“Be stubborn on the vision, but flexible on the details.”
“Be stubborn on the vision, but flexible on the details.”
One of the issues that often arises in teamwork is that of terminology. You’re in a meeting explaining yourself using what you think are perfectly understandable words but after a bit of back and forth you realise that the others aren’t understanding what you’re saying in the way you mean it. Or worse, you don’t realise that there’s been a misunderstanding and you leave the meeting thinking everything is sorted, only to discover a while later that the team has gone off on the wrong path.
Thus the 3rd Ground Rule is:
Use specific examples and agree on what important terms mean.
This rule is all about specifics – specifics in situations and specifics in language usage.
Abstract thinking may be great for philosophy, but when we’re trying to communicate in a high-performing team and we need action, it’s so much easier for us to relate to specific concrete examples. This is especially true when we’re trying to resolve issues in the team. In these instances, a clear situational example of what happened when and by whom helps to set the context within which further discussion can take place. If you’re trying to air a grievance and you start with “you always do [insert that thing they do here]”, there’s a big chance that the person can deny your grievance, as it’s almost impossible for someone to do something all the time.
One of the first artefacts I try to establish during any project is a glossary. Besides the usual role of clarifying the meaning of terms, I often find that the glossary is also used to define the single term that the team agrees to use whenever there are multiple terms are in use in the organisation. I know it might sound silly to go to the trouble of clarifying the words we use in a project, but you’ll save yourself quite a bit of time and frustration in the long run.
This is a relatively simple rule, but it’s surprising how easy it can be to get it wrong!
In the last post I wrote about assumptions and their effect on team performance. One of the most basic assumptions you often encounter in teams is that others have the same information you do. Hence, the second principle:
Share all relevant information
Let’s take an example – the traditional requirements gathering phase. The Business Analyst sits with the business person while they explain what they want this new system to do. The analyst takes notes and documents what they believe the business said. They then take this documentation back to the business, who, when reading someone else’s interpretation of what they said, realise that there were quite a few things that they forgot to mention that were in their head that would’ve made their requirements clearer.
When these docs are signed off and given to the developer to build from, the developer looks on in amazement at the analyst, wondering where all the detail they need is. So the analyst and developer make a trip to the business to get the info they need. The relevant information here is that which the developer needs to turn the requirement into a system.
The Agile solution to this problem is to remove unnecessary handoffs and potential miscommunication by simply having everyone work together full-time through the entire process. This way the team can make it clear what information would be relevant to them to help each other start sharing it more.
A key point to make is the use of the word ‘relevant’. Oversharing is not constructive. If it doesn’t need to be said, don’t say it. Only share what is needed to progress the discussion or the work at hand. Anything more is waste.
I’m assuming we all know the choice phrase: “Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups.” If you don’t, well there is the problem with assumptions right there.
In my previous article I listed 8 behaviours that contribute to a high performing team. The first on that list is:
- Test assumptions and inferences.
It’s first for a reason. Humans have evolved advanced behavioural traits to ensure survival on the wild plains of Africa. We are great at pattern recognition, until we’re not. Our assumptions and inferences are examples of our application of pattern recognition. When we see someone behaving in a certain way, we review our memory for events that match that behaviour, then we infer the reason behind the current behaviour from the reasoning behind the historical behaviour. Many times our assumptions are correct, (After all, we did manage to survive this long!) however that’s not always the case. In our modern world, cause and effect can be a lot more complex than: “see a rustle in the bush – must be a lion! – run away and climb tree immediately!” In a business team context we are faced with people from many walks of life, cultural backgrounds and personal experiences. We also have the issue that language doesn’t fully express the nuances of what’s really going on in our thoughts, and that’s not even taking into consideration that many people in our teams are not even communicating in their native language. Put this all together and it becomes obvious why working in a corporate environment can often resemble a war zone.
But it doesn’t have to be. A lot of conflict can easily be avoided by making sure that the initial messages exchanged between people are understood properly. This is where the behaviour of testing assumptions comes into play.
Practically, there are 2 steps to this process:
Becoming aware is the most difficult. We’re remarkable good at seeing when others are making assumptions but not so good at observing it in ourselves. Understanding the Ladder of Inference makes this process a lot easier. If you understand the steps you go through to come to a decision based on the data that has been supplied, you can stop and question yourself at any point on the ladder.
Testing these assumptions with the other party then becomes easier. You first replay what you’ve seen or heard and ask whether they see it differently. Then you play back the assumptions or inferences you’ve made based on that data. If they see it the same way, you are at least seeing or understanding the situation in the same way. If it’s different, you have the opportunity to clarify the situation.
This technique helps both parties realise they’re at least looking at the same hymn-sheet. Whether or not everyone wants to sing that particular hymn is another issue. You may still need to have a difficult conversation.
Communication is tough. Many of the issues that arise in the workplace relate to miscommunication in some form or another. We think we’re saying something but it’s being interpreted differently, or we are actually saying the wrong thing. Miscommunication can lead to an erosion of trust, which is crucial to a high performing team.
Roger Schwartz came up with a list of Ground Rules for effective groups or teams to help with this situation. They are:
They sound so simple, looking at them written down like this. But these rules are based on a Mutual Learning model of the world, rather than a Unilateral Control model and it’s not easy to change your mental model. It takes discipline, commitment, self-control and persistence.
Each of these rules have a lot behind them, so I will be unpacking each of these rules over the next few blog posts to delve more into why these are so important for teams.
As Samuel Johnson said of a widower remarrying soon after the end of an unhappy marriage, I exhibited “the triumph of hope over experience.”
Triggers: Sparking positive change and making it last” by Marshall Goldsmith, Mark Reiter –
Over the past few weeks I’ve become increasingly aware of how valuable our emotions can be for us. I’m not talking about letting your emotions out instead of bottling them up inside. I’m talking about their use as indicators of the unconscious, sign posts along the way to a better understanding of ourselves.
I recently attended a workshop on system psychodynamics which was, to say the least, quite enlightening. Besides the fascinating theoretical learnings of a new field (for me at least), the key learning I took from it was how the unconscious manifests in many bizarre and subtle ways. There were many times I felt my heart rate increase immediately after someone in the group said something I wasn’t sure why, but yet it happened. I also found myself responding internally (I wasn’t always open enough to blurt out what I was thinking) in ways that took me by surprise. Halfway through the 2nd day I started to get the hang of it and I felt as if I were sitting on my shoulder observing myself and the emotions that were rising and swirling inside of me. I realised that I didn’t have to be a slave to these emotions but could rather observe them and instead use the rational part of my brain to unpick and unravel them to see where they came from. The unconscious is a murky place, but when the prefrontal cortex is in the driving seat with the brights on and the amydala is strapped and gagged in the back, quite a few realizations float into the beams. The emotions surface along the road, flashing brightly, warning us that there is something ahead that we will (eventually) need to deal with. We can choose to ignore the signs, relishing the reckless speed and the throb of the blood rushing through the veins, but we shouldn’t be surprised when we go careening off the side of the road into a ditch of despair.
We are complicated animals. There are so many things we don’t know about ourselves (yet). There are so many aspects that we try to hide, or project away onto others so we don’t think we’ll have to deal with them. Observe your emotional sign posts and perhaps you’ll find yourself on an open road with bright blue clarity above you.
“Your life consists entirely of the present moment.” – Eckhart Tolle
“Culture isn’t just one aspect of the game, it is the game. — Louis Gerstner
I came across this in Peter Diamandis’s Abundance: The Future is Better Than You Think:
“Wikipedia took one hundred million hours of volunteer time to create,” says [Clay] Shirky. “How do we measure this relative to other uses of time? Well, TV watching, which is the largest use of time, takes two hundred billion hours every year—in the US alone. To put this in perspective, we spend a Wikipedia worth of time every weekend in the US watching advertisements alone. If we were to forgo our television addiction for just one year, the world would have over a trillion hours of cognitive surplus to commit to share projects.” Imagine what we could do for the world’s grand challenges with a trillion hours of focused attention.
Get off your couches, people!