Tag Archives: skilled facilitator approach

When it comes to consulting your staff

Developing as a leader, , ,

Years ago I was involved in a project to audit the leadership “bench strength” of a company in the process of de-merger.  The company’s CEO was anxious about the capability of his senior leadership team – it seemed to him that whenever he asked them for ideas at meetings they were slow to contribute.  Interviewing members of his leadership team it became clear why.  To a man (they were all men) the people we interviewed told us how it was always the CEO’s ideas that prevailed – why put forward ideas that will only ever be dismissed?

Whether it was the quality of the leaders’ ideas that were wanting or the CEO’s willingness to explore the ideas of others, this story tells us something about the challenges of consulting our staff.  Daniel Goleman, in his book The New Leaders:  Transforming The Art Of Leadership Into The Science Of Results, highlights the democratic leadership style as one of several that builds resonance amongst employees which, in turn, leads to improved business outcomes.  At the same time, if you plan to consult your employees, you need to think carefully ahead of time.

Here are a few thoughts from me about when and how to consult:

  •  If a decision is urgent, highly critical for the organisation or if your employees lack the skills or knowledge to add value, think carefully before consulting them.  Used well, the democratic style builds commitment to a course of action but, used badly, it can also undermine it.   You need to ask for their input when you’re open to new ideas and have time to explore their input with them and to reach an agreement with them that works for everyone involved;
  • Do what you can to get clear ahead of time about why you want to consult staff and frame your questions to support your desired outcomes.  There’s a big difference, for example, between saying “let’s think about how we can save money” and “we’ve been charged with saving £3 million pounds and  I’d like to work with you to find ways to do this that maintain high levels of service to our customer and improve the efficiency of our processes”.  This is about both clarity and honesty – the more you are clear up front about your aims, the more likely you are to build trust as well as getting the input you need;
  • If you’re going to consult staff, it helps to have in place ground rules for handling the ideas that come up.  De Bono’s Six Thinking Hats provide one framework for brainstorming ideas.  I am, as you may already know, a fan of Roger Schwarz’s ground rules for effective groups – outlined in his book The Skilled Facilitator Approach.  In particular, take care to differentiate between interests and strategies – a strategy is a means to an end and the interest is the end itself.  Exploring how suggestions will contribute to an end result is one way to ensure that ideas are seen to be heard whether or not they are adopted;
  • Be clear ahead of time about how inputs will be used.  If the decision rests with you, then say so.  If it will be made at a more senior levels, then say so.  If you’d like the team to decide, then say so too – and agree up front how a decision will be made.  In this way, you support a positive experience of the democratic style;
  • Think about consulting staff on a regular basis as a way of building their skills and yours.  If your team is new to this style, you might like to start with a light touch – asking them for ideas, for example, about a non-business critical decision that you will make yourself.  Over time, your use of the democratic style will develop the skills of your staff and shape them as a team.  Ultimately, your team should be visible to your boss and to your boss’s peers and seniors as a highly effective team with plenty of ideas to offer to the organisation.  Even so…
  • Start where you are now.  Hold your team with compassion if this kind of consultation is new to them.  Take it one step at a time and use your judgement in deciding when and how to consult.
I’d like to hear about your experiences of consulting or of being consulted.  Please share the good, the bad and the ugly by posting your comment below.

The dance of honesty – being honest with others

Developing as a leader, Emotional Intelligence, , , ,

It’s taken me a while to get to this posting, in which I want to explore what it takes to be honest to others.  Having written three postings on what I’m calling the dance of honesty I am aware that this is a vast subject – I shall touch it lightly today.

Let’s do this together.  Take a moment to think of something you’d like to share with someone at home or at work – something you’d like to share but hesitate to mention.  Notice what you feel when you think about sharing it.  Perhaps it’s irritation because you feel the other person “ought to know”.  Perhaps you feel concerned when you think the other person might be hurt or anxious when you think they might be offended.  It is these feelings and the thoughts that sit behind them that are holding you back.

Having checked in with your feelings, notice the thoughts that accompany them.  Often, when we hesitate to share some truth, it is because we have a sense that there’s some risk involved.  Perhaps there is a risk – you might know, for example, how critical your boss is of anyone who doesn’t share his view.  (I once worked with a leadership team who all told me how they’d stopped sharing ideas with their boss because his ideas always prevailed.  The boss thought his team had no creativity at all).  Perhaps your thoughts echo some old theme in your life, usually from childhood – you always feel anxious about sharing your feelings or expressing an alternative point of view.

This difference – between some objectively identifiable risk and some old fear is important.  If it’s the latter, it may be especially important that you start to take steps which will help you to differentiate between situations you faced way back when and what is true in the here and now.  (That’s a whole other posting in itself).  Either way, though, telling the truth depends on your willingness to face consequences that are – as yet – unknown.  So, right now, thinking about the thing you have not yet said, just notice how willing you are to face unknown outcomes.  It isn’t always easy.

It may not be wise.  Before you speak your truth, you may like to ask yourself, what outcome am I hoping for?  Let’s take the example above – your boss is pursuing a proposal you think is bad for your organisation.  At the same time, you know he’s slow to take on board the ideas of others.  You may have more influence over the outcomes if you take time to think through how best to convey your ideas so that he will hear you.  Perhaps you need to address his main concerns when you share your views – showing, for example, how another strategy may be more effective in boosting sales or reducing staffing costs.  Perhaps you need to speak quietly with others to whom he might listen more willingly – his most trusted colleagues in the business.

If you do decide to speak with him directly, you could do worse than follow some simple guidelines – which I combine from a number of sources (including Marshall Rosenberg’s Nonviolent Communication:  A Language for Life and Roger Schwarz’s The Skilled Facilitator):

  • Build and maintain connection – especially when you’re sharing something difficult for both parties, it’s important to remember to build and maintain rapport.  You can do this in many different ways – by checking in (“how is this landing with you?”), by gently mirroring body language and tone of voice, by seeking to understand what’s important to him or her.  Begin by holding the intention to connect and remind yourself of this intention if things get tough;
  • Focus on interests, not positions – be clear on what needs you want to meet by being honest and be open to the needs of others.  Do what you can to share your own needs and to hear and understand the needs of the other person.  Then you can explore strategies – a path of action – that meets everyone’s needs;
  • Share observations and avoid judgements – you’ll make it easier for the other person to hear you if you share relevant information in the form of observations (“when you said ‘X…'”) rather than presenting your conclusions as the truth.  This might include sharing your thoughts and feelings as observations – there’s a big difference between saying “You’re getting this completely wrong” and saying “I’m telling myself that you’re getting this completely wrong and that makes me feel anxious”;
  • Make clear requests – be clear what response you want and ask for it.  Be ready, too, to accept a “no”.  Equally, be ready to receive requests from the person you are talking with and be ready to say “yes” or “no”.
Whether you are speaking honestly at work or in your private life you may or may not get to an outcome that meets your needs well.  Being honest, though, helps you to test what’s possible.  It may open up a far better outcome than you expected – or provide information that tells your needs won’t be met in the way you hoped.  This, too, opens up the opportunity to explore alternative ways to meet your needs.
I wonder, how does this land with you?

The dance of honesty – being honest with yourself

Developing as a leader, Emotional Intelligence, , ,

In recent days I have been writing about honesty and its opposite – lying, deception, call it what you will.  I recognise in this subject a double bind:  it’s hard work to maintain a lie, it’s hard work to be honest.

Today, I thought I’d say a few words about what it takes to be honest with ourselves.  What immediately springs up for me is compassion.  The more we judge ourselves, the more likely we are to be dishonest with ourselves.  You think you have to be a fully formed Director from the minute you step into the role?  It’s going to be hard for you to be honest about areas in which you don’t yet have the skills you need.  You think you have to be good at managing people?  You may find it hard to own how hopeless you feel when you try to address performance problems in your team – the easy way out is to blame your under-performers.  You think the delays in progress towards your targets are unacceptable?  You could end up blaming all the external factors that have a bearing on results and lose sight of any power you have to make a difference.

At the same time, compassion does not equate to zero accountability – paradoxically, I’ve often found the opposite is true.  If we can show ourselves a level of self-acceptance and compassion, we are often better able to take action.  To take an example from above, if you know you are new to the role of Director and you accept that you will have some learning to do, you will find it better to take action to identify those areas in which you need to learn and to seek out your learning.

One of the most powerful forms of self honesty is the kind of honesty that comes when we attend to our own actions and inner dialogue.  Roger Schwarz, author of The Skilled Facilitator, calls this your “left hand column”.  Here’s an example from one leader from a meeting in which he is practising for the first time attending to his left hand column:

“John puts forward his ideas and I immediately hear judgements in my head.  ‘Here we go again… we’ve been through this a million times and John still doesn’t get it!’  I can feel my temperature rising and my face is getting more red.  I notice that John  has said several things that I haven’t heard because I’m already thinking about how I want to respond.  For the first time, I take a pause before responding – letting him finish.  I feel something new – something I haven’t felt before – humble or embarrassed or something… because for the first time I recognise that I’m not listening.  I always thought the problem was with John and now I realise that I am part of the problem…”

Are you ready for this kind of self-honesty?  Are you ready to be the observer of your own inner dialogue?  Here’s an exercise for you in case you are:

  • Take time alone – thirty minutes or so – with a pen and paper or your notebook or computer;
  • Take a moment to identify a time when you were in your flow – a time when things were going well for you and you were at your best.  Spend ten minutes making notes on your inner dialogue during that time.  Try to capture as much information as you can – about your thoughts, your feelings.  One way to do this is to have separate columns on your piece of paper (a) for what you said and did, (b) for any actions by others, and (c) for your inner dialogue;
  • After ten minutes stop and take a two minute break.  After your break, do the same thing again but this time for a time when things weren’t working for you.  Go through the same process, noting everything you can remember about the event.  Stop writing after ten minutes and take a two minute break;
  • In the remaining six minutes, make notes about your inner dialogue.  Notice what parts of your inner dialogue contributed to your success.  Notice what parts of your inner dialogue contributed to any problems you experienced.  Notice any inner dialogue you have in response to your new insights;
  • Before you finish, take a moment to acknowledge yourself for the work you’ve done and for your self-honesty in the process.

  

Working as a team to handle objections

Developing as a leader, Emotional Intelligence, ,

Recently, I wrote a posting about handling objections, in which I pointed to a number of resources that are available to the leader who is learning to handle objections in negotiations.  I also asked colleagues about their experiences and fielded an interesting example from someone who, like me, is interested in what Roger Schwarz calls a ‘mutual learning approach’.

Using this approach an objection is not taken as some kind of tactic to achieve the best outcome for the person raising the objection.  Rather, it’s seen as a statement of genuine concern.  By understanding the concern that sits beneath the objection, the person negotiating can think about whether he (or she) can adjust his approach in order to meet the needs of the person objecting, whilst still meeting his own needs.  This is negotiation with the aim of creating outcomes which meet everyone’s needs – a “win, win” outcome.

My colleague’s example speaks for itself so, with his permission, I share it here:

Recently, I had an experience that may be relevant.  When I work with clients I use a charge sheet for different services with different rates for non-profits and for commercial organisations.  I show this to clients on the first business development meeting and I am transparent on how I come to the figures and engage in discussions about the costs and numbers involved.


In a recent discussion with a client there was an objection to the amount listed in the invoices.  I kept the discussion open through my choice of questions.  Originally I didn’t understand his needs with regards the objection.  I also had a need that I didn’t want to have to manage a unique costing structure for this client and potentially for every client.


Exploring the need to modify the amount listed on the invoices, I learned it related to the charge rates of another consultant who happens to be the former MD within my client’s company.  My rates were considerably higher.  Now that was a potentially embarrassing, risky situation!  I can remember the slight glow in my cheeks as I realise the comparison and how my client explained that “Head Office” would see these rates.


In exploring the rates using the mutual learning style, we were able to accommodate and resolve this issue through increasing the transparency of the documentation to show the time I spent on planning and documentation.


I was genuinely trying to be transparent, curious about the client’s needs.  I explained my reasoning, understanding that we both had information that was different – me and my client.  We were doing our best to be mutual learners.

Handling objections

Emotional Intelligence, , ,

It’s price negotiations time.  The prospect of handling sensitive discussions is looming and so is the question:  how do I handle objections from my clients?  In truth, your current and long-standing clients can be the ones who are getting the best deal as a result of your long history of agreeing an increase that doesn’t quite work for you.  So where do you go from here?

It’s easy to come to these discussions seeking to dismiss your clients’ objections – even seeing your clients’ concerns as “objections” stimulates a certain way of thinking.  I wonder, how are you viewing the possibility that your client might express concerns?  What does the word “objection” evoke in you?  And then there’s the question of your underlying philosophy as you approach your discussions.  I particularly raise this question because for many people, this lies outside their conscious awareness:  what beliefs are your bringing to your discussions of which you are not even aware?

Personally, I favour approaches which come from the desire for everyone to come away a winner – this will come as no surprise to regular readers of my blog, who know how much I favour Marshall Rosenberg’s Nonviolent Communication and Roger Schwarz’s Skilled Facilitator Approach.  You can find out more about Rosenberg’s approach by browsing the website for the Center for Nonviolent Communication or reading his book Nonviolent Communication:  A Language for Life.  Equally, you can root around on Roger Schwarz’s website, sign up for his newsletter, buy articles, or his book The Skilled Facilitator Approach.

But what about handling objections?  Amongst my fellow students of Schwarz’s Skilled Facilitator Approach some point to the books that spring from what’s known as the Harvard Project:  William Ury’s Getting Past No:  Negotiating Your Way from Confrontation to Cooperation, Roger Fisher and William Ury’s Getting To Yes:  Negotiating An Agreement Without Giving In and Bruce Patton, Douglas Stone and Sheila Heen’s Difficult Conversations:  How To Discuss What Matters Most.

Others recommend the VitalSmarts series which includes Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan and Al Switzler’s Crucial Conversations:  Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High, and by the same authors Crucial Confrontations:  Tools for Talking About Broken Promises, Violated Expectations, and Bad Behaviour and Influencer:  The Power to Change Anything.

I also wonder about Neil Rackham’s SPIN Selling, recognising that this gives an overall framework in which to view objections – and recognising that many other authors and thinkers have tackled this same subject.

I wonder, in what situations do you handle objections and what resources (books, ways of thinking etc.) have you found most helpful?

Real conversations: creating ground rules for effective communication

All articles, , ,

Recently, I wrote a posting for Discuss HR on communication, identifying a number of elements which, together, comprise our approach to communication.  In this posting I expand on what I wrote for Discuss HR, writing about some of the areas in which we can set ground rules for communication.

The more you can translate your aspirations into ground rules for effective communication, the more you can implement an approach in line with your chosen paradigm. A number of disciplines and approaches have chosen to do this and some of them have in common areas in which they set ground rules.

One of these areas, for example, is building and maintaining connection – rapport.  Ian McDermott, author and co-author of many books on NLP, including Way of NLP, sees rapport as one of the four pillars of success.  For him, rapport (with ourselves, with others) is not just about communication, it’s also about our success in the broadest sense.  Marshall Rosenberg, in the field of nonviolent communication (NVC) emphasises maintaining connection as a priority in communication.  Rosenberg’s invitation to connect first and only then to correct, reminds us that it’s hard for others to hear what we have to say if they do not, first, feel a sense of connection with us.  By adopting this as a rule, you remind yourself (and others) that communication is about building and maintaining relationships first. Any other outcomes depend on your relationship with others in the moment.

Another rule which is reflected in a number of different approaches to communication is, in the words of Roger Schwarz (author of The Skilled Facilitator Approach) to focus on interests, not positions.  Marshall Rosenberg puts the same point another way, inviting people to see beyond the immediate message to the needs that underpin the message.  This rule is at the core of approaches to negotiation and mediation.  It also has value in our every day communication – with ourselves, as well as with each other.

It seems to me that any additional rules are in support of these two rules and that these two rules imply a particular paradigm – one in which the emphasis is on a “win, win” approach to communication.  This is an approach in which everyone’s needs matter and power is shared – a “power with” rather than a “power over” paradigm of communication.  The rules for communication may be ones we adopt ourselves, no matter what the approach of others.  Perhaps they are rules we jointly agree to observe in a particular relationship or context.  Either way, they are designed to make it more likely that our communication will be effective.

Roger Schwarz, in his Skilled Facilitator Approach, offers a number of rules which pre-empt some of the most common communication problems. He invites people to test their assumptions and inferences, for example, and also to explain their reasoning and intent. Looking back on my own communication with John, whom I mentioned in my first posting in this series, I can see that I could have done more to make my own intentions crystal clear and that this, in turn, might have made a misunderstanding less likely.

Marshall Rosenberg, in his book Nonviolent Communication:  A Language for Life, distills a needs-based approach into four simple steps.  He invites us to replace the language of judging with clear observations (step one).  Acording to this rule, for example, we might replace a conclusion (“you’re always late at your desk in the morning”) with a precisely observed statement (“I have seen you arrive after 9am, which is your official start time, two or three times each week for the last six weeks or more.  As a result, I’m starting to think of you as someone who is always late for work”).  His is also a heart-based approach, so that he invites us to share our feelings (step two) as well as our needs (step three) or to seek to connect with the feelings and needs of others.  Only then do we make a clear and specific request (step four) such as “Would you be willing to tell me what you are hearing so that I can know how clearly I’ve expressed myself?”

I sometimes wonder if our investment in improving our communications skills – our personal skills or those of a whole organisation – are predicated on the idea that improved skills make for greater ease in the communications process.  I would add that, for me, this is one area when the opposite is also true.  Effective approaches to communication can make it easier, for example, to discuss the undiscussable.  They can make it clearer where the source of a misunderstanding lies.  At the same time, communication depends on the willing participation of everyone involved and is limited by our own – and others’ – current level of skill.

Take John, for example, whom I wrote about in my first blog of this series.  As I write, I experience both needs met and needs unmet in relation to our correspondence.  John has chosen to withdraw from the group of which we were both members as a way to improve his management of his time. He’s also chosen not to have any of the discussions which might help to rebuild our sense of connection. And me? I am ready – pleased – to support John in doing what’s right for him and in this way to meet my need for contribution.  I have also invited him to join me in the kind of dialogue that repairs relationships – a request to which he has so far not responded.  I feel sad that when I think that a number of needs – for connection, for example, and for respect and consideration – are not currently being met.  At the same time, I’m trusting he’ll do that …when he’s ready.

Real conversations – choosing values that support your chosen communication paradigm

Developing as a leader, Emotional Intelligence, , ,
On Friday, building on my recent article for Discuss HR, I talked about the need to stand close to the fire in the conversations we hold with others.  It is the most difficult conversations, in my view, that test our way of communicating with others.  In this article, I explore some of the values that underpin an approach to communication in which power is shared – what Roger Schwarz, in his book The Skilled Facilitator Approach:  A Comprehensive Resource for Consultants, Facilitators, Managers, Trainers and Coaches calls a mutual learning approach.

Especially when the communication going gets tough – when we address issues that are in some way difficult or sensitive for one or more of the parties involved – we need to root our communication in values that facilitate effective communication.  We may seek to do this as a matter of organisational policy, promoting values across the whole of our organisation.  We may simply choose values for our own communication, knowing that even where certain values are espoused (in organisations, in communities, in families and so on), we do not, ultimately, have control over the choices of others.

One of the most important values, in my view, that underpins the ability to hold real conversations, is compassion.  I view this as the willingness to hold oneself and others as human and to accept everything that this involves.  When I think of John, for example, whom I mentioned in the first blog posting of this series, I am guessing that my e-mail triggered strong emotions in him – what Goleman calls an amygdala hijack.  It was from this place that he responded.  This can be a bit like getting drunk at the office party.  You did it.  Everyone involved knows you did it.  You wish you hadn’t done it.  You all have the choice to ignore it and pretend it didn’t happen, though this is not without consequences over time.  At the same time, restoring trust requires being able to speak about what happened in ways which honour everyone’s needs.  These include needs which are deeply human, such as John’s need for dignity and my own need for empathy as the recipient of John’s e-mail.  Sharing these needs can stimulate feelings of vulnerability unless we have a shared value of compassion.

There is a paradox inherent in holding the value of compassion.  Strip away compassion and it’s hard to hold people – yourself and others – accountable.  For without compassion the message becomes “it’s not OK for you to be this way” or even “because you have been this way, you are not OK”.  Compassion facilitates a value of accountability by saying, I will be present to you and to whatever is alive in you, and I will accept you as you are – and still, I will hold you as capable of taking responsibility for your actions just as I, too, commit to take responsibility for mine.

I have recently experienced this in my own life, having made multiple requests of someone close to me to talk about some behaviours that I have not enjoyed over an extended period of time.  Each time, my request has been met with a “no” and, since I believe in free choice and would not wish to force her to the table, I have had to come to a decision in which I hold myself accountable for meeting my needs.  Am I meeting my needs by choosing to be around someone who behaves, consistently, in ways which do not meet my needs?  No.  Equally, in reaching the decision to spend less time with this person, and to share my reasons with her, I am holding her as capable of making her own decisions (choosing her behaviour towards me, choosing whether or not to discuss our difficulties with the aim of building understanding) and of living with the consequences of her own choices.  It has been important, too, to hold us both in my heart with compassion following this decision.

Roger Schwarz also offers a value of informed choice.  By the time I make a decision like the one I describe above, I expect to have had a number of interactions such that I know certain things for sure and could, with reasonable confidence, infer a number of others.  The value of informed choice invites us to gather and test information before taking decisions.  In your own life, for example, you may be gathering information from a number of conversations about your prospects for promotion – do you have political sponsorship, for example, or is it becoming clear that – no matter your capability and levels of high performance – you are unlikely to be chosen for the role to which you aspire?

The value of informed choice implies asking questions.  For this reason, Schwarz offers a value of curiosity.  Curiosity implies testing assumptions by asking questions and this, in turn, implies a level of self accountability.  To put it another way, curiosity implies testing the mental maps we hold in the world against the territory itself.  This is not only about the “facts” of a case (what the profits in x, y, z region actually are, for example) but also about our views of other people.  If ever you have held a view of another’s hidden motive, for example, without testing it out, you have not exercised the kind of curiosity to which Schwarz refers.

This in turn leads us to a value of transparency – sharing openly and honestly information that you have including information about your own thoughts and feelings.  Transparency is essential in collaborative relationships, since decision-making depends on information and information is shared when we are open, honest and transparent.

Our values are highly significant in our communication with others.  At the same time, it is not only our values that supply the hidden fuel for our personal approach to communication.  Our ability to hold real conversations also depends on holding beliefs that support us.  This is my next area of exploration.

Real conversations – choosing the focus of your communication

Developing as a leader, Emotional Intelligence, , , ,
On Monday, I wrote about two fundamentally different paradigms of communication, drawing on the work of McGregor, Schwarz, Rosenberg and Goleman and expanding on an article I recently wrote for Discuss HR.  Today, I continue this series of postings by discussing the focus of each communication paradigm.

Two different paradigms of communication.  Two different sets of underlying values and assumptions, strategies for execution and ultimate outcomes.  If you want to adopt either one of these approaches, you need to know how the underlying values and assumptions translate into practice.  One area in which the difference is starkly visible, in my experience, is in the focus of attention adopted by users of each approach.

Let’s begin with McGregor’s Theory X;  what Roger Schwarz (in his book The Skilled Facilitator:  A Comprehensive Resource For Consultants, Facilitators, Managers, Trainers, and Coaches) calls a Unilateral Control Model and Rosenberg calls a domination approach.  The aim of the user is to win and not to lose and the user is not concerned about the experience of others.  Implicit in this approach is the belief that there is a single right answer and that all other answers are wrong.  It follows, then, that the user of a domination-based approach to communication will tend to focus on who or what is right or wrong and to gather data which supports the case.  He or she will often favour some kinds of data and dismiss other kinds of data though there may be some internal inconsistency here.  For example, the user of this approach tends to favour objective data and dismiss data concerned with the feelings of others.  At the same time, he or she may take the view that his or or her feelings are justified, especially when they are concerned with judgements about the other person or people.

Marshall Rosenberg, in his book Nonviolent Communication:  A Language of Life, identifies judgements as a key area of focus for the user of this unilateral, domination approach.  This is not about discernment, for the user of this approach often lacks the ability to discern, conflating his or her beliefs, for example, with the facts and confusing observations with conclusions.  Rather, it is about being judgemental.  This is true even when the person concerned is giving positive feedback, which is given in the form of praise and which implies that it is the giver of praise who is the ultimate arbiter of what is right and what is wrong.  In this sense, the emphasis is on what the communicator thinks and believes.

In making the case for a particular approach, the user of the domination approach is likely both to emphasise the use of data and to be keen to control its use.  This might include avoiding scrutiny of his or her own data and ignoring or dismissing data which does not support his or her particular way of thinking or forward path.  Parties to communication become opponents, seeking to prevail, galvanising their arguments in order to win.  This approach may be explicit (in the request for a presentation to support a proposal, for example) or implicit (in the way we think about our colleagues behind the scenes).

What, then, is the focus of a Mutual Learning Model?  This is McGregor’s Theory Y – what Rosenberg calls Nonviolent Communication (or NVC).  This approach is about collaborating in order to achieve a variety of outcomes, including business and personal outcomes.  This paradigm has as its central focus desired outcomes, underpinned by needs or – to use the language of negotiation – “interests”.

What is meant by needs – or interests – in this context?  I tend to favour Rosenberg in the way he clearly differentiates needs from the strategies by which we meet them.  This is something that we often confuse.  The leader who says to a member of staff that “I need you to get that paper to me by 5pm today” is not talking about the need itself but about the strategy by which he expects it to be met.  Nor can we infer his needs directly.  Perhaps, for example, he has a meeting the following day for which he wants to prepare – but not by staying late at work and at the expense of his family.  In this case, his needs might be for connection and intimacy and he plans to meet them by spending time with his wife and family.  Perhaps, though, he knows his own job is on the line if he doesn’t get this paper to his boss in good shape by 9am the next day.  In this case, he might be trying to meet some fundamental survival needs – for food and shelter, for example – by taking action to secure his ongoing employment.

Why is this distinction important and how does it facilitate successful communication?  Because when needs are shared it becomes much easier to reconcile the irreconcilable.  Knowing that the writer of his paper can’t start her final read through until 4.30pm, for example, gives the leader the opportunity to make different arrangements.  If his concern is to spend time with his family, he might choose to take his lap-top home so that he can take delivery of the revised paper on-line or asking another colleague to check the paper whilst its author is in her meeting.  If his concern is to hold onto his job he might be more inclined to stay late to review the paper after his colleague has got it to him or even to ask her to prioritise the paper over the meeting she was planning to attend.  This is essentially a “win, win” approach:  one which aims precisely to achieve outcomes which meet the needs of everyone involved.

It follows, then, that data is seen and handled very differently.  Instead of using data to make a case, users of this second model of communication share data and test it carefully in order to build understanding and to open up new ways to achieve desired outcomes.  Data, in other words, is seen in relation to needs rather than in relation to who or what is right or wrong.


The idea that communication might seek to identify and respond to diverse needs tends to gladden the hearts of many people in the workplace.  Until, that is, they realise that holding real conversations means standing close to the fire.  I’ll be writing about this in my next posting.  Meantime, I wonder:  where are you placing your attention in your communication with yourself and others?  If you’re willing to share, please leave a comment below.

Is your team effective?

Developing as a leader,

Roger Schwarz, creator of The Skilled Facilitator Approach, writes a pithy newsletter (Fundamental Change) every couple of weeks which I enjoy reading.  His recent article, Is your team effective? prompted me to look for any conditions he places on reproducing his article.  Ah!  This is what he says:  Material from Fundamental Change may be reproduced in other electronic or print publications provided this copyright notice is included: “Copyright Roger Schwarz & Associates, 2010. All rights reserved.” and a link to http://www.schwarzassociates.com/ is included in the credits.

Without further ado here is the article I enjoyed so much:

How do you assess whether your team is effective? Is it that the team accomplishes its goals and meets its numbers? Those criteria are important, but alone they are a limited view of team effectiveness. To be effective your team has to meet three criteria1:

Your team meets or exceed the standards of people who receive and review their output, whether that output is decisions, services, or products. Of course, it’s important that a team meet its goals, including the numbers it has set as targets. But that is not sufficient. Ultimately, other people decide whether your team is performing acceptably. If you are not meeting the expectations of people who receive and review your team’s work, your team is not performing effectively.

Leaders often think that the performance criterion is the only criterion for effectiveness. Although that may be true in the short run, in the long run it is essential to meet two other criteria.

Your team works together in a way that improves its effectiveness over time. If your team isn’t improving the way it works over time, chances are it won’t be effective in the long run. You have probably been on a team that met its goals, but was so dysfunctional that you promised yourself you would never work with the same people again. These teams pay too high a price for their performance. Effective teams learn from their experiences and mistakes. They talk openly about how they need to do better as a team, develop and implement plans to do so, and then evaluate their progress.

Your team provides experiences through which team members can develop their skills and have a sense of well-being. Although team members can weather frustrating periods, the team experience overall has to be a satisfying one for team members. If the team experience doesn’t provide opportunities for members to develop their skills or if the team experience creates undue stress, boredom, or frustration, you might lose your best people, and those that stay may be only partway in the game.

Don’t short-change your team by ignoring the second and third criteria. The three criteria are interrelated; you need to meet all three for your team to really be effective.

One way people meet some of their needs for growth and well-being is to be on a team that performs well and that continues to improve how it works. If team members don’t find the team experience satisfying, they will not likely have the energy to meet performance standards or figure out how to work together better.

Teams are complex social systems; to get the most from them, you need to treat them that way.

Roger Schwarz


The life and death implications of unilateral control

Developing as a leader,

Today, I opened my intray to the monthly newsletter of Roger Schwarz and the heading: How Unilateral Control Can Kill You. Whatever your setting, this brief article highlights the life and death implications of unilateral control and I am glad to take Roger up on his permission to reproduce his article:

This is not a headline from the sensationalist tabloid National Enquirer. It is the conclusion of Dr. Peter Pronovost, an MD and a Ph.D. in hospital safety, who is medical director of the Quality and Safety Research Group at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, MD. Pronovost’s group is responsible for increasing safety and reducing iatrogenic illness and death – those caused inadvertently by physicians, surgeons or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures.

Each year, a lot of people become ill or die in hospitals not despite health care, but because of it. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in American hospitals alone, healthcare-associated infections account for an estimated 1.7 million infections and 99,000 associated deaths each year.

So, what does this have to do with unilateral control? It turns out that some of these infections and deaths can easily be prevented, but unilateral control takes over. Pronovost says, “As at many hospitals, we had dysfunctional teamwork because of an exceedingly hierarchal culture. When confrontations occurred, the problem was rarely framed in terms of what was best for the patient. It was: ‘I’m right. I’m more senior than you. Don’t tell me what to do.’” This is the classic “I understand, you don’t; I’m right, you’re wrong” unilateral control mindset. The impact in healthcare is the same as it is anywhere: many, many people stop sharing relevant information when they are treated this way. The difference? If a nurse clams up you may die.

Take the case of doctors washing their hands. According to Pronovost, even with improving safety records, 30% of the time, doctors in hospitals were not washing their hands prior to surgery. So, at Johns Hopkins hospital, they made a number of changes, including empowering nurses to make sure the doctors washed their hands. If the doctors did not, the nurses were empowered to prevent a procedure from beginning. Initially the nurses said it wasn’t their job to monitor doctors; the doctors said that they would not allow nurses to prevent a procedure from moving forward. Yet, over four years, the hospital got their ICU infection rates down to nearly zero. What Pronovost doesn’t say is whether these medical teams changed their mindsets about hierarchy and unilateral control or used checklists and other simple structures that treated the symptoms but bypassed the fundamental causes of unilateral control.

As Pronovost points out, unilateral control also exists between doctors. Once, during a surgery, he was administering anesthesia and saw that the patient was developing the classic signs of a life threatening allergic reaction. He told the surgeon, “I think this is a latex allergy, please go change your gloves.” “It’s not!” the surgeon insisted, refusing. Pronovost responded, “Help me understand how you’re seeing this. If I’m wrong, all I am is wrong. But if you’re wrong, you’ll kill the patient.” When communication between the surgeon and him broke down, he asked the scrub nurse to phone the dean of the medical school, believing that the dean would support him. As the nurse was about to call, the surgeon cursed Pronovost and finally pulled off the latex gloves.

For most of us in organizations, the costs of unilateral control can be difficult to pinpoint. We lose time, our commitment, innovative ideas, the organization’s money, our faith in leaders, and some of our mental health. Pronovost’s work reminds us that when the stakes are high, unilateral control can cost people their lives.Click here to read the New York Times interview with Dr. Peter Prosnovost, on which my article is based.

This article is written and edited by Roger Schwarz, copyright Roger Schwarz & Associates, 2010 and all rights are reserved. You can learn more about Roger and his work and also sign up to his monthly newsletter at http://www.schwarzassociates.com/ .