|
Shorts: Have a "Good Fight"
|
Andrea Corney
|
Apr 05, 2002 14:47 PST
|
Welcome to the April 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.
To subscribe, send a blank e-mail to shorts-s-@topica.com
(Subscribing is a "double opt-in" process. Topica will send a confirming
e-mail to which you must reply.)
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. INTRO: Looking for a "Good Fight"
2. MANAGEMENT SHORT: "How Management Teams Can Have a Good Fight"
3. FOR THOSE WHO WANT MORE: HBR Article
4. FINAL THOUGHTS: Founding Teams
**********
1. INTRO: Looking for a "Good Fight"
Most management teams are faced with complex issues that have no obvious
right answer. Intellectually we all know that healthy debate is a good thing
in this situation, and yet a "good fight" is often hard to find. There are
plenty of teams that are characterized by rancorous, interpersonal conflict
and, on the other end of the spectrum, even more teams where there is false
harmony and a tendency for people to hold back their opinions in favor of
being nice.
Research shows that the quality of decisions increases with the presence of
open dissent, EVEN WHEN THE DISSENTER IS WRONG. The process of working
through concerns and objections deepens everyone's thinking.
So how do we get people to speak up with dissenting views without tipping
over into the destructive form of interpersonal conflict? This month's
Management Short is a summary of an excellent article from Harvard Business
Review (HBR) called "How Management Teams Can Have a Good Fight" by Kathleen
M. Eisenhardt, Jean L. Kahwajy, and L.J. Bourgeois III.
**********
2. MANAGEMENT SHORT: "How Management Teams Can Have a Good Fight"
The article focuses on research done on high tech management teams and the
level of conflict involved in making strategic decisions. The authors looked
at teams that were able to vigorously debate the strategic issues without
damaging working relationships and compared them with other teams that were
characterized by high levels of animosity and politicking.
What made the difference between the two types of teams? The authors
identify 6 key tactics used by all of the teams that were able to keep
interpersonal conflict to a minimum.
1. Focus on Data
These teams gathered as much objective data as possible on both internal
operations and the external environment. The more facts the better. In the
absence of objective and current data, teams can waste time arguing about
opinions (and how stupid the other person is for holding that crazy opinion).
Opinions are much more personal than objective data.
2. Generate Multiple Alternatives
The usual approach is to focus on two alternatives, but this approach tends
to polarize the discussion. Multiple options allow more exploration of the
gray areas, allow people to shift position without losing face, and lead to
more creative solutions that integrate key points of the various
alternatives. The best teams force themselves to generate more alternatives
even when there may be only two obvious solutions - the effort to generate
more options leads to deeper thinking on the issue.
3. Create Common Goals
Teams need common goals that they can rally around. If the high level goals
is one that will benefit them all, then the argument is focused on the best
way to reach that goal. When executives see themselves as collaborating on a
shared goal, they are more likely to listen openly to differing views on the
best way to reach that goal. Teams without a shared goal tended to read
personal agendas into each other's views.
4. Use Humor
Humor goes a long way in creating a collaborative and optimistic atmosphere.
Many teams use humor as a way to relieve tension as well as a means to
deliver negative messages in a tactful and face saving way.
5. Balance the Power Structure
Most people will accept decisions they disagree with if they feel the process
was fair. For senior executives fairness is seen as an opportunity to have
input that is seriously considered. Another aspect of fairness is a belief
that the ultimate decision is driven by facts and good analysis, not by
personality and politicking.
A balanced power structure is one in which all members of the team wield
substantial power. The CEO is usually the most powerful member of the team,
but is not an autocrat who centralizes power into his own hands. High levels
of interpersonal conflict are found on teams with autocratic leaders as well
as on teams with very weak leaders. The teams with the lowest levels of
interpersonal conflict were the ones in which all members participated in the
important decisions. Members of those teams often described the CEO as a
"team player".
6. Seek Consensus with Qualification
All of the teams that were effective at handling conflict put significant
effort into reaching consensus, but did not force consensus. If the full
group couldn't come to agreement, the CEO or the most relevant executive
would make the decision with input from the group. This approach meets the
goal of perceived fairness described above, without needlessly delaying
decisions.
All of these tactics help shift the focus toward business goals and away from
personalities. They create an atmosphere of openness where people can hear
differing views and change their minds without losing face.
My one quibble with this article is that it seems to imply that interpersonal
conflict is just a by-product of poor problem solving processes rather than a
legitimate source of contention. As useful as the 6 tactics may be, they
won't help when people have clashing work styles.
**********
3. FOR THOSE WHO WANT MORE: HBR Article
This well written article is filled with concrete examples to illustrate the
6 tactics as well as a discussion of ways to encourage open debate on
strategic issues.
"How Management Teams Can Have a Good Fight", Harvard Business Review,
July-August 1997, Reprint No. 97402
Author(s): Kathleen M. Eisenhardt ; Jean L. Kahwajy ; L.J. Bourgeois
The full article can be downloaded in Adobe Acrobat format from the Harvard
Business School Publishing web site. Use the link below.
http://www.hbsp.harvard.edu/hbsp/prod_detail.asp?97402
**********
4. FINAL THOUGHTS: Founding Teams
A few weeks ago I attended a panel sponsored by the Software Development
Forum and Stanford Graduate School of Business. The panel was called
"Founding Teams: What Makes Them and What Breaks Them". The 4 panelists, 3
founders and a start-up consultant, had a lively and engaging discussion
about the dynamics of founding teams.
The big take away for me in this discussion was the importance of open
conversations from the start about expectations and roles. Talk early and
often - if you can't raise touchy issues at the start, why do you think you
can be successful starting a company together?
The consultant also outlined what she saw as the key issues that tend to sink
a founding team. They are:
* Different work styles (Do it perfectly vs. do it fast; Lots of analysis vs.
quick decisions, etc.)
* A pre-existing relationship that gets in the way
* Lack of trust about each other's intentions
* Lack of a shared vision of where the company is going as well as a shared
vision of how to build the company
* Lack of agreement on the business plan - how to build the business
* Lack of clarity on roles
In my own experience most of these problems flare up when the founders lack
the skill to talk about contentious issues. I'll be addressing this skill in
future newsletters. For those of you who can't wait, I highly recommend
"Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most" by Douglas
Stone, Bruce Patton and Sheila Heen. You can find it on Amazon using the
link below.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/014028852X/acornconsulti-20
**********
Wishing you all lots of "good" fights.
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
Feel free to 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
Look for the confirmation e-mail from Topica to complete the subscription
process.
To unsubscribe: send a blank e-mail to
shorts-un-@topica.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
|
|
 |
|
