Sounds like just a cheap joke, but it's a serious problem for anyone in business (and it can often affect personal relationships as well). I'm talking about recognising when you commit yourself to an opinion, a decision or a course of action. And my point is that being too quick to commit undermines your leadership impact, so it's worth paying attention to.
I was triggered into posting this by a recent discussion on a programme with a participant who had been working on being a better listener. He thought he was getting better, he said, but it took a huge effort, sometimes didn't work, and he wasn't sure it was worth it. What was clear as he talked to me was that his order of doing things was:
1. Work out what he thought needed to happen
2. Talk to others to show he was "listening" to their objections and getting their "buy-in"
3. Do exactly what he originally planned
To be fair to him, this is not an uncommomn approach. And yet it inherently undermines the idea of "listening".
So we talked about changing the point at which he committed to his view of what should happen until after he had talked to people. Just by this mental move of the timeline, the listening becomes genuine - it is data gathering for your decision. And if you have internally not yet committed, this will be detected (in subtle and largely unconscious ways) by those you are listening to, so it will be seen as genuine. Which is a good example of the simplest way to communicate your good intent being to make it the genuine truth!
The same mental discipline of delaying your commitment is essential for leaders in playing the political game. As I have written in previous posts, politics is something you do before you commit yourself, not something you do to influence events after you have committed. The activities of the political game provide essential data to inform your decision. Those who don't play the political game sometimes criticise those who do for always "waiting to see which way the wind is blowing". What they are really saying is that they prefer to make decisions before they listen! Which is a surefire way of ending up simply "pissing into the wind"!
Showing posts with label 1.5 Power & politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1.5 Power & politics. Show all posts
A strategic conversation is not a conversation about strategy!
This was prompted by some work I did on a programme for global relationship partners in a professional services firm who were being encouraged to have more strategic conversations with senior management contacts at their clients. Hearing the usual responses of "But I'm not an expert in strategy" reminded me how often people confuse a strategic conversation with a conversation about strategy!
I would define a strategic conversation as any conversation which makes a significant impact on the other's long term thinking and hence future actions. Since thinking and decisons are driven by emotions, you could also say a strategic conversation is one which has a significant impact on how the other person feels. Some examples would be:
(a) A coaching conversation = using a balance of support and challenge to help someone change habitual patterns of thinking and hence open up new strategic possibilities, which neither you or they anticipated.
(b) A heart to heart conversation = personally connecting by sharing what you truly think and feel rather than hiding behind your role and task agenda, or by showing empathy. The strategic impact is in deepening the relationship and building trust.
(c) A difficult conversation = daring to raise an issue that everyone else is avoiding, eg a conversation about a problem person in their management team that they aren't dealing with, or even the bit of the strategy that you just don't get ("the emperor has no clothes").
Sometimes, these all go together! Certainly, what's common to all three is that they are:
"Real" - you reveal who you really are, and invite the other to do the same
"Risky" - you expose yourself, a sign of trust and an invitation for them to trust you
"Relational" - you presume a desire for a deeper relationship, an invitation to build it
And how do you prepare for these strategic conversations? Not by learning about strategy but by:
(1) Awareness of who you are (at your best) and what gets in your way when you avoid the strategic conversation which might show it.
(2) Focus of attention on the quality of the interaction (or connection) rather than the content.
I would define a strategic conversation as any conversation which makes a significant impact on the other's long term thinking and hence future actions. Since thinking and decisons are driven by emotions, you could also say a strategic conversation is one which has a significant impact on how the other person feels. Some examples would be:
(a) A coaching conversation = using a balance of support and challenge to help someone change habitual patterns of thinking and hence open up new strategic possibilities, which neither you or they anticipated.
(b) A heart to heart conversation = personally connecting by sharing what you truly think and feel rather than hiding behind your role and task agenda, or by showing empathy. The strategic impact is in deepening the relationship and building trust.
(c) A difficult conversation = daring to raise an issue that everyone else is avoiding, eg a conversation about a problem person in their management team that they aren't dealing with, or even the bit of the strategy that you just don't get ("the emperor has no clothes").
Sometimes, these all go together! Certainly, what's common to all three is that they are:
"Real" - you reveal who you really are, and invite the other to do the same
"Risky" - you expose yourself, a sign of trust and an invitation for them to trust you
"Relational" - you presume a desire for a deeper relationship, an invitation to build it
And how do you prepare for these strategic conversations? Not by learning about strategy but by:
(1) Awareness of who you are (at your best) and what gets in your way when you avoid the strategic conversation which might show it.
(2) Focus of attention on the quality of the interaction (or connection) rather than the content.
Are you a "push" or "pull" leader?
I was recently supporting the observer team on a programme where groups of consultants worked for a whole day on a business simulation exercise. There were many learning points, but one that set me thinking was about the assumption, which virtually all the participants made, about how a leader should lead their team. This assumption was that leaders should try to lead by rational persuasion.
This is undobtedly a useful approach, but it has limitations. So I shared with them, and will now share here, a simple 2 x 2 model of influence styles, which in this context can also be called leadership styles. One dimension distinguishes between "push" and "pull". The other distinguishes between "rational / impersonal" and "emotional / personal". So we get four styles (or families of styles):
Rational push: These are the "Persuading" styles - eg "You should do x because ..."
Emotional push: These are the "Requesting" styles - eg "I want you to ..."
Emotional pull: This are the "Attracting" styles - eg "Imagine how you'll feel when you've done x!"
Rational pull: This are the "Exploring" styles - eg "How would you deal with x?"
Too often we get stuck in the first, and far too seldom do we use the others - particularly rarely the last two. And yet here are two good reasons for trying them. (And yes, I realise I'm using a rational push approach right now!) Firstly, push approaches inherently tend to produce a defensive push back. And the harder you push the harder the push back. So these approaches often result in stalemate. The pull approaches are inherently less likely to produce resistance. Secondly, the emotional approaches produce connection via the right brain and limbic, whereas the rational approaches primarily involve the (non-connecting) left brain. That's why a leader who can clearly communicate an attractive vision will create the most strongly connected followers.
So try flexing your influence / leadership style. You might be amazed how much less effort it takes to pull rather than push!
This is undobtedly a useful approach, but it has limitations. So I shared with them, and will now share here, a simple 2 x 2 model of influence styles, which in this context can also be called leadership styles. One dimension distinguishes between "push" and "pull". The other distinguishes between "rational / impersonal" and "emotional / personal". So we get four styles (or families of styles):
Emotional push: These are the "Requesting" styles - eg "I want you to ..."
Emotional pull: This are the "Attracting" styles - eg "Imagine how you'll feel when you've done x!"
Rational pull: This are the "Exploring" styles - eg "How would you deal with x?"
Too often we get stuck in the first, and far too seldom do we use the others - particularly rarely the last two. And yet here are two good reasons for trying them. (And yes, I realise I'm using a rational push approach right now!) Firstly, push approaches inherently tend to produce a defensive push back. And the harder you push the harder the push back. So these approaches often result in stalemate. The pull approaches are inherently less likely to produce resistance. Secondly, the emotional approaches produce connection via the right brain and limbic, whereas the rational approaches primarily involve the (non-connecting) left brain. That's why a leader who can clearly communicate an attractive vision will create the most strongly connected followers.
So try flexing your influence / leadership style. You might be amazed how much less effort it takes to pull rather than push!
Are you taking authority appropriately?
At a psychology learning group I was with this weekend we were discussing authority and how to take it in a way that is appropriate (in whatever context: business leadership, social situations or as a parent / in the family).
We considered three authority positions: "good authority", "authoritarian", and "abdicated authority". It was easy to recognise that we all have a subjective "felt sense" of which postion authority is being taken from - both when subject to and when taking authority. So, for example, we experience the difference between a person holding back from a place of good authority versus not acting because they have abdicated authority. Or being tough in telling others what to do from a place of good authority versus simply as an exercise in power.
But what really differentiates these positions and what drives our subjective intuition about the exercise of authority?
It occurred to me that one way we might look at it is to consider what is really driving the behaviour. When acting with good authority, we are concerned about the needs of others / the situation / the system. When we abdicate authority or become authoritarian, we are really driven by our own needs, eg our need for power, respect or recognition, our lack of confidence or our fear of assertion etc. In other words we act from our small "self" rather than from our bigger "SELF". Clearly sometimes it is not a simple either / or!
It seemed to be a helpful thought and one that allows us more consciously to self-check the leadership positions we are taking and to be more confident in how our leadership will be experienced. Try it out - I'm going to!
We considered three authority positions: "good authority", "authoritarian", and "abdicated authority". It was easy to recognise that we all have a subjective "felt sense" of which postion authority is being taken from - both when subject to and when taking authority. So, for example, we experience the difference between a person holding back from a place of good authority versus not acting because they have abdicated authority. Or being tough in telling others what to do from a place of good authority versus simply as an exercise in power.
But what really differentiates these positions and what drives our subjective intuition about the exercise of authority?
It occurred to me that one way we might look at it is to consider what is really driving the behaviour. When acting with good authority, we are concerned about the needs of others / the situation / the system. When we abdicate authority or become authoritarian, we are really driven by our own needs, eg our need for power, respect or recognition, our lack of confidence or our fear of assertion etc. In other words we act from our small "self" rather than from our bigger "SELF". Clearly sometimes it is not a simple either / or!
It seemed to be a helpful thought and one that allows us more consciously to self-check the leadership positions we are taking and to be more confident in how our leadership will be experienced. Try it out - I'm going to!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)