Six Steps for Global Realignment

Three colleagues in the corporate cosmos pummelled my ears this past week  (thank you for sharing, I said.)   From 3 different industries, from 3 people not acquainted, from 3 management situations.  Yet they all shared one huge but subtle and all too common problem.  It may have happened to you today.  Here are their stories;  ID the problem if you can:

Scenario One :

Geoffrey, owner of a small precision machining business, telephoned to say that Sue, his 12 months separated wife, was once again doing something that was "obviously just to get me angry."  Judging from what I could  hear, Sue was doing it very well. Again.

This time, frothed Geoffrey,  she was sending Stevie, aged 5, to the very school he (The Father) had made quite clear, in the numerous discussions on the topic, was not the best schooling option for his #1 son.  The choice was all so straight forward.  They discussed it and Sue agreed on Smiths Private; how come she now says Stevie must go to Jones State?   How could she do this to Stevie?  "How could she do this to me?"

Scenario Two :

Brenda was chatting between morsels of her power-lunch  (grilled skinless chicken sprouts rocket pepper no salt tahini lofat cottage cheese on rye spring water no ice decaf skinny cap I've got only 35 minutes, said in one breathless rush to a dumbstruck waiter who, standing there immobilised,  then said: What?).   

"How could Bill be so blind?  He saw the accounts from the last quarter with my sales figures at least 6% higher than Jack's, and I brought in far more hot client leads than Jennifer ever has in her whole sales career at Wheelers."

Bill, it seems, was sending Jack  "for the second year in a row" off to the annual industry sales conference in the Whitsundays (to die for) even though Bill knew how desperately Brenda wanted and deserved to go.  Jennifer agreed with Bill that Jack should go again.  "How could they do this to me?" wailed Brenda.

Scenario Three:

The third situation appears more complex, so requires more backgrounding.  Gordon runs a small go-get-em training consultancy gaining a huge reputation for innovative and effective approaches to client training and development needs.

Although Gordon puts together a different team of men and women consultants for each client project, his core team members are 2 women and 1 man.

Together, they cover an exciting breadth of corporate philosophies, management skills, and industry knowledge.  They have been working successfully as a dynamic team for over 4 years.

Jan. the most lateral of Gordon's 3 offsiders, surprisingly rang to ask for some "professional" time to discuss her "career plans and options." Wo, I thought, what's going down with the team?   I found out a few days later from Jan.  Indirectly.

Most successful contract professionals or consultants look for a career change only when there is dissatisfaction with the career they are in. Regardless of what anyone says, rarely is greater material or power rewards the deep down reason for someone to consider other career options.

Jan's dissatisfaction with her present scene took a while to creep into the discussion, and then only obliquely.

The team was "still beaut, lots of mutual support and enrichment." Gordon leads the team with a consistent participatory group-decision approach where all ideas are discussed and appropriate strategies emerge.  The team considers all options and sets out the plan of action of who will do what on each project.

Ongoing clients are happy and all sorts of new clients continue to pop up with ever new challenges needing new solutions.  Good stimulating stuff.  Jan is offered more contracts than she could possibly take on.

I think to myself: if everything that happens is OK, then the problem must be what is not happening.  Something is missing.  But if Jan wants something else to happen on the job, why doesn't she just get on and make it happen?

The hardest subject to focus on is What We Do Not Know.  How do you see anything in a black hole?  Looking for something that you know is not there is usually not a useful activity - unless you are an Irish poet/philosopher and then it can be called a vocation (as useful as my sense of humour, eh Paddy?!).

If you are having a difficult time discovering what is causing dissatisfaction, it is often useful to stop thinking about the current situation and think instead of a perfect future.  Make up an answer for the question:  What would you do tomorrow if you had unlimited resources and could not fail?

Your answer will highlight your most important values, skills, and desirable professional  direction.  Your passion.

Jan's "fantasy future" included:  more personal writing, creating ways for clients to explore their workplace concerns, developing techniques to encourage clients to express what is really happening rather than what the organisation wants to happen or chooses to think is happening, and so on.

All these "wish list" items had one feature in common: all were about creative expression, ways for better more honest communication, ways for communicating the full picture of people interaction. Jan obviously was not getting this in her current teamwork.  Why not?

Let's look at how the team operates.

The team under Gordon's nurturing discusses everything and decides together what will be done.  Jan says she suggests the team tries out more creative techniques, different methods for clients to explore their organisational issues.

The team agrees it is a good iidea and is something the team should think about.  But somehow the team never really incorporates any of this "experimental stuff" (as Gordon puts it) into the proposals to the clients.

Why are Jan's ideas being passed over by the team?  "If they think it makes sense, why aren't we doing any of it?" protests Jan.

Three scenarios, three people, one problem.   Have you noticed how Geoffrey,  Brenda, and Jan all ask a similar question :   Why is something happening that does not seem logical?  That does not make sense?  That does not seem fair?

It is not as if the issues are hidden or not talked about.  Geoffrey and Sue discuss almost daily what is best for young Stevie. 

Brenda, Bill and Jennifer (and maybe even Jack) are still discussing why Jack should or should not be selected for the conference.  

Jan raises her ideas for discussion at every team meeting.  Gordon along with everyone else present, chats about likely opportunities and the positive aspects of her iideas at each discussion.

The people involved in all three situations not only discuss the issue but also agree!   "Yes Geoffrey " says Sue, "Bluegum Private does seem a sensible choice but I still think Stevie would be better off at Mulga State school."

"Yes Brenda" says Bill, "you have brought in more sales than Jack and have more good client prospects than Jennifer.  You have worked very hard and more than achieved our goals.  But I still think Jack is the person to go to the conference."

"Yes Jan" says Gordon and the team, "those ideas to explore different communication techniques with each client sound really good and we will give them a go.  We should talk about them more.  Right now, we will continue to use the tried and true ways we always use with our clients.  They seem to do the trick, don't they?"

Have you ever been in a similar situation where you discuss an idea, everyone concerned agrees it seems fine - yeah, great -  and then when the go or no-go decision is made, the red light comes on?

Remember how frustrated, disappointed, and possibly angry you felt?

Their decision just did not make sense!   Inexplicable!   Stupid even!

Why did they agree it was a good idea but refuse to put it into action?

Because they THOUGHT it was a good iidea but they FELT differently.  The logical, practical, tangible rational part of their mind is able to see all the good logical points about your idea and can say: Yup, looks like it would be a winner.

The feeling, sensitive, fearing, emotional part of their mind is not at all concerned about the logic of the idea.  The emotions are concerned about fear, risk, potential pain, likely hurt, embarrassment,  low esteem.

The primary task of your emotional mind is to protect.  The "logic" of our emotional mind, for most of us, is to weigh up risks, assess possible sources of pain, watch out for threats, and to decide in response to fears more than to pleasures.  This is maintaining the status quo: if I risk I may get hurt, and possibly badly; if I do nothing, at least I know what happens and I can handle it.

The logical mind engages in discussion.   The emotional mind engages in feelings.  Discussions are logical and clarify the options for the decisions.  Decision-making weighs up the logical options, then determines which is emotionally the safest and that is the decision.  Decisions are ultimately emotional.

Sorry guys, you are probably right now logically denying what you have just read.  Your reasoning, if it is rejection, is actually an emotional response based more on emotional (protective) reasoning than logical reasoning.   The more you protest, the more emotionally based is your response.

For many of our most successful business men, the idea of functioning on emotional logic is very threatening indeed.  So deny it, dismiss it, immediately if not sooner!

Getting back to Geoffrey, Brenda and Jan.  These three very competent, successful business executives were each discussing their concern from a very rational thinking point of view.  And it all made sense.  Everyone could see that it did.  Everyone agreed.

Then the decision was made.  Whammo!   Struck down by the emotionally protective maintain-the status-quo middle-of-the-road no-gain-but-no-pain SAFE decision. 

So Geoffrey, Brenda, Jan, and you, re-engage discussion on the decision.  All the logical points are gone over again.  Slowly.  Same characters, same plot, same result.  So you try again. You talk more clearly, more concisely, more logically, even more slowly, and possibly a wee bit more loudly.   Result: same decision.  More frustration.

Geoffrey is talking from a world of logic.  Sue is talking from a world of emotion.  Brenda is talking from a world of logic.  Bill is talking from a world of emotion. Jan, logic; Gordon et al, emotion.

There is, in fact, no DISCUSSION occurring.  Geoffrey, Sue, Brenda, Bill, Jan, and Gordon is each engaged in a monologue.  Talking by oneself.   No-one's listening to what is really being said because the meanings of the words are as different as Paul Keating's to Pearl Jam's.

That is why everyone can agree when speaking from the same world - the logical world in these 3 situations, but agreement occurs if everyone speaks from the emotional world, too.

Disagreement occurs when someone switches operating world, such as Sue, Bill and Gordon leaping into their emotional world to make and then defend their decision.  And there are Geoffrey, Brenda, and Jan left in the logic world scratching their logical minds saying :  whaaaat?

Of course what then happens is that G, B & J have their emotional buttons pressed and The Great Undebate is on.  Headbutting from two different playing fields, two games, different rules.  Stupid.

What can G B & J, and you do when you recognise yourself in this predicament  -  an emotional logic behind an unfavourable decision?

Six Steps for Global Realignment,  or: Whose Sandbox are We Playing In ?

1. Stop trying to change the decision-maker's mind with logical arguments.  You are talking to yourself.  (Stand in front of a mirror and say it;  you'll feel better, maybe get a better response and certainly not a worse one, and you may end up smiling at the gorgeous person looking back at you whose yellow and blue paisley tie really does look quite dashing with the maroon striped shirt...) 
2. Try to squizzie out for yourself what their emotional logic is.  What is fearful, threatening, likely to cause pain, diminish their esteem, etc.  If you can get a handle on this, you can talk their sandbox rules.  If you can't really grasp what the emotional fear is, then politely express your disappointment at their decision and WALK AWAY.  Throwing sand in their face may make you feel better at the time, but does not help change the decision and in fact sours the relationship for all future games.  You may never be invited into their sandbox again. You may not be invited to their birthday bash at Jumpin Johnny's Virtual Pizza Plaza...
3. When you have some sense of the real reason for the decision, the emotional-fear based one, then say to yourself:  If I felt like that, what would help me see it differently?  What would reduce or eliminate that fear?  What would make it safe for me to decide the other way?
4. If you come up with some answers, DO them.  Do what you can to get rid of or disempower their boogie-monster. Nothing is too small, too obvious, or too childish when we are idealing with an emotional fear. If they are afraid of the dark, turn the silly light on!
   
   If they are afraid the change may lead to failure which will lead to self criticism, low esteem, etc, they take the full visible responsibility for the outcome.  Or guarantee a successful outcome.  Or promise to do something that will guarantee sun shining on them regardless of the outcome.  Etc.  If you want a different decision than the one they are comfortable with, it is up to you to make them comfortable.
5. Be realistic about the degree to which you can influence someone else's fears.  You really must respect that they have spent 30 to 50 years working on and perfecting those fears.  We are talking DFs (Designer Fears) here.  Nurtured, one-owner, pampered, first class fears.  Fears that are owned, accepted, lived with, even cherished. Those fears are protection and have allowed survival.
   
   If you or anyone else comes along saying:  "Hey, chuck out those old DFs man and play my way" you will need some amazingly superzot foolproof emotional guarantees for them doing so.  Not many of these around any more.  So do not expect them to remove their fear-base and revert back to a logical decision base.
6. If unsuccessful at realigning their world to yours, you can always move into theirs (See end of #2 above) and release your frustration with a good knockdown tantrum.  Or you could let them know that while you cannot feel exactly what they do about the situation, you do respect their feelings and their right to operate from them.  (Then drop a magnet on their floppy.  Just joking.)

So Geoffrey, stop hitting your wife with logic, recognise that she is wounded, hurting, and in her pain wants to hurt and wound back.  Stevie is an obvious weapon.  Disarmament probably means refusing to go to war for awhile.  No discussion, no battlefield.  Wait for some of the wounds to heal, the anger to subside.  Of course it's not fair.  We are talking feelings, not scales of justice.

Brenda, either ascertain Bill's fear at you conferencing rather than Jack and negate the likelihood of the feared outcomes, or come up with another plan.  Such as going with Jack (offer to pay half your costs, tell yourself its an investment in your future) and on your return you will organise a special meeting with selected clients to fill them in on the latest gumpf picked up at the conference and why Bill can say how great everyone is, especially himself.

(No, you are not to tell your clients why the competitor's Chairman is suing the hotel for defamation after a balloon effigy  - looking remarkably like him - burst over the swimming pool and thousands of black&white photos of someone looking like him skinny-dipping floated down into the pool and although everyone knows Jack and you were nowhere near the pool at the time, you were seen with a helium gas bottle earlier that day...)

Jan, as long as you continue to discuss your ideas, your ideas will be discussed.  Decide what changes you want to occur, what try-outs you want to try, what innovations you want to pilot, then tell the group how you plan to do them.  Each innovation must fit in with their plans, and must not need their personal involvement (it's not safe for them, remember).  But basically,  DO IT. 

Behave more honestly to your way of being, be more creative, be more lateral, change how you do things with the team.  Prove to them by showing them that what you are on about works for everyone and everyone wins.  Nothing negates fear like knowing; knowing best happens through doing. 

But they still have the right to be safe and therefore possibly not shift.  If you let their fears stop you from creating winning moves, they are not responsible.  You are doing it to yourself.

Whatever world you are operating from at this moment, enjoy the place and space.  Enjoy operating from your other worlds, too.  As a cyberhead signed off the Net the other day:   Life - an interesting if brief interlude.

printer friendly version   |   Tell a Friend

© Annimac Consultants 2005 • Updated 13-Sep-2005
Terms of Use • by Doig Web Tech