? If it’s important to  “keep the lines of communication open” does that mean a weekly face-to-face meeting or daily briefings via email? When you say you will be “responsive,” does that mean returning emails and phone calls within the working day or within 24 hours? Use your words to paint a detailed picture of the ideal scenario.
 
Less is more.
Talking more than is necessary can be a distracting and time-wasting trap. Preparing for conversations will help, especially in a high-stress, high-stakes circumstance. Before you talk, get clear about a few essential points to be made, and practice stating them succinctly. Remember that silence can be your friend — don’t be in a rush to fill it.

IF YOU LEAD, WILL I FOLLOW?

Do you have conversations at work about being a good “follower”? And if you do, what does being a good follower mean? That you take orders well? That you do what you’re told, even if it doesn’t make sense to you? Or is good “followership” seen as part of everyone's general responsibility for building a successful business?

The question has been on my mind as a result of a class I am taking as part of my graduate studies. We read an HBR article by Robert E. Kelley that began with an anecdote about a department head in a large bank undergoing a reorganization. He was slammed with tan unwieldy workload, so he delegated the responsibility for his own department’s reorganization to the workers. He gave them parameters, but made it clear that they would be responsible to each other for outcomes such as job descriptions, criteria for acceptable performance, planning for operations etc.

The employees did a bang up job in record time with almost no supervision from senior leaders, and bank officials were “amazed.” In the article, Kelley asserted that this group of employees “went where most departments could only have gone under the hands-on guidance of an effective leader.” I felt a little sad when I read that, because I’m not at all amazed that the employees came through. And I found it disheartening that Kelley would see that as exceptional when it could — and should — be the rule.

In my experience, the assumption that workers would be hopeless lost without constant "hands-on guidance" is common, and it’s a problem. Even the subtitle of Kelley's article  "Not all corporate success is due to leadership" damns the workers with faint praise. It speaks to the low expectations many leaders have of the capable, accountable people they have hired. What is the cost of that view to the organization?

What if we began seeing followership as a way to take accountability for the good of the whole? What if the true value of "followership" came from employees who understand the vision of the enterprise, have clarity around what is expected, have the skills they need to manage interdependencies and serve customers, and a willingness to be accountable for the whole? What if they were encouraged to continuously challenge the common wisdom and practices?

A book by our friend Ira Chaleff, The Courageous Follower (Berrett-Koehler), asserts “it is not realistic to erase all distinctions between leaders and followers.”  Chaleff alleges that "powerful socialization” continues to serve bureaucracies by teaching and reinforcing obedience rather than critical thinking and thoughtful action. He contends that both leaders and followers must center their actions on purpose and shared values. He outlines five dimensions of courageous followership:

• Assume responsibility


• Serve


• Challenge


• Participate in transformation


• Take moral action

"Courageous followers remain fully accountable for their actions while relinquishing some autonomy and conceding certain authority to a leader," Chaleff writes. "A central dichotomy of courageous followership is the need to energetically perform two opposite roles: implementer and challenger of the leader’s ideas."

Developing "good followers" wouldn’t negate the need for leaders, but it would surely lessen their burdens.