Ed Batista

On Co-Founder Decision-Making

Many of my clients are company founders, and many of them have co-founders. A theme in my work with these clients is the importance of determining how certain decisions should be made. This is an issue that all leaders and executive teams must address, but there are some distinctive aspects of the co-founder relationship that merit special consideration. While this framework is highly reductive, I generally see co-founders relying on the following three methods--and when there's a problem, it's usually because they're relying too heavily on one mode or failing to apply it when it would be useful.

1. Consensus

This is the starting point for co-founders, because all parties had to agree to launch the business in the first place. It's also sometimes the case that in a venture's early stages the co-founders' areas of expertise may overlap substantially, and there may be relatively little hierarchical differentiation, so the other two modes of decision-making are less relevant or inapplicable.

But it's easy for founding teams to get stuck here and rely on consensus for too many decisions well past the point of utility. This is often the result of good intentions--such teams may have a high degree of social cohesion and prioritize inclusivity. And yet cultures like this can have a shadow side--the members may be uncomfortable with conflict, resulting in a lack of candor, or they may have an endless appetite for debate, resulting in circular arguments and paralysis.

The key is recognizing that as the company grows larger and more complex the co-founders' roles and responsibilities will diverge, so members of the team will have differing abilities to weigh in on certain decisions. And yet at the same time some decisions should be made by consensus, even when it would be more expedient to employ an alternative method. This can be codified through formal agreements or mechanisms such as Board seats, but it's not possible to cover every eventuality--there must be a shared willingness to prioritize collective agreement over efficiency when necessary.

2. Functional Expertise

Some co-founders have distinct and clearly defined areas of responsibility to begin with--the possession of complementary skillsets may have been one of the primary reasons for their decision to start a company together. But even when there's a degree of redundancy at first, this tends to diminish over time as individuals focus on particular functions, develop specialized expertise, and "stay in their lanes."

Here, too, co-founders can err in two ways. Some are too rigid about functional boundaries, demanding authority over decisions within their nominal sphere without sufficient regard for cross-functional or downstream implications. And others are insufficiently respectful of such boundaries, constantly questioning their colleagues' judgment and undermining their autonomy.

The arrival of the first non-founder in a designated leadership position tends to have a significant impact here. At later stages of company development this often involves the creation of a C-level role, but even without such a title it's usually the case that this person is being entrusted with a significant scope of responsibilities because of their functional expertise.

This sometimes causes friction between founders who expect to remain actively involved throughout the company and non-founder leaders who expect a degree of independence within their domain. In any case, the solution invariably entails finding the right balance between respect for functional expertise and acknowledgment of cross-functional interdependence.

3. Hierarchical Authority

Even on highly egalitarian founding teams with substantial levels of functional expertise, it's inevitable that some decisions will be made on the basis of hierarchical authority, typically that of the CEO. Contemporary business culture has an uneasy relationship with hierarchy--some parties view it as anathema and propose utopian schemes like holacracy, while others idealize the decisive, command-and-control, autocratic CEO. But in my experience the most successful teams find a middle ground, fostering a healthy respect for hierarchy while ensuring that their leaders rely on it judiciously.

And yet a challenge for many founding teams is that the hierarchical distance separating the co-founders may initially seem minimal or even non-existent. In some cases it was unclear who would be CEO, or more than one member felt qualified to hold the position (and they may still feel that way). Further, as noted above, on many teams the non-CEO co-founders have an equal say in certain decisions by virtue of their ownership positions or other explicit or implicit agreements.

So it can be jarring when a decision must be made and neither consensus nor functional expertise provides a path to resolution. The founder/CEO needs to exert hierarchical authority, and yet there's no guarantee that they have any particular skill in doing so. They may be clumsy and excessively forceful, or they may be hesitant and excessively deferential--whatever the cause, it's quite possible that they'll make missteps and generate frustration.

Here it's essential that all parties recognize both the necessity of hierarchy and the importance of employing it effectively. The CEO needs to learn how to wield authority with skill and grace, cultivating the capacity to influence rather than command. And the other co-founders must come to terms with the limits on their autonomy and learn to truly disagree and commit.

So if you're a co-founder wrestling with these issues, what can you do?

Raise Your Awareness

A first step is raising your collective awareness of your team's norms and preferences around decision-making. Many teams operate on autopilot and are surprised when they stumble into an intractable conflict. You needn't establish cumbersome bureaucratic procedures or give up the freedom to act nimbly. A little time dedicated to identifying the best mode of decision-making before you begin trying to make a given decision can go a long way.

• Work Style Differences
• Group Dynamics: Norms and Emotion
• Rules Aren't Norms (On Better Meeting Hygiene)
• Leadership, Decision-Making and Emotion Management

Enhance Your Skills

Successful team decision-making rests on each member's repertoire of interpersonal skills. These capabilities are eminently learnable, and every leader I've ever encountered had the potential to improve if they were sufficiently motivated to make the effort. Of particular importance on a founding team is the ability to exert influence amidst complex power dynamics.

• Learning How to Learn
• Force Isn't Power
• Power Struggles Among Nice People
• Compliance vs. Commitment (On Behavior Change)

Invest in Your Relationships

Some of the most useful questions I ask clients are, "When did you last see your co-founder/s in person? When did you last have a meal together? When did you last have a conversation about something other than the business?" There's no universal best practice, but it's all too common for co-founders to neglect their personal relationship, even if they were good friends before starting the company. The value of maintaining this connection is a greater sense of trust and the ability to empathize with each other, even (and especially) when you disagree.

• Huddle Up! (Building Group Cohesion)
• Brené Brown, Vulnerability, Empathy and Leadership
• Abilene: Loneliness and Belonging in Organizational Life

 

Photos: Handshake by Amtec. Lanes by Steven L. Johnson. Salute by U.S. Army Europe.

Talking with Colleagues About Divisive Topics

A theme in my practice in recent years is the leader who's aware that a number of their employees have strong feelings about a divisive topic, often a pressing social or political issue. The leader may or may not share these feelings, and the issues may or may not directly affect the business, but there's an evident gap between what people are feeling and what's being openly discussed. And this state of affairs is creating a sense of uncertainty and discomfort within the organization that could affect the team's working relationships and ability to perform.

This presents the leader with some difficult questions: Should we address the issue? Should we discuss our feelings? If so, where and how would we do that? What's the purpose of such a discussion? What are our goals and objectives? What's the agenda, and how should it be determined? And what role should I play in the process? If you're a leader in this situation, here are some areas to explore and recommendations to consider:

1. Risk

People are often reluctant to address divisive topics in a work setting. Sometimes this is a mistake, because the suppressed feelings may leak out in counterproductive ways. And sometimes this is the right decision, because exploring a divisive topic in a group almost always involves some risk. There's the risk of further inflaming heightened emotions, leaving people more upset and distracted than they were before.

There's the risk of failing to reach any sort of resolution in the time available, leaving people feeling incomplete and frustrated. And there's the risk of open conflict between colleagues, who may find their working relationship damaged. This doesn't mean we should avoid directly addressing divisive topics, but it's important to be aware that such efforts carry risks and to have a plan to mitigate them.

2. Resistance

If you're prepared to address these risks, one of the first steps to take is anticipating resistance from your employees, which can range from mild reluctance to outright refusal. Resistance should generally be viewed as a form of self-protection that stems from anxiety, so it's essential to avoid taking any steps that people might experience as coercive. This will only affirm their anxiety and redouble their resistance. Even if people feel obligated to participate in order to appear compliant, they will remain guarded and wary. At best, the discussion will be an empty, superficial exercise, and you will have lost trust in the process.

This doesn't mean that you must always defer to resistance, but you need to meet it with thoughtfulness and care, not force. And it's surprisingly easy for leaders to be perceived as acting more forcefully than they intended. [1] A little social pressure--a "nudge"--is tolerable, but no one should ever feel "shoved" or compelled to participate in ways that make them feel less safe.

3. Safety

The paradox is that talking about the divisive topic may ultimately make it a safer environment, so it can be worth taking the risk to make the effort. The key is ensuring that people feel as safe as possible along the way, although what is meant by "psychological safety" is often profoundly misunderstood, a topic I've addressed before:

Psychological safety entails candid and direct communication. It requires asking and answering hard questions. It does not mean "being nice." It does not mean avoiding difficult conversations or fraught topics to ensure that no one experiences distress. To the contrary, a setting in which people are reluctant to be candid and direct for fear of triggering any distress in others is psychologically unsafe. [2]

A deep-seated problem with many formal programs intended to address divisive topics in recent years is that they mandate a particular point of view on an issue. Participants are expected to adhere to the officially sanctioned doctrine. Questions are viewed as resistance, and resistance isn't tolerated. As a consequence, these events are little more than theatrical performances. They may enforce compliance, but they never build commitment. [3]

4. Intentions

Sometimes it's our intention to enforce compliance--that's why so many mandatory HR programs are designed the way they are. But if you have other goals in mind for this discussion, it's necessary to clarify those intentions and get people aligned around them. Because of past experience with mandatory HR programs, people may assume that the purpose of the discussion is to obtain (or dictate) a group consensus about the issue. Or they might assume that the goal is to problem-solve and recommend a solution.

But neither of these outcomes is feasible for a meaningful discussion on a divisive issue of any consequence. If you want everyone to be in agreement, you'll get hollow HR theater. And if you think you and your employees need to "solve" a weighty social or political issue, you're setting everyone up for failure and frustration. I'm not suggesting you can't accomplish something important--you can. There's a significant goal within reach for you and your team in almost all circumstances: empathy.

5. Empathy

Medical professor and researcher Theresa Wiseman has explored the concept of empathy because of its importance for nursing and healthcare. She identifies four defining attributes of empathy:

• The ability to see the world as another person sees it.
• The ability to understand another person’s feelings.
• The ability to suspend judgment.
• The ability to communicate this understanding, which is essential "if empathy is to be felt." [4]

Note that empathy is not sympathy, which Wiseman makes clear: "Sympathy involves 'feeling sorry' for the other person or imagining how we would feel if we were experiencing what is happening to them. Empathy differs in that we try to imagine what it is like being that person and experiencing things as they do, not as we would." [5] Similarly, empathy is not agreement, a point I've made previously:

We typically associate empathy with agreement, and we act as though empathizing with someone entails endorsing their perspective and their feelings, but this need not be the case. Understanding someone’s perspective and their emotions while suspending our judgments about both does not necessarily imply that we agree with that perspective or believe that the resulting emotions are justified. It simply means that we comprehend their perspective and emotions, and we are able to envision ourselves experiencing that perspective and those emotions under similar circumstances. Just as we can empathize with someone without sympathizing, we can empathize with someone while disagreeing with them and considering their perspective inaccurate and their emotions unwarranted. [6]

6. Emotions

It's inevitable that this will be an emotional discussion. The primary reason you're having it is your awareness that people have strong feelings about this divisive topic that they're not expressing with colleagues, and you're concerned that if people continue to suppress such feelings it may exacerbate the climate of uncertainty and discomfort. But a critical counterpart to emotional expression is the capacity for emotion regulation. [7]

In almost all professional settings we err on the side of regulation--one way of distinguishing between professional and personal relationships is that the former are usually much more regulated than the latter, and this is an essential feature of most organizational cultures. Cultures are defined by behavioral norms, and in this discussion you're likely seeking to alter the norms that govern emotional expression without suspending them entirely. [8]

It's hard to create an environment that simultaneously invites greater emotional expression while supporting the necessary emotion regulation that will allow everyone to return to work when it's over. Hard, but not impossible, and this is why it's so important to mitigate the risks, meet resistance with understanding, and work to ensure safety. These are the conditions under which people are willing to be vulnerable, and expressions of vulnerability in a safe environment are the most reliable means of evoking empathy. [9]

7. An Invitation

If you're ready to proceed, consider the collective capacity of your team to handle such a discussion, and ask your key leaders to share their impressions. If you and your leaders are in sufficient agreement, initiate your efforts by extending an invitation, and asking people if they'd like to join you in a discussion. Make it opt-in and not mandatory, and make it clear that people are truly free to opt out, and that no one is obligated to attend. As I note above, it's fine to "nudge" people to attend, but no one should feel "shoved"--this will make it a safer environment for everyone.

Convey your intentions in this invitation. The goal is not to obtain consensus or to get everyone to agree on any particular position. The goal is not to "solve" the problem. The goal is empathy. This will require people to make disclosures, to explain the world as they see it, and to talk about their feelings. This will require listening to understand those feelings, and the suspension of any judgments that may arise along the way. This will require expressing that understanding, in words that ensure that others feel heard. This will not require agreement. Setting these expectations will help people decide how and whether to participate, and will enable them to aim toward a successful outcome.

8. The Agenda

Consider how you want to develop the agenda. You could simply craft it and present it to your employees--this will be simplest, but it may also be a missed opportunity to build commitment. An alternative could be to invite the most interested members of your team to join you in a working session to co-create the agenda. This will also help ensure that you surface ideas about what people would like to do with the time, rather than simply making assumptions about what they think would be best. Yet another option would be to conduct a survey to gather input. However you determine your agenda, circulate it in advance. This will also help people determine whether and how to participate, and will make it feel safer by giving people visibility into what will happen.

9. Logistics

• Timing: You don't want people to feel rushed, and you don't want it to last too long. An hour is probably the minimum, but two will probably feel taxing--90 minutes may be a good compromise.
• Configurations: Consider having people participate in multiple configurations over the course of the discussion, such as pairs or small groups, in addition to the full group. This is one area in which working virtually on a platform like Zoom offers advantages, because you can move people into pairs or small groups and back into the main room very easily. The pairs and small groups can be assigned in advance, or chosen by the participants, or selected at random, but you'll want people to be prepared for the process.
• Facilitation: The presence of an outside facilitator for such a discussion has pros and cons. They're not a member of the organization, which may make people feel less safe, but they may also be perceived as a source of expertise. Their presence will enable you to participate more freely, but if you're not aligned you may get in each other's way. I encourage clients to consider facilitating such discussions themselves, while recognizing that at times it's valuable to have an experienced partner.

10. Next Steps

Finally, be prepared to think of this as an ongoing dialogue, not necessarily a one-time event. The feelings evoked, both positive and negative, may not be fully resolved in a single session. There may be an appetite, and even a need, to continue the conversation. Consider how much time and energy you'll be able to devote to this effort, if any, beyond an initial discussion.

 

This is a companion piece to Talking With Colleagues About Suffering.

---

Footnotes

[1] The Blue Problem (Communication and Power)

[2] Safety Is a Resource, Not a Destination

[3] Compliance vs. Commitment (On Behavior Change)

[4] A Concept Analysis of Empathy (Theresa Wiseman, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 1996)

[5] Ibid.

[6] The Difficulty of Empathizing Up

[7] The Tyranny of Feelings

[8] Group Dynamics: Norms and Emotion

[9] Brené Brown, Vulnerability, Empathy and Leadership

 

For Further Reading

CONNECTIONS: Meaningful Virtual Conversations

 

Photo by Adam Cohn.

My Appearance with Daniel and Greg at OnGrowth

Serial entrepreneur Daniel Kivatinos and founder and Stanford PhD Greg Wientjes have hosted the OnGrowth podcast since 2017, and I was honored when they asked me to join them recently. It was a really fun conversation that covered a wide range of topics: my career at Stanford as an MBA student and Lecturer, the launch of my coaching practice, the difference between coaching and therapy, challenges faced by leaders in my practice, and what it's like to work with me. Our 60-minute conversation is available on the following platforms:

• YouTube
• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts
• Spotify

Many thanks to Daniel and Greg for having me, and to the mentors and colleagues I mentioned: Andrea Corney, Carole Robin, David Bradford, Evelyn Williams, Garth Saloner, Mary Ann Huckabay, Rebecca Zucker, Ricki Frankel, Scott Bristol, and Vince Stehle. Thanks as well as the 1,000+ Stanford MBAs I had the honor of working with from 2007 to 2021.

Talking with Colleagues About Suffering

A theme in my practice is the leader who's aware or senses that a colleague is suffering and would like to offer support but is unsure how to broach the topic--and a version of this occurs in my own work. In most cases when a client is suffering in some way our coaching sessions provide them with a setting in which they can express those feelings freely. But at times it's clear to me that a client is suffering and yet it's not the focal point of their agenda, or even on the agenda at all.

It's not my place to determine our agenda--that's the client's job--but it's not uncommon for people to want to talk about something while also feeling ambivalent about raising the topic. If I ignore my intuition and defer to their stated agenda, we might miss a meaningful opportunity. And yet the client must always feel a sense of agency in our work together.

It's complicated, but at least I have the benefit of being a coach, and in my relationships with clients it's expected that at times we'll explore troubling and even painful topics. But my clients may not have that kind of social contract with their colleagues, making it hard to know how to proceed when they sense that a co-worker is suffering. If you're in this situation, here are some suggestions:

Take the Initiative

Some people prefer to suffer in private, or they may be reluctant to discuss it with colleagues. They may resist or even resent our efforts to address the topic, and we should be careful to avoid "inflicting help." [1] But most of us tend to err on the side of caution, and while we tell ourselves we're "being sensitive," this also reflects our fear and anxiety. We're afraid that our efforts will be rebuffed, and we'll feel embarrassed. So instead we sit back and wait, hoping that when they need our help they'll ask for it.

Sometimes this is true...and sometimes it's not. The suffering person may in fact feel embarrassed themselves, and they may want us to relieve them of the burden of initiating the conversation. They may wonder if we see their suffering at all, or if we even care. Or they may conclude that this isn't the kind of relationship, or the kind of company, where we talk about such things.

So find the courage to take the initiative. This will be fraught, and it will feel risky, and sometimes you'll get it wrong. But you'll only improve your ability to sense the right time and to find the right language with practice. [2] Extend the invitation, and don't be discouraged if it isn't accepted at first. Try again later. Don't insist--the other person has to feel in control--but by signaling your interest you make it easier for them to respond when they're ready.

Normalize Vulnerability

Acknowledging suffering often evokes a sense of vulnerability in both parties. This is almost certainly true for the person who's suffering, who may believe that such acknowledgment is a form of weakness that will leave them feeling exposed and unsafe. They may worry that they'll be seen as less competent or capable, or that they'll be considered "emotional," a liability in many professional settings.

But this is also likely true for the leader seeking to offer support, particularly when it's unclear if such support will be welcome. The leader may lack experience in having these conversations, or this may be a new frontier in their relationship with this individual. Or the person's suffering may be apparent while the underlying cause is unknown, compounding the leader's uncertainty about whether or how to proceed.

The paradox is that in most settings expressions of vulnerability trigger an empathetic response, a mechanism that may be rooted in our evolutionary psychology. [3] This isn't guaranteed, of course, and it's necessary to take small steps at first and read the signs with care. A starting point is conveying any trepidation you might feel and letting the other person know that it's OK if they feel similarly.

Understand What's Needed

Leaders often rise to their position on the basis of their effectiveness as problem-solvers, and that's an identity as much as a skillset. In some circumstances colleagues are seeking a solution that will solve the problem, but much of the time there's none to be found, or at least not one that the leader can provide. This is certainly true of our greatest difficulties--a grievous illness, the loss of a loved one, a global crisis. [4]

If you find yourself in such a discussion there are many ways to offer useful help and support, but it's important to understand what the other person actually wants. Even when you don't have a definitive solution, they may still value your advice on how to address or think about the problem. But note the tendency of problem-solvers to offer advice, even when it hasn't been asked for.

Before jumping in to share your perspective, be sure to slow down and listen. The experience of truly feeling heard is surprisingly rare in organizational life, where people often listen in order to reply. Put your advice on hold, at least until it's requested, and just be fully present. You may find that this is sufficient.

And you may also find that something more is called for, even--and perhaps especially--when there's no advice to give and listening isn't enough. The other person may simply need a literal or virtual hug, which can be daunting territory to navigate in organizational life. While it's essential to be aware of and respect another person's boundaries, we can be so cautious about avoiding offense that we inadvertently appear callous. Tone of voice and body language can go a long way toward expressing the sentiment. A murmur, a sigh, a moment of silence, or holding our hand to our chest can speak volumes.

Why Bother?

All of this work is easier if we take steps early in our professional relationships to lay a foundation for more meaningful dialogue later on. One of the most straightforward ways for a leader to accomplish this is by scheduling regular one-on-ones with direct reports, honoring that commitment by minimizing cancellations or rescheduling, and ensuring that employees feel a sense of ownership over the agenda. [5] And yet it will still require effort and a modicum of risk, and a leader may well ask, Why bother?

One very pragmatic reason is that people who are suffering are incapable of doing their best work. They may be in the grip of a threat response, aka a "fight, flight or freeze response," which will impair creative thinking and render them more risk-averse and prone to distraction. [6] Talking about their distress and anxiety can play a significant role in helping them manage these feelings, enabling them to redirect their focus to other matters. [7]

I would add that our professional relationships have the potential to be sources of belonging and connection [8], not merely vehicles for value creation, and we realize this potential fully only when we're willing to have hard conversations. This doesn't mean that companies are "families"--I agree with Shopify CEO Tobias Lütke that this is an inappropriate metaphor, and that colleagues are best-served by viewing each other as fellow members of an elite team who earn their positions by virtue of their performance. [9]

Cultivating the ability to have hard conversations about suffering develops a set of skills that are equally valuable in hard conversations about performance: the courage to speak up, a sense for the right timing and the right language, comfort with vulnerability. This is yet another reason why "accountability and empathy are not mutually exclusive." [10]

 

This is a companion piece to Talking with Colleagues About Divisive Topics.

---

Footnotes

[1] Inflicting Help

[2] Conscious Competence in Practice

[3] Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts (Dacher Keltner interviewed by David DiSalvo, Scientific American, 2009)

[4] This section is adapted from What Do You Need Right Now? (Advice, Listening, A Hug?).

[5] How to Have Better One-on-Ones

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

[7] Talking About Feelings

[8] Abilene: Loneliness and Belonging in Organizational Life

[9] Shopify CEO email to managers: We are not a family (Tobias Lütke, internal email, 2020, shared by Lukas Naugle, LinkedIn, 2021)

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

 

Photo by Christopher Matson.

Drowning in Feedback

A wealth of information creates a poverty of attention and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it. In an information-rich world, most of the cost of information is the cost incurred by the recipient. It is not enough to know how much it costs to produce and transmit information; we must also know how much it costs, in terms of scarce attention, to receive it.

~Herb Simon [1]

A recent theme in my practice is a leader who feels overwhelmed by feedback purportedly intended to help them improve company and personal performance. Employee engagement surveys, executive 360s, performance reviews, NPS results...the list is long and growing, and the reports keep piling up. There's no shortage of feedback, and some leaders feel like they're drowning in it. What's happening here, and what can we do about it?

First, we can characterize feedback and its value as a source of learning using a schema articulated by the late Wharton professor and systems thinker Russell Ackoff, who described the distinctions among data, information, knowledge, understanding, and, ultimately, wisdom [2]:

Data are symbols that represent the properties of objects and events. Information consists of processed data, the processing directed at increasing its usefulness... Information is contained in descriptions, answers to questions that begin with such words as who, what, when, where, and how many. Knowledge is conveyed by instructions, answers to how-to questions. Understanding is conveyed by explanations, answers to why questions. [3]

The feedback processes noted above generate plenty of data and information. You can undoubtedly review the various reports at your disposal and answer any number of questions "that begin with such words as who, what, when, where, and how many." But if you're like my clients, this is the point at which things get more difficult.

You can surely glean some knowledge from these reports, extracting answers to some "how-to questions." And you may be able to obtain some understanding, uncovering explanations and formulating answers to a few "why questions." But these insights will be hidden from view, revealing themselves only after careful thought and reflection.

Such efforts will require time and freedom from distraction, qualities that may be in scarce supply in your environment. And by the point at which you've arrived at any meaningful level of understanding, there will probably be several more rounds of reports waiting for your review. You're already behind.

This dynamic reflects another aspect of "management information systems" that Ackoff observed: they reflect a series of mistaken assumptions that ensure "the continuing failure of most of these systems to satisfy the managers they are supposed to serve":

The first is: management's most critical information need is for more relevant information. This is false: management's most critical information need is for less irrelevant information... Most managers suffer from information overload and, as the overload increases, the amount of information they use in making decisions actually decreases. Most managers could not read all the written and printed material they receive even if they spent all their working hours in reading. Moreover, more than half the data and information they receive are unsolicited. [4]

I've observed this same pattern in some of my clients' working lives. The excessive amount of unsolicited feedback and the consequent inability to translate data and information into more useful knowledge and understanding is demoralizing. In some cases, leaders simply give up and stop trying to keep pace with the endless flow of reports. The more systems intended to yield improved performance, the less influence they actually have on leaders' behavior and decision-making.

These challenges only compound further should you try to take the final step up the ladder, transforming whatever knowledge and understanding you've obtained into true wisdom. Ackoff considered this quality exceedingly rare, comprising perhaps a fraction of a percent of the contents of the human mind. [5] But wisdom is worth pursuing because of its unique ability to generate value:

Information, knowledge, and understanding enable us to increase efficiency, not effectiveness. The efficiency of behavior or an act is measured relative to an objective... The value of the objective(s) pursued is not relevant in determining efficiency, but it is relevant in determining effectiveness. Effectiveness is evaluated efficiency. It is efficiency multiplied by value, efficiency for a valued outcome. Intelligence is the ability to increase efficiency; wisdom is the ability to increase effectiveness. [6]

So even when it's possible to distill knowledge and understanding from the vast quantities of available data and information, the net result will be the ability to pursue existing objectives more efficiently. This is valuable under many circumstances, but if you're like my clients, you're operating under dynamic conditions that render it necessary to regularly reassess your objectives. At such moments it's insufficient to ask, How can we do this more efficiently? One must ask, Why are we doing this at all? and What might we do instead?

If any of this resonates with you, what can you do about it? Here are some questions to ask and proposals to consider:

What is our feedback culture?

The proliferation of feedback systems and the generation of excess data and information that you're experiencing isn't happening in a vacuum, but in a specific organizational culture. In this context I refer to the definition provided by management professor Michael Watkins:

Culture is consistent, observable patterns of behavior in organizations... Culture is a process of "sense-making" in organizations [which] moves the definition of culture beyond patterns of behavior into the realm of jointly-held beliefs and interpretations about "what is..." Culture is a carrier of meaning. Cultures provide not only a shared view of "what is" but also of "why is." In this view, culture is about "the story" in which people in the organization are embedded, and the values and rituals that reinforce that narrative. [7]

So "drowning in feedback" is not only an "observable pattern of behavior," but also a manifestation of your organization's "narrative," the collective set of stories you and your colleagues tell yourselves about who you are, what you value, and why you do what you do. One story that's likely relevant here is the idea that "feedback is a gift," which I wholeheartedly reject--it's not a gift, it's data. [8]

Another potentially relevant story is the assumption that people aren't being candid and can't be trusted to speak up, so you have to rely on anonymous surveys and other instruments to obtain "the truth." While your organization may or may not be an environment in which it's safe to speak up, the idea that anonymity will yield objective "truth" is another idea that I reject. Anonymous feedback is hardly free from bias. [9]

There are no doubt other elements of your culture that are causing you to "drown in feedback," and no single initiative to solve the problem will succeed without addressing this broader context. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that you stifle efforts to provide feedback or stop seeking it out, but far too many organizations today have taken the concept of a "feedback-rich culture" to counter-productive extremes. [10]

How am I part of the problem?

You must also assess your own contributions to the generation of excess data and information in the form of surveys, 360s, reviews, and any other type of feedback that you request or initiate. The impulse underlying these processes is usually positive, springing from your desire to be helpful. But bear in mind Ackoff's warning: "Management's most critical information need is for less irrelevant information." You may be most helpful by providing less data and information, and by finding other ways to offer support, as I've written before:

Providing information is a form of caring and an effort to demonstrate our worth as leaders. We care about the people we're working with, and we want them to know that. We we want to feel competent in our roles and to know that we're adding value. But the excess information that we're shoveling at people is a proxy for these qualities, not the thing itself. [11]

And if you're a People Leader, such as a Chief People Officer or VP People Ops, you have a particularly important role to play. As I've noted before, "The People Leader must not only oversee the process of selecting and deploying [engagement surveys, performance assessments, and periodic review platforms], but to truly add value they need be able to help the CEO and other leaders interpret and act upon the resulting data." [12] Bear in mind that merely generating more data is not the solution, as noted by Herb Simon, the late computer scientist, economist and psychologist who comments open this essay:

The proper aim of a management information system is not to bring the manager all the information [they need], but to reorganize the manager's environment of information so as to reduce the amount of time [they] must devote to receiving it. [13]

How will I transform data into wisdom?

No matter what role you occupy, your ability to influence the generation of excess data and information is limited. Most of my clients are CEOs, and even the most powerful at times find themselves at the mercy of the systems they ostensibly command. But you can still control your most precious resource--your attention.

Only your focused attention will transform data and information into knowledge and understanding and then, with patience, wisdom. But this entails cultivating a number of habits, starting with the awareness that your attention is finite, and it must be directed toward your most important tasks. My work with clients often involves the development of an "information ecosystem" in which they're more mindful of the many demands on their attention, their own tendencies toward distraction, and the necessity of filtering out much of the data at their disposal. [14]

Some of this work is as straightforward as managing your calendar to ensure that you have "longer blocks of uninterrupted time, free from distractions, to think creatively and to augment logical reasoning with intuition and inspiration." [15] This is simple to describe, and yet it will be difficult to put into practice, in part because the fact that your attention is a precious resource means that other people want more of it. But the hard work of protecting your attention in order to transform data into wisdom may be one of your greatest responsibilities as a leader.

 

---

Footnotes

[1] Designing Organizations for an Information-Rich World [PDF] (Herb Simon, pages 37-72 in Computers, Communications, and the Public Interest, Martin Greenberger, editor, 1971)

[2] In common usage this schema is condensed by omitting understanding, and the result is described as the DIKW Pyramid. Ackoff is often cited as the originator of the schema in a 1988 speech and 1989 article (noted below), but that's not entirely accurate. In The Origin of Data Information Knowledge Wisdom (DIKW) Hierarchy, Google researcher Nikhil Sharma notes that economist Milan Zeleny articulated a similar schema in a 1987 article, Management support systems: Towards integrated knowledge management, and that engineer and author Mike Cooley did the same in his 1987 book Architect or Bee? The Human Price of Technology. Sharma also cites a 1982 article by diplomat and information theorist Harlan Cleveland, and although I can't locate the article itself, the illustration that accompanied it is reproduced at the top of Sharma's paper.

I haven't explored these other sources any further, so I don't know whether their various schemas merely resemble one another, serving as variations on a theme, or whether Ackoff built directly on one or more of them. Apparently there are even more possible progenitors, including versions by geographer Yi-Fu Tuan and historian Daniel Bell, cited by Cleveland. However, as Sharma notes, they probably all owe a debt to these lines from T.S. Eliot's 1934 play "The Rock":

All our knowledge brings us nearer to our ignorance,
All our ignorance brings us nearer to death,
But nearness to death no nearer to GOD.
Where is the Life we have lost in living?
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?

[3] From Data to Wisdom [PDF] (Russell Ackoff, Presidential Address to the International Society for General Systems Research, St. Louis, June 1988). An edited version of this speech was published the following year as a journal article, From Data to Wisdom (Russell Ackoff, Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 1989), also available in Ackoff's Best: His Classic Writings on Management (1999). My citations here draw from both versions--this passage is from the 1989 article.

[4] Ackoff, 1988.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ackoff, 1989.

[7] What Is Organizational Culture? (Michael Watkins, Harvard Business Review, 2013)

[8] Feedback Is Not a Gift

[9] The Problem with Anonymous Feedback

[10] For more on a "feedback-rich culture":

• Building a Feedback-Rich Culture
• Building a Feedback-Rich Culture from the Middle

[11] Stop Providing Too Much Information

[12] Simon.

[13] The Truly Strategic People Leader

[14] A Better Information Diet

[15] How to Think (More on Open Space and Deep Work)

 

Photo by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

How to Have Better One-on-Ones

One-on-one meetings with employees are seemingly among a leader's most straightforward tasks. Two colleagues have yet another conversation about work--what could be simpler? But a theme in my practice is that a more deliberate approach to one-on-ones can turn them from perfunctory exchanges into much higher sources of leverage. [1] If you're a leader who'd like to hold better one-on-ones, here are some questions to ask yourself and a set of proposals to consider:

If you're not holding formal one-on-ones, why not?

Andy Grove, the late CEO of Intel, noted that managers from other companies viewed formal one-on-ones as unnecessary, telling him, "I don't need scheduled meetings with my supervisor [or subordinate]; I see [them] several times a day." [2] I sometimes work with early-stage CEOs who feel similarly and view formal one-on-ones as superfluous bureaucracy. But this approach has several problems.

Even when you're communicating frequently with employees, it's likely that those interactions are highly tactical, with with little time devoted to more strategic issues, and no time at all to address the quality of your working relationship or anything of similar complexity. And, as Grove continued, "there is an enormous difference between a casual encounter by a supervisor and subordinate, or even a meeting to resolve a specific problem, and a one-on-one." [3]

The absence of formal one-on-ones means that when you do schedule a meeting to address a bigger challenge, you signal to your employees that such events are for "tough conversations," rendering them more stressful and less likely to succeed. (And this may be equally true when an employee schedules a one-on-one with you.)

Alternatively, holding formal one-on-ones on a regular basis normalizes the experience, allowing you and your employees to grow more comfortable addressing complex or difficult topics. Simultaneously, it highlights that this is a particular type of conversation and not just an ordinary meeting, motivating both you and your employees to be more thoughtful about how you prepare and participate.

Who merits a one-on-one?

Having formalized the process, it's important to assess how you're allocating the time you have available for one-on-ones, which is one of your organization's most precious resources. This isn't self-aggrandizing--it's simply a consequence of the fact that your attention is finite. [4] And a one-on-one meeting involves a major "investment" of attention from which you should expect a substantial "return," just as you would with any other limited resource. [5]

In addition to meeting with their direct reports, some of my clients initiate or make themselves available for skip-level one-on-ones with more junior employees. This practice can provide you with a new perspective on the organization, but it comes with potential dilemmas. It doesn't scale, and can leave you spread too thin. It can also short-circuit normal managerial channels--although if you have concerns about one of your direct reports, this may be the point.

I've had clients who levelled an employee and offered ongoing one-on-ones as a way to cushion the blow, but again, this doesn't scale and is generally a short-term fix. The key is recognizing that people want the leader's attention because it's a valuable resource, and beyond a certain point in your career it's unlikely that you'll be able to meet this demand entirely without compromising on other responsibilities.

What's the appropriate cadence? How long should a one-on-one last?

Here Grove offers some useful guidelines:

How often should you have one-on-ones? Or put another way, how do you decide how often somebody needs such a meeting? The answer is in the job- or task-relevant maturity of each of your subordinates. In other words, how much experience does a given subordinate have with the specific task at hand? This is not the same as the experience they have in general...

The subordinate should feel that there is enough time to broach and get into thorny issues... I feel that a one-on-one should last an hour at a minimum. Anything less, in my experience, tends to make the subordinate confine themselves to simple things that can be handled quickly. [6]

Given that your employees' "job- or task-relevant maturity" likely varies, the cadence of regular one-on-ones need not be uniform, nor is there a single best practice. Most of my clients hold weekly one-on-ones with most of their direct reports, but meeting every other week is also common. A longer cadence with direct reports is less typical, but skip-level one-on-ones are often monthly or quarterly. Ultimately it's up to you and each employee to determine what works best.

The key is predictability, so you should only ever cancel or reschedule a one-on-one as a last resort. If you do this repeatedly you send a very clear message that it's a low-priority event, and your employees will act accordingly. And if you have a direct report who's reluctant to hold one-on-ones or who cancels on you, this merits further investigation. It may be a sign of a deeper problem in the relationship [7], or it may simply be that the quality of your one-on-ones needs to be improved. Make clear your desire for one-on-ones to be valuable to them, solicit feedback on your current arrangements, and enlist them in joint problem-solving.

What's on the agenda? How should we prepare?

As with cadence, there's no universal template for agenda-setting or preparation, but there are some general principles to bear in mind. Grove stresses that the employee should feel a sense of ownership:

A key point about a one-on-one: It should be regarded as the subordinate's meeting, with its agenda and tone set by [them]... So the [subordinate] should be asked to prepare an outline, which is very important because it forces them to think through in advance all of the issues and points [they] plan to raise. Moreover, with an outline, the supervisor knows at the outset what is to be covered and can therefore help to set the pace of the meeting according to the "meatiness" of the items on the agenda. An outline also provides a framework for supporting information, which the subordinate should prepare in advance. The subordinate should then walk the supervisor through all the material.

What should be covered in a one-on-one?... The most important criterion governing matters to be talked about is that they be issues that preoccupy and nag the subordinate. These are often obscure and take time to surface, consider, and resolve. [8]

Claire Hughes Johnson, the former COO of Stripe, expresses similar sentiments:

I generally tell folks, especially more experienced people, that the 1:1 is their time. We set up a mutual doc that we can both edit, and we track action items and link out to goals and career conversation notes. Beyond that, I ask the individual to propose each 1:1 agenda, and I only edit the doc to add in agenda item suggestions when I have them. [9]

When your employees own the agenda, not only is this much more efficient for you, it also ensures that the discussion will focus on issues that are most important to them. But having your employees set the agenda doesn't mean that you have no input, as Grove and Hughes Johnson make clear. You can also give feedback to an employee on the quality of their agenda if you conclude that the time isn't being well-spent. My clients who've asked their employees to take responsibility for agenda-setting typically find it a useful exercise in revealing who's well-prepared and who's not.

A particular form that lack of preparation can take is the employee who treats the one-on-one primarily or even exclusively as a vehicle to report out. If you find yourself listening to extensive updates that should have been written reports or automated dashboards for you to review in advance, you can let them know that it's a missed opportunity to have a more meaningful dialogue.

How should one-on-ones be conducted? What role should I play as leader?

An employee who sets the agenda and provides you with sufficient time to digest any preparatory materials enables you to add value not by directing the conversation or even having answers to all their questions, but by posing questions yourself. While there are limits on the extent to which you can serve as an employee's "coach," you can readily employ coaching as a methodology. [10] This not only scales, it also allows you to add value in one-on-ones even with senior employees who possess specialized expertise that you lack. Grove recommended what he called "dialectic management":

What is the role of the supervisor in a one-on-one? They should facilitate the subordinate's expression of what's going on and what's bothering them. The supervisor is there to learn and to coach... How is this done? By applying Grove's Principle of Dialectic Management, "Ask one more question!" When the supervisor thinks the subordinate has said all they want to say about a subject, [the supervisor] should ask another question. [11]

And your questions should include inquiring about your employee's state of mind and well-being. Hughes Johnson notes that a one-on-one should always begin by "asking how someone is doing--checking in really matters." [12] Grove firmly agrees: "The supervisor should also encourage the discussion of heart-to-heart issues during one-on-ones, because this is the perfect forum for getting at subtle and deep work-related problems." [13]

It's by attending to the logistical details above that you create an environment in which employees are willing to truly tell you how they're doing and be candid with you on "heart-to-heart" issues. Holding formal one-on-ones that are rarely cancelled or rescheduled and for which both of you are fully prepared goes a long way toward creating the psychological safety that's necessary for real openness. This doesn't mean that you should avoid contentious issues, as I've noted previously:

Psychological safety entails candid and direct communication. It requires asking and answering hard questions. It does not mean "being nice." It does not mean avoiding difficult conversations or fraught topics to ensure that no one experiences distress. To the contrary, a setting in which people are reluctant to be candid and direct for fear of triggering any distress in others is psychologically unsafe. [14]

I opened with the idea that better one-on-ones can be a great source of leverage for a leader, and I'll close with Grove's thoughts on the same subject:

What is the leverage of a one-on-one? Let's say you have a one-on-one with your subordinate every two weeks, and it lasts one and a half hours. Ninety minutes of your time can enhance the quality of your subordinate's work for two weeks, or for some eighty-plus hours, and also upgrade your understanding of what [they're] doing. Clearly one-on-ones can exert enormous leverage. [15]

 

---

Footnotes

[1] 1x 10x 100x (On Leverage)

[2] High Output Management, page 73 (Andy Grove, 1st edition, 1983)

[3] Ibid.

[4] Beyond Simple Multi-Tasking: Continuous Partial Attention (Linda Stone, 2009)

[5] Growth, Profitability and Return on Attention

[6] Grove, pages 73-74.

[7] Better Working Relationships

[8] Grove, page 75.

[9] Scaling People: Tactics for Management and Company-Building, page 399 (Claire Hughes Johnson, 2023)

[10] For more on coaching as a leadership tool (and its limitations), see the following:

• Connect, Reflect, Direct...Then Ask (On Coaching)
• How Great Coaches Ask, Listen and Empathize
• Investment vs. Attachment

[11] Grove, pages 75-76.

[12] Hughes Johnson, page 399.

[13] Grove, page 77.

[14] Safety Is a Resource, Not a Destination

[15] Grove, page 77-78.

 

Photo by World Bank Photo Collective.

Defensiveness Is in the Eye of the Beholder

A theme in my practice is defensiveness, which I define as an unwillingness to accept responsibility for setbacks, characterized by a disproportionately hostile, anxious or evasive response to critical feedback. When it arises as a topic I'm usually working with a client who's figuring out how to deal with a defensive employee or colleague, but occasionally I have a client who's been accused of defensiveness and is wondering what to do in response.

The key word in the definition above is "disproportionate." When someone is slightly hostile, anxious or evasive in response to critical feedback, we don't think of them as "defensive." Critical feedback is stressful under the best of circumstances. [1] So when someone responds with curiosity and calm we view that as a sign of maturity and professionalism, but a moderately negative response is normal and expected.

And yet we also expect this negative response to be temperate and short-lived. It's only when the other person's hostility, anxiety or evasion seem excessively emotional or unduly persistent that we label them as "defensive." This is highly contextual, determined by the surrounding cultural norms, our relationship with the other person, and our individual standards. What qualifies as defensiveness is truly in the eye of the beholder. So what are the implications of all this, and what can we do about it?

When You're Dealing with a Defensive Person

Don't call them "defensive."

Don't even use the word, as it will only make the situation worse. Bear in mind that they don't think of themselves as "defensive"--no one ever does--so being labeled as such will feel to them like an unjustified accusation and amplify the negative emotions they're already having difficulty managing. You may be perfectly justified in thinking of them as defensive, but keep it to yourself, at least for the moment.

In the present moment, de-escalate.

Defensiveness emerges in response to unexpected bad news, and you and your counterpart may be facing an immediate crisis. In this moment your task is to help them de-escalate their threat response and regain the ability to regulate their emotions. [2] Slow down--choose your words thoughtfully, make decisions judiciously, be mindful of how you might be contributing to their sense of threat. [3] In some circumstances, encouraging the other person to discuss what they're feeling can help them down-regulate those feelings. [4]

As soon as possible, make it a learning opportunity.

When the sense of urgency has abated--but before so much time has passed that the details have grown hazy--make use of this situation as a learning opportunity for the other person. At this point it may be useful to acknowledge that you perceived their response as defensive, but don't stop there. Offer behaviorally-specific feedback that allows the other person to gain a new perspective on their response and understand why you experienced it as counter-productive. [5]

In the meantime, clarify your own lessons.

There's undoubtedly ample learning here for you as well. Why did this bad news come as such a surprise to the other person? How did you share it with them? If you hired them, why did you fail to identify their defensiveness in the process? [6] How successful were you at de-escalating their defensiveness? Did you inadvertently make it worse, and if so, how? And if you're repeatedly encountering defensiveness over time, that merits a look in the mirror. Just because defensiveness is in the eye of the beholder doesn't mean it's always a fair or reasonable perception.

When You've Been Accused of Defensiveness

Don't make it worse by rejecting the label.

You almost certainly don't feel defensive, nor is that how you would describe your behavior, and it's unfortunate that the other person has chosen to label you this way. But reflexively responding, "I'm NOT defensive!" will only be perceived as further evidence of your defensiveness. Remember that defensiveness is in the eye of the beholder, and the fact that you feel unfairly maligned has no bearing on the other person's belief in the validity of their perspective.

If you haven't heard this very often, it's a learning opportunity.

It's likely that the behaviors being perceived as "defensive" are the result of your surprise and disappointment at encountering an unexpected setback. If you've enjoyed sustained success in your career, this may be the first time that you've experienced a meaningful failure. And if you've rarely (or never) been called defensive before, you're learning that your responses to setbacks are perceived as problematic by this person at this moment. As challenging as it may seem, this presents you not only with an opportunity to transform setbacks into fruitful experiences [7], but also to accelerate your overall growth and development. [8]

If you've heard this repeatedly, take it very seriously.

Learning opportunities sometimes come at a cost, and being called defensive can be career-limiting if the label sticks. When I'm working with a client who's hiring to fill a role, I encourage them to test for defensiveness in the interview process because defensive people can have such a corrosive effect on company culture, and it's difficult if not impossible to get them to change. [9] If this person has perceived you as defensive multiple times, it's a signal to invest in your working relationship. [10] And if you've been called defensive at multiple points in your career, consider whether a failure to take responsibility is holding you back professionally. [11]

No matter what, it's feedback, and feedback is data.

Being called defensive is a form of feedback, and like much feedback, it can be stressful, confusing and unwelcome. As I've noted before, feedback isn't a "gift" that we should automatically express appreciation for, but it is potentially valuable data that merits investigation to assess its utility. [12] You're not obligated to agree with this feedback, nor are you required to take any particular action in response, but consider the extent to which you trust this person's judgment and value their opinion of you. Should you conclude that they're trustworthy and acting in good faith, thank them for taking the risk to speak up, and ask them to tell you more. [13]

 

---

Footnotes

[1] For more on feedback and stress, see the following:

• Make Getting Feedback Less Stressful
• Why Some Feedback Hurts (and What to Do About It)

[2] The Tyranny of Feelings

[3] How Leaders Create Safety (and Danger)

[4] Talking About Feelings

[5] How to Deliver Critical Feedback

[6] Surfacing Defensiveness (Three Questions for Candidates)

[7] The Ruling Out of Possibilities (On Failure)

[8] Learning How to Learn

[9] Surfacing Defensiveness (Three Questions for Candidates)

[10] Better Working Relationships

[11] The Trium Group on Responsibility

[12] Feedback Is Not a Gift

[13] Risk Management (The Importance of Speaking Up)

 

Photo by West Point.

We Don't Get What We Deserve...

We don't like to acknowledge this. It feels unfair, an injustice. I talk with clients every day about perceived injustices, some grievous, even outrageous. But in my capacity as coach I don't do my clients much good by merely validating their grievances or affirming their outrage.

Sometimes that's a starting point. Leaders need to vent like anyone else, and their colleagues may be unsympathetic (or implicated in the injustice), and their family and friends may not really understand the problem. But empathetic listening has its limitations, and when we reach those limits in a given conversation, I'll remind my client of this fundamental truth:

We don't get what we deserve. We get what we negotiate.

This isn't to deny the injustice, or to dismiss my client's feelings of grievance and outrage, or to excuse the actions of others that may have caused or contributed to the situation. Nor do I lack empathy--this isn't code for "Tough shit. Try harder."

To the contrary, empathy plays an essential role here. I must empathize with my clients' sense of injustice to be an effective coach to them. More importantly, my clients must empathize with their presumptive adversaries--but here's another fundamental truth: Empathy isn't agreement.

Empathizing with adversaries does not mean agreeing with them or abandoning our efforts to change the situation. It means getting out of our self-centered mindset and fully inhabiting an alternative view in order to be a more effective agent of change.

Because whenever we think, "I'm not getting what I want, but I deserve it," we diminish our agency and make it less likely that we'll achieve that desired outcome. We make ourselves victims of circumstance, and if the world has anything to teach us it is that victims may deserve justice, but that has very little bearing on whether justice will be done.

Empathizing with adversaries does mean seeing the world as they see it, understanding their emotions in response, and suspending our judgment about the accuracy of their view or the validity of their feelings. And the intent is to make use of this data in negotiating with them.

To be clear, we should think of "negotiations" more broadly than we usually do. Negotiations don't occur only in rare or special circumstances, such as compensation discussions or peace treaties. Life is an endless series of negotiations, particularly in our professional relationships.

Many people are uncomfortable with negotiating--they view it as unseemly or grasping--so they don't engage in deliberate practice, and they never improve their skills. And when they inevitably run into a savvy negotiator, they lose--which makes them feel uncomfortable, and the cycle continues.

But we need not assume that negotiations require a zero-sum, winner-take-all attitude, or that they're characterized by distrust or rancor. This is a caricature, one that enables people who are uncomfortable with negotiating to justify their discomfort. And yet in my experience very few negotiations benefit from this approach. (Some do, of course, but not many.)

So if you find yourself unhappy with a situation, feeling that an injustice has been done, and yet unclear on how to move forward, what can you do?

Consider your beliefs about yourself and how you respond to adversity.

• Learning How to Learn
• The Tyranny of Feelings
• The Value of a Good Fight

Consider your beliefs about power, influence and negotiation.

• Power Struggles Among Nice People
• Force Isn't Power
• Culture, Compensation and Negotiation

Engage in deliberate efforts to develop your skills and learn from experience.

• Conscious Competence in Practice
• Comfort with Discomfort

 

This piece is perhaps another way of saying Make It Better.

Photo by Jernej Furman.

Surfacing Defensiveness (Three Questions for Candidates)

One of the greatest barriers to learning, growth and improved performance is defensiveness, which I define as an unwillingness to accept responsibility for setbacks, characterized by a disproportionately hostile, anxious or evasive response to critical feedback.

Talented professionals typically experience an upward trajectory in their career, with past successes enabling them to take on bigger challenges in pursuit of greater rewards. Most people are interrupted on this journey, reaching a point where their capabilities are insufficient to meet the challenge at hand. Optimally they view this as a learning opportunity and adapt in response, enabling continued progress, albeit sometimes in new directions.

But some people feel threatened by the idea that a setback may be a consequence of their own limitations, and they search frantically for other explanations, other figures to blame. And some unlucky people don't experience a meaningful setback until relatively late in life--as the Rev. William Swing once noted, "Some people don't conspicuously fail until they are 45 years old, and it devastates them." [1]

Whatever the cause, it's not uncommon for previously successful professionals to experience difficulties and respond with defensiveness. A theme in my practice is the leader who's struggling to manage a senior employee who's under-performing and is unwilling to acknowledge and accept critical feedback, let alone learn from it. [2]

In some of these cases it's certainly possible for the leader to intervene and help the person make progress toward overcoming their defensiveness. But this requires a willingness to change [3], a degree of psychological safety in the environment [4], and sufficient time and resources to address the issue--and all of these factors are likely to be in short supply when performance is suffering.

So in many cases it's not possible for the leader to help a senior employee overcome defensiveness, and the all-too-typical result is a messy termination. The key to minimizing these situations is surfacing defensiveness in the hiring process, well before it becomes a problem. This enables the leader to assess the potential cost of dealing with the person's defensiveness and weigh it against their likely contributions.

I'm not suggesting that employers automatically rule out candidates who manifest any sign of defensiveness. As the great management thinker Peter Drucker once wrote, "The idea that there are 'well-rounded' people, people who have only strengths and no weaknesses...is a prescription for mediocrity if not for incompetence. Strong people always have strong weaknesses, too. Where there are peaks, there are valleys." [5]

And it's a fact of life that we make exceptions for particularly talented people and tolerate their shortcomings, including defensiveness. That said, a defensive senior employee will impose a high cost on their leader, their colleagues and the organization as a whole. And on balance my clients who've had to deal with such people wish they hadn't made the hire in the first place or moved more quickly to terminate them. [6]

So what does this look like in practice? Here are three questions to ask candidates during the interview process, and in this order (although not all three may be necessary):

1. Tell me about a time when things went wrong.

If the candidate can't answer this question thoughtfully, that's an initial red flag, suggesting that they're unwilling to be forthright about their setbacks or unable to observe and interpret such situations without experiencing distress. But some candidates will provide an adequate answer while leaving themselves out of the story, blaming the setback on the failings of others or inescapable misfortune. In these cases, proceed to the next question:

2. Tell me about a time when you made a mistake.

The wording here is deliberate, providing the candidate with an opportunity to take responsibility for a setback without using unduly fraught language. We all "make mistakes," and only the most defensive among us will refuse to admit it. Still, some candidates will respond with an example in which the consequences of their mistake were relatively trivial, providing little data on their capacity to acknowledge and learn from serious missteps. In these cases, proceed to the final question:

3. Tell me about a time when you failed.

The wording here is also deliberate, inviting the candidate to identify a situation in which they bore personal responsibility for a meaningful setback. Some candidates who were less forthcoming in response to the first two questions will finally avail themselves of this opportunity--and others will not, providing examples of inconsequential "failures," or evading the idea that they failed, finding others to take the blame.

If a candidate's unable to provide a satisfactory response to any of these questions, consider that a likely sign of defensiveness, and assess your capacity to take on the additional burden of dealing with it in the event that they suffer a setback in the role. To be clear, we're all prone to defensiveness under certain circumstances, and you may well determine that the candidate's strengths outweigh this particular weakness. But don't be caught by surprise--should you hire them, be prepared to improve your ability to provide effective critical feedback. [7]

 

---

Footnotes

[1] Rev. William Swing on Failures and Daydreams

[2] Why Executives Derail and What You Can Do About It

[3] Why Change Is Hard

[4] Safety Is a Resource, Not a Destination

[5] The Effective Executive: The Definitive Guide to Getting the Right Things Done, page 72 (Peter Drucker, 1966 / 2006)

[6] Merciful Exits (On Under-Performing Executives)

[7] How to Deliver Critical Feedback

 

For Further Reading

Daniel Kahneman on Conducting Better Interviews

Interviewing for Values Alignment (Itamar Goldminz, 2020)

Hiring Isn't Rocket Science: Why the Most Boring Strategy Is Best (Laszlo Bock, Behavioral Scientist, 2019)

How to Take the Bias Out of Interviews (Iris Bohnet, Harvard Business Review, 2016)

Hiring as Cultural Matching (Lauren Rivera, American Sociological Review, 2012)

Look Beyond "Culture Fit" When Hiring (Dylan Walsh, discussing work by Amir Goldberg and colleagues, 2018)

How to Improve the Accuracy and Reduce the Cost of Personnel Selection (Don Moore, California Management Review, 2017)

What's going on here, with this human? (Graham Duncan)

How to conduct interviews so good, candidates will thank you for rejecting them (Jennifer Kim, Safe for Work, 2023)

 

Photo by West Point.

Take a Walk (Making Tough Conversations Easier)

A theme in my practice is helping a client prepare for a tough conversation. While it's not always possible to choose the setting, when a client has the option to do so, I encourage them to consider 1) investing the time and effort necessary to meet in person and 2) electing to go for a walk with the other party, rather than sit down. Why?

Less Eye Contact

Eye contact generally triggers strong emotions. [1] In some settings, particularly among young men, too much eye contact is perceived as a challenge and results in a fight. While at times we may want to capitalize on this dynamic, in many tough conversations we're better served by down-regulating any feelings of stress or hostility. This can be difficult when seated, where social convention usually mandates that we look at each other, but it's easily accomplished when walking side-by-side.

More (Acceptable) Silence

In contrast to eye contact, silence usually lowers our stress levels. [2] But again, when we're seated social convention usually compels us to maintain the flow of conversation. In seated settings, silence is often perceived as hostility or disengagement. (Consider being seated next to a couple at a restaurant who aren't speaking. Are they fighting? On a bad date?) But when we're walking silence can convey reflection and thoughtfulness, allowing for a slower pace and a lower temperature.

The Right Amount of Privacy

In choosing a seated setting, we run the risk of insufficient privacy. Other parties may join us unexpectedly, or we may realize that we're being overheard, or distracting noises may start up. But we also run the risk of too much privacy. A pleasantly isolated space may come to feel confining in the midst of a conflict. Taking a walk allows us to modify the degree of privacy as needed, so we feel neither intruded upon nor claustrophobic.

Logistics

Not every setting offers an optimal environment for a tough conversation, so consider the following:

• A route that fits your available time, preferably one that can be lengthened or shortened as needed.
• Easy navigation, with long straightaways and few intersections or obstacles.
• Sufficient safety so that neither of you feel the need to maintain situational awareness.
• An absence of distractions, particularly constant sounds such as freeway traffic, lawnmowers, etc.

For many years I conducted walking coaching sessions with my MBA students at Stanford. Eventually I was holding so many that I had to conserve my energy and returned indoors, but the experience taught me much about the value of walking even--and sometimes especially--when we have to have a tough conversation.

 

---

Footnotes

[1] Eye Contact Is a Two-Way Street: Arousal Is Elicited by the Sending and Receiving of Eye Gaze Information (Michelle Jarick and Renee Bencic, Frontiers in Psychology, 2019)

[2] See the following:

• Speech is special: The stress effects of speech, noise, and silence during tasks requiring concentration (Jenni Radun et al, Indoor Air: International Journal of Indoor Environment and Health, 2021)
• Silence, please. (Amy Novotney, American Psychological Association, 2011)

For Further Reading

Better Working Relationships

Setting the Table (Difficult Conversations)

Learning to Yield (Navigating Tough Conversations)

Resolving a Protracted Conflict

Risk Management (The Importance of Speaking Up)

How to Deliver Critical Feedback

Make Getting Feedback Less Stressful

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

Three Conversations (On Better Communication)

 

Photo by John.