When in Doubt, Leaders Camp and Explore

"Which of these rivers was the Missouri?" That was the question Meriwether Lewis wrote in his journal and discussed with William Clark in early June of 1805. Captains Lewis and Clark had been following President Jefferson's explicit orders for more than a year: "The object of your mission is to explore the Missouri River." Now they were stumped because their expedition had arrived at a fork in the river. They measured the size of the two rivers, the characteristics of the water flowing in each, and explored the terrain into which each of the rivers flowed. Still they were unsure which fork was the Missouri. Faced with ambiguity, these leaders did what all great leaders do; they camped... and explored.

Lewis wrote in his journal once again, "Captain Clark and myself concluded to set out early the next morning with a small party each, and ascend these rivers until we could perfectly satisfy ourselves. It was agreed that I should ascend the right hand fork and he the left. We agreed to go up those rivers 1 1/2 days march or further if it should appear necessary to satisfy us more fully of the point in question." (1) The rest of the expedition camped.

Captain Clark was much relieved when Captain Lewis finally arrived back in camp, two days late. The captains discussed their incomplete findings, poured over their faulty maps, and finally agreed that the South Fork was the Missouri River.

The next morning, Lewis tried to convince the men of the expedition that the South Fork was in fact, the Missouri. They didn't buy it. Every one of these seasoned veterans was convinced that the North Fork was the way to go. Lewis listened to their arguments, but did not put the matter up for vote. The captains had made their decision and were sticking with it. It turns out to have been the correct decision.

This is a story about how leaders deal with ambiguity. What do you do in the face of ambiguity? Do you need to have all the facts before moving ahead? In today's complex, rapidly changing work environment, how often do you lack the data needed to be certain of your decisions?

According to the American Management Association’s survey of 1,573 global corporations, dealing with ambiguity is essential for leadership success. (2) That's because close to 90% of the issues leaders deal with are ambiguous -- the problem is often unclear and the solution vague. Leaders who are highly skilled in dealing with ambiguity effectively manage change, deal with uncertainty well, and can shift gears easily. One way they do this is by "camping" and then exploring the terrain. How are you developing your skills in these areas to help you deal with ambiguity?

Keep eXpanding,

Dave

1. Stephen Ambrose; Undaunted Courage, Simon & Schuster, Inc., New York, New York, 1996, page 231.

2. American Management Association Report, Leading into the Future, New York, New York, 2005.

Leaders Don’t Stop the Good Fight

At a meeting yesterday in San Francisco, the leader of a not-for-profit organization was encouraging his managers to define the norms for their team meetings. One of the ideas discussed was to make sure that the meetings minimized conflict. As their consultant, I intervened by discussing the difference between cognitive and emotional conflict (as discussed in my last few blogs). I encouraged them to create norms that encouraged cognitive conflict. Listed below are a few ideas we discussed:

1. Encourage diversity. I asked the group to look around and assess the diversity of the room. You guessed it, mostly white males. I reminded them that diversity is not limited to ethnicity or gender. That it includes age, backgrounds, culture, opinions, educational and occupational experience, industry expertise... Diversity improves decision-making if team members recognize that different perspectives and open minds directed towards a common purpose produce better results. A single point of view is no way to see the world.

2. Meet regularly. Team members that know each other understand the various positions people take on certain issues. Thus, they know how to present their ideas in ways that are more compelling and acceptable to others. Frequent interaction builds the confidence that disagreements and dissent will not damage the relationship.

3. Support role variety. Ask team members to play various roles at your meetings, such as the devil's advocate, timer, stay-on-task master, creative visionary, customer advocate, or other stakeholder’s mindset... This helps everyone see all sides of an issue.

4. Treat apathy. If disagreements are resolved to quickly, you often end up with “groupthink" and subtle discontent. Leaders often mistake disengagement for consensus. So, if you see people jump to agreement too quickly, ask probing questions to make sure they are not just shutting down.

These are a few keys to help your team make better decisions by having cognitive conflict. How can you adapt them to your environment?

Keep eXpanding,

Dave

How Leaders Use Helpful Conflict – Part II

Managing conflict begins by understanding that the word "conflict" derives from the Latin word conflictus - a striking together. When two people have conflict, they can either strike together by tackling an issue together or strike together by butting heads. The problem with many teams is that they don't distinguish between helpful and hurtful conflict - cognitive from emotional conflict. As I mentioned in the previous blog, cognitive conflict arises when there are disagreements over tasks and issues. It actually helps decision-making. Emotional conflict involves personal friction, clashing styles, or relationships problems. It hurts decision-making and implementation.

In summarizing 10 years of research on "how management teams can have a good fight," Professor Eisenhardt discovered that the most successful companies used several tactics to encourage cognitive conflict and discourage affective conflict. (1) In this blog, I’ll explain the last three:

1. Gather data and focus the facts.

2. Brainstorm alternatives to enrich dialogue and debate.

3. Discuss, agree-upon, and shared common goals.

4. Inject humor in decision-making.

5. Maintain a balance of power.

6. Resolve issues without forcing consensus.

4. Inject humor in decision-making. Humor is the shock absorber of conflict. As you and your team travel down the bumpy road of work, your ride will be much smoother if you have a sense of humor. Teams that handle conflict well make the effort to relieve the tension of work with the joy of laughter. One computer manufacturer encouraged fun by playing gags around the office, starting their meetings with the joke, and dressing up for every conceivable holiday (Valentine's Day, April Fool’s Day, St. Patrick's Day, Halloween...). The executives at this company point out that despite their humor being (as opposed to human being) contrived and silly, it still accomplishes the goal of creating an environment where emotional conflict is minimized, cognitive conflict is promoted, and stress is relieved. You can't have an emotional argument with someone who has a fake arrow sticking through his head.

Science says having a sense of humor is more important than mere laughing. Researchers in Norway surveyed 54,000 people to gauge how easily they found humor in real-life situations and enjoyed being with those who had a sense of humor. (2) Seven years later, those who scored in the top quarter for humor appreciation were 35% more likely to be living than those in the bottom quarter were. Participants who had a cancer diagnosis at the beginning of the study were 75% more likely to be alive if they scored higher in the humor appreciation group. The researchers made a distinction between laughing and having a sense of humor - "a particular playful perspective on everyday life." If you want to cushion your team from the emotional bumps of conflict, invite them to brainstorm ways to make work more playFULL.

5. Maintain a balance of power. During my first summer camp at Holiday Ridge, I realized that the key to having a great summer was to have a great camp counselor. I also discovered at the tender age of ten that the best counselors “balanced power.”

My first leader was Larry -- a laissez-faire, hands off counselor. We were disorganized, late to events, performed poorly when we got there, and argued among ourselves a lot. On the other end of the spectrum, were groups led by autocratic leaders like Joel. I stayed away from those kids because they were hostile during games and picked fights in the shadows. The best leaders were like Rusty. He was organized, positive, disciplined, and involved his kids in decision-making. Although they didn't always win the games, they always seemed to have the most fun.

If you want to minimize emotional conflict, you need to manage the tension between being too controlling (like Joel) and too hands-off (like Larry). You can accomplish this by evaluating your group decision-making process. Survey your team members to see if they approve of how decisions are made. If they perceive that the process is fair, they’ll support decisions and encourage execution. If they feel the process is not fair, they’ll comply with the decision and subtly sabotage implementation. A fair decision-making process ensures that team members have:

- Defined roles, responsibilities, and authority.

- Written norms for team decision-making.

- Opportunities for their voices to be heard before the boss’s biases are aired.

6. Resolve issues without forcing consensus. On New Year’s Day, 1777 General Charles Cornwallis arrived at the British camp in Princeton, New Jersey. He was not a happy camper. George Washington and his troops had turned the tide of the American Revolution by crossing the Delaware River and attacking his troops. Cornwallis called a meeting of his generals "not to ask what should be done as Washington did, but to tell his subordinates what he meant to do." (3) Therein you have the difference between Washington and Cornwallis’ methods of resolving issues. Cornwallis made all the major decisions by himself and rejected contrary advice from his officers. Washington had an improvisational and inclusive approach to command. He met frequently with his generals and encouraged the free exchange of views. He created a community of inclusion without forcing consensus. Washington’s style worked well with America's diverse culture, less stratified society, and expanding ideas of liberty and freedom. It led to skillful collaboration and minimized emotional conflict. It will do the same for you in today's diverse, global, and competitive environment.

Of course, having too much input from too many people can bog the decision-making process down and create emotional conflict. The most effective leaders, like Washington, resolved difficult conflict by first discussing the issue and trying to reach consensus with others. If they succeed, the decision is made. If no consensus is reached, the appropriate leader makes the decision with input, but with no consensus, from the group.

These are three more keys to help your team have healthy conflict. How can you adapt them to your environment?

Keep eXpanding,

Dave

1. Kathleen Eisenhardt and colleagues; How Management Teams Can Have a Good Fight, Harvard Business Review, July -- August, 1977, 77 -- 85.

2. Ami Albernaz; He Who Laughs Lives Longest, Science and Spirit Magazine, May/June 2007, 9 -- 10.

3. David Hackett Fischer; Washington's Crossing, Oxford University Press, New York, New York, 2004, page 291.

How Leaders Use Helpful Conflict - Part I

Managing conflict begins by understanding that the word "conflict" derives from the Latin word conflīctus - a striking together. When two people have conflict, they can either strike together by tackling an issue together or strike together by butting heads. Many leaders don't distinguish between helpful and hurtful conflict - cognitive from emotional conflict. As I mentioned in yesterday’s blog, cognitive conflict arises when there are disagreements over tasks and issues. It focuses on what needs to be done and therefore, helps decision-making and project success. When team members feel free to express differences openly and challenge each other's assumptions, they identify flawed thinking, flag real weaknesses, and contribute creative ideas. Emotional conflict, often referred to as affective conflict, involves personal friction, clashing styles, or relationships problems. Because it focuses on personalities, hurts decision-making and decreases a team's willingness to collaborate during implementation.

In summarizing 10 years of research on "how management teams can have a good fight," Professor Eisenhardt discovered that the most successful companies used several tactics for managing conflict for encouraging cognitive conflict and discouraging affective conflict. (1) In this blog, I’ll explain the first three:

1. Gather data and focus the facts.

2. Brainstorm alternatives to enrich dialogue.

3. Discuss and share common goals.

4. Inject humor in decision-making.

5. Maintain a balance of power.

6. Resolve issues without forcing consensus.

1. Gather data and focus the facts. As 15 time All-Star center Shaquille O'Neal stepped to the free throw line in overtime, the announcers said, "Although Shaq is only a 50% lifetime free throw shooter; he usually makes them when it counts." I turned to my wife and said, "These announcers are idiots." That's when I explained to her that announcers have been saying that “Shaq makes free throws when it counts" for 15 years. Yet, I've never heard any statistics regarding his free-throw shooting percentage in the final minutes of games. If I was on a project team with some of these announcers and they offered only their opinions regarding Shaq's free throws (or whatever), they would drive me nuts and there would be emotional conflict.

Professor Eisenhardt points out that at one high-tech company, the top management team examined a wide variety of operating measures on a monthly, weekly, and daily basis. For example, every week they focused on bookings, backlogs, margins, engineering milestones, cash, scrap, and work-in-process. Armed with facts, conflicts were data driven, not personality clashes. If you want to minimize emotional conflict, gather data. Measurement eliminates argument.

2. Brainstorm alternatives to enrich dialogue. Leaders often want teams to make a decision and move on. This is often a mistake because it forces team members to make black-and-white choices, with little room to shift positions without losing face. Another approach is to require multiple alternatives. Consider the electronics company that faced a cash flow crisis caused by explosives growth. The CEO assigned a team of executives to look at numerous alternatives. The team explored a buffet of options, such as extending their line of credit from banks, selling stock, outsourcing, and strategic partnerships. Generating several options actually energized these executives and led to creative discussions regarding how to combine elements of each, which is what the final plan did. Commitment to the final plan was much higher because a broad spectrum of opinion was considered. Increasing involvement increases commitment, thereby facilitating implementation.

3. Discuss and share common goals. When people are pointed in the same direction, they seldom point at each other. Common goals are the rallying cry for extraordinary teams. When I was helping CDG, a Boeing subsidiary, bring their projects in on time, target and budget, one project manager asked me how to keep his team focused on the project goal during team meetings. Among other things, I suggested that he insert the project goal as the header on all project documents, including meeting agendas and minutes. I also encouraged him to start each meeting by stating the overall goal of the project.

These are three keys to helping your team have healthy conflict. How can you adapt them to your environment?

Keep eXpanding,

Dave

1. Kathleen Eisenhardt and colleagues; How Management Teams Can Have a Good Fight, Harvard Business Review, July - August, 1977, 77 - 85.

Six Tips to Help Leaders Benefit From Conflict

Randy was under pressure as the product manager for a medical supply company. His team needed to design and deliver a new bedside monitor within 12 months. Unfortunately, his design team felt that the marketing group hadn't provided the correct information, and his manufacturing colleagues were angry that the design team was taking too long to select lead wires. Project meetings began with minor disagreements about specifications, but often degenerated into personal attacks such as, "you never..." and "you don't get it." Three months into the project, Randy knew that if he didn't do something, his project and reputation were in trouble.

“The absence of conflict is not harmony, it's apathy.” (1)The problem with Randy's team wasn't that they had conflict; it was that they didn't distinguish helpful from hurtful conflict. Managing conflict begins by understanding the difference between cognitive and emotional conflict. Cognitive conflict arises when there are disagreements over tasks and issues. It focuses on what needs to be done and therefore, helps decision-making and project success. Emotional conflict, often referred to as affective conflict, occurs when the disagreements are personal or related to relationships. It focuses on personalities and therefore, hurts decision-making and project success.

In summarizing 10 years of research on "how management teams can have a good fight," Professor Eisenhardt found that successful companies apply several tactics for managing conflict. (I'll highlight these today, and discuss them more fully in subsequent blogs.) She found that effective teams:

1. Gathered more data and focused the facts.

2. Brainstormed alternatives to enrich debate.

3. Discussed, agreed-upon, and shared goals.

4. Injected humor in decision-making.

5. Maintained a balance of power.

6. Resolved issues without forcing consensus.

These six worked for Randy when I taught his team how to adapt them to their environment. How can you apply them so you too benefit from conflict? Let me know and...

Keep eXpanding,

Dave

1. Kathleen Eisenhardt and colleagues; How Management Teams Can Have a Good Fight, Harvard Business Review, July -- August, 1977, 77 -- 85.

How to Execute with Courage

He said he needed to talk with his direct reports about conflict. So Harry Stonecypher, then CEO of Boeing Corp., interrupted my training at the Boeing Leadership Center to tell his team that they needed to be more direct when dealing with difficult issues. He reminded them that high-level executives are paid to tackle tough problems, not to be overly concerned about being liked or criticized. He concluded by urging them to lead with courage, conviction and candor.

Here are several tips to help you do the same:

1. Identify your "spear-in-sand" issues. To stand up for what you believe you must be clear about what you to believe. Write the answers to questions such as, "What is most important to me? What are my highest values and ideals? What is worth fighting for?"

2. Use your tombstone as a steppingstone. Your legacy echoes through time by the actions of others. Write your own obituary to gain clarity on what to you want people to think, say, and do because of you. When you are clear about why you are here, you'll find the courage to stand up for what you believe in.

3. Start small. If you shrink from taking a stand on difficult issues, practice in small safe environments first. Speak up when friends are having a political debate. Challenge someone who cuts in line. (I recently did this at Costco and at the airport.) Disagree with colleagues at a meeting without being disagreeable.

4. Involve others. If you need to make a tough decision, invite others to the table after you have gathered data, analyzed the alternatives, and selected a few options. Ask your direct reports, peers, boss, and perhaps even your customers for their perspective. You gain the benefit of their counsel and a greater probability that they will support your final decision.

5. Respond promptly. Notice I didn't say react. A reaction seldom involves reflection. To respond promptly means letting others know that you know there is an issue, and that you are dealing with it. Communicate your goals and timing for addressing the issue, and keep key stakeholders informed with regular updates.

6. Communicate the why and how. After you have made a difficult decision, make sure others know why and how you made the decision. The “why” behind any decision is the steam behind the engine. People will be fired up to follow through if they understand why you chose a particular course of action. The "how" provides knowledge about the process you went through in making the decision. If people don't believe in the process, they won't commit to the outcome of the process. Transparency breeds loyalty.

These are a few keys to help you execute with passion and courage. Which one's will you use? Do you have others that work for you?

Keep eXpanding,

Dave

How Leaders Take Risk – Part II

By 1786 George Washington, as he surveyed the national and international scene, was convinced that the United States was reeling towards disunion. Congress failed to retaliate when British outposts in the Northwest Territories were not given over to the United States, as mandated by the terms of the peace treaty. Foreign powers refused to allow American ships in West Indies' ports. Neither the local nor national government was able to cope when the people of western Massachusetts broke out in rebellion. To save the Union... again, George Washington took another calculated risk.

Washington understood that his reputation and honor had been cemented in history by eight years of bloody battles, ending with the liberation of America from the mighty British Empire. But if he now associated himself with a government that proved unworthy or incapable of sustaining independence, he felt his sacred honor would be hammered into oblivion. As Washington calculated the risks, he concluded "the good of my country requires my reputation to be put at risk." (1) He marched off to Philadelphia (Washington, DC had yet to be built) at the invitation of the Congress, which promptly and unanimously voted him the first president of the United States. The rest is history.

As mentioned in the previous blog, Professor Kathleen Reardon, from the University of Southern California, interviewed more than 200 leaders who acted courageously. She discovered what Washington practiced - that the heart of courage in organizations is risk calculation. (1) Professor Reardon's studies show that individuals who become extraordinary business leaders make bold moves that have been thought through carefully. They take calculated risks by implementing a six-step decision-making methodology described below. This blog will share specific examples on the last three steps.

1. Clarify Goals.

2. Evaluate Goal Importance.

3. Build Support.

4. Weigh the Risks and Benefits.

5. Select the Right Time.

6. Develop Contingency Plans.

4. Weigh the risks and benefits of different approaches. The fourth step in taking calculated risks involves trade-offs. Who stands to win? Who stands to lose? What are the pros and cons of the alternatives? What is the probability that your actions will affect a promotion?

I collapsed my courage when I was a salesperson for Siemens Medical Systems. Our vice president of engineering announced a new software release and provided a preliminary list of its features and benefits at a trade show. One particular feature disturbed me greatly. They were planning to display images of the heart in a way I absolutely ‘knew’ our cardiology customers would not accept. I knew this because I just spent five years publishing and presenting research in the cardiology department At UCSD Medical Center. By the end of the meeting, I was fuming. I discussed the issue with a few of my sales colleagues and they agreed with me. However, in a private meeting with my boss, he told me that it was not my business to tell the engineers how to do their job. He also reminded me that the senior leadership in our company did not take kindly to salespeople "interfering" with product development. He was right on both counts. I chose to say nothing. The software was released, our customers rejected it, sales went into a tailspin, and I was vindicated. Or was I? Did I do the right thing?

Probably not. My courage collapsed. If I had weighed the risks and the benefits of various options, I think I would have arrived at an alternative approach. For example, I could have quietly surveyed a large number of my cardiology customers regarding their display preferences. Maybe a few sales colleagues would have agreed to survey their customers. Measurement eliminates argument. Armed with data, I could have quietly called a few of my friends in engineering and asked them the how to disseminate my findings. Had I weighed the risks and benefits, I might have been more courageous.

5. Select the right time. Courageous leaders understand that risky decisions have unique gestation periods. Sometimes quick thinking and action are needed. Other times, deliberate and thoughtful calculation is the prudent path. Ask yourself questions such as, "Why am I pursuing this now? How long would it take to become better prepared? What are the pros and cons of taking my time? Could I take a few small steps now that would lead to courageous action later? Am I emotionally and cognitively prepared to take this risk now? Do I have what it takes at this time to take this risk?” Leaders who take calculated risks successfully think about timing by answering these questions.

6. Develop contingency plans. Professor Reardon's research shows that most people only make one attempt. A knock at the door brings no answer, so they give up. Successful risktakers knock on the door, ring the doorbell, call from their cell phone, go around back, and if the goal is important enough, they sit on the front steps. In other words, they have backup plans.

I was coaching an executive to coach/mentor his managers more often. When a situation arose that demanded this executive meet with an important customer who was not pleased with his service, I encouraged the executive to coach his manager to handle the meeting. When the executive said it was too risky to let his manager lead the meeting, I asked him what backup plans might he put in place if the meeting took a bad turn. He said he could intervene by asking more questions, calling for a break, or taking over the meeting. By developing contingency plans, the executive was able to take what he considered a calculated risk.

These are the six steps commanding leaders like Washington take when they need to make risky decisions. This process helps them execute, so that they fulfill their commitments and deliver important projects and goals on time. It will do the same for you. Which ones do you need to work on?

Keep eXpanding,

Dave

1. Edmund Morgan; The Meaning of Independence, University Of Virginia Press, 1976, page 48.

2. Kathleen Reardon; Courage as a Skill, Harvard Business Review, January 2007, 58 -- 64.