The (Sometimes Maddening) Need For Precision

A manager is presenting in an important meeting.  He is in the process of making a critical point, yet goes blank as he has forgotten the date he last met with the Chief Marketing Officer (CMO).  The CMO is someone who had played an integral role in the breakthrough the manager is reporting on.  “Let’s see I think I met with the CMO last Wednesday”.  Backpedaling, he painstakingly recants, “no it was Thursday”.   After confusion ensues amongst the group, he changes course once again.  “Wait, it was probably Tuesday”.

The manager has taken nearly a minute attempting to sort this out. That’s an eternity for someone who has been allocated only 15 minutes on the agenda—with five of those minutes committed to Q&A.  The manager seems oblivious to the side-show he has created.  Yet he’s especially pleased with himself when he finally figures out that it was indeed Wednesday when he met with the CMO.  He’s a man who has a high need for precision–someone who (among other things) prides themselves in getting the facts 100% right every time.  To him it’s a badge of honor.

Here’s the problem with people’s need for precision: too often in group settings (think: meetings, teachers instructing, etc) it detracts more than it helps.  This gentleman, for example, ultimately got his fact right but in the process lost his audience.  Plus, the group ultimately lost its momentum after the manager had trouble regaining his mojo.

The irony is that the meeting date with the CMO was inconsequential to the point the manager was attempting to make.  It simply didn’t matter.  Yet the manager seemingly had more invested energy in identifying that arcane fact than his all-important proposition.  The manager got lost in the weeds.  The culprit?  His own need for precision.

Precision, as important as it is, is essential only when it has direct bearing on a desired outcome you’re trying to achieve.  Otherwise, it’s noise.  There are exceptions, but not many.

The opposite also occurs.  How frequently do you see this happen?

A manager is attempting to share an inspiring story about Judy —the company’s promising new COO.  Early on in the manager’s comments to the assembled group of front-line supervisors the manager says,  “Judy was a supervising engineer for only two years before she was promoted to Director.”   Dan, a seasoned front-line supervisor, interrupts, “…actually, it was three years.”

Turns out, Dan was right—but his point added no value to the manager’s insightful perspective about Judy.

A human resources director is reporting on the results from the annual employee satisfaction survey to the company’s top officers.  She is pointing out the implications from the unmistakable downward trend in employee confidence across the entire enterprise.  Arthur, the company’s newest officer, unexpectedly chimes in.  “Yes, but look at the high level of confidence amongst the officer corps.”

Turns out, Arthur was right—but the high level of confidence amongst the officers was clearly an anomaly when contrasted against each and every other group in the company.  Arthur’s comment unfortunately distracted his fellow officer’s focus away from the all-important need for them to understand the dramatic decline in employee confidence.

Brett, a twenty nine year old chemist, makes a recommendation to his GM about how to remove the unwelcome deposits on the company’s boiler tubes. Betty, a twenty four year veteran of the steam generation department, asks Brett during an important group meeting: “what makes you think, after a short six months with this company, that you are in a position to recommend on such an important  issue?”

Turns out Betty was right—Brett was a short-timer, someone who was seemingly ill-equipped to make  such a recommendation.  But Brett had experience.  Turns out, he had helped solve a very similar problem with his last employer.

Each of these latter three examples are variations on people’s need for precision: the first is always representing the facts correctly, the second is never letting an exception go unnoticed, and the third is being unforgiving to those attempting to lead (i.e. expecting perfection).

All three of these are admirable and (usually) well-intended. Yet, it’s not helpful for the group when someone shares an arcane fact that adds no value.  It’s not helpful for the group when someone’s clever observation (think: exception) sidetracks the group from weightier matters.  And it’s especially not helpful for the group when those that attempt lead it come under constant cross-examination as a means of passing someone’s self-appointed credibility test.

Precision is a good thing—it enabled Man to send astronauts to the Moon and return them safely.  Yet, precision isn’t always our friend…no more so than when it becomes maddening to our colleagues!

 

Applying The Mind-Sets To Tough Meetings

Got a tough meeting coming up—one in which involves critical problem-solving, or one in which emotions may run high?  If you’re like me, you’ll need all the help you can get.  Here’s a tip.

Assuming you’re dealing with a group that’s familiar with the seven mind-sets, at the beginning of the meeting ask the group two questions:

*** “Which mind-set is most critical in ensuring we achieve our desired outcome?”

*** “Which mind-set (or its absence) is most likely to trip us up?”

If the two questions are properly facilitated, a lively discussion will ensue.  Ultimately the group will settle on a mind-set that pretty much fits the bill for each question.  Post the questions and answers on a white board or on a flip chart where they can be seen over the course of the meeting.  Don’t assume everyone will agree with the mind-set that ultimately gets chosen for the two questions.  In the end, it doesn’t matter.

This brief exercise (which should probably take less than five minutes) will have accomplished three important things:

1)      By default, it provides an invaluable review of each of the seven mind-sets…so in the meeting the mind-sets become top-of-mind.  It informally nudges people to be their ‘best-self’ in an atmosphere that may well prove to be highly-charged.

2)      It provides a great prevention that materially aids in keeping the meeting on-track.  The group will naturally circle back to the two questions (and corresponding answers) should the meeting tend to get off-track.

3)       It reinforces a laser-like focus on the desired outcome.  Of course the meeting’s desired outcome is—by definition—a first-cousin to mind-set #1 (having a bias for results).  Mind-set #1 was chosen to be number one amongst all the mind-sets for a reason…namely, that when people hold this mind-set, a lot of good things naturally follow.

I’m confident that this approach, if well executed, can help you.  The point isn’t what mind-set gets chosen in conjunction with the two questions.  The point is that this process appeals to people’s ‘best-self’ —largely because of their desire to ‘show up’ as a professional would.

Good Meeting? Bad Meeting? Look In The Mirror!

Have you ever been in a meeting when:

***the group’s enthusiasm gets squashed due to a few individuals negativity?

***the group gets stuck in the weeds

***constructive discussion turns into contention as people’s passion spills over

***the group’s energy gets drained upon the announcement of an unpopular decision

***apathy prevails when a less-popular colleague leads the meeting

***a normally rock-solid colleague uncharacteristically belly-flops on a vital presentation

Because negative energy feeds on itself, it’s easy to get sucked into a downward spiral in these types of situations.  Meetings of this sort are painful, often becoming the grist for Dilbert’s mill.  That’s why MS #6 (getting a hold of your emotions) is all-important here.

It’s almost guaranteed that, absent an intervention, the meeting will be a negative experience. For the professional, it’s recovery time. As easy as it might be to join the majority who enjoy whining about the meeting, the professional is unwilling to settle.  The professional asks themselves, “what can I do to help get this meeting back on track?” (consistent with MS #1…’having a bias for results’)

Thus, in responding to the situations above:

***the professional offers a contrarian point of view—one that offers a healthy dose of optimism

***the professional interjects a question or comment that gets the meeting re-focused.

***the professional points out that the meeting has become unproductive and asks the group, “Given  our situation, what do we need to do as professionals to get this meeting back on track?”

***the professional reminds the group of a similar situation years earlier—one in which people’s fears were never realized.

***the professional tactfully points out the group’s dysfunction, reminds them of the big picture, and challenges them to do better.

***the professional who draws the group’s focus to themselves—stalling for time—all the while enabling their flustered colleague to compose themselves and ultimately recover.

To be clear, the professional isn’t being a ‘yes man’, isn’t being pollyannish about issues of substance,  isn’t playing politics.  Rather, they are attempting to make the best out of a sometimes poor situation—in an objective, yet optimistic way. Professionals know that a good meeting—first and foremost–starts with them.

 

 

 

Sniffing Out BS–Help For Your Meetings

Steve Jobs had what others called a ‘reality distortion field’.  In other words, there were times in which Jobs didn’t have a good grasp on reality. He was a showman that  believed his own stories—even ones that were without merit. Complicating the situation, Jobs would be prone to exaggerate, misrepresent facts, manipulate resources to his benefit—things that didn’t engender trust. (Note: there were other times in which Jobs used his reality distortion field to push people to do things that were thought to be impossible—arguably a good thing.)

People wrote this off to “Steve just being Steve.”  Jobs was far more prone to do this than most of us.  Yet, there were times when Steve’s inability to see reality hurt his  organization’s ability to do great work.  Each of us, in varying degrees, do this too…believing our own stories. Let’s get real here…some of our stories just don’t reflect reality.  And when our inability to be objective goes unchallenged it retards our organization’s ability to do great work.

General Richard Myers, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff knew this. While Chairman, General Myers introduced a protocol for the meetings held by the Joint Chiefs. The protocol was intended to sniff out (what they considered to be) someones ‘BS’. ‘BS’ was considered to be people’s stories that didn’t reflect reality, comments that bordered on wishful thinking, or diatribes that bordered on self-delusional grandeur. The Joint Chiefs committed themselves to do great work–and that meant calling out people on their ‘stuff’.

General Myers, a contributor to The Power of Professionalism, told me the protocol worked great for them. That’s been my experience too. Calling people out on their ‘stuff’ in some organizations can initially feel like it’s personal. However, over time people get beyond that.  The reason is simple—the focus is on the work, not the person.

Meeting protocols (a meeting norm) produce better meetings…which is condusive to doing great work.  Today’s blog identifies one such norm. Simply put…it’s a pre-meeting agreement that makes it safer for people to speak up on a sensitive topic. You can compliment this meeting norm by having attendees throw a soft-sided object (or equivalent) at a predetermined location (or even a person) when a meeting norm is violated.  This introduces a lighter side to an otherwise touchy situation. There’s a gazillion ways to compliment a meeting norm in this manner.

To do great work, you’ve got to be objective.  You’ve got to see the world as it is–not how we want it to be. Using this type of meeting protocol helps keep everyone honest…keeps people on track…and gives you the best chance to do great work.

 

 

.

 

When To Take A Pass…

There’s an important prevention I sometimes use when facilitating critical group meetings. It’s a ground rule I call ‘No Me-Too Stories’. You’ve probably all experienced it. Someone tells a story in a group meeting. The story helps make the person’s point. Next thing you know, another person chimes in with their story. Then another. Rarely do the subsequent stories add much value—not adding much new perspective or insight. It’s just people expressing themselves—in the form of ‘me-too’ stories—that largely serve the storytellers own personal needs. The intentions behind the stories may be good and it may make the person telling the story feel good, but rarely does it help the group advance its objectives.Continue reading