Bush to Boardroom, does it translate?

At a breakfast presentation this week for Quorum I was asked two great questions:

First Question - In survival scenarios, is there a group attribute that makes you smile, because you know the group will succeed?

Groups who take the time to discuss and make explicit their expectations of each other and the situation always outperform. It’s counter intuitive. It feels too slow, and not sufficiently focussed on the outcome. It can be frustrating, because alignment doesn’t happen immediately - things that seemed clearly agreed may need further discussion and exploration. However, the larger the shared narrative and understanding a group has the faster they can act, decide, resolve conflict, distribute tasks. Everything becomes faster and more efficient.

Second Question - Does that observation translate from the Bush to the Boardroom?

Yes! And to every ‘room’ where 2 or more people are attempting to work together for a shared purpose/result. In the boardroom it might mean unpacking what we mean by strategy, or clearly understanding where the division of board guidance and executive function lies. It might mean discussing where our focus should lie. It might mean clearly articulating contrary views and genuinely exploring the nuance of perspective and opinion.

In any situation, the clearer we can be about what is important to us, how we will conduct ourselves as we pursue it, and what success looks like, the faster we can implement.

A lack of alignment usually shows up as either conflict or disengagement. Observe those, lean in, and add clarity.

Which Why?

A senior leader team I was working with this week spent time sharing their individual “User Manual”. Some great insights about how and where people work best, their preferences for information, building trust, working hours and more were shared. Super valuable. A common theme was that for them to commit time, effort and resources to something, they needed to know why. Makes sense - few if any of us like wasting time on work that doesn’t seem relevant. Whole books have been written on “why”. But which why? Those leaders articulated 5 different types of why:

• Large, audacious ‘change the world’ vision/mission why

• Large organisational purpose why

• Personal mission why

• Tactical ‘how does this relate to the rest of my/our work?’ why

• Unrelated to the organisation whys like family, health, travel, personal growth, freedom, balance, choice.

All the leaders wanted to know why. They all agreed that knowing why was fundamental to alignment of effort. But not all of them wanted to know the same why. A challenge to alignment is we tend to articulate importance through our own why and huddle with others who share that perspective. An effective leader works to understand the different whys in their team and works with people to align effort with the why that most interests them.

There’s a good chance that most of the whys you work with are in the list above. There’s also a good chance I’ve missed some. What would you add?

Clarity precedes commitment

While I was working as a survival instructor, we emphasised over and over again the importance of water as one of the 5 survival priorities. Participating in an advanced exercise, we encountered a smelly, slimy pool covered with bubbly green algae. It didn’t look drinkable. But parting the layer of green sludge revealed slowly flowing, almost clear water. Clarifying it by straining through fabric, then boiling to purify, and it was perfectly drinkable. It took a while to convince the rest of the group that it was a better option than walking further with an unknown distance to our next water source.

There are similarities in the workplace. Like the group facing that sludgy looking pool, sometimes we need clarification before we commit. Clarification is a key role of leaders at all levels (even if you are an unofficial leader).

On Friday I was working with a CEO and Board discussing their strategy. They are pursuing organic growth by being exemplary at what they do (it’s working well). They also want to grow by acquisition. The nature of their industry means potential acquisitions are a rare find. The CEO was seeking guidance from the board about how aggressively to pursue the acquisition strategy. He mapped a provocative ‘worst case’ to see how the board reacted. Initially the discussion resembled the survival group around the skanky pond - wrinkled noses and obvious discomfort. As the conversation progressed, there was more and more clarity. By the end, the Board and the CEO had a crystal clear understanding about their approach. Ambiguity gone. Alignment achieved.

As a leader, in any situation, it’s worth asking “How can I add clarity to this interaction?”

Chunking Up

When I was working in the disability service sector, I was asked to get involved with a family whose services were not going well. More particularly, the mother of a young adult we were supporting did not think they were going well. She had made a number of complaints. I was told “they are a problem family” and warned that I would not be likely to get a reasonable response from mum. I was appreciative of the warning, but I reckon it wasn’t particularly helpful, as it predisposed me to an adversarial conversation. A few people before me had been in vigorous arguments with her about the service and not reached any suitable solutions. Mostly the interactions led to more complaints.

When I first met mum she was angry about a lot of things. She was entirely justified about a number of them. The volume of things she was unhappy about was big and some of the things were not solvable, so I chunked up. Chunking up is moving away from detail toward principle. If you go far enough, you eventually find territory where instead of arguing 2 sides, you both agree. For that mum and me it was that we both cared about high quality of life for her son.

Chunking up to a point of agreement allows two (or more) people to get away from adversarial positions and start on the same side. If you can find a bigger principle that is true for both and connect about that, then it’s easier to work back down into the details. Look at the details through the principle. “Does (detail) contribute or erode higher quality of life?” is a more useful conversation than arguing head to head over details. It becomes easier to see what is important to both parties, what should be fought for, and what should be compromised.

It took a number of sessions, immediate actions on some stuff that wasn’t great, more proactive changes and compromises for both of us, before everyone was satisfied with the service.

Where could you chunk up for a more effective conversation?

Influence

Influence was the only tool I had. To get anywhere, the hearts and minds of the people around me had to be engaged. My last role before I started my business was a stroke of leadership genius. The Executive team recognised my willingness to “play” in spaces of deep change that others found uncomfortable. They created a position unlike any I have seen before or since. My role was to advise/recommend changes and then create the momentum to make it happen. I had no staff. I had no budget.

Nothing in my space got off the ground unless there was broad alignment. People had to be willing to invest time, energy and resources for anything to advance. I was often called on when a change project was not going well, so the starting point was often scepticism about the project.

The Big 5 I focussed on were: 

• Genuine Care – I was deeply interested in what the impacts and benefits of the change were for the individuals and groups involved. 

• Deep Listening - Getting a full understanding of what the change involved for everyone, including the potential risks and downsides for them was a critical ingredient. When I was listening to understand, I didn’t try to influence their position. 

• Benefit - We collaborated on making the greatest benefit for as many people as possible. If there was less in it for some, we focussed on how the change would deliver value at an organisational level.

• Transparency - When there were inevitable compromises to be made, I made sure everyone knew what they were and why. I doubled down on this if the compromise had a disproportionate impact on someone.

• Deliver or Discuss - If I said something was going to happen, I worked hard to deliver. If it wasn’t possible, I always renegotiated expectations before they were due.

Often change processes are framed in adversarial terms. “On the bus or not”. People view expressed fear, additional load, or highlighted problems as resistance. More often than not, this is evidence of people caring about the result. If you can develop a shared picture of the end point, it's much more likely that people will pull together toward it. And it will build strength and connection across the team for the future.