All but blind

I stumbled upon "All but blind," a poem by Walter de la Mare, and I thought it might have a good message for those of us who work in organizations. You can find it as number 16 in this online collection. What do you think?

Incidentally, de la Mare started out his professional life as a statistician, but I don't think that qualifies this as another "Making sense with numbers" entry.

Rehearsing

I often help people with presentations, and I've noticed that those who rehearse seem to be those who do better. Now Garr Reynolds of Presentation Zen has done an excellent job of explaining the creative process of presenting ideas to others in his Steve Jobs and the art of the swordsman.

Note the two keys to presentation success:

• Intense rehearsal in a team setting
  
• Absolutely no attention to technique or form in the actual presentation
  

Reread Garr's comments, if you need to, and note comments such as, "...once we allow our mind to drift to thoughts of success and failure or of outcomes and technique while performing our art we have at that moment begun our sure decent." [sic]

How can we possibly get through a presentation while following the second key? By following the first key until we have internalized what we want to say, how we want to say it, how others will hear it and respond, and what we can do if something goes differently than we expect. Then we have to rehearse it some more.

As someone once noted, we often rehearse something until we get it right. That means we may have done it wrong 20 times and right once; which do you think will stick with us better?

I think the same thing applies in other areas of our professional lives, and I think Dietrich Dörner and Harald Schaub might agree. That's why I wrote A somewhat unified view of decision making: to suggest the importance of spending time wrestling with what we do at a time that's apart from the actual doing. Whether we use computer simulation, scenario planning, role playing, or something else, the opportunity to rehearse what we do professionally before we do it and to learn from what we actually do afterwards to improve for next time is exceedingly valuable. And it's the cyclic action learning that helps us improve and helps keep us from getting fixated on a bad idea.

If you're still thinking of presentations, check out Garr's presentation tips.

Seeing things from another's point of view

There are many good policies that generally help us. One policy is to see things from other people's points of view in addition to our own. It's all too easy to get wrapped up in our own views of the world, believing that what we ourselves see, what we feel, what we think, and how we react must be universally true. It's not.

No matter how much I know that, it still sometimes takes effort to get out of my frame of reference and see things as others might. If I'm working by myself and don't need additional insights, perhaps that's okay. If I need to learn or to work or interact with others (which accounts for most of what I do), it's in my best interest to be able to see things from their view, too, and to be able to reflect on the differences. (Sure, I can try to force things to be my way, but I'll likely build up a stock of resentment in others by such coercion, and that resentment may end up making things harder for me later.)

Another useful policy is to make things more concrete. We often spend much time talking high up on the ladder of abstraction. We're taught that in school, as teachers try to help us see patterns where we once just saw chaos. It can make for efficient conversation when we all know we're talking about the same thing, but it can also make for misunderstanding, confusion, and either unnecessary conflict (when we don't realize we agree) or lost learning (when we don't realize we disagree).

Earlier this week, Brad Trnavsky put both of those together in a field that many of us find challenging: sales. His Creating Feature / Benefit Statements That Work is a good reminder of the importance of seeing things from the other person's point of view, and he gives a concrete example to make sure we understand.

Brad just joined the blogosphere this month. Welcome, Brad!

There's another problem, too

In my last two postings, I've written about what I think is a very important issue we face as individuals, as businesses, and as a society. I think there's another issue that goes hand-in-hand with that issue: how we deal with tough, stressful problems, how we deal with conflict, and how we deal with perceived inequities. In almost any significant situation, we'll have differences of opinion, some small, some very large. (If we didn't, we should perhaps wonder if we're considering all the evidence.) How we deal with those differences can make all the difference as to what sort of outcomes we achieve.

No matter whether we're talking about differences between individuals, differences between groups in our companies or organizations, differences between factions involved in our local or national governments, or differences between nations, we have various approaches. Some approaches are violent; some are not. Some seem to lead to good resolutions; others do not. Some seem coercive, at least to some involved in those deliberations; others do not. Some seem to solve the problem today while creating new problems for the future; others don't.

If we can't figure out how to act effectively in such situations, I fear we'll have increasingly difficult times as stress mounts from climate change, from energy shortages, from perceived inequities (whether between individuals, groups, or nations), or simply from the challenges of doing business in competitive markets.

There are many ways to make communications in such situations more productive. As I've advocated for the use of multiple approaches (triangulation) in making sense of problems, I will say that I don't think any one approach has ability to save all deliberations about differences. Yet I have found the work of Chris Argyis, work he calls action science, to be impressively powerful in helping groups to hold productive discussions, to make breakthroughs in their organizations' abilities to get work done, and, as a nice side benefit, to help people feel good about working in their groups, not because they get their way, but because they get heard. It's based on three premises about productive decision-making in times of conflict and stress:

• Free and open decision making
  
• Testable and tested data
  
• Mutual commitment
  

The first, among other things, means I can't force you to use this approach. I can at best model the behavior I believe in and that I would like you to adopt; I have to give you the right to decide whether you want to follow suit.

The second means that we are willing to test data about all our important assumptions, not just the ones about quantitative data. Perhaps I (think I) know you'll never accept a certain proposal. If I'm following my principles, I'll figure out a effective way to test that assumption on my part (perhaps as simple as asking); otherwise, I'm unilaterally taking one possible solution off the table without us having the ability to talk about it.

While these are all hard in practice, while they require great attention to one's self, and while they sometimes require great courage, the third sometimes seems the hardest. Perhaps you and I disagree about a situation. Perhaps you've made your best case, and I see important issues I perceive as favorable to your position that you didn't bring up. If I'm committed to the first two premises of making free and open decisions with tested and testable data, then I'm committed to bringing up those issues, even if I perceive they weaken my case, for that's the path towards more productive, effective decisions. That may sound easy now; it isn't always so easy when I'm in a discussion involving a strongly-held belief.

I can introduce this approach to a group in perhaps 15 minutes, including some techniques for applying these premises in practice. It's hard work, though; it may take months of active help before a group begins to internalize these ideas in their routine interactions. This work is some of the hardest and yet some of the most rewarding I do. The first time I saw a group I had helped really begin to act this way, I was blown away by the progress they had made. Using these ideas along with others, they had shortened their process times by over 80%. They were highly effective at working together, cutting the time of making decisions from hours and days down to minutes, and the quality of those decisions had improved markedly. Deliberations were sometimes amazingly direct, and yet people felt really good about them. As one said (paraphrasing), "Now I know that people really hear me." If you're curious, you can read about that project in "Emphasis on Business, Technology, and People Cuts Turnaround Time at Hewlett-Packard's Lake Stevens Division." If you'd like to talk about this for your organization, give me a call.

And, when you're thinking about the topics of climate change and oil depletion (or business strategy and customer satisfaction), remember that how we talk about those issues may be as important as what we now think about those issues in achieving good results.

Contribution

Yesterday I wrote about the power of narrative, as inspired by Andrew Taylor's posting. In searching for a link for my article, I discovered a powerful message about contribution in the last half of Presentation Zen's Two Questions: Why does it matter? What's your contribution?, the part I had skipped before. It builds on the three questions meme I wrote about previously, but it uses art to do it in a powerful fashion.

Watch the Benjamin Zander video from start to finish. Yes, it's just over six minutes long. Yes, some of it is probably promoting the speaker. Listen to it anyway; the message is important. If, after listening to it, you're not sure of its application to business, check out the "Fields of Interest" part of Hewlett-Packard's 1966 corporate objectives (scroll to the bottom).

But is it art?

Apparently The Diagram thought so. They found my TAFTO article (new URL), liked the graphics, and asked to publish one of its diagrams in their issue 7.2.

Perhaps that's another advantage of working slightly outside the mainstream approach—it gets noticed. Drawing a standard type of diagram with different tools made it stand out a bit and may help it communicate more effectively.

What do you think?

By the way, try their Graphviz interactive diagram.

An accidental experiment

I've published a number of At Any Rate™ columns through Pegasus Communications. They consist of text designed to capture people's interest up front and to remind them of what they experienced later as well as a simulation model people can download and explore. The model leads people through three stages: an initial stage-setting exercise, a more complete model to show added complexity in the problem at hand, and an exploration area where people can dig a bit deeper to try their hand at addressing the problem.

Pegasus Communications advertises each At Any Rate in their free Leverage Points newsletter that has a rather large circulation, and they set up a discussion area in their Pegasus Forums for each one.

In other words, that column seems to be planted in a fertile ground in which to talk about such things. The models are interactive. They tell a story. They are published on a high-visibility site and advertised in a high-distribution newsletter. There's a space established to enable discussion.

Yet I've gotten very few off-the-record comments (all favorable) about those columns. I've seen very few comments in the Pegasus Forum. I'm not sure anyone has contacted me about what they've seen there. I'm not complaining; I know that I don't write letters to the editor of the local newspaper, even if I strongly agree or disagree with what the newspaper has published. As a result, I don't necessarily expect (although I would welcome) lots of dialog about what I post online.

On Monday, April 9, I published a similar model (new URL) on Drew McManus's Adaptistration as part of his TAFTO 2007 (new URL) series. It was not interactive; rather, it contained diagrams, graphs, and a computer program (or a text-based model, which is the same thing). Admittedly, I tried hard to use literate programming ideas to intertwine the model and the story so that it would be more interesting and readable, and I let two others in the potential audience see an advance copy so I could find and fix any impenetrable sections.

Within a day, I had a thoughtful, lengthy comment added to that column. Two bloggers made quite favorable comments about the essay. I know of at least one person who had been telling me he'll get to the latest At Any Rate any day now who read and commented on my TAFTO column within a day.

What gives?

While I realize that the singular of data is anecdote, I think that this is showing me the barrier we erect when we ask people to download, run, and learn from an interactive model. While the barrier might be lower if I had used a simulator for At Any Rate that ran in a browser, I'm not sure; one would still need to take perhaps half an hour, perhaps more, to work through the model. It takes much less time to install the software, and i'ts a one-time action—a number of readers already have it.

The barrier may be more complex than simply the challenge of installing the isee Player required by the At Any Rate column. To explore and really learn from a simulation, someone needs to be willing to experiment. That means taking the time to understand the environment, to formulate hypotheses, to write those hypotheses down, to run various tests on the simulation model, to compare the results of the test with the hypotheses, and probably to try new experiments based on the learnings from initial experiments. That's far different than just opening the application, pressing a few buttons, and seeing what happens.

Needless to say, most of us who create such interactive simulations try hard to guide the user through the process. Most of us encourage people to form those hypotheses and to document them in writing or in graphs before starting a simulation. Yet I know (from personal experience—I'm not immune) that it's far too easy to treat a simulation as a video game: press the button, and see what happens. That's not often the path to deep learning.

With the non-interactive version, people can read just a paragraph or skim the entire article to see if it seems interesting. They can come back later to dig more deeply. They can print it out, if they wish, and read it on the bus on their commute. If a text version of the model is included, they can, if they want, copy it into the simulator and explore it themselves.

My lesson? Interactive simulation is no panacea, and it may be a disadvantage if I want to get my story told, especially if my audience consists of busy or high-level people. By telling a good story, I can help the reader learn something, most likely in less time.

Is there a role for exploration, experimentation, and interactive simulations? Certainly! But I need to be sure to consider the audience, their current interests, and what they know and want to learn.

I'd welcome others' insights and experiences. In an action research sense, I'll spend some time trying to disconfirm my conjecture; in the process, I might learn more.

A blast from the past

Joe Podolsky was one of the early online essayists. From 1994 through 2000 (and perhaps beyond), he wrote Joe's Jottings, an email journal. Joe always seemed to be a serious, interesting, and insightful thinker. While I haven't reviewed all of his Jottings today, I've probably read them all at some time. I encourage you to peruse a few and see what you think.

The "blast from the past" label comes from seeing a few of my decade-old replies to his essays. I sometimes make the point to people that some of the interventions I and others try with organizations to help them improve interpersonal communications don't quite have the flavor of "soft skills," nor do they seem "touchy-feely." One of my responses from 1996 tries to point that out. As much as that effort was about communications, it was also about the tough aspects of communicating effectively when there's disagreement and even conflict, and it was very much about how to achieve the organization's goals.

We succeeded, by the way, in that we reduced process cycle time by 83%, as promised. We also succeeded in that we helped make that organization a much more rewarding place in which to work, again, as promised. To a significant degree, it became a more rewarding place to work because people knew they would be heard and because they knew they owned the work and its results (the closer we got to the end, the more they were willing to remind me of that in an energetic fashion!). While it sounds suspect for the change initiator (me) to be making those claims, I think those in the group would say the same thing.