Ed Batista

Leader as Referee

A theme in my practice is the leader with a team of employees who are consistently embroiled in internal conflict. While purely interpersonal factors may contribute to this state of affairs, there are usually additional contextual or structural issues that transcend individual personalities. [1] For example, these teams often operate in an environment with variable compensation plans, such as sales or investing.

These teams are typically less interdependent than operating teams that win or lose as a unit. Team members may even view their nominal colleagues as direct competitors. [2] And there may be ambiguity surrounding individual responsibilities or "swim lanes." Sales organizations can allocate business by deal size or geographic territory, and investment firms may subdivide along industry verticals, but these boundaries aren't always clearly marked (and some parties may benefit from a lack of clarity.)

My work with clients who are leading in these circumstances involves mitigating the effects of interpersonal conflict, to be sure. [3] But it's also important to recognize that conflict probably can't be eliminated, and that may even be a counter-productive goal. There's a tendency today to idealize friendly and collaborative relationships among colleagues and to downplay the utility of internal competition, and in many settings that's entirely rational: teams that win or lose as a unit usually underperform when they view colleagues as antagonists. [4]

But in the right circumstances internal competition fuels superior performance, and the leader who's too quick to stifle conflict will miss opportunities to succeed and may even destroy value. To be entirely clear, I'm not suggesting that organizations should foster cutthroat attitudes among colleagues in order to achieve business goals. There's evidence that excessive internal competition can contribute to undesirable turnover and create perverse incentives to game the system. [5]

One option for a leader facing this dilemma is to envision their role as a referee. Just as a ref in a sporting contest must ensure that competitive behavior doesn't impede fair play, a leader in this situation must assess the costs and benefits of internal competition and determine how to respond when conflicts occur. They can start by predicting likely scenarios and the appropriate consequences.

What's aggressive but fair play?

Some conflicts generate rancor and friction, but in the leader's estimation no lines were crossed. Fairness is in the eye of the beholder, and a leader should make an effort to get the perspective of all parties involved. But it's not necessarily the case that the leader must defer to anyone whose feelings have been hurt. People need to take responsibility for their emotions, not merely view their response as a function of others' behavior. [6] And while the leader-as-ref-can promote fair play, it's also true that not everyone is cut out for competition.

What merits a penalty?

Tolerance for a degree of internal conflict doesn't mean "anything goes," and the leader has an obligation to respond to behaviors that cross a line and merit some form of penalty. Barring legal and regulatory requirements that supersede a leader's latitude to determine when a line has been crossed, this is a subjective assessment that's highly dependent on what's normative in the cultural context. Behavior that's unremarkable in some cultures is a minor faux pas in others and a major violation in still others. The nature of such penalties can vary widely, from a mild rebuke or some critical feedback [7] to a formal censure or performance improvement plan. Here it's incumbent on the leader to be consistent across individuals and from one incident to the next, or risk creating perceptions of unfairness or favoritism.

When do you take someone out of the game?

Referees have the ability to declare a player no longer eligible to participate in a given contest. A leader might consider some form of this option in situations where a more severe penalty is called for and a cooling-off period could benefit all parties. In the moment, someone might be asked to leave a meeting or drop off a call. If problems persist, they may be removed from a deal or a project team. Even further, they may be assigned to a new role or levelled. [8]

When do you cut them from the team?

Leaders aren't merely "referees," of course. Most of my clients also function as a "general manager" or "team owner," with the ability to determine who's on the roster. And in some cases a violation is so egregious that the person loses their job. Occasionally this is the result of a single episode, which usually entails legal or regulatory issues that compel the leader to act. More commonly there's been a pattern of behavior that has persisted over time, and here's where many leaders who are comfortable with conflict make a misjudgment: They fail to take early action to call a penalty, and what begins as an "aggressive but fair" culture turns increasingly toxic as "hard fouls" go unpunished.

This may be justified on the basis of financial performance. Organizations routinely make exceptions for bad behavior when people make their numbers. But cultures are slow to change, and when an organization allows toxicity to fester because the assholes are hitting their targets, the "cultural debt" won't be paid down automatically if they're fired when they falter. As I've noted before, "Invest in the culture you want, or get the culture you deserve." [9]

 

---

Footnotes

[1] The Layer Cake of Working Life

[2] What Kind of Team Are We?

[3] A Working Relationship Curriculum

[4] Startup Leadership: A Greater Us

[5] For example, the competitive dynamics engendered by "rank and yank" management systems can have a range of intended and unintended effects:

• Forced distribution rating systems: When does “rank and yank” lead to adverse impact? (Gary Giumetti, Amber Schroeder and Fred Switzer, Journal of Applied Psychology, 2015)
• The return on investment of rank and yank in a simulated call-center environment (Dennis Adsit, Warren Bobrow, Peter Hegel and Ben Fitzpatrick, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 2018)
• A New Hope for Rank and Yank (Jamie Mulligan and Rebecca Bull Schaefer, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 2011)

[6] You Make Me Feel... (On Language and Responsibility)

[7] How to Deliver Critical Feedback

[8] The Fine Art of Levelling

[9] The Accumulation of Cultural Debt

 

Photo by Football Schedule.

A Working Relationship Curriculum

A common theme in my practice is the difficulty a client is experiencing in a working relationship. Below is a set of articles that I've written over the years that comprise a curriculum organized around the following themes:

• FOUNDATIONS: A "starter kit" on a set of fundamental topics, from dialogue and coaching tools to empathy and cognitive biases.
• COMMUNICATION: Why our efforts to communicate often go astray and what to do when that (inevitably) happens.
• EMOTION: How to regulate (rather than suppress) the complex feelings that relationships evoke, and why this matters so much.
• CONFLICT: Sources of conflict, from style differences to competitive threats, and a potential path to resolution.
• FEEDBACK: What feedback is (and is not), how to deliver it, how to respond, and why it can hurt.

Note that feedback comes last, and that's by design. Rushing into feedback conversations before both parties are prepared is a reliable way to make difficult relationships even worse. While it's important to get to the point where feedback can be delivered with skill and received with grace, it may be necessary to take some time to get there and to practice a number of interpersonal skills along the way.

If you're having difficulty in a working relationship, optimally you can invite your counterpart to explore this curriculum together. While that may feel daunting, merely expressing your interest in improving the relationship can be a step in the right direction. But even if that's not possible, I hope you'll feel encouraged to make use of these materials on your own until your counterpart is able to join you.

 

---

1. FOUNDATIONS

1.1. Better Working Relationships

An issue that comes up frequently in my work as a coach and teacher is how to improve a working relationship in which one person feels disappointed, irritated, or upset with the other. In my coaching practice this typically involves a pair of co-founders or two members of an executive team. While my comments here are by no means comprehensive, they lay out a set of steps you can take to begin to address a working relationship that's faltering or didn't get off to a good start.

1.2. How Great Coaches Ask, Listen, and Empathize

Coaching is about connecting with people, inspiring them to do their best, and helping them to grow. It’s also about challenging people to come up with the answers they require on their own. Coaching is far from an exact science, and all leaders have to develop their own style, but we can break down the process into practices that any manager will need to explore and understand. Here are the three most important.

1.3. The Difficulty of Empathizing Up

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.

1.4. Seeing What's Not There (The Importance of Missing Data)

One of the most significant cognitive errors is what Daniel Kahneman calls What You See Is All There Is, or WYSIATI, which is shorthand for the fact that we find it very difficult to envision missing data. Even when faced with massive gaps in information, we tend to focus on the information at our disposal and rely on it to construct a narrative, as flimsy as it might be. A corollary to Kahneman's WYSIATI might be called WYDSDE: What You Don't See Doesn't Exist. And as a result we're typically overconfident in the validity and coherence of our explanatory narrative.

 

---

2. COMMUNICATION

2.1. Learning to Yield (Navigating Tough Conversations)

What does it mean to yield in our relationships? My client was careful to distinguish "yielding" from "capitulating," and I want to emphasize that distinction: I'm not talking about simply letting others get their way, or avoiding conflicts, or being nice. Instead, I see yielding as finding the right balance between deference and assertiveness, between inquiry and advocacy. So what does this look like in practice?

2.2. Risk Management (The Importance of Speaking Up)

If it feels risky to say, it's important. If it wasn't important, it wouldn't feel risky. And that sense of risk is a critical piece of data, a sign that the conversation is a meaningful one with larger implications.

2.3. Intent vs. Impact (When Communication Goes Awry)

When our efforts to communicate go awry, one of the most common causes is a failure to distinguish between intent and impact. When delivering a message we typically imagine that these two concepts are aligned--it may not even occur to us to view them as distinct. Our intent is transparent to us, so we assume that it's equally clear to others and that our message is being received in that same spirit.

2.4. Connect, Reflect, Direct...Then Ask (On Coaching)

Asking evocative questions, ensuring the other person feels heard, and actively conveying empathy remain the foundations of coaching. But there's certainly more to the process, and here's a sequence of steps that I employ frequently in sessions with clients that you may find useful if you're seeking to integrate coaching into your managerial style.

 

---

3. EMOTIONS

3.1. Talking About Feelings

My work as a coach often involves encouraging clients and students to talk about their feelings--a process known to psychologists as affect labeling--in order to manage difficult emotions more effectively. Experience tells us that this is a useful practice, but why? How does talking about feelings make them easier to manage?

3.2. The Tyranny of Feelings

I don't believe that acknowledging the importance of emotions requires us to think like children, nor must we always privilege our subjective emotional experience in order to realize the benefits of a deeper understanding of emotion and enjoy a broader range of emotional expression at work. So what can we do? Here are some concepts I find useful to bear in mind.

3.3. You Make Me Feel... (On Language and Responsibility)

Saying that someone else "makes us feel" an emotion suggests that they are responsible for our emotional state, and that's highly problematic. When another person's statements and behavior trigger an emotional response in us, it's inaccurate to presume that the other person is the responsible party and that we're an innocent bystander.

3.4. 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.

 

---

4. CONFLICT

4.1. Whether or Not to Fix a Broken Relationship

A theme in my practice is the leader who's struggling to repair a damaged working relationship with an employee. In most cases we start with the assumption that a better relationship is possible and that even a long-running conflict can be resolved. This usually entails the following steps in some form.

4.2. Work Style Differences

We all have our preferred ways of working, and sometimes when we're locked in a conflict with a colleague it's the result of incompatible work styles. When we work with people who share our work style it may feel more comfortable, but homogeneous teams can have blind spots and be prone to groupthink. Teams whose members have a diverse range of styles can be more effective if they develop the ability to manage conflict successfully.

4.3. The Trap of Competition

While our social orientation is critical in enabling our success as a species, it also poses a substantial challenge for each of us as individuals. We must navigate in-group competition, which becomes even fiercer in larger groups. We're hyper-aware of our relative social status and our shifting position within group hierarchies. And in order to accomplish these tasks effectively we're constantly scanning our interpersonal environment for potential threats and opportunities, which necessarily involves comparing ourselves to others.

4.4. Resolving a Protracted Conflict

When we're locked in a protracted conflict with another person, there's one critical step that's usually necessary to reach a resolution in which both parties feel a sense of trust and remain committed to the relationship: The higher-status person must express vulnerability first.

 

---

5. FEEDBACK

5.1. Feedback Is Not a Gift

Feedback is a gift. We've been told this over and over, as if it were gospel. I've even preached it myself. But I stopped using this phrase because it fails to acknowledge how difficult the experience of receiving feedback can be. The problem is compounded when we view feedback as inherently true, inscribed on tablets of stone and delivered from the mountaintop. But if feedback isn't a gift, what is it? It's data.

5.2. Make Getting Feedback Less Stressful

We need to recognize that receiving feedback is inherently a stressful experience. As Sheila Heen and Douglas Stone of the Harvard Negotiation Project have written, "Even when you know that [feedback is] essential to your development and you trust that the person delivering it wants you to succeed, it can activate psychological triggers. You might feel misjudged, ill-used, and sometimes threatened to your very core."

5.3. How to Deliver Critical Feedback

If we want our critical feedback to be truly useful to the recipient and not merely an exercise in self-indulgence, we owe it to our colleagues to be more thoughtful and intentional in how we deliver it. A valuable model in this context is known as "supportive confrontation," developed by David Bradford and Allan Cohen and discussed at length in their book Power Up.

5.4. Four Responses to Feedback

It's important to be open to feedback, even--and especially--when you disagree with it or find that it disconfirms prior assumptions. But being open to feedback doesn't necessarily mean that you should simply accept it. So when you receive feedback, whether it's in a formal performance review or an informal chat, here are four potential responses.

5.5. Why Some Feedback Hurts (and What to Do About It)

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.

 

---

FOR FURTHER READING

Bouncing Back: Rewiring Your Brain for Maximum Resilience and Well-Being (Linda Graham, 2013)

Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High (Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan and Al Switzler, 2002)

Difficult Conversations: How To Discuss What Matters Most, Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton and Sheila Heen, 2000/2010

Fierce Conversations: Achieving Success at Work and in Life One Conversation at a Time (Susan Scott, 2002)

Helping: How to Offer, Give, and Receive Help (Edgar Schein, 2011)

Humble Inquiry: The Gentle Art of Asking Instead of Telling (Edgar Schein, 2013)

Thanks for the Feedback: The Science and Art of Receiving Feedback Well (Douglas Stone and Sheila Heen, 2015)

 

Photo by Thoroughly Reviewed via Flickr.

Four Responses to Feedback

If feedback isn't a gift, what is it? It's data. About our impact on a particular individual at a particular point in time. And while it may be "true" in the sense that the feedback-giver is accurately representing their perspective, that doesn't make it The Truth. Because feedback always says as much about the giver as the recipient. It's filtered through their reality-distortion fields, reflecting their personal values and priorities. [1]

It's important to be open to feedback, even--and especially--when you disagree with it or find that it disconfirms prior assumptions. But being open to feedback doesn't necessarily mean that you should simply accept it. So when you receive feedback, whether it's in a formal performance review or an informal chat, here are four potential responses:

1. Express appreciation for the positive. We almost always overlook positive feedback and focus immediately on the negative. This is an understandable response--negative feedback has the potential to pose a threat, which makes it likely to generate a strong emotional response and capture our attention. [2] But this is a missed opportunity to acknowledge the full range of feedback you've received and make the conversation more productive for all parties. So be sure to pause, acknowledge any positive feedback, and articulate what you'll continue to do (or do even more of) as a result.

It's harder to determine how to respond to negative feedback, but you don't need to agree with it all or treat it like a set of obligatory duties. That's a sure path to overwhelm and resentment. But it's essential to avoid responding defensively or to reject it out of hand. [3] Instead, recognize that every piece of negative feedback contains a request for change and that all change carries a cost. With that as a guideline, you can distinguish among the following:

2. Easy changes you're happy to make. At least some of the negative feedback likely involves certain behaviors or aspects of your working style that you're not attached to and can modify without undue effort. Remind the feedback giver that we all have blind spots, and they don't need to wait for a formal process to give you similar feedback in the future.

3. Hard changes you're willing to attempt. There's probably also some negative feedback on behaviors or aspects of your style that feel more deeply rooted or will be more difficult to change. Invite the feedback giver 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.

4. Changes that will be too difficult or costly to undertake. By no means should you feel compelled to accede to all of the negative feedback you receive. Some of the changes your feedback giver is asking for will either impose an intolerable burden on you or will prevent you from accomplishing your goals. 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.

In addition, note that it may be useful to respond to feedback not only one-on-one, but also in larger groups, particularly if you're a leader and the feedback is derived from multiple employees and other stakeholders:

• One-on-one: If possible, meet individually with each of your feedback providers. This may require a significant investment of time, but it will be the best way to separate the signal from the noise, because it will be easier for both parties to speak candidly. These conversations may feel risky, but that's actually a reason to have them. [4]
• In a small group: Also consider meeting jointly with a subset of your feedback providers, typically your direct reports. This may also feel risky, even daunting, but it will be a unique opportunity to model how to respond to feedback, which will make it easier when you have critical feedback for them. [5]
• In larger settings: Finally, it may be advisable to share some remarks with a larger group that includes people who didn't provide feedback but still have a stake in your performance in some way. If you're a CEO or a functional leader this could be at an all-hands or an offsite, which is one of the most effective ways to build a feedback-rich culture. [6]

 

This is a companion piece to the following:

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

Adapted from Your 360 Report Is Ready.

---

Footnotes

[1] Feedback Is Not a Gift

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

[3] Defensiveness Is in the Eye of the Beholder

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

[5] How to Deliver Critical Feedback

[6] Building a Feedback-Rich Culture

Photo by Nicolas Vigier.

Jennifer Ouyang Altman on "Empty Questions"

All too often our questions aren't truly open and honest inquiries. They may be loaded questions, freighted with biased assumptions. They may be leading questions, guiding the respondent to our preferred answer. Or they may simply be statements in disguise, efforts to appear open and honest that are anything but. The problem with these pseudo-questions is that they're never as clever or well-hidden as we think they are. To a respondent they feel hokey and theatrical, like an unwelcome pop quiz with all-too-obvious answers.

My colleague Jennifer Ouyang Altman has some outstanding guidance on how to avoid this and actually convey curiosity: Ask "empty" questions:

Every interaction is an opportunity to become more--or less--connected. You know what people find disconnecting? Perceived manipulation, which is especially offensive in the form of questioning, as if people can't see right through it. Shields go up.

How do we ask better questions? The goal is to be empty. What does that mean? It means releasing preconceived notions of what the answer is, having a relaxed curiosity, swinging freely. It means not forcing an agenda, not trying too hard, not fixing, saving, or correcting.

What kinds of questions stem from being empty?

Empowering questions that don't have a solution stuffed in them.

Stuffed: Should we send an email out?
Empowering: How do we get everyone up to speed?

Expanding questions that develop someone's thinking rather than constricting it.

Constricting: Can you do that?
Expanding: What would it take to do that?

Elevating questions that rise up above the trees to see the forest rather than staying in the weeds.

Weeds: How do we backfill this role as quickly as possible?
Elevating: Is this still the role we need?

Our questions can have the same intention, yet the impact of an empty question is radically different. Rather than ask, Why would we do that?, we can ask: What options have you explored? How did you choose this path? What issues do you see here?

By asking better questions--and truly listening to the response--we learn far more about other people's attitudes, motives, worldviews, values, and emotions, all of which enables us to forge stronger relationships. When I was sick earlier this year, the question that made me feel most heard, valued, and invited was the emptiest: What has it been like for you?

 

Adapted from the August 2023 issue of Jennifer's newsletter (which I highly recommend), with her gracious permission.

---

For Further Reading

Scott Ginsberg on Asking (Better) Questions

Compasses and Weathervanes (30 Questions for Leaders)

Questions for a New Leader

The Six Layers of Knowledge and Better Conversations

Connect, Reflect, Direct...Then Ask (On Coaching)

How Great Coaches Ask, Listen, and Empathize

 

Photo by Lyza.

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.