Posted on

Step into conflict

The sum total of all contentious topics, that SHOULD be brought to light but we steer around, could be called the conflict debt.

Overall, there will be more conflict – and less conflict debt – in teams with a high level of psychological safety. Psychological safety is the cultural foundation for saying what’s necessary without fear of retaliations from other members in the team.

Debt can come from “simple” conflicts, eg feedback to the colleague always speaking too loudly on the phone. Or more complicated problems: a meeting culture where the minds are elsewhere (next meeting, the mobile phone, the email needing an answer, …) Or, a tendency to talk about the problems with the wrong people, not the people they actually concern; we may not steer clear of the topic, but we avoid the opposition.

The opposition in a conflict is what feels like unpleasant friction. Friction occurs between people, not topics/areas/departments. Practice in stepping into conflict consists of habituation to the unpleasantness, very similar to the training you’ll be going through to overcome other avoidances or fear: exposure, exposure, exposure.

Constructive conflict habituation happens in a way where others are not harmed (of course!), and where the conflict is justified. The goal is to reduce conflict debt, NOT to turn the workplace into a battlefield.

As individuals, we can make an effort to improve culture in this important aspect. It’s good for the community, productivity and innovation, and our personal skills are strengthened.

Previously, I have suggested to question the foundation for statements presented as facts.

Here’s another exercise: explore an underexplored aspect.

Regardless of discussion topic, tunnel vision can develop, ie the tendency to see things from only one (typically, own) point of view. Suggest another angle, and try the discussion from there. Take your departure point in whatever you agree upon, but stretch agreement a little bit, eg: “Good plan. How do we also solve [….]”

Example: You agree to let job applicants know within two weeks, if they are invited to an interview. You say eg: ” That’s a good goal. How do we solve the situations where the time limit cannot be met?”

Or: Until now, your internal newsletter has been produced by each department taking turns, a practice you agree to change so marketing is the permanent writer. You say, eg: ”That simplifies the process a whole lot. How do we help marketing with information, so the newsletter remains interesting and relevant?”

Or: You agree, that the summer party should be planned by new hires. You say, eg: ” That’s a great way to get to know a lot of people. How do we handle the years where we have no new hires?”

As you internalize the structure – and keep focusing on the goal, which is to improve ideas, not kill them – it will be easier to step into, and remain in, conflict.

This exercise requires you to have a view of the missing perspective, and therefore it’s slightly more difficult than the previous one.

Structuring your training always drives the best result: you can practice in even-numbered weeks, or the first week of every month. Make a note of it!

Enjoy training 😊

Posted on

Sparring – how?

What is sparring about and how is it done?

Eva, newly appointed section manager with a team of approximately 20 people, is describing a situation that has made her sad and embarrassed: due to the resource situation in her workplace, she has accepted to support another department with one team member temporarily. The employee is ok with it, and the team receiving the support (also with a newly appointed lead, Morten) are  happy to have a helping hand.

Somewhere along the way an important bit of information is lost: that the employee has previously been on long-term sick leave because of stress. The employee becomes part of the scheduling just like her temporary colleagues.

The work tasks in Eva’s and Morten’s departments are almost identical, only the location is different. Morten therefore assumes that introduction and training can be skipped.

Already on her first day, the employee is under a lot of strain, and she contacts – not Eva, but Eva’s predecessor, who calls Morten on the phone and gives him a thorough scolding for not taking good care of his temporary staff.

————–0————–

Eva: Morten is obviously really mad at me for not mentioning the old sick leave thing…..and my predecessor is not super impressed with me either. I’m just so embarrassed.

Me: What could you have done differently?

Eva. Well, I could have briefed Morten on the employee’s special sensitivity…

Me: Yes, what would that have meant?

Eva: Morten would think I was over-soft!

Me: Ok. Has Morten previously indicated to you that he found you over-soft?

Eva: No, not directly….

Me: Ok. So you can’t be sure he thinks of you in that way, but obviously  it is a possibility. Could you think of more ways he would react?

Eva: Yes of course. He would surely have been happy to know that he should give the employee some extra time …..

Me: Ok, if the employee had had some extra time for the work, this would have made the temporary assignment go better?

Eva: Yes, I’m pretty sure of that.

Me: I think you’re right, Morten would appreciate that background. What do you want to do now?

Eva: I really don’t know. Everyone is mad at me. The employee, Morten, my predecessor…

Me: Yes, it must be really unpleasant for you. But let’s talk about the three one at a time. Which of the three are most important to you just now?

Eva: Well, in reality I think it’s Morten. We trained for team leaders together and were appointed almost at the same date. It’s been so nice to have someone to talk to about all the new responsibilities, even though he can have a tendency to overstate himself sometimes. Deep down, he is really reliable, and has been a good friend many times in spite of our slight competition for the promotion.

Me: I completely agree, Morten will be important to you also going forward. Which options do you have to fix or improve your relationship?

Eva: I could give him an apology……

Me: For what?

Eva: For not having briefed him on the sensitivity issue, of course!

Me: I see you made a mistake by not giving him that background – and the mistake had consequences for the employee, Morten AND you. But Morten was also quick to conclude that he didn’t have to provide introduction and training to the employee. You mentioned that he might say you were over-soft. It sounds to me that you don’t feel 100% respected by him. Is that understanding correct?

Eva: Yes, that’s true. He is always VERY busy when I reach out to him. We often talk about everyday stuff, but if I need his help or attention he is difficult to connect with even for two minutes.

Me: OK…. How could you approach this, if the objective if that you and Morten should not end up in this situation again?

Eva: That’s hard……..

Me:  Yes. Mistakes are inevitable, but it’s still pretty taboo to admit them or own up to the fact that you want to learn from them.

Eva: Yes for sure….

Me: The way I see it, there is not much good to say about the mistake itself. It is not the kind of error that luckily brings out new essential knowledge, like inventing pennicillin. You were all just too busy to communicate well. You probably already have company HR-processes describing how to assign stafff temporarily.

Eva: Yes.

Me: And still, I would encourage you to think in terms of structure if you’d like a change.

Eva: Please don’t say structure, we have enough meetings as it is.

Me: I believe ENOURMEOUSLY in change without meetings! But not without structure.

Eva: Hmmm. I don’t think I know what you mean.

Me: A structure can be as simple as a reminder for your conversations with Morten, regardless of whether it’s an everyday coffee chat or something more serious. A form of extra agendapoint to always remember to cover or mention. For example: “Is there anything else we should discuss”. Or ”Do you agree to everything we just discussed, or do you have reservations we didn’t cover”. Or ”Can I help with anything other than what we just spoke of”. You should be prepared to be quite firm to always bring this up!

A structure could also be more like a meeting, for example an agreement to have an informal coffee first Monday of every month.

The important point is, that you wish for change has an actual shape you can remember, and something you can add to something else already going on. An extra agenda point each time you’re on the phone with Morten is easy to remember. And a coffee each time you’re both in the same location is also easy to remember. It simply increases the likelihood of the change to happen.

Do you understand?

Eva: Yes. I think I like the idea of a regular coffee better, the other is too formal and unnatural to me. And we’re already in the same physical spot every other month.

Me: OK. So you have a few elements for a talk with Morten:

  • An apology
  • A wish to learn from the mistake you made – which has made you think you’re both sometimes rushing things too much and skipping important information
  • A suggestion to meet over coffee when you’re physically in the same place to ensure you speak regularly

Eva: Yes, I guess that’s it.

Me: So when will you be taking this call with Morten?

————–0————–

Sparring is down to earth and close to your everyday life.

We find options and resources together, and you are motivated to act on the change you want to see. You can talk about and rehearse everyday situations and be reminded of what’s important to you.

I don’t question your motives or ask why. See more about sparring HERE.

Posted on

Post-its!

The tiny piece of paper with glue on one edge has been a part of the consulting toolbox for quite some time. Early on as an (overrated) gimmick, almost as if the use of postits in itself demonstrated meeting facilitation that was dynamic, engaging and creating results. A small colourful confirmation of the saying about consultants: hot air in a nice-looking wrapping.

Now, when I hand out piles of post-its to groups joining a workshop, I see the rolling of eyes with a few participants: “*sigh*, again?” But, after more than 30 years in the tech industry and with thousands (!) of meetings and workshops behind me, I STILL have not found a tool that beats the post-it note.

Group work is the favourite discipline of noone. Herarchies and asymmetrical power relations cannot be put aside, and in addition to those you can add personal tendencies to talk/listen too much/little. If everyone in the group shall contribute, then the framework and the tools must support it – it does not happen by itself.

I find it useful to divide group work into individual and common phases, and below I bring an example from a workshop on psychological safety. The task at hand is to improve psychological safety in the team’s weekly meeting.

After a brief plenary introduction to the topic itself and the group work process, the first phase is individual work – in silence and within a clearly defined timeframe. Individual work is great for generating statements for later common prioritization and discussion, and the format gives time and peace to think each for him/herself. The mission for this phase is to find factors that inhibit psychological safety in the weekly meeting, in practice: write one statement per post-it note illustrating inhibiting factors. As many postits as practically possible.

Then follows a short phase of common work: individual contributions are sorted and a vote is held: which are the most important to solve. The result after this phase is a number of statements, developed and selected by the entire group, not just the particularly well-spoken or senior in rank.

Then, back to individual work! This phase takes more time and generate a LOT of ideas on how to help remove the most important inhibiting factors. Each participant writes his/her own list, and the list should be TOO long, to a point where the ideas in reality become silly or meaningless – because it’s funny and you get to the actual end of your creativity. The phase is concluded with a few minutes where each participant selects the best ideas from own list – and write them on post-its.

Group work has now been going on for half an hour, and most of the time it’s been quiet.…….

The last phase is common work and involves a vote – the best ideas are selected – and then: discussion and further detailing. Group work as we know it! But on a more democratic foundation, and with documentation for the entire work process at hand.

Lots of postits have been used, and it is good for every participant to see the discarded – a bunch of ideas that were good, but just not good enough and the pile itself evidence of the group’s hard work – as well as the selected ones, with loads of voting dots!

Could other tools than post-its be used for this kind of work? For sure! I am aware that there are also digital platforms offering excellent post-it-like functionality. But the colourful scraps are wonderfully reliable; a low-tech tool that effectively builds abridge between individual reflection and joint solution development.

Read more about the workshop on psychological safety here.