Overcoming disagreements

You just heard a suggestion. Or someone gave you advice. No matter how ridiculous it was, delay response till you understand the following:

• What is the person really saying? Reflect back and paraphrase as needed.
  
• What are the positives that you can take away?
• Is there anything that was said that you do not understand?
• Will you be able to repeat what was said to you?
  

What will happen if you completely eliminate the notion of 'agree' and 'disagree'? What if those words did not exist?

Then all we will be left with is the outcomes we are trying to reach and the recognition of the need to collaborate in meeting them.

Problems that exist versus problems we create

Many problems (or opportunities) already existed before we were born. Because they are tough complex issues, no one has been able to solve them or a lasting solution has not been found.

For example, political rivalries between countries that sometimes result in war, economic poverty, diminishing resources, economic cycles, pace of change and impact on culture and lifestyle. At a micro level, in an organization, some examples are: incentives to drive drive behavior, lack of capabilities, dysfunctional behavior and poor management practices.

Other problems are created by us when we become part of the system. These are driven by the decisions we take or the decisions we support. The problems grow or shrink due to our actions. Things get worse when unintended consequences are either ignored or suppressed (defensive behavior) or we are completely unaware it happened.

For starters, develop leadership skills by observing and understanding the difference between the above for your situation. This will help you take a stand and communicate and interact appropriately with your audience. It will help you build credibility and coalitions and be a role model.

Above all, avoid becoming part of the problem by becoming cynical about problems you did not create and shirking your responsibility to fix the ones you did create!

Role of 'trust' in executing your strategy

'Trust' is easier to feel than to define. Problems arise when decisions are based on 'trust' without understanding why and without understanding the alternatives.

To effectively execute your strategy, focus on outcomes and define the capabilities you need. Assess the gaps in your capabilities and create a plan keeping your current realities in mind.

When you do not understand the problem, you do not understand the cause and effect relationships and have no idea how to define and implement the solution, then you have nothing else but 'trust' to go on. In such a situation you will depend on 'gut feel' and 'emotion' to take decisions.

You could observe (correctly) that even if all the above are understood, you need to 'trust' yourself, 'trust' your team mates, 'trust' your partners etc. etc. In this situation, your beliefs are based on due diligence. After a certain point, there is no choice but to hope for the best and accept that everything is not in your control.

Know when and why to 'trust'. Blind trust, driven by emotion, has been the downfall of many efforts to execute strategy.

Root cause for complexity

Cause and effect are separated by time and space. Strategy execution is all about getting the desired effect. Understanding and controlling causes are a means to an end.

In some cases the time:space gap between cause and effect is small. For example, if a discount is offered and sales go up, then the cause and effect are clear and very close to each other in time and space.

In other cases the time:space gap is large. 'Complexity' can be defined as the lack of understanding of this time:space gap:

• How big is it?
  
• Why does it exist?
  
• What can we do to control it?
  
• What will it cost to understand and control it?
  
• What are the business benefits of doing so?
• Are there any side effects of changes to the cause-effect relationship?
  

Organizations devote a lot of resources to understanding cause and effect relationships. The biggest benefit is to be able to predict and control the outcomes, not the increased revenue or reduced costs of doing business.

Powerpont versus Reality

You attend a presentation. Slick graphics, concise messaging, soothing speaker.

But something bothers you. It does not feel right. Similar such projects have failed before. This sounds too good to be true. But that is not a reason to withhold your support, so you say 'I agree' to a request to commit, but sit silently, unease increasing.

Then the fog starts to clear. There is a difference between what you heard in the meeting and what is happening in the organization. The emphasis in the meeting was more on building emotional coalition, not real problem solving. The hidden agendas were in plain sight. The elephant in the room had not showered for years but everyone was ignoring the smell because they had got used to the smell!

If you really want to make a difference, show the leadership to first define the problem, then build a coalition of your own. Getting cynical is not the answer. If the problem is worth solving, then go about doing so systematically and methodically. Focus on what you can control: your lack of skills and your unwillingness to confront that reality is contibuting to the problem.

Life is too short to be cynical and negative. If the situation is overwhelming you, find a different job, but don't be surprised if you see history repeat itself. After all, the same problems exist everywhere and you haven't really changed. At the end of the day, you can't run away from yourself.

Two (+1) Anchor Points for Decision Making

Anchor #1: Organizations have a reason for their existence as captured in their vision, mission and goals.

Anchor #2: Organizations consist of people who in turn have their personal vision, mission and goals.

Decisions are typically made in organizations using these two anchor points. Those good at influencing and 'politics' understand both of them.

Appealing to individuals to 'set aside their personal gain and focus on the greater good' is effective only when the individuals share the same value system. Therefore, this leads to the proposition of a third anchor: the value systems subscribed to by the organization and the individuals. Organizations have espoused values. In addition, individuals have values that may not be a total subset of the organization values. The individual values are visible in their behavior and may or may not be consistent with their espoused values.

Decisions that do not exploit all 3 anchor points will take longer to define, take longer to communicate, be disruptive to implement and probably not be effective.

Cultural change is hard because it requires each of the anchor points to move to a new coordinate.

A Third Mountain

In an earlier blog, we reviewed the two mountain waiting to be climbed:

• The first 'Mountain' is for you to understand concepts, problems, issues and solutions.
  
• The next 'Mountain' is to explain your understanding to others

A third mountain exists. It is to let others discover the problem and the solution for themselves. This requires leadership skills to give others the space and demonstrate patience and equanimity.

True learning comes when there is a change in behavior. While time consuming, this change rarely comes without inner realization and motivation to change. 'Explaining' or 'teaching' will work only when motivation is inspired.