|
Shorts: Getting Traction
|
Andrea Corney
|
Jan 28, 2002 10:44 PST
|
Welcome to the January 2002 issue of Management Shorts
Written by Andrea Corney (ACor-@acorn-od.com)
Published by Acorn Consulting (www.acorn-od.com)
This is an opt-in newsletter. If you'd like to receive future issues, you
must subscribe.
To subscribe, send a blank e-mail to shorts-s-@topica.com
Unsubscribe instructions are at the end of every newsletter.
To read back issues, go to http://www.topica.com/lists/shorts/read
***********************************
IN THIS ISSUE
1. BONUS: White Paper on Getting Traction
2. MANAGEMENT SHORT: Untangling a Complex Issue
3. FOR THOSE WHO WANT MORE: Resources on Conflict
4. GETTING STARTED: Untangling a Current Issue
**********
1. BONUS: White Paper on Getting Traction
I often describe my work as "helping clients get traction". I realize that’s
a bit abstract and have written a white paper that describes what I mean in
very concrete terms:
"Getting Traction: How Management Teams Can Spend Less Time Spinning & More
Time Getting Things Done"
This paper gives an overview of what causes spinning as well as listing some
very practical things that managers can do, without hiring a consultant, to
reduce the spin factor and help their teams be more productive.
"Getting Traction" is available in .pdf format as a free download from my web
site at:
www.acorn-od.com/news.html#paper
**********
2. MANAGEMENT SHORT: Untangling a Complex Issue
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 month’s Management Short 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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
**********
3. 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.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140157352/acornconsulti-20">Getting
to Yes: Negotiating Agreement...</A>
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.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385472560/acornconsulti-20">The Fifth
Discipline Fieldbook :...</A>
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
**********
4. 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.
**********
Please forward this newsletter to colleagues and friends who are tired of
spinning and would like to get traction on a sticky issue.
As always I welcome your feedback on this newsletter.
**********
Warm regards,
Andrea
**********
About Management Shorts
**********
Management Shorts is a free monthly newsletter on strategic planning,
leadership, management and teamwork. Each issue brings you a short and
practical tool or idea that you can put into practice immediately.
Copyright 2002, Acorn Consulting
Forward this newsletter to friends and colleagues. You may reprint this
newsletter in whole or quote with attribution to Andrea Corney and Acorn
Consulting.
Back issues are available at http://www.topica.com/lists/shorts/read
To subscribe: send a blank e-mail to shorts-s-@topica.com
To unsubscribe: send a blank e-mail to shorts-un-@topica.com
**********
About Acorn Consulting
**********
Acorn Consulting works with management teams that are struggling to get
traction on strategic planning and other complex issues. To learn more about
our services visit our web site at www.acorn-od.com
Acorn Consulting
"From Strategy to Execution: Helping Management Teams Get Traction on the
Critical Issues"
www.acorn-od.com
in-@acorn-od.com
(650) 329-8923
|
|
 |
|
