You’re sitting in your office when an employee of yours
named Chris marches in and launches into the following rant about another of
your employees named Ed:
“You won’t believe
what Ed just did! I thought we said the whole team had to agree before taking
on any new work. But now I hear that Ed promised Chandra in Accounting that
we’d create some new reports for her by the end of the week! So we all have to
bust our behinds while Ed comes off looking like a hero! What kind of guy would
pull a rotten stunt like that??!! I’ve just about had it with him!!”
Which of the following would be the best thing to say to
Chris?
(a) “Wow, that was
a pretty rotten thing to do!”
(b) “OK, OK, just calm down. Let’s do some
problem-solving here.”
(c) “I know how you feel.”
(d) None of the above.
You probably know not to select Option (a). Besides not
having the full story, you don’t want to be seen as taking sides in the issue.
Otherwise, Ed may feel as if you’re ganging up on him, which could poison your
(and Chris’s) subsequent relationship with him.
At first glance, Option (b) may sound good, as a way to
get past Chris’s emotion and tackle the issue in a coolly rational way. However,
ignoring emotions won’t make them go away, and in fact may aggravate the issue
if Chris feels that you’re patronizing him and dismissing his concerns. And no
matter how much you tell him to “calm down,” he’s still likely to be under the
influence of his emotions – and thus won’t be in a problem-solving frame of
mind anyway.
So if we don’t want to take sides or ignore Chris’s
emotions, then Option (c) might seem to be a good choice. Unfortunately, it
also risks running afoul of the downsides of either (a) or (b). Chris might react (at least internally) in one
of two ways:
·
“If you know how I feel, then you’re agreeing
that I’m justified in feeling that way” – which means he thinks you’re taking
his side.
·
“You don’t know how I feel! Nobody could know
how I feel right now!” – which means he thinks you’re patronizing him.
So that leaves Option (d) as the best answer – which
still doesn’t tell the YES! Leader what to do. To supply the answer, I'll suggest the following four-step process:
(1) Check for Understanding.
“You say Ed made a commitment without consulting the team.”
(2) Name the Emotion.
“This is about as angry as I’ve ever seen you.”
(3) State a
Positive Standard. “We need to make sure we’re all working together as a
team.”
(4) Test for
Coaching Readiness. “What’s most important for you right now?”
This approach has the following benefits:
(1) Check for
Understanding. This lets you validate your understanding of the facts of
the issue and shows Chris that you’re truly listening.
(2) Name the
Emotion. This lets you test whether you’ve grasped Chris’s emotions of the
moment and shows that you care as much about the impact on him as the impact on the team’s work.
(3) State a
Positive Standard. This lets you establish the standard that any
resolution of the issue will need to meet – regardless of what the “true facts”
of the matter turn out to be. By stating this, you maintain your neutrality
while also subtly reminding Chris that he might also have contributed to
undermining the teamwork principle (by, say, leaping to conclusions about Ed’s
behavior rather than working things out with Ed directly).
(4) Test for
Coaching Readiness. By asking what’s most important for him right now, you’re
essentially testing Chris’s readiness to put his emotion aside and start
focusing on a solution. If he’s open to problem-solving, you can then engage
him in coaching so he can devise an appropriate course of action. If he’s still
in the grip of his emotions, you may find you can best serve him by just acting
as a sounding board and letting him vent. (That may be all he wants to do anyway.)
REFLECTIONS FOR THE YES! LEADER
Notice the connection between the Positive Standard concept and the “position-interest” distinction I described in my previous
article. Basically, a Positive Standard represents an attempt to get Chris and Ed past their conflicting positions by framing a common interest that can serve as the basis of
a mutually acceptable agreement. As long as each holds to his position (Chris: “Ed’s
actions were rotten!”; Ed: “I was helping another group!”), the two will never
reach a satisfying resolution.
A Positive Standard can also be thought of as a norm, i.e., a shared principle that
guides the group members in their interactions. What are your team’s norms?
What would happen if you individually asked your team members to identify the
team norms? How much agreement would there be? What would happen if you then
conducted a full team discussion and attempted to reach consensus
on the key norms of your team?
No comments:
Post a Comment