Go and see, listen to people

“How much do you commit to?” is such a powerful question for bad executives because it side-steps having to actually talk to people and asking them what they think:

1.  What should be our target in this situation?

2.  How do they think we should go about it?

3.  Why do they think that?

Understanding doesn’t mean agreement. It’s okay to debate and disagree and change people’s minds. But unless we ask, we’ll never know what they have in mind in the first place. Bad leaders issue “end of discussion” orders because they’re not up to having the discussion. Reducing everything to a simple financial calculation of “what do I get for what?” is a simple way of shutting everyone up. This also means turning positive energy into resentment, giving up on any intuition born from a different perspective, and ensuring that work will be done poorly in bad grace. All this to avoid having to talk to the people around us.

It’s easy to feel that if you control the discourse, you control the output. You can use your power to intimidate people into agreeing to targets or decisions – but you can’t make them think this is right, or, in final analysis, do it successfully. Such bad executives are always surprised when outcomes don’t turn out as the expected, and blame ensuing disasters on people not holding up to their commitments or the decisions that were taken. Of course they didn’t. They didn’t agree with the decision, mostly because they didn’t understand it, and didn’t feel the pressure was legitimate – so they did what they had to to cover themselves, but that’s rarely enough to succeed.

You can order someone to do something but you can’t tell them what to think. They have their own understanding of the situation and will fill in the blanks in whichever way they like. Then they will act.

 People have their own opinions on what, how and why. To understand what a good outcome would be, there is no short-cut: you need to go at the point of use and listen to various outlooks. The point is not to narrow it down to a feasible output right away, but simply to listen and collect all the various points of view: who seeks what? Where do they stand? How come they look at it this way?

 Go on site and ask, one person at a time:

1. What would be a good outcome? What would be the three things to prioritize in order to be happy with the outcome. The game is not to ask them to prioritize your outputs, but to see how they would frame the problem. Human language is extraordinary inasmuch as it blends ideas into new concepts. Listening to differing ideas is the only way to grasp how people see the situation and what they’d like to see happening.
2. How do they think this should be achieved? In situ, from their own perspective, people always have an idea of what should be done – no matter how strange or misguided it sounds. Unless you listen for it explicitly, you’ll never know. And so, you’ll never understand why they then drag their heels implementing your plan, or downright sabotage it. In their own minds, everyone knows better.
3. Why do they think that? Furthermore, everyone has a theory of why that is. Usually, it’s a pretty vague and unlikely theory, but it’s in there all the same – this is just how the mind works. It often feels more time-effective to roll over people’s theories and impose yours. Except that it doesn’t work. Theories must be surfaced and discussed to be able to build a common one. And most people are surprisingly amenable to change their minds at that point – if you make the effort.

Each person understands their context like no one else. They also understand that collective action requires some give and take – reciprocity is one of the strongest human instincts. And they are livid when they feel they’ve been had. Creating great outcomes starts by walking around and getting the lay of the land. How do people feel about this? What is it, in context, that makes them feel that way? This exercise of discovery is already acting towards a better outcome. The alternative of pushing an output on people through force, power or influence is always seductive – but simply won’t deliver. Something else will happen, it always does.

To build outcomes beyond outputs, one must accept that:

•  How people act depend on what they think: Western management blithely assumes that it’s the leader’s job to define the strategy and the hierarchy (who does what and reports to whom) and people will be disciplined and follow. This is such a weak assumption, proven wrong every day. People have their own ideas and ambitions and will follow their leader more or less willingly according to how legitimate they think the instruction is and how much they agree with it. If not, they’ll – do something else.
• What they think depends of what they see in context and their theories about it: What is it they know that you don’t know? What is it they see that you don’t see? Few people are good at expressing their theories out loud, but they have them – let’s call them “mental models.” They are often vague and non-verbal, but these models about what is a problem and what is not, what is a solution and what is not – and why – are how our minds work. They’re there, even though you don’t see them, resisting your own mental models at every turn.
• Effective action starts with surfacing theories in context: by physically sharing the situation and discussing one’s observations, you can surface their mental models as well as expose yours. This is laying the groundwork, the foundations so to speak, of collaboration. Getting agreement on the nature of the problem before discussing solutions dramatically increases the chances of success. This “visit and talk” time is not ineffective. It is a strong action one takes to make sure the rest of the plan succeeds.

There is nothing people can’t achieve together if they agree on goals and means. Alignment on mutual goals, common methods and shared theories creates a unique kind of energy that leads groups of people to succeed at the impossible time and time again. Effectiveness starts with the commitment to capture hearts and minds on aims and means. This involves making the effort of reaching out, visiting in situ and listening to see from where they stand and discover where they’re coming from. Go and see, listen to people, build consensus. It might feel like harder work than just telling them at first, but results will come faster and outcomes will be better!