Facing it

Being present

What does it feel like to truly pay attention to something?

And, are you ever in meetings where people aren’t? They’re there — but aren’t ‘present’?

I’ve seen this too, so when I run a strategy meeting, I set ‘rules of engagement’. There are just four: 

• Speak up, without regard for hierarchy (good ideas come from everyone)

• Listen openly, with a preparedness to have your mind changed

• Speak freely, knowing you won’t be quoted outside the room (Chatham House Rules).

And, the last: 

• Be present.

This means don’t multi-task. Phones and devices are put away, so the meeting becomes a human interaction, without laptops propped up in front of us. I ask that if there’s something urgent that demands attention, people briefly leave the room to do so. Then, we all know that you’re attending to something more important than our meeting (at least momentarily).

Why do I insist upon this?

Because one person at a table working on something else breaks the group’s circle of attention. It dilutes the depth of thinking and the willingness to speak up, because you know, deep down, not everyone’s listening. So, both quality and quantity of insights are affected.

And, you know what? It hardly ever happens that someone does leave the room. I ran a meeting with 70 people today, across 5 hours, and I counted three people who did so. They dealt with what they had to, outside, and then returned, to participate.

Question: How do you get your people truly pay attention to what matters? 

---

The top of the bottom

I heard someone in a client’s organisation say this last week: “You know, I’d rather be at the top of the bottom, than the bottom of the top”. 

His own role was at the upper echelons of line management in a large institution, but below executive level. He went on to explain that he liked the ‘top of the bottom’ because: 

• There are limits to his responsibility which are clearly outlined; executives have fuzzy boundaries to what they can and can’t do; 

• He has secure relationships at his level; executives changing more frequently and having to form temporary relationships until they move again;  

• More factors are within his direct control, and he understands the levers he can pull; executives are often trying to ‘turn the ship around’ without success. 

• His rewards are proportionate; people ‘above him’, yes, earn more, but at a cost to their personal and emotional lives. 

It got me thinking, though, that creating mobility (and incentive) at the edges of levels is vital. The talent scarcity we’re experiencing is partly because we don’t know who to elevate, when, and how.

Question: How well do you understand the dynamics at the edges of levels in your organisation?

---

Hard conversations

What do you call a ‘hard conversation’?

For many, it’s where conflict might arise if people spoke honestly. For others, it’s a complex issue that resists resolution. In other cases, it’s something awkward or uncomfortable to talk about because people feel ignorant or incapable.

And, sometimes, it's all three.

Just recently, I’ve helped executive teams on the following strategic questions:

a) “How do we become realistic optimists?” (Context: An under-resourced and over-stressed public agency that is constantly being asked to do more).

b) “How do we create a culture that is both performance oriented and humanistic?” (Context: A large institution that allowed people to run the show as they wished, with the result that publicly scrutinised performance slipped very visibly”)

c) “How can we solve the very big problems of loneliness amongst old people, at the same time as reverse the mental health epidemic amongst young people?” (Context: An agency that channels government funds to health services wants to identify where its ‘greatest bang for its buck’ might lie).

You’ll notice a pattern to these (italics help!).

One approach to such conversations that’s simple, and very effective, is ‘reflective practice’. It involves holding a critical stance, as a group, to one’s work, in the interests of improvement. And, it requires three types of conversations, or dialogues, in sequence (you can’t skip these):

1. Divergent. Each person is asked, “What is your experience? What is your goal? What do you feel about this issue?” The aim is to validate differences of opinion.

2. Emergent. Bearing the results of (1) in mind, the group asks itself, “What is at the root cause of this issue? What are the drivers that predict success?” The aim is to interpret, and make sense of, the individual perspectives.

3. Convergent. With the root causes / drivers from (2) in mind, the group forms a view on, “What can we commit to? What processes will make sure we stick to these?” The aim is to resolve and own a path of action.

The value of this approach is that it prevents teams defaulting to ‘premature understanding’ by ‘slowing down’ important decisions that rely on every member of a group to be on-board and active.

Question: What ‘uncomfortable conversations’ does your organisation need to have?

---

Let me know that you’re present — by simply taking a few seconds to click the ‘heart’. Notice how your attention in meetings ebbs and flows, and what you’re tempted to do when it wanes.

I’ll do the same, and look forward to being with you again next Friday.

Andrew