To discuss with a regional and an avid practitioner of
the work, contact Joey Chan of Hong Kong.]
the work, contact Joey Chan of Hong Kong.]
Read this case before proceeding to the rest of the page: Case Study (top of document)
TO DEEPEN THE UNDERSTANDING:
TO BROADEN THE UNDERSTANDING:
LET ME CHECK WITH THE OTHERS:
How would others characterize the current strategy
and the thinking behind it?
To what extent do others think we've articulated a
competitive advantage in the core business?
How would others characterize our competitive
advantage in relation to today's market? How
sustainable do people think it is?
What ideas do others have on how we might sustain
an advantage in the high end segment?
How do others see the possibility of pursuing the low
or middle segments in new ways?
What ideas do others have on how we might go
after other segments?
What other ways might we segment the market?
What concerns or hopes do others have about
shifting course or staying on it?
How would others characterize the current strategy
and the thinking behind it?
To what extent do others think we've articulated a
competitive advantage in the core business?
How would others characterize our competitive
advantage in relation to today's market? How
sustainable do people think it is?
What ideas do others have on how we might sustain
an advantage in the high end segment?
How do others see the possibility of pursuing the low
or middle segments in new ways?
What ideas do others have on how we might go
after other segments?
What other ways might we segment the market?
What concerns or hopes do others have about
shifting course or staying on it?
LET ME CHECK WITH FRANK:
Those growth projections strike me as important. On
what assumptions and data were they based?
What specifically about the strategy leads you to
think it won't pay off?
When you hear Ian say the strategy hasn't paid off
yet, what -- if anything -- would make that possibility
compelling to you? What would you need to see or
hear to have confidence in the strategy?
LET ME CHECK WITH IAN:
What kinds of things make you confident the
investment will pay off?
What kinds of things might lead you to reconsider or
to doubt whether it will pay off? What would you
need to see or hear?
When you say these decisions are informed by things
other than facts, I think that's right. Can you or
others reflect on the concerns or preferences that
might figure into your thinking about where to focus?
Those growth projections strike me as important. On
what assumptions and data were they based?
What specifically about the strategy leads you to
think it won't pay off?
When you hear Ian say the strategy hasn't paid off
yet, what -- if anything -- would make that possibility
compelling to you? What would you need to see or
hear to have confidence in the strategy?
LET ME CHECK WITH IAN:
What kinds of things make you confident the
investment will pay off?
What kinds of things might lead you to reconsider or
to doubt whether it will pay off? What would you
need to see or hear?
When you say these decisions are informed by things
other than facts, I think that's right. Can you or
others reflect on the concerns or preferences that
might figure into your thinking about where to focus?
LET ME CHECK WITH THE OTHERS:
I've noticed Frank and Ian going back and forth now
for a few minutes while others of us are quiet.
I thought it would help us understand the issues
better if we also learned more about how others see
them.
So, if it's not a problem to switch, I'd like to ask:
What are others' views on the strategy and the
implications of reconsidering it?
(You can then follow up with other broadening or
deepening inquiries like those under bypassing).
I've noticed Frank and Ian going back and forth now
for a few minutes while others of us are quiet.
I thought it would help us understand the issues
better if we also learned more about how others see
them.
So, if it's not a problem to switch, I'd like to ask:
What are others' views on the strategy and the
implications of reconsidering it?
(You can then follow up with other broadening or
deepening inquiries like those under bypassing).
LET ME CHECK WITH FRANK AND IAN:
I've noticed the two of you go back and forth for a
while.
I now think I see where you each end up but I don't
yet see -- and I doubt others see -- how you each
got there.
So if it's not a problem from your point of view, can
each of you say a bit more about the thinking, or the
concerns, or the data that lead to your views?
(You can then follow up with other deepening or
broadening inquiries like those under bypassing).
I've noticed the two of you go back and forth for a
while.
I now think I see where you each end up but I don't
yet see -- and I doubt others see -- how you each
got there.
So if it's not a problem from your point of view, can
each of you say a bit more about the thinking, or the
concerns, or the data that lead to your views?
(You can then follow up with other deepening or
broadening inquiries like those under bypassing).
LET ME CHECK WITH THE OTHERS:
(If the group is pressed for time, start with
something like): I have a question for the group that
we may or may not want to pursue now. I'd like to
say what it is so that we can decide whether to
pursue it now or later.
(The question): As I listen to our conversation, it
strikes me that the questions Frank and Ian raised a
while ago are absolutely critical, because they are so
central to what we will decide to do.
Assuming others agree, I'm trying to figure out:
What's leading me and others to sit back and watch
the two of them get stuck, and when they get
stuck, to switch the subject and let the issues drop?
(If the group is pressed for time, start with
something like): I have a question for the group that
we may or may not want to pursue now. I'd like to
say what it is so that we can decide whether to
pursue it now or later.
(The question): As I listen to our conversation, it
strikes me that the questions Frank and Ian raised a
while ago are absolutely critical, because they are so
central to what we will decide to do.
Assuming others agree, I'm trying to figure out:
What's leading me and others to sit back and watch
the two of them get stuck, and when they get
stuck, to switch the subject and let the issues drop?
LET ME CHECK WITH FRANK AND IAN:
(If the group is pressed for time, start with
something like): Can I interrupt for a moment? I have
a question that we may or may not want to pursue
now. I'd like to say what it is so that we can decide
whether to pursue it now or later.
(The question): As I listen to the two of you, it's
becoming increasingly clear to me that we are going
to need the best answers possible to the questions
you are raising, because they're so central to what
we will decide to do.
Assuming you'd agree, I'm trying to figure out:
what's preventing each of you from testing your
views or inquiring of others to see if you might each
be missing something important?
(If the group is pressed for time, start with
something like): Can I interrupt for a moment? I have
a question that we may or may not want to pursue
now. I'd like to say what it is so that we can decide
whether to pursue it now or later.
(The question): As I listen to the two of you, it's
becoming increasingly clear to me that we are going
to need the best answers possible to the questions
you are raising, because they're so central to what
we will decide to do.
Assuming you'd agree, I'm trying to figure out:
what's preventing each of you from testing your
views or inquiring of others to see if you might each
be missing something important?
These inquiries up the ante, because they bring to everyone's attention the structures that keep the dialogue
stuck. So, unlike bypassing or naming, these inquiries are likely to surface interpersonal tensions that make
everyone uncomfortable, or to uncover contradictions between what people do and the values they hold
most dear, or to reveal embarrassing gaps in people's thinking, or to call into question cultural assumptions that
most everyone takes for granted. And once this happens, the dialogue will move in a direction that's both rare
and difficult to navigate.
This difficulty has three sources. The first is that these inquiries ask people to look at themselves. Not only
is this counter-cultural and emotionally daunting, it is also difficult from a cognitive perspective. It's much easier
to see what someone else is doing and to note his or her impact on you than it is to see what you are doing
and to know what impact you are having on them. It's like riding a bike. Once skilled at it, you no longer have
to watch your legs push the peddles or look at your hands steer the wheel. All that becomes automatic, and
so you are free to concentrate on the road ahead and on the motorists around you, consciously trying to
steer clear of pot holes and bad drivers. Similarly, when acting in the social arena, you are much more aware of
the situation around you, what others are saying or doing, what their impact is on you, and what you are
consciously trying to do in response to it all. This is one reason you hear yourself and others say things like: "I
was just trying to do x, y, or z....Look what I was up against....The reason I did that is because you did
this...." These responses are not purely defensive; they also reflect a pervasive, although alterable, blind spot
of the mind. 17
The second difficulty revolves around scrutinizing tensions that lie below the surface. When you look at already
delicate relationships or at the cultural assumptions upon which a firm's identity is based, people
understandably worry that these structures might not withstand the weight of close scrutiny. They fear that
the tensions embedded in these structures might erupt, shaking and perhaps shifting the very ground upon
which they live their organizational lives. To expect people to prance merrily down this path is unrealistic at
best. Even the most open-minded need some reasonable degree of confidence that it will be better to go
down this unfamiliar path than to stay where they are.
The third difficulty is a product of the first two. Because people in organizations rarely go down
this path, everyone is unpracticed at it. So when questions like these are broached, people get
tripped up by their own blind spots and end up handling the situation in ways that either fail to
have a lasting effect or actually make matters worse. This only confirms their worst fears, leading
them to view these kinds of conversations as a waste of time or downright destructive. As a
result, they quickly retreat to familiar ground -- once again keeping these questions at bay and
making it impossible to ever develop the confidence or competence necessary to pursue them well.
stuck. So, unlike bypassing or naming, these inquiries are likely to surface interpersonal tensions that make
everyone uncomfortable, or to uncover contradictions between what people do and the values they hold
most dear, or to reveal embarrassing gaps in people's thinking, or to call into question cultural assumptions that
most everyone takes for granted. And once this happens, the dialogue will move in a direction that's both rare
and difficult to navigate.
This difficulty has three sources. The first is that these inquiries ask people to look at themselves. Not only
is this counter-cultural and emotionally daunting, it is also difficult from a cognitive perspective. It's much easier
to see what someone else is doing and to note his or her impact on you than it is to see what you are doing
and to know what impact you are having on them. It's like riding a bike. Once skilled at it, you no longer have
to watch your legs push the peddles or look at your hands steer the wheel. All that becomes automatic, and
so you are free to concentrate on the road ahead and on the motorists around you, consciously trying to
steer clear of pot holes and bad drivers. Similarly, when acting in the social arena, you are much more aware of
the situation around you, what others are saying or doing, what their impact is on you, and what you are
consciously trying to do in response to it all. This is one reason you hear yourself and others say things like: "I
was just trying to do x, y, or z....Look what I was up against....The reason I did that is because you did
this...." These responses are not purely defensive; they also reflect a pervasive, although alterable, blind spot
of the mind. 17
The second difficulty revolves around scrutinizing tensions that lie below the surface. When you look at already
delicate relationships or at the cultural assumptions upon which a firm's identity is based, people
understandably worry that these structures might not withstand the weight of close scrutiny. They fear that
the tensions embedded in these structures might erupt, shaking and perhaps shifting the very ground upon
which they live their organizational lives. To expect people to prance merrily down this path is unrealistic at
best. Even the most open-minded need some reasonable degree of confidence that it will be better to go
down this unfamiliar path than to stay where they are.
The third difficulty is a product of the first two. Because people in organizations rarely go down
this path, everyone is unpracticed at it. So when questions like these are broached, people get
tripped up by their own blind spots and end up handling the situation in ways that either fail to
have a lasting effect or actually make matters worse. This only confirms their worst fears, leading
them to view these kinds of conversations as a waste of time or downright destructive. As a
result, they quickly retreat to familiar ground -- once again keeping these questions at bay and
making it impossible to ever develop the confidence or competence necessary to pursue them well.
Using Bypassing, Naming and
Engaging Skills in Difficult Conversations
Attribution to Diana Smith, Action Design a keen student of the works of Chris Argyris
(mouse-over the picture here to learn about Argyris)
(http://www.actiondesign.com/resources/theory/ksdm.htm)
Engaging Skills in Difficult Conversations
Attribution to Diana Smith, Action Design a keen student of the works of Chris Argyris
(mouse-over the picture here to learn about Argyris)
(http://www.actiondesign.com/resources/theory/ksdm.htm)
BYPASSING:
You can significantly
improve the quality of
a dialogue by adding
in a form of inquiry
that is almost always
missing. This particular
kind of inquiry
requires an ear for the
logic behind views
and an eye for
spotting the limits to
them. With this in
mind, you can form
an inquiry that gently
nudges the dialogue
beyond those limits,
either broadening or
deepening people's
understanding of the
issues and how others
view them. Here are
some examples:
You can significantly
improve the quality of
a dialogue by adding
in a form of inquiry
that is almost always
missing. This particular
kind of inquiry
requires an ear for the
logic behind views
and an eye for
spotting the limits to
them. With this in
mind, you can form
an inquiry that gently
nudges the dialogue
beyond those limits,
either broadening or
deepening people's
understanding of the
issues and how others
view them. Here are
some examples:
NAMING:
Sometimes issues are
so explosive and
patterns so intractable
that bypassing proves
insufficient for making
headway. At this
point, you need to
draw attention to the
dialogue by naming its
limits and signaling a
way out. This means
you can't just say:
"You people are jerks
for treating one
another like jerks."
The challenge is to
name the limits in a
way that pulls the
dialogue beyond
them.
Sometimes issues are
so explosive and
patterns so intractable
that bypassing proves
insufficient for making
headway. At this
point, you need to
draw attention to the
dialogue by naming its
limits and signaling a
way out. This means
you can't just say:
"You people are jerks
for treating one
another like jerks."
The challenge is to
name the limits in a
way that pulls the
dialogue beyond
them.
ENGAGING:
Just as bypassing can
prove insufficient
when faced with
especially explosive
issues and intractable
patterns, so can
naming. Sometimes it's
necessary to inquire
into the patterns
themselves so that you
can surface and
explore the
mechanisms that make
them so intractable.
Just as bypassing can
prove insufficient
when faced with
especially explosive
issues and intractable
patterns, so can
naming. Sometimes it's
necessary to inquire
into the patterns
themselves so that you
can surface and
explore the
mechanisms that make
them so intractable.
 |
| |
 |