« August 2022 | Main | October 2022 »

5 entries from September 2022

Sep 20, 2022

Why Some Feedback Hurts (and What To Do About It)

Vise Grips by Eric Kilby ekilby 28199866748 EDIT

1. Feedback is Data

"Feedback is a gift," or so we're told, and yet sometimes that "gift" is quite painful to receive. This is a theme in my work with leaders, who routinely find themselves the subject of sharp criticism in company surveys, 360 reports, Glassdoor reviews, and social media, among other places. My clients aren't looking for pity--as leaders they understand that negative feedback comes with the territory. But they still need to figure out how to digest this feedback and what, if anything, they should do in response.

A starting point in this process, as I've noted before, is recognizing that feedback is not a gift--it's data. [1] Calling feedback a "gift" derives from the understandable idea that it's better to have this data at our disposal than to go without it, and we should be grateful to anyone who makes the effort to provide it. But this ignores the reality that receiving feedback is often stressful, even hurtful, which can leave the recipient profoundly confused: What does it mean to receive such an unpleasant "gift"? Why am I supposed to be thankful for it? If I find feedback hurtful, am I the problem?

And as with all data, feedback is comprised of both signal and noise. Even the most hurtful feedback usually incorporates some signal--valuable information that presents you with an opportunity to learn and grow, challenging though it may be. But there is almost certainly plenty of noise--unhelpful or irrelevant information that should be ignored. The key with any painful feedback is ensuring that you don't miss the signal while filtering out the noise.

2. Why Some Feedback Hurts

The next step in this process is understanding just why some feedback hurts, and two useful frameworks are David Rock's SCARF model [2] and Douglas Stone and Sheila Heen's concept of "feedback triggers." [3] Rock, an executive coach and founder of the NeuroLeadership Institute, has identified five interpersonal dynamics--represented by the acronym SCARF--that are likely to evoke a "social threat," a form of threat response.

We evolved this constellation of physiological, emotional, and cognitive reactions, often called a "fight, flight, or freeze response," to help us defend against literal threats to our physical safety. The problem is that we often perceive interpersonal situations as threatening, and, as I've discussed previously, all of the factors represented in the SCARF model can be present in a typical feedback conversation:

Status: Feedback often comes from leaders and others who occupy a position of higher status in the relationship, but even when feedback comes from peers or subordinates, it can feel as through they're adopting a higher status role.

Certainty: You may feel uncertain about the outcome of a feedback exchange, or you may know little about its content, particularly in an organization or a relationship where feedback is rarely provided.

Autonomy: You may feel obligated to receive feedback whenever someone wants to provide it, diminishing your sense of agency or choice.

Relatedness: When someone is providing feedback you may perceive them as more socially distant, resulting in a diminished sense of personal connection.

Fairness: You may view feedback as unfair, particularly if the giver has made inaccurate assumptions about the intentions or motives underlying your actions. [4]

All of these dynamics can trigger a social threat. When we perceive people as higher status, when we experience uncertainty, when we feel less autonomy, when we feel less connected to those around us, and when we believe that something is unfair we are more likely to experience a threat response. It's no wonder that some feedback hurts.

Stone and Heen are colleagues at the Harvard Negotiation Project with extensive expertise in the challenges of interpersonal communication. One of their main premises of their work is that there are essentially three reasons--three "triggers"--that cause us to respond negatively to feedback, and they clearly correlate with elements of the SCARF model:

Truth Triggers are set off by the substance of the feedback itself--it's somehow off, unhelpful, or simply untrue. In response, we feel indignant, wronged, and exasperated...

Relationship Triggers are tripped by the particular person who is giving us this gift of feedback. All feedback is colored by the relationship between giver and receiver, and we can have reactions based on what we believe about the giver...or how we feel treated by the giver...

By contrast, Identity Triggers focus neither on the feedback nor on the person offering it. Identity triggers are all about us. Whether the feedback is right or wrong, wise or witless, something about it has caused our identity--our sense of who we are--to come undone. We feel overwhelmed, threatened, ashamed, or off-balance. [5]

When you're distressed or even hurt by critical feedback, take some comfort in knowing that such feelings are a normal and predictable response to one or more of these elements. But the fact that your response is normal doesn't mean that it's helpful, as Stone and Heen make clear:

Is there anything wrong with any of the reactions above? If the feedback is genuinely off target or the person giving it has proven untrustworthy, or we feel threatened and off balance, aren't these responses pretty reasonable? They are.

Our triggered reactions are not obstacles because they are unreasonable. Our triggers are obstacles because they keep us from engaging skillfully in the conversation. Receiving feedback well is a process of sorting and filtering--of learning how the other person sees things; of trying on ideas that at first seem a poor fit; of experimenting. And of shelving or discarding the parts of the feedback that in the end seem off or not what you need right now. [6]

3. Making Feedback Hurt Less

So when you find yourself in this situation, what can you do? How might you "engage skillfully in the conversation," whether you're holding a face-to-face dialogue or reviewing feedback that's been provided via some other means? Here are three steps to help make feedback hurt less: [7]

Reframe the experience: Use Rock's SCARF model and Stone and Heen's three triggers to understand what’s happening, regulate your distress, and diminish your sense of social threat. This is a version of a technique derived from cognitive-behavioral therapy known as cognitive reappraisal or, more simply, reframing. Research shows that reframing can reduce stress levels and increase our abilities to manage negative emotions. [8] When receiving or reviewing feedback, remind yourself of the following:

  • Your perception that feedback is threatening is rooted in well-understood neurological and psychological dynamics. The feeling of being threatened doesn’t mean that you're facing a literal threat to your safety.
  • When you believe that feedback is untruthful or unfair, both you and the provider may be making inaccurate assumptions about each other's motives and intentions. Specifically, you may be misinterpreting their rationale for providing feedback in the first place. (They may simply want to help.)
  • Your relationship with the feedback provider has a substantial effect on your response distinct from the content of the feedback itself. A feedback provider isn’t necessarily assuming a position of higher status or lording their status over you, nor are they intending to create a sense of interpersonal distance between you.
  • Because feedback is data, and data includes both signal and noise, any feedback that challenges aspects of your identity may have something to teach you--and it may not. Disconfirming data is always worth exploring--and it isn't always accurate.
  • Even when you feel obligated to receive or review this feedback, you are making the choice to respond to that pressure, and you do have agency in the process.

Build the relationship: This isn't always applicable or feasible, of course--you may not want to invest in a relationship with a former employee who left you a scathing Glassdoor review, and you probably can't meet one-on-one with everyone who shared critical feedback in a company survey. But in ongoing relationships where future feedback exchanges are likely, you should seek to develop a stronger sense of connection and a deeper feeling of trust over time. This helps not only with the "relationship trigger" but also with many of the factors in the SCARF model. [9]

Develop a feedback-rich culture: While there’s much we can do individually and in our working relationships to improve the experience, the process of giving and receiving feedback will always be heavily influenced by the surrounding organizational culture. We should strive to create a culture in which feedback conversations are less stressful for all members of the organization. Among other steps, this involves giving and receiving feedback more frequently so that it becomes a normal aspect of organizational life, making it OK to both postpone feedback conversations until a better time, and ensuring that leaders walk the talk by providing and soliciting direct feedback on a regular basis. [10]

4. How to Respond to Feedback That Hurts

Even as you manage the emotions evoked by hurtful feedback, it will be necessary to respond to it by indicating what will happen--and what will not happen--as a result. [11] Because feedback is data you don't need to agree with hurtful feedback or treat it like a set of commandments. That's a sure path to overwhelm and resentment. But it's essential to avoid responding defensively or rejecting it out of hand. Not only might that lead you to discount some important data while blocking out the noise, but it also sets a poor example for the rest of the organization. Instead, recognize that every piece of hurtful feedback contains a request for change and that all change carries a cost. With that as a guideline, you can distinguish among the following:

Easy changes you're happy to make: Hurtful feedback undoubtedly includes criticism of certain behaviors or aspects of your management style that you're not attached to and can modify without undue effort. Remind your feedback providers that we all have blind spots, and they don't need to wait for a special occasion to give you similar feedback in the future.

Hard changes you're willing to attempt: Hurtful feedback probably also includes criticism of behaviors or aspects of your style that feel more deeply rooted or will be more difficult to change. Invite your feedback providers to partner with you in this process, by offering help, support and understanding, and possibly by taking some responsibility for their contributions to the issue.

Changes that will be too difficult or costly to undertake: By no means should you feel compelled to accede to all of the hurtful feedback you receive. Some of the changes people are asking for will either impose an intolerable burden on you or will prevent you from accomplishing your goals as a leader. But bear in mind that they're requesting these changes because these behaviors or aspects of your style are imposing a cost on them. You need not grant their request or agree with their point of view, but you can empathize with it. [12]

 

Footnotes

[1] Feedback Is Not a Gift

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

[3] See Chapter 1, Thanks for the Feedback: The Science and Art of Receiving Feedback Well (Douglas Stone and Sheila Heen, 2015). I think so highly of this model that I included it on my syllabus when I taught Interpersonal Dynamics (aka "Touchy Feely") at Stanford. In addition to collaborating on Thanks for the Feedback, Stone and Heen co-authored (with Bruce Patton) another classic work on communication that I highly recommend, Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most.

[4] Adapted from Make Getting Feedback Less Stressful. For more on how I discuss feedback with clients, see the following:

[5] Thanks for the Feedback: The Science and Art of Receiving Feedback Well, pages 16-17 (Douglas Stone and Sheila Heen, 2015)

[6] Ibid, page 17.

[7] Adapted from Make Getting Feedback Less Stressful.

[8] For more on cognitive reframing and stress reduction, see the following:

[9] For more on building better relationships, see the following:

[10] For more on feedback and organizational culture, see the following:

[11] Adapted from Your 360 Report Is Ready.

[12] Accountability and Empathy (Are Not Mutually Exclusive)

 

For Further Reading

The Tyranny of Feelings

The Difficulty of Empathizing Up

 

Photo by Eric Kilby.

Sep 17, 2022

Minding Our Mindset

Mind by R-DV-RS redvers1249593877 EDIT

What we think--and particularly what we think about ourselves--influences how we perceive the world around us and how we experience that world. Our thoughts and perceptions--and the resulting emotions--shape our reality. A perfect example of this is the placebo effect: Research has shown that "A particular mind-set or belief about one's body or health may lead to improvements in disease symptoms as well as changes in appetite, brain chemicals and even vision." [1]

I'm not suggesting that a positive self-image is all that's needed to make improvements in our lives, but a fuller understanding of the attitudes and beliefs we hold about ourselves is certainly useful data in the process. Work by psychologist Carol Dweck suggests that in these efforts we may be able to take advantage of the distinction between a "fixed mindset" and a "growth mindset," which she describes as follows:

In a fixed mindset, people believe their basic qualities, like their intelligence or talent, are simply fixed traits. They spend their time documenting their intelligence or talent instead of developing them. They also believe that talent alone creates success--without effort. They're wrong.

In a growth mindset, people believe that their most basic abilities can be developed through dedication and hard work--brains and talent are just the starting point. This view creates a love of learning and a resilience that is essential for great accomplishment. [2]

Author Maria Popova provides additional context to help us understand the implications of Dweck's ideas and how we might put them into practice:

One of the most basic beliefs we carry about ourselves, Dweck found in her research, has to do with how we view and inhabit what we consider to be our personality. A "fixed mindset" assumes that our character, intelligence, and creative ability are static givens which we can’t change in any meaningful way, and success is the affirmation of that inherent intelligence, an assessment of how those givens measure up against an equally fixed standard; striving for success and avoiding failure at all costs become a way of maintaining the sense of being smart or skilled. A "growth mindset," on the other hand, thrives on challenge and sees failure not as evidence of unintelligence but as a heartening springboard for growth and for stretching our existing abilities. Out of these two mindsets, which we manifest from a very early age, springs a great deal of our behavior, our relationship with success and failure in both professional and personal contexts, and ultimately our capacity for happiness. [3]

Although Dweck's initial research on mindset dates back to the 1980s, her ideas gained prominence in the 2000s, driven in part by their relevance for parenting and early childhood education. [4] But in recent years Dweck's claims for the effects of a growth mindset have been challenged. For example, in 2020 several psychology professors essentially rejected the concept outright:

We empirically tested six key premises of [Dweck's] mind-set theory. We found that the strength of the claims appears to outweigh the strength of the evidence, at least for university students. That is, in all cases, mind-set's effects were significantly weaker than the average effect size found in social-psychological research. [5]

And yet carefully-designed studies conducted by Dweck and her colleague David Yeager, among others, seem to demonstrate the impact of mindset-related interventions:

The National Study of Learning Mindsets showed that a low-cost [growth mindset intervention], delivered in less than an hour, attained a substantial proportion of the effects on grades of the most effective rigorously evaluated adolescent interventions of any cost or duration in the literature... The finding that the growth mindset intervention could redirect critical academic outcomes to such an extent--with no training of teachers; in an effectiveness trial conducted in a population-generalizable sample; with data collected by an independent research company using repeatable procedures; with data processed by a second independent research company; and while adhering to a comprehensive pre-registered analysis plan--is a major advance. [6]

Science writer Lydia Denworth has explored the controversy, including the results of both papers cited above, ultimately concluding that Dweck's ideas have validity but their impact has been overstated and expectations should be tempered:

A few methodological questions about Dweck's work have emerged (as have questions about the replications and failed interventions), but the loudest criticism makes the claim that mindset research overpromised and underdelivered... Dweck and Yeager’s recent Nature findings underscore the realization that successful mindset interventions appear to require finesse. "The national study showed us how much more there is to learn," Yeager says. They spent years fine-tuning the materials they used and are confident in their appropriateness for ninth graders but cannot be sure about other populations or about the materials used in other interventions... The new motto for mindset science, then, seems to be this: tone down the hype and hone the details. [7]

Denworth's perspective strikes me as sound, particularly given other critiques of Dweck's work. [8] I remain convinced of the value of a growth mindset for self-development efforts, in part because of prior research--consistent with my empirical experience with clients and students--showing that people with a growth mindset pay closer attention to mistakes and are more likely to improve their performance as a result. [9]

With Denworth's cautionary guidance in mind, how might we make use of the concept of mindset? While Dweck has developed a simple instrument to test whether someone tends toward a fixed or growth mindset, its purpose is to sort students participating in research studies, and I don't find it useful in my work as a practitioner. [10]

Instead, I believe that merely understanding the difference between a fixed and growth mindset is sufficient for adult learners pursuing self-development efforts, and our general tendency toward one or the other is less important than our specific tendencies in different endeavors and domains of life. For example, it's been valuable for me to cultivate a growth mindset regarding my abilities as a coach and writer, but I have no problem with remaining in a fixed mindset when it comes to my musical talent or hand-eye coordination.

The key is the willingness to step back and examine yourself with a heightened degree of candor and self-awareness. This work can take place in any number of settings--on a reflective walk, in a written journal [11], in a conversation with a trusted friend or colleague. [12] But it won't happen when you're too busy or distracted--you'll need sufficient peace and space to explore the following questions:

  • In a particular context, what data do I have about my capabilities and potential?
  • What additional data may be missing from this analysis?
  • How am I interpreting this data? What do I think it means?
  • What other interpretations and meanings are possible?
  • How do my current interpretations inform my actions?
  • If I were to suspend my current interpretations, what might I do differently? [13]

The goal is to surface your governing beliefs about yourself and to temporarily hold them in abeyance while you run some experiments that will test those beliefs' current accuracy or relevance. As I've written before,

We believe to be true an enormous number of assumptions and mental models that exert a powerful influence on our self-image, on our sense of our own capabilities, on our perceived range of options, and ultimately on the lives we lead. In some cases these beliefs are well-founded, but in others they're not. Or they were once accurate but are now long outdated and in need of revision. And what neuroscientists and social psychologists are discovering about the power of mindset even calls into question what we mean by "well-founded" and "accurate." What we believe to be true shapes our reality. [14]

And as the great poet Virgil noted in The Aeneid, "They can, because they think they can." [15]

 

Footnotes

[1] The Meaning of Mindset. The quote on the placebo effect is from Why Placebos Work Wonders (Shirley Wang, The Wall Street Journal, January 10, 2012), which cites a number of contemporary studies.

[2] What Is Mindset? (Carol Dweck, 2012)

[3] Fixed vs. Growth: The Two Basic Mindsets That Shape Our Lives (Maria Popova, The Marginalian, 2014). Popova's concise and thoughtful essay remains the best discussion of Dweck's work that I've encountered--even better than Dweck's own commentary--but Popova was writing before the recent critiques of mindset theory were published and doesn't take them into account.

[4] Following the publication of Dweck's Mindset: The New Psychology of Success (2006), the impact of her work was amplified further by author Po Bronson, who discussed it in an influential article (How Not to Talk to Your Kids, New York, 2007) and book (Nurture Shock: New Thinking About Children, 2009, co-authored by Ashley Merryman).

[5] How Firm Are the Foundations of Mind-Set Theory? The Claims Appear Stronger Than the Evidence (Alexander Burgoyne, David Hambrick and Brooke Macnamara, Psychological Science, 2020).

[6] A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement (Carol Dweck, David Yeager, et al, Nature, 2019)

[7] Debate Arises over Teaching "Growth Mindsets" to Motivate Students (Lydia Denworth, Scientific American, 2019)

[8] For further criticism of Dweck's work, see the following:

[9] Mind Your Errors: Evidence for a Neural Mechanism Linking Growth Mind-Set to Adaptive Posterior Adjustments (Jason Moser et al, Psychological Science, 2011). This research appears to be contradicted by the findings of Burgoyne et al noted above, but its findings are consistent with my experience as a practitioner, so I continue to reference it while noting the discrepancy in results.

[10] Examples of Dweck's mindset instrument are available via the Open Science Framework and Stanford's SparqTools.

[11] The Value of Journal Writing

[12] Self-Coaching is SOCIAL

[13] Derived from Chris Argyris' ladder of inference.

[14] Suspension of Belief

[15] The Aeneid (Virgil, translated by Joseph Trapp, 1718). A version of this line is often mistakenly attributed to the American industrialist Henry Ford. I haven't read Trapp's 18th century edition of The Aeneid, but I have read Robert Fagles' contemporary version, which I highly recommend.

 

For Further Reading

Learning How to Learn

The Meaning of Mindset

Meredith Whipple Callahan on Mindsets

Perception, Understanding and Self-Awareness

 

Photo by R/DV/RS.

Sep 16, 2022

The Siren Call of Constant Data

Ulysses-and-the-Sirens-Waterhouse-1891-DETAIL

The Sirens, those creatures who spellbind any man alive... Race straight past that coast! Soften some beeswax and stop your shipmates' ears so none can hear, none of the crew, but if you are bent on hearing, have them tie you hand and foot in the swift ship, erect at the mast-block, lashed by ropes to the mast so you can hear the Sirens' song to your heart's content. [1]

Homer's Odysseus adopted this solution to allow him to hear the Sirens' "thrilling song" and "honeyed voices" without being lured to his death--but it's probably not practical for the temptations you face. You're not being tempted by mythical creatures (I hope), but if you're like my clients you are tempted by the unceasing flow of constant data.

The email piling up in your Inbox is just a start, of course. Synchronous chat apps and their countless channels allow you to connect with anyone in your organization immediately. Round-the-clock social media streams connect you with vast numbers of people in the world beyond your organization, often blurring the boundary between personal and professional life in the process. And commerce platforms allow you to see financial figures updated every second. There are undoubtedly other forms of data specific to your company or industry that are now conveniently available to you at all times, in all places.

Sometimes keeping up feels like an onerous duty, but just as often you feel a sense of eager curiosity. No one's forcing you to be online, but you can't resist the temptation. And when you are offline you feel the absence of the data flow: Something's always happening somewhere, if not in your company than in the markets or the social media universe, and you want the latest information. If you feel the need to connect with someone, you don't want to wait. Or if someone's trying to connect with you, you want to be able to respond immediately.

There are many reasons to appreciate these tools, and my clients derive tremendous value from them--but many of my clients also experience counter-productive side effects from their use. The feeling of absence becomes intolerable anxiety. The temptation to be online at all times becomes an irresistible compulsion. And the ability to be present with family and friends and participate in real-world activities unrelated to the business suffers.

So what can you do? There are some tactical steps that can help:

  • Unsubscribe. Perhaps you needed be on every channel at one time--but that time is probably over.
  • Block. A number of tools can temporarily block access to designated apps and services. [2]
  • Delete. You can take blocking a step further by deleting apps entirely. (If this sounds daunting, that's a reason to try it.)

But the ability to successfully employ these tactics ultimately relies on your capacity for emotion regulation and attention management. If you can't manage the feelings of anxiety and compulsion that arise when you're offline, you'll resubscribe, unblock and reinstall everything as soon as you get the opportunity. And if you can't redirect your attention away from the stream of data and toward something else--a meal, a sunset, a loved one--you'll remain in a constant state of distraction. There's no permanent technological solution to this fundamentally psychological problem.

So what can you really do?

First, note that emotion regulation doesn't mean suppression. Suppressing your anxiety and compulsion essentially involves pretending that you're not having these feelings. You can do this for brief periods of time, but not for long, and research suggests that the effort may be counter-productive. [3] Instead, emotion regulation starts with improving your ability to sense and identify these feelings--getting closer to them, not distancing yourself from them.

Emotions such as anxiety and compulsion are physiological events before they register in consciousness, so attune yourself to the manifestations of these feelings in your body. What does it feel like (literally) to be anxious or compelled? Also, expand your emotional vocabulary so you can label your feelings more accurately. I'm using "anxiety" and "compulsion" here, but perhaps different feeling-words better describe your own emotional state. [4] And note that your capacity for emotion regulation will be enhanced by some form of mindfulness practice [5], consistent sleep [6] and regular physical activity. [7]

The same practices that support emotion regulation will also improve your capacity for attention management, in part because of the close relationship between emotion and attention. We can even think of emotions as "attention magnets"--one of their primary functions is to interrupt deliberate thoughts and orient us toward potential opportunities and threats. [8] The challenge is that the elegant neural apparatus that we began to evolve two million years ago must now operate in a radically different environment--a world that has been meticulously engineered to hijack our attention by stoking our emotions, a world in which we must actively resist the siren call of constant data. [9]

 

Footnotes

[1] The Odyssey, pages 272-273 (Homer, translated by Robert Fagles, 1999)

[2] Here are some examples of temporary blocking tools:

[3] For more on the impact of suppressing emotions:

[4] Vocabulary of Emotions

[5] For more on mindfulness:

[6] For more on sleep:

[7] For more on physical activity:

[8] Why You Can't Stop Thinking About Something

[9] A Better Information Diet

 

For Further Reading

The Tyranny of Feelings

Talking About Feelings

White Bears and Car Crashes (Thinking About Thinking)

 

Image: Ulysses and the Sirens (detail) by John William Waterhouse, 1891.

Sep 15, 2022

Group Dynamics: The Leader's Toolkit

Tools by Marco Verch 50745877441 EDIT

One of the most significant themes in my practice is the leader whose team of direct reports are experiencing difficulties working together. Most of my clients are CEOs, and they face this challenge with their company's senior leadership team, but it's a dilemma that can occur at every level of an organization. And while the leader isn't solely responsible for their team's culture, they typically have the greatest ability to influence it--for better and for worse.

By highlighting the tools at the leader's disposal, I'm not suggesting that the other members have no role to play in the process--they absolutely do, and an effective leader will make team culture a shared responsibility. But the leader's position often affords them a number of advantages that make it easier for them to initiate action and to invite others to follow their example. So if you're a leader in this situation, what can you do? What tools are available to you?

The list below is by no means exhaustive, but it's a starting point for considering your options. Don't think of them as a series of steps that must be taken in sequence or as a set of mutually exclusive alternatives. You'll probably need to intervene in several ways to make a meaningful difference in your team's culture--but don't try to do everything at once, and don't try to do it alone. If you fail to actively involve your team in the process, you might exact their compliance, but you won't win their commitment, and the latter is necessary for lasting and sustainable change.

1. Logistics

This encompasses all the factors related to the cadence, timing, setting, and purpose of your team's interactions. Some factors will be more difficult to change, of course, but others may be relatively easy. That said, this is where it's particularly important to involve your team in the process. If you simply enact changes by fiat, you won't necessarily reap the expected benefits, not only because your colleagues may not share your assumptions about how to improve team culture, but also because logistical changes can make a sub-optimal team perform worse if they're made in isolation without considering the other factors below. 

So give some thought to whether you should be meeting more (or less) frequently, for longer (or shorter) periods, with more (or fewer) in-person (or virtual) events, and with more (or less) emphasis on tactical issues (or relationship-building). But discuss these issues with your team so you can surface any resistance. This doesn't mean that proposed changes must be put to a vote, or that anyone resisting change has a veto. But resistance is data, and it can usually tell you something valuable about the nature of your team's concerns.

Assuming you do encounter resistance (and you probably will, if people are willing to be candid), frame any proposals as experiments. Formulate the hypothesis you're seeking to test, set a timeline, and assess the costs and benefits at the end of that period.

What can you do?

2. One-on-Ones

I assume you're already holding regular one-on-ones with the members of your team--and if you're not, I think you should be. One-on-ones not only provide a venue for you and each employee to discuss your respective responsibilities and working relationship, but they also offer a safe setting in which you can address issues related to your respective contributions to team culture and your mutual behavior in team interactions--with one caveat.

The key is normalizing feedback, which entails not only providing feedback to your employee on their behavior, but also eliciting feedback from them about your own. One purpose of obtaining feedback is to compensate for your inevitable blind spots as a leader, but another is to model a non-defensive response, even (and especially) when the feedback stings. This is why it's not enough to ask for feedback--employees will often assume it's a pro forma request, and you don't really want to hear what they have to say.

But here's the caveat: In many cases a one-on-one discussion with an employee about team issues will threaten to become a discussion about another employee. The employee you're meeting with may want to provide context for their behavior, but they may also be seeking to shirk responsibility by blaming the other person, which is really just a means of managing distress. This is one reason why normalizing feedback is so important--when we get feedback on a regular basis, it's less stressful. In any event, keep the focus on yourself and the employee you're meeting with--if you need to address a conflict between employees, bring them together for a separate discussion.

What can you do?

3. Group Facilitation

We often think of a "facilitator" as an external figure who temporarily joins a group in order to play a special role, and in some situations an outside facilitator can be a highly valuable addition to your team. But facilitation is merely a mode of operating that can be adopted by any member of a group at any time, and the most effective teams cultivate the ability to facilitate themselves (which doesn't preclude the use of an outside facilitator when necessary.)

Facilitation begins with an emphasis on process, as opposed to content. This is one reason why outside facilitators can be useful--they have specialized process expertise, and they're not personally invested in the outcome of any issues under consideration by the team. There's nothing preventing you and your colleagues from adopting a similar stance, but you need to step back from the what--What's on the agenda? What are my goals? What outcomes do I prefer?--and consider the how--How are we operating as a group? How do we approach problem-solving? How will we make necessary decisions?

Here's where you have a unique responsibility as leader. Team members typically defer to the leader's preferences when it comes to group processes--and in the absence of a commitment to facilitation on your part it's unlikely that anyone else will intervene to propose it. This doesn't mean that you should become the team's de facto facilitator on an ongoing basis, but you will likely have to take the first step.

What can you do?

4. Group Observation

Groups don't normally operate with a heightened awareness of their culture, primarily because most group members are focused on their individual experience in the group, not the group as a whole. It's also mentally taxing to actively participate in a group while simultaneously observing the group dynamic. Further, it takes care and skill to translate those observations into actionable language that won't provoke a defensive response.

For these reasons groups often rely on an outside facilitator to observe, assess and comment upon their culture, and, as I note above, there are circumstances when external facilitation is useful. But relying solely on an outside facilitator to do this work is a missed opportunity in several ways. First, outside facilitators can't always be present--if they could, they'd be group members. Also, the presence of an outside facilitator inevitably changes the group dynamic. And when a group relies exclusively on an outside facilitator to do this work, the group members fail to develop their own capabilities.

So while I endorse the use of outside facilitators, I also encourage you to consider how your team could begin to observe itself and to make those observations explicit. This is work that you will almost certainly have to initiate--it's very rare for a group member to share such observations without an invitation from the leader. Note some key challenges you'll face in the process: You aren't merely an observer of this group--you're also the person most responsible for its existing culture, and you undoubtedly have blind spots. And any observations coming from you as the leader will probably trigger some defensiveness--this is to be expected.

What can you do?

5. Group Composition

This refers to the definition and membership of your team. Who qualifies, and who doesn't? Are the right people involved? Is anyone present who doesn't add value? Is anyone missing who might add value? In an ideal world, everyone who reports to you is a member of the team, and every member of the team reports to you--but organizational life isn't always so neat and tidy.

A challenge that my clients occasionally face is that one of their direct reports doesn't have much to contribute to certain team discussions, or, conversely, someone who does have something to contribute is a skip-level employee who doesn't report directly to my client. At times this has to be addressed in an ad hoc manner by convening a subset of direct reports for a specific purpose, or by inviting a skip-level employee to sit in on a team meeting. But these provisional solutions come with a cost--not only the added logistical burden of calling a special meeting or creating a special group, but also disruptions in continuity and a diminished sense of mutual trust and group identity.

A related but distinct problem is when one of my client's direct reports fails to keep pace with the company's growth or complexity. They're not a toxic or dysfunctional employee, but they're no longer contributing at the same level as their peers. In many cases this occurs when my client has begun to attract and retain more capable talent, and the performance of earlier-stage employees suffers by comparison. Some members of the latter group will accelerate their growth and development in response, but not all will make the leap, leading to gaps in the team's effectiveness as a whole.

What can you do?

 

For Further Reading

1. Logistics

2. One-on-Ones

3. Group Facilitation

4. Group Observation

5. Group Composition

Related Topics

 

Photo by Marco Verch.

Sep 09, 2022

Negotiations and Symbolic Disputes

The-Treachery-of-Images-Magritte EDIT

A occasional theme in my practice is a client who's perplexed by the obstinacy of their counterpart in a negotiation (which I use in the broadest possible sense, from formal talks to informal efforts to influence). Just when a deal seems imminent, the other party repeatedly introduces new terms or re-opens previously settled ones. Or a deal never seems imminent, with the prospect of a negotiated agreement constantly retreating before them, eventually disappearing over the horizon.

I'm not talking about haggling--my clients typically expect that in negotiations. [1] What I'm referring to here is an almost inexplicable refusal to reach agreement. But I emphasize the "almost," because what sometimes explains an impasse in such an exchange is that it's not merely a negotiation but a symbolic dispute.

What I mean by this is that the issues being negotiated aren't the factors that matter most in the situation. It's not that these issues are meaningless--although that's a possibility--but, rather, they symbolize something else that's more important to the other party. In some cases the other party is aware of this and acting in bad faith or playing games. But in my experience it's more likely that this dynamic is semi- or subconscious.

To be clear, negotiations always have a symbolic dimension because humans are symbolic creatures. As the anthropologist and philosopher Ernest Becker noted, "The essence of man is really his paradoxical nature, the fact that he is half animal and half symbolic... Man has a symbolic identity that brings him sharply out of nature. He is a symbolic self." [2] In truth, we can't take any aspect of human experience at face value alone. Everything always stands for something else, at least to a degree, but in a symbolic dispute the representative relationship is predominant.

What does this look like in practice? The possibilities are infinite, but there are certainly a number of terms with a significant symbolic dimension that we see repeatedly in negotiations: Money, titles, guarantees and assurances, deadlines and timeframes, physical space, geographic location. There's no universal code to understand what these terms might represent to a given individual, as everyone's symbolic meanings are different.

But if you find yourself in this scenario it's essential to consider just what these terms might mean to your counterpart: Power, status, respect? Community, belonging, safety? Self-worth? Identity? If you continue to act as though the terms themselves matter when the other party is operating on a symbolic level, it will be difficult if not impossible to reach agreement. In part this is because our symbolic appetites are essentially limitless. Our needs for power or safety are only ever temporarily satisfied before they reassert themselves--this is one reason why your counterpart is continually retreating from (or blowing up) a negotiated agreement.

Depending on the nature of the relationship, you may be able to set the terms aside for the moment, and have a deeper conversation about what's really at stake. Note that this will entail understanding your own symbolic attachment to various terms and being sufficiently candid with your counterpart to invite them to respond in kind. If it's not possible to do this directly, you may still be able to make progress by utilizing a concept from negotiation experts Roger Fisher and William Ury:

The basic problem in a negotiation lies not in conflicting positions, but in the conflict between each side's needs, desires, concerns, and fears... Desires and concerns are interests. Interests motivate people; they are the silent movers behind the hubbub of positions. Your position is something you have decided upon. Your interests are what caused you to so decide. [3]

Your respective positions are the terms at issue in the negotiation, but they merely symbolize a deeper set of underlying interests--your respective needs, desires, concerns, fears. The key, as Fisher and Ury note, is surfacing this symbolic connection:

Behind opposed positions lie shared and compatible interests, as well as conflicting ones. We tend to assume that because the other side's positions are opposed to ours, their interests must also be opposed. In many negotiations, however, a close examination of the underlying interests will reveal the existence of many more interests that are shared or compatible than ones that are opposed...

The most powerful interests are basic human needs. In searching for the basic interests behind a declared position, look particularly for those bedrock concerns which motivate all people. If you can take care of such basic needs, you increase the chance both of reaching agreement and, if an agreement is reached, of the other side's keeping to it. Basic human needs include:

  • security
  • economic well-being
  • a sense of belonging
  • recognition
  • control over one's life [4]

All of this is much easier in a relationship with a degree of mutual trust, and that may well be lacking (or may have eroded over time). [5] Even then, you'll benefit by bearing in mind--to paraphrase René Magritte's wry caption above--that "This is not a negotiation." It's a symbolic dispute.

 

Footnotes

[1] Culture, Compensation and Negotiation

[2] The Denial of Death, page 26 (Ernest Becker, 1973)

[3] Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, page 24 (Roger Fisher and William Ury, with Bruce Patton for the revised editions, 1981/2011)

[4] Ibid, pages 25-27.

[5] Two Sides of Trust

 

For Further Reading

Negotiating with Your Own Side

Leader as Avatar

 

Image: The Treachery of Images, by René Magritte, 1929.