Ed Batista

The Power of AND

We tend to underestimate the power and significance of an easily overlooked word: AND.

When we have two contrasting messages to deliver, one positive and the other negative, we often begin with the positive and conclude with the negative, linking them by saying "but":

I'd love to see you, but I'm so busy right now.

When we do this we send a subtle but distinct signal suggesting that the negative message is more important or more true than the positive, and the impact of the positive message on the recipient is diminished or cancelled out. This poses a particular dilemma for leaders, who often have a complex mix of positive and negative feedback for their employees:

I know you're trying hard, but it's not enough.

I love working with you, but we can't tolerate mistakes like that.

I care about you as a colleague, but I'm I'm really frustrated with you right now.

These messages can fail to have the desired impact because all that's heard is the second idea:

It's not enough.

We can't tolerate mistakes like that.

I'm really frustrated with you right now.

in some relationships, some organizations, and some cultures such bluntness is expected. [1] But even in those settings leaders can underestimate the impact of their language at a given moment [2] and its potential to be perceived as threatening. [3,4]

A simple remedy is to substitute "and" for "but" when we're looking to convey a complex message that includes both positive and negative elements:

I know you're trying hard, and it's not enough.

I love working with you, and we can't tolerate mistakes like that.

I care about you as a colleague, and I'm I'm really frustrated with you right now.

This suggestion isn't foolproof, of course--people may still miss the positive message and focus on the negative. [5] Nor should it be followed in a rigid or inflexible way--sometimes we do want people to focus exclusively on our negative feedback, and any attempt to soften its impact would be unhelpful.

And yet In my work with leaders and in my own experience, I've seen how this formulation can allow us to deliver a very tough message with empathy and compassion. I was recently reminded of this by Douglas Merrill, CEO of ZestFinance, who told me that earlier in his career a CEO he reported to called him into a board meeting after a high-stakes failure, and said, "I love you, and that can't ever happen again." The impact on Douglas? He felt an even stronger sense of loyalty and commitment.

 

---

Footnotes

[1] Erin Meyer on Culture and Communication

[2] The Blue Problem (Communication and Power)

[3] Neuroscience, Leadership and David Rock's SCARF Model

[4] Intent vs. Impact (When Communication Goes Awry)

[5] How to Deliver Critical Feedback

Thanks to Douglas Merrill for permission to share his story.

Updated April 2021.

Photo by Matthew McPherrin.

Skeptical About the Enterprise (Bob Dylan and Personal Integrity)

Bob Dylan just won the Nobel Prize in Literature, which, via a roundabout path, led me to Jann Wenner's 2010 interview with President Barack Obama, who had this to say about the man:

Here's what I love about Dylan: He was exactly as you'd expect he would be. He wouldn't come to the rehearsal; usually, all these guys are practicing before the set in the evening. He didn't want to take a picture with me; usually all the talent is dying to take a picture with me and Michelle before the show, but he didn't show up to that. He came in and played "The Times They Are A-Changin'." A beautiful rendition. The guy is so steeped in this stuff that he can just come up with some new arrangement, and the song sounds completely different. Finishes the song, steps off the stage--I'm sitting right in the front row--comes up, shakes my hand, sort of tips his head, gives me just a little grin, and then leaves. And that was it--then he left. That was our only interaction with him. And I thought: That's how you want Bob Dylan, right? You don't want him to be all cheesin' and grinnin' with you. You want him to be a little skeptical about the whole enterprise.

I read this last night and it actually moved me to tears--although not because I'm this huge Dylan fan. I'm aware of the role he played in the '60s, I like a number of his songs, and I respect his originality and talent, but I've never been into him the way some people are. And yet he's been so prominent during my lifetime--he released a "Greatest Hits" album the year I was born, when he was 26--that I developed an understanding of the man without ever paying that much attention to him. He was just always there in the background, a musician who mattered a lot to musicians I loved, a hero to writers and cultural figures who were heroes of mine.

But reading that quote from Obama caused me to see Dylan a little more clearly, and it had a surprisingly powerful impact on me: That's how you want Bob Dylan, right? You don't want him to be all cheesin' and grinnin' with you. You want him to be a little skeptical about the whole enterprise.

I realized that this is exactly how I'd expect Dylan to show up, because he epitomizes this attitude, which I consider a core component of personal integrity. The ability to be himself in any setting, to engage with the great and powerful without being unduly impressed, to hold himself at a slight remove without being churlish, to connect with people without cheesin' and grinnin', to participate in the enterprise without losing a sense of skepticism about it.

Dylan's certainly not the only public figure who's taught me something about personal integrity. Billie Holiday, Christopher Hitchens, David Foster Wallace, Fran Lebowitz, James Baldwin, James Brown, Joan Didion, John Waters, Kurt Vonnegut, Miles Davis, Patti Smith, Pema Chödrön, and William F. Buckley come to mind--a varied group, to be sure, but a common thread is something that I'd describe as a commitment to their individuality while remaining engaged with the world.

Maintaining our personal integrity in the face of so much pressure to do otherwise is one of the most difficult aspects of life. There's much to be gained by cheesin' and grinnin', by abandoning our skepticism, by joining the enterprise. And yet when we do we inevitably pay a price for those rewards, although the actual cost may not be readily apparent.

I'm not suggesting that Dylan or any of those others are indifferent to acclaim or immune to the universal need for acceptance. Quite the opposite, to be sure--people don't become public figures without a deep desire for appreciation. I'm also well aware that my image of "Bob Dylan" is a half-truth, a persona created by Robert Allen Zimmerman to serve many different needs of his own.

But still, this idea of Dylan--and that of the others above--remains an important inspiration to me. These are my role models, in the best sense of the term. I'm not looking to imitate them, nor do I endorse their every action or utterance. (Messrs. Brown, Buckley, Davis and Wallace are particularly problematic.) But their example motivates me to be a better version of myself, to live with integrity, to be a little skeptical of the whole enterprise.

Thanks to Richard Winters, Edward Tufte, and President Barack Obama for the guidance and inspiration.

Agile Coaching and Group Dynamics

I originally wrote this in 2012, a few years after discovering the work of Pierluigi Pugliese, who led me to the work of Jim and Michele McCarthy. It's merely an introductory reference for anyone unfamiliar with the term "agile" and its application to both software deveIopment and team coaching. Having written it, I then promptly filed it away and forgot about it until reminded today by a tweet from Christina Wodtke. Many thanks to all of them.

---

Agile Software Development

"Lightweight" software development methods evolved in the mid-1990s as a reaction against "heavyweight" methods, which were criticized as overly regulated, regimented, micromanaged and inflexible. In February 2001, 17 developers met in Utah and drafted the Manifesto for Agile Software Development, which clarified these methods:

We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it. Through this work we have come to value:

• Individuals and interactions over processes and tools.
• Working software over comprehensive documentation.
• Customer collaboration over contract negotiation.
• Responding to change over following a plan.

That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more.

Principles underlying the Agile Manifesto include:

• Welcome changing requirements, even late in development.
• Sustainable development, able to maintain a constant pace.
• Face-to-face conversation is the best form of communication (co-location).
• Projects are built around motivated individuals, who should be trusted.
• Simplicity--the art of maximizing the amount of work not done--is essential.
• Self-organizing teams.
• Regular adaptation to changing circumstances.

---

Agile Coaching

Agile development methods require intensive collaboration among team members. A set of specific interpersonal techniques have been developed to support effective collaboration, and "agile coaching" is the process of training team members in these techniques and helping teams implement them. Some agile coaches are:

Pierluigi Pugliese (@p_pugliese)

Rachel Davies (@rachelcdavies)

Jim and Michele McCarthy (@michmccarthy)

---

The Core Protocols

In particular, Jim and Michel McCarthy have developed The Core Protocols, a set of interpersonal techniques that support effective collaboration within agile teams:

The Core Commitments

• I commit to engage when present.
• To know and disclose what I want, what I think, and what I feel.
• To always seek effective help.
• To decline to offer and refuse to accept incoherent emotional transmissions.
• When I have or hear a better idea than the currently prevailing idea, I will immediately either propose it for decisive acceptance or rejection, and/or explicitly seek its improvement.
• I will personally support the best idea regardless of its source, however much I hope an even better idea may later arise, and when I have no superior alternative idea.
• I will seek to perceive more than I seek to be perceived.
• I will use teams, especially when undertaking difficult tasks.
• I will speak always and only when I believe it will improve the general results/effort ratio.
• I will offer and accept only rational, results-oriented behavior and communication.
• I will disengage from less productive situations when I cannot keep these commitments or when it is more important that I engage elsewhere.
• I will do now what must be done eventually and can effectively be done now.
• I will seek to move forward toward a particular goal, by biasing my behavior toward action.
• I will use the Core Protocols (or better) when applicable.
• I will offer and accept timely and proper use of the Protocol Check protocol without prejudice.
• I will neither harm—nor tolerate the harming of—anyone for his or her fidelity to these commitments.
• I will never do anything dumb on purpose.

The Core Protocols

• Pass (Unpass)
• Check In
• Check Out
• Ask For Help
• Protocol Check
• Intention Check
• Decider
• Resolution
• Personal Alignment
• Investigate

Example:

Check In: Use Check In to begin meetings or anytime an individual or group Check In would add more value to the current team interactions.

Steps

Speaker says "I feel [one or more of MAD, SAD, GLAD, AFRAID]." Speaker may provide a brief explanation. Or if others have already checked in, the speaker may say "I pass." (See the Pass protocol.) Speaker says "I’m in." This signifies that Speaker intends to behave according to the Core Commitments. Listeners respond, "Welcome."

Commitments

State feelings without qualification. State feelings only as they pertain to yourself. Be silent during another's Check In. Do not refer to another's Check In disclosures without explicitly granted permission from him or her.

Notes

In the context of the Core Protocols, all emotions are expressed through combinations of MAD, SAD, GLAD, or AFRAID. For example, “excited” may be a combination of GLAD and AFRAID. Check In as deeply as possible. Checking in with two or more emotions is the norm. The depth of a group's Check In translates directly to the quality of the group’s results.

Do not do anything to diminish your emotional state. Do not describe yourself as a "little" mad, sad, glad, or afraid or say "I’m mad, but I’m still glad."

Except in large groups, if more than one person checks in, it is recommended that all do so.

HAPPY may be substituted for GLAD, and SCARED may be substituted for AFRAID.

(The remaining protocols are discussed at length on Jim and Michele McCarthy's site.)

 

Photo by Paul Sableman.