The Institutional YES!

In my previous article, I referred to a Harvard Business Review article "The Institutional Yes" in which Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos described Amazon’s approach to setting strategy: Generate new ideas by asking “Why not?’ and then test those ideas through the least-expensive experiments possible. As Bezos said, “You should be making guesses and then finding out at lowest cost whether or not they are needle movers.”

Or, as I would put it in improv lingo: Leap boldly while aiming for a mattress.

But, as Bezos makes clear, sometimes you have to focus more on the leaping, less on the mattress:

“[Y]ou have to recognize that there are times when you can’t put a toe in the water; you have to leap in with both feet…. You allow that you might take lots of twists and turns on the details, but you really commit yourself to the objective.”

I can’t think of a better description of an improv show. As I described it earlier, improv is all about Exploring, Flexing, and Being Spontaneous on Purpose. It means totally committing to your goal and accepting that many winding roads can take you there.

Bezos then goes on to say:

“And by the way, it’s very fun to have the kind of culture where people are willing to take these leaps – it’s the opposite of the ‘institutional no.’ It’s the institutional yes. People say, ‘We’re going to do this. We’re going to figure out a way.’”

Here Bezos echoes two other improv imperatives: Supporting each other (by saying “Yes And”) and Having Fun (aka “The Wow”). Finding big challenges, treating them as problems to be collectively solved, gaining energy from the power of saying Yes!

Finally, Bezos says:

“It’s important to be stubborn on the vision and flexible on the details.”

If this is all starting to sound like institutional improvisation around a Commander's Intent – you’re right! Shades of Southwest Airlines’ Herb Kelleher saying to employees: “Have fun while keeping fares low!” The Institutional YES! creates a clear purpose and a loose framework within which organizational performers can exercise all of their improvisational skills – and have fun in the process!

Boldly Go! (But Carefully Plan)

A well-known improv tenet says: “Fall first – then, on the way down, figure out what you’re going to do next!” In other words, take action – any action – and trust that your native wit and intuition will solve the problem of what to do afterward.

This is probably the one improv tenet that prospective YES! Leaders have the most trouble accepting. With visions of Wile E. Coyote firmly in mind, they might say: “What?! Throw myself into the void, without a net, no lifelines? Leave myself to the mercy of hope, luck, and the vagaries of the Universe and the Acme Company? You go first!”

Well, to take a "both-and" approach here, I think we can respect both sentiments – “fling yourself headlong into an uncertain future”AND “keep your ankle tied to a bungee.” Even performance improvisers don’t expect to splat against a blank canvas when they leap. They rely on multiple supporting structures – ideas they’ve used in the past, aspects of their character, rules of the game being played, heuristics such as "Yes And" – as a loose framework within which they can improvise a solution to their onstage challenge.

These thoughts were prompted by an intriguing Harvard Business Review article titled “The Institutional Yes.” The article comprises an interview with Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos in which he describes many ways in which Amazon keeps its sights on both imperatives: “leap” and “aim for the mattress.”

As to the Leap Imperative, Bezos says:

“One useful habit [in setting strategy] is to ask the question ‘Why Not?’ When something seems like an opportunity … you will always get asked the question ‘Why? Why do that?’ But ‘Why not?’ is an equally valid question.”

But if that sounds like the voice of the thrill-seeking, ready-fire-aim, leap-think-act personality, consider Bezos’s follow-on statement:

“And there may be good reasons why not …. In that case, if somebody asked ‘Why not?’ you would say ‘Here’s why not.’”

And even if you proceed, it’s not with reckless abandon, as Bezos makes clear:

“[S]ince the outcomes of all these things are uncertain, if you can figure out how to conduct an experiment, you can make more bets. So the key, really, is reducing the cost of the experiments.”

Experiments. Prototypes. Parallel processes. As you boldly go forth with your strategy, these are your supporting structures, your lifelines, your Institutional Mattresses. The YES! Leader must not be afraid to take the leap, but, as Bezos indicates, she also needs to consider how to mitigate the possible dangers of the landing.

Does Jeff Bezos have something to say about initiatives that do require leaping in with both feet? Will Wile E. Coyote survive his latest precipitous cliff dive?

To find out, tune in again next time!

The Serious Business of Play in the Workplace

I’ve been associated with a group called the Applied Improvisation Network since its inception in 2001. One of the main areas of focus of the AIN is helping organizations realize the benefits of play – that is, using games and other similar activities in training, teambuilding, and problem-solving, and just generally adopting a more playful, lighthearted approach to the challenges of organizational life.

Play in the workplace can take many forms – from quick teambuilding games at the start of a staff meeting (such as Word at a Time Story) to the type of near-chaotic playground atmosphere pioneered by Google in its offices. The benefits of play in the workplace include:

·         Reduced stress

·         Increased employee engagement

·         More creative ideas (by stimulating the right brain)

·         A more positive work environment

·         Ultimately, better service and solutions for customers, resulting in bottom-line impact for the organization

Still, though, the benefits of play can be a hard sell in business organizations. Many people seem to think that “work” and “play” are two distinct activities, with “work” being the domain of serious, no-nonsense, analytical thinkers, and “play” being regarded as a frivolous, time-wasting activity that gets in the way of efficient operations. Even where play is allowed into an organization, it’s often grudgingly seen as a necessary (but temporary) diversion from the serious business of … business.  

In a classic article titled “What Is Team Building, Really?”, Peter Grazier suggests another way to view the role of “playing” in organizations – a view that highlights the integral link between playing and getting the job done.

Grazier points out that business organizations are increasingly recognizing the importance of teamwork among its members in generating innovative ideas, making good decisions, and carrying out tactical and strategic plans. As Grazier says:

“Teaming isn’t something we do because it creates harmonious work groups, or is neat to do. It is a way to formalize the power of collaboration among individuals. It is a way to blend the talents, skills, and inherent creativity of diverse people. It is a way to use this collaboration so that the work group leverages its skills, time, and resources for their own benefit and that of the organization.”

To reinforce team-based attitudes and actions, many people in organizations use teambuilding activities. In essence, a teambuilding activity is a form of play - a form that uses such structures as games, challenges, skits, and (yes!) improvisational-theater activities to generate fun, energy, and (most important) learning about one’s team members and about oneself.

I think it’s fair to say that teamwork in organizations is a concept that most people support. However, even people who agree with the importance of teamwork often deride teambuilding as a “feel good” activity that has little to do with what happens back on the job. According to this view (which I’ve frequently heard expressed), the only way people can really learn to work together is to jump in and do actual work on actual projects.

The problem with that view, says Grazier, is that teamwork often has a hard time naturally emerging from our actual on-the-job interactions due to the continuing emphasis that organizations tend to place on individual accomplishment. Grazier points to the “psychic dissonance” that often arises when organizations say they want teamwork but continue to evaluate and reward people in terms of their individual results.  As a result, people find it difficult to truly embrace and pursue a collaborative approach to their work.

This is why taking people out of their normal work environment and having them collaborate on non-work-related activities in a spirit of play is a central aspect of teambuilding. Grazier notes that this is an echo of our experience from schooldays, in which we learn about collaboration and the satisfaction of joint accomplishment, not so much in the classroom, but on the playground. As he says:

“We moved through our school system learning that the way to succeed in the classroom (or ‘the real world’) was to do it ourselves in an ongoing competition against others. On the playground, the system favored teaming.”

A logical conclusion to draw from Grazier’s observations is that engaging each other in a spirit of play through teambuilding activities isn’t just a good way to create teamwork. Play is essential in order for a group of people to develop the trust, respect, understanding, and joint celebration of common achievement necessary to sustain the motivation to put aside individual agendas in favor of realizing team goals. Truly, teamwork and play go hand-in-hand.

Mutual Coaching: Expanding Our View of What "Coaching" Is All About

In a recent article in The YES! Leader, I described the concept of “framing” – the process of conjuring images in our heads whenever we hear certain words. These images serve as metaphors that shape our definitions of those words and determine our attitudes toward the concepts they represent.

One common business term that people tend to frame in widely different ways is “Coach.” To some,“Coach” evokes the image of a manager who observes a direct report, gives feedback on his performance, and advises him how to do things differently – much like a sports coach giving instructions and orders to his players. Others might also think of a “Coach” as a manager working with a direct report on his performance, but in more of a two-way, question-oriented manner that focuses on leading the direct to self-discovery of what he should do. Still others might expand the image of “Coach” beyond the manager-subordinate context and envision a peer engaging in a dialogue with another peer to help her find a solution to a performance issue.

Each of these three frames contains differences that can cause disagreement among the people who hold them if they are not explored. Yet all three do have one element in common: The picture of one person sitting in the “coach’s chair” and the other person in the “coachee’s chair.” In this view, the coachee is the one with something to learn, do, or change, with the coach being the instrument of the coachee’s improvement.

But even this Coaching frame can be expanded if we consider what really goes on in any effective coaching interaction: 1) A gap is identified between what exists and what’s desired; 2) Possibilities for closing that gap are identified; and 3) An agreement is reached about specific action steps to close that gap.

With this expanded view, I think we can find yet another way to frame coaching – what I refer to as Mutual Coaching.

Let me illustrate this with an example. Gary and Kate are team members who are participating in a group brainstorming session when Gary starts to get agitated at the session’s lack of progress. After Kate mentions a particularly off-the-wall idea, Gary makes a comment about all the “dumb” ideas that are leading the group nowhere. After the meeting, Gary stops by Kate’s office to discuss another team matter, but Kate ignores him and just keeps working at her computer. Angry, Gary storms down to their office of their manager, Danielle, and complains about Kate’s “unprofessionalism” and “uncalled-for behavior.”

As Danielle inquires into the interaction, she learns about what transpired at the earlier meeting. She decides to engage in a standard supervisor-to-direct-report coaching session with Gary by (among other things) asking, “How do you think Kate might have felt when you said the group was generating ‘dumb’ ideas?” As he considers the question, Gary concedes that, yes, Kate might have been offended by that comment, and it might have been the reason for her ignoring him later, but that was still no excuse for her “childish” behavior. Gary then says, “I suppose I could have handled the meeting differently, but I think you need to coach Kate about her behavior, too. She’s not totally innocent here.”

Now, many managers might take the bait and get further embroiled in the Gary-Kate controversy by calling in Kate for a coaching session as well. But Danielle realizes that doing so would 1) remove the accountability for resolving the issue from Gary’s and Kate’s shoulders, 2) rob them of an opportunity to develop their conflict-resolution skills, and 3) distract Danielle from her own tasks. So Danielle says instead: “If you think Kate exhibited unproductive behavior, I’d really like to see you work that issue with her yourself.”

After thinking about it, Gary approaches Kate again:

GARY: I’m sensing a lot of tension between us. I think it’s important for us to have a good working relationship, so I’d like to see if we can work through our differences.

KATE: OK.

GARY: When I came in here before, you didn’t look up or acknowledge my presence. I’m wondering if that had something to do with our brainstorming meeting.

KATE: Well, yeah, I was mad! You called my idea dumb.

GARY: I can see why you thought that, and I apologize. I didn’t think we were making good progress, but I shouldn’t have used that word. I wonder if we can make some agreements going forward?

KATE: Agreements?

GARY: About how to have productive meetings and work together better. Speaking for myself, I know I need to avoid using words like “dumb” when I get frustrated with our progress. What else do you think we need to do?

KATE: I think we need to recognize the purpose of brainstorming sessions. We’re supposed to generate off-the-wall ideas to help us break old patterns of thinking and find creative solutions.

GARY: I know. At the same time, I think we’re getting behind in our project. Maybe we should lead off our next team meeting with a discussion about our progress.

KATE: Sounds good.

GARY: What else, if anything, do we need to do to work together better?

KATE: Well … from now on, I should probably tell you if something’s bothering me rather than avoiding talking with you about it.

GARY (smiling): And I’ll do the same.

In this type of Mutual Coaching interaction, both parties play the role of coach and coachee simultaneously. In the course of their interaction, they satisfy the above description of coaching by: 1) Identifying a gap, 2) Coming up with ideas to close it, and 3) Reaching agreement on action steps to put those ideas into effect. In the process, both Gary and Kate learn something about the other - and about their own capabilities for working through difficult interpersonal issues.

In Mutual Coaching, you don't have to wait for a designated "coach" to step up to the role of helping someone else work a change in behavior. You can do it yourself - and open yourself for coaching at the same time. Mutual Coaching expands our frames for thinking about coaching and can help us realize the range of opportunities we have for coaching each other - and even for coaching ourselves.

"Give More in Value Than You Take in Payment": A Recipe for Success!

This week I’ve been reading an excellent book recommended by a good friend of mine – The Go-Giver, by Bob Burg and John David Mann. Burg and Mann’s brief yet profound business fable sets such concepts as “achievement” and “success” on their collective heads.

Their message: Rather than trying to attain your goals by being a “go-getter” and setting your sights on grabbing as much as you can for yourself, you should instead be a “go-giver” by putting others’ interests first and continually adding value to their lives. It follows that the more you focus on what you give to others rather than on what you get in return, the more you’ll see your primary goal as always striving to exceed others’ expectations.

Burg and Mann characterize their premise regarding giving as The Law of Value, which they state as follows:

Your true worth is determined by how much more you give in value than you take in payment.

Rather than being a formula for business disaster, say Burg and Mann, The Law of Value reflects a principle for success that great business people have known for years. As one of the characters in their story says about giving:

It’s not a strategy. It’s a way of life. And when you [give], then very, very profitable things begin to happen.

In other words, if you are primarily focused on giving – be it in the form of products, services, information, knowledge, or even just yourself – then the energy and passion behind your contributions, and the quality of what you are giving, will be strikingly apparent to the people you are serving. As a result, they’ll  seek you out for further service and recommend you to others.  As another one of the characters in The Go-Giver says, "Givers attract."

Your own personal success will come, say the authors, but more as a byproduct of your service focus than as something for which you directly strive. You distinguish yourself, not by offering the same transactional “service for payment” that anybody else could offer, but by going over and above what’s expected. The extra value you provide is what attracts others, expands your network, increases your influence, and ultimately leads to your success.

REFLECTIONS FOR THE YES! LEADER

It strikes me that The Law of Value applies to the realm of personal relationships as well.  As I was reading The Go-Giver, my classic-rock brain immediately plugged into one of the Beatles’ most famous lyrics, from their Abbey Road album:

And, in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.

But it seems that the Beatles’ math may run slightly counter to The Law of Value, in this respect: The goal of giving is not to be concerned about the balance between the outlay and inflow sides of the ledger, making sure they’re always equivalent. The goal of giving is to give for its own sake.

If we want find another classic rock lyric that better squares with The Law of Value, I’d point to Andy Gibb’s recording of “I Just Want to Be Your Everything” (written by his brother Barry):

If you give a little more than you’re asking for, your love will turn the key.

Framing Your Way Out of Contradictions

In my previous article, I discussed the fallacy of the Fool’s Choice, in which people consider potential courses of action in terms of only two either-or options rather than stepping back and seeing the myriad choices available to them.  Organizational leaders who regularly fall prey to the Fool’s Choice severely limit their range of action and lock themselves into rigid patterns of thought and behavior. In the worst case, they view all situations through a single either-or lens (e.g., “you’re either with me or against me”).

The Fool’s Choice is an example of how framing can lead us astray. Framing is a linguistic device in which words conjure up certain images that affect how we react to a topic. For example, you may hear the word “friend” and immediately see in your mind a person you can call anytime to share your secrets and vent your frustrations, secure in the knowledge that that person won’t use your words against you later.  If you then encounter someone who asserts that it’s possible for a person’s boss to also be his “friend,” you may well disagree, on the grounds that it wouldn't be appropriate to open up to your boss the same way you would open up to your mentally pictured friend. Your conclusion: “You can be either a friend or a boss, but not both.”

But this isn’t the only way to frame the word “friend.” It can also mean a colleague whom you respect and with whom you can talk shop. It can mean someone who frequents the same Starbucks as you and with whom you’ve struck up a couple of conversations. And it can simply mean someone with whom you are friendly. If you use one of these alternative frames, you can see that the “friend” concept and the “boss” concept need not be regarded as inherently incompatible polar opposites at all.

While getting caught in a single (and often unconscious) frame can lead to the Fool’s Choice, being open to the multiple alternatives for framing a situation is one of the most powerful ways to resolve (seeming) contradictions. In the example above, rather than just reacting to your own framing of the “friend” concept, you can step back and ask what the other person meant when he asserted that a boss can be a friend. His answer may help you instantly reframe the entire conversation into one of agreement rather than disagreement – and show you that the seeming contradiction of the “Friendly Boss” is in fact not so contradictory after all.

How Saying "Yes And" Can Keep You from Playing the Fool

In a recent article in The YES! Leader, I described the essence of the improviser’s art as the ability to resolve contradictions. So I was particularly intrigued to run across the latest edition of the Crucial Skills newsletter, in which consultant and author Al Switzler (Crucial Conversations, Influencer) describes a common danger to which many people – especially leaders – fall prey.

Switzler was responding to a reader’s question: “How can I be both an effective boss and also a friend to my employees?” The query was signed “Friendly Boss” – which, to many people, would be yet another instance of the kind of incongruities (e.g., being doggedly flexible, being deliberately authentic) that I dealt with in my previous article.

In reply, Switzler wrote, “The challenge you’ve presented is the perfect example of the Fool’s Choice. What we mean by this is that we can only see two options [for addressing the issue] that seem diametrically opposed. We don’t see it as a false dichotomy but as an unfortunate reality.”

Switzler’s characterization of the challenge as a “Fool’s Choice” reminds me that my references to “resolving contradictions” are really intended as shorthand for “resolving seeming contradictions.”  When we see these types of paired concepts – being friendly or being the boss, being committed to a course of action or being open to course changes, being trusting or being skeptical – as mutually exclusive, either-or choices, it’s usually because of our failure to step back and see the larger picture and the possible future. When we do take that step back, the apparent incongruities often fade away, revealing the opportunities for synthesis.

Successful leaders know that taking that step back in order to gain a broader perspective – what I’ve previously called taking the Widescreen View – is essential for navigating the ever-changing circumstances of daily organizational life. As I’ve written previously:

“Just as the successful improv performer can resolve the incongruities of the situation without missing a beat, the successful leader can nimbly shift his actions throughout the day to effectively address each circumstance. In most cases, this is preferable to taking the easier course of always applying the same style in all situations with all people – an approach guaranteed to fail at least some percentage of the time.”

Switzler, in his response to “Friendly Boss,” makes a similar point:

“What we found from studying leaders and team members is that the best performers don’t fall into the trap of managing on one end of the continuum or the other. They value getting results and getting along. They value quality and productivity as much as they value harmony. They can clarify high expectations and rally a team to be both motivated and able to accomplish them. They can have tough, honest, candid conversations with care and courtesy. They have found the ‘and.’” [emphasis added]

In improv terms, what these “best performers” are doing is avoiding Fool’s Choices and instead saying “Yes And” – or more specifically, as applied to "Friendly Boss's" situation:

“Yes, it’s important to be friendly with my direct reports while also ensuring they’re working up to standards. And if I step back, acknowledge the possibilities, and advance with positive purpose, I can find a way to achieve both goals.”

Which DiSC Style Makes the Best Leaders?

In my leadership programs over the years, I’ve done considerable work with the DiSC behavioral model. The DiSC model defines four primary styles of behavior for which people tend to show preference. At the risk of oversimplifying, I would describe the four styles as follows:

D – The DIRECTING style. People with a D preference tend to focus on the rapid accomplishment of tasks. They are driven (and drive others) to achieve results and don’t like to be bogged down in details.

i – The INFLUENCING style. People with the i preference tend to focus on persuading others by building networks and generating enthusiasm for their ideas. They interact easily with others and don’t like to focus on hard realities that might block their ideas.

S – The STEADINESS style. The S style tends to focus on achieving harmony, consistency, and balance in the workplace. Like the i style, they gravitate toward people but in a lower-key, often deeper way. People with an S style tend to dislike what they see as change for change’s sake.

C – The CONSCIENTIOUSNESS style. The C style, like the D style, tends to focus on tasks and outcomes rather than on people. However, the C style prefers a more deliberate pace than the D style, since they highly value accuracy, attention to detail, and the following of consistent processes. The C style resists ambiguity, lack of clarity, and rapid action unsupported by careful analysis.

In presenting the DiSC model to new leaders over the years, I’ve often encountered the question: “Which DiSC style makes the best leader?”  In the discussions that follow the question, I usually hear people say that the D style is “the leadership style,” on the grounds that this is the style that takes control, directs others, and rapidly drives toward results.

In order to deal with this question, I’ve taken to doing the following: Before we ever get to the DiSC model during a program, I ask participants to flipchart responses to a very simple question:

“From your experience, what are the characteristics of an effective leader?”

The list that they generate usually includes words such as:

·         Gets results

·         Overcomes obstacles

·         Influences others

·         Inspires others

·         Helps people deal with change

·         Creates a sense of stability

·         Sizes up situations

·         Makes good decisions

Later, when covering DiSC with the group, I’ll deal with the inevitable observation about D being “the leadership style” by referring to their “best leadership characteristics” flipchart and asking them to answer the following question about each item in the list:

“Which DiSC style do you think best supports this characteristic?”

As they consider each item on the list (which they themselves created), they quickly come to see that different DiSC styles support different leadership characteristics. A D style might be best for getting results and overcoming obstacles, but the persuasive approach of an i style is more appropriate for influencing and inspiring others, the steadying influence of the S style supports helping people deal with change and creating a sense of stability, and the analytical focus of a C style tends to work best for sizing up situations and making good decisions.

This exercise ultimately reinforces the important insight that leadership is not a “one size fits all” proposition. An effective leader must be able to shift her behavioral style to match the needs of different people and different situations – and the better she can learn to shift, the better leader she will be.

Resolving Contradictions: The Essence of the Improvising Leader's Art

What’s the one essential skill that any performance improviser must possess? Being quick-witted? Hilariously funny? Totally unflappable?

Many if not most people (especially those who have seen Whose Line Is It Anyway?) probably equate improv with thinking fast and making audiences laugh. When regarded this way, improv can seem as relevant to the lay person’s daily life (especially on the job) as the Three Stooges. But the entertainment factor is really a byproduct of the skills involved in improv – for example, listening fiercely, being completely present, and fully supporting troupe members. These types of skills are most definitely applicable to the everyday effectiveness of organizational “performers.”

But even more central to the improviser’s art (either onstage or in the meeting room) is a skill I call the ability to resolve contradictions.

On the improv stage, contradictions usually take the form of incompatible roles and situations that audiences pitch to the perfomers (e.g., a first-grade teacher as a master drill sergeant). Savvy audiences know that the entertainment comes, not from hearing wisecracks and jokes based on the situation, but from seeing how the performers weave the incongruities of the situation into a seamless scene.

Similarly, a leader’s effectiveness in his organizational performance is largely determined by how well he can resolve the jumble of contradictions presented to him each day. For example:

·         Being drivingly collaborative. Influencing the direction of events – while being open to the influence of others.

·         Being doggedly flexible. Being resolute in following a certain course of action – while staying alert to the need for course corrections as events warrant.

·         Being skeptically accepting. Showing trust in others at the start of a working relationship – before they’ve demonstrated how trustworthy they really are.

·         Being deliberately authentic. Flexing a natural behavioral style in order to adapt to certain situations and certain people – without becoming insincere or manipulative.

A leader’s success in navigating these shoals is largely a matter of shifting her responses between the two incongruous actions at different times to meet the needs of different situations. For example, she might follow her natural take-charge style when urgent action is needed but defer to another person’s ideas and judgment when she’s coaching the person to develop his problem-solving abilities. In most cases, this is preferable to taking the easier course of always applying the same style in all situations with all people – an approach guaranteed to fail at least some percentage of the time.

Just as the successful improv performer can resolve the incongruities of the situation without missing a beat, the successful leader can nimbly shift his actions throughout the day to effectively address each circumstance. At first, a new leader may have to stop and reflect (and often stumble) as he grasps for the best response. But with time, practice, and commitment, he can develop his own inimitable style that handles the ambiguities, dilemmas, and contradictions of organizational life without letting the seams show.

Presence as a Core Skill

In recent articles, I’ve been describing the core skills that are essential for any organizational performer, at any level of the organization:

·         Influence– The ability to “move” others to think or act in a certain way.

·         Openness– Receptivity to multiple perspectives, opinions, possibilities, and ideas.

·         Analysis– The ability to think critically, using facts and objective measures to make decisions.

Today I’d like to look at a fourth core skill that everybody needs to possess to ensure individual and organizational success. I call this skill Presence.

You can think of Presence as a stair-climbing process that occurs during any interaction with another person. Step One is recognizing one’s own thoughts and feelings and understanding the triggers (or “hot buttons”) that can prompt them.

So far so good for most (though not all) people. It’s Step Two – managing their reactions to their thoughts and feelings – that can start to make the staircase slippery. Instead of choosing appropriate reactions, many people act as if they’re victims of circumstance – the “circumstance” being those inner thoughts and feelings that give rise to uncontrollable knee-jerk responses.

But how to judge what constitutes more appropriate responses? This is Step Three – sensing how one’s actions are impacting or could impact other people.  This is often called the ability to “read” others, drawing on such signals as tone of voice, word choice, and body language to gauge what the other is likely experiencing. Step Three can be another stumbling block for many people, especially those who overfocus on themselves or fail to pick up on social cues.

Even a person who ascends this far can fail to navigate Step Four – sustaining his interactions with the other person in order to achieve an outcome that meets the needs of both of them. For example, a person trying to influence another may recognize his own negative feelings toward a resistant prospect (Step One),  manage his actions to keep them positive (Step Two), and sense that his “pitch” is working better but still isn’t having the desired persuasive effect (Step Three).  However, at this point he may be stymied as to what alternative approach to take next to overcome the lingering resistance (Step Four). Successful navigation of Step Four requires follow-through and finesse in order to bring the entire interaction to a mutually satisfying resolution.

What does this all have to do with Presence? The whole process described above takes place almost instantaneously, simultaneously, with few seams showing to denote the transitions. In fact, Step

Four itself is essentially a constant cycling through Steps One, Two, and Three – and not always in that order. Being able to keep up with the ever-shifting dynamics of the interaction requires a person to be relentless about staying in the here and now – that is, to be fully present during every second of the interaction.

How can a professional-skills curriculum teach “Presence 101”? Very simply – because the process I describe above is essentially describing the Emotional Intelligence (EI) model.  Grounding all organizational members in the basic skills of Emotional Intelligence can create a shared language and common awareness of the importance of not reflexively acting on our emotions but instead managing our responses in order to create positive, mutually beneficial outcomes for all. The foundational Emotional Intelligence skills can then be built upon in later programs in the curriculum, especially to teach the Step Four skills that will help people learn to sustain their EI skills in different contexts (sales, negotiation, coaching, influencing, etc.) with deftness and aplomb.