One of my coaching clients told me about a moment of such consulting brilliance that I had to share. She manages the workflow of an internal advertising agency. Her daily bread is the impossible deadline: A brochure takes 3 weeks, the account manager wants it in 3 days, because the client needs it. I’ve been infiltrating her organization with The Anxious Organization, by Jeffrey Miller, and reinforcing his basic message: Responding to another’s anxiety with your own anxiety makes everyone more crazy. Better to calmly stand for what’s correct, proper and factual. That way everyone calms down and can think more clearly.

So, she gets one of these crazy requests, with an added detail: the event the brochure is meant to support is in 3 days. So, she calmly says: “A brochure like that takes 3 weeks. Tell your client that and ask if they still want the brochure. If they do, we’ll be happy to produce it.”

Pure genius.

The message behind the words is this: “We want to help, we say yes to the brochure and yes to you and your client, and we say no to the deadline.” The effect of calmly pointing out the obvious is that everyone relaxes and is able to focus on the real issue: The client needs something in 3 days and it can’t be a brochure. Problem-solving ensues. If I’m the client, I might say “What can you get me in 3 days?” And, if I were my client, I might say “What are you hoping to accomplish?” Horse-trading ensues, this time about real needs rather than imaginary solutions.

She could have said: “3 days? Are you crazy? We can’t do a brochure in 3 days! We can’t do it.” And waited for the call from her boss’s boss’s boss, telling her to do it anyway. That’s the usual response to saying no the work, the account manager and the client.

She could have said “That’s an impossible deadline. We’ll do what we can,” and delivered the brochure in 3 weeks, while being hounded by the account manager and the client, and damaging her organization’s credibility. We’ve all heard the lie meant to soothe: The check is in the mail. Your new kitchen will be ready in 2 weeks. I’m from HR, I’m here to help.

The key is this: Say no to the crazy deadline, the idea that will make things worse, the plan that is doomed. But say yes the to person, the relationship, the goal, the inspiration, the aspiration, the ideal, the desire, the yearning that led them to make such a hair-brained request in the first place. That’s where the home run is, lurking just under the request that makes you want to scream.

Think of the client or the request you most want to say no to. Separate out the part you will say no to from the part you can authentically support. Treat them separately, and speak the unanxious truth to both. In the midst of all the noes you must say, what can you say yes to?

My uncle owns a garage that specializes in tires. When I’m in town for a visit, I go to the garage and talk to him while he works. I watch him balance each tire before he mounts it. It’s mesmerizing to watch the tire wobble on the balancing machine, and to watch his hands notice the exact place the tire needs a small weight pounded into the rim. He’s been doing this so long (he’s 86), he’s a tire psychic. After he’s done, it’s satisfying to watch the way tire spins when it’s perfectly balanced. It doesn’t wobble. With one tiny push, it spins and floats. It’s light as a feather, a perpetual motion tire.

Putting a balanced tire on a car makes the whole car run better: The tires want to spin! With balanced tires, the car gets better mileage, and it’s more fun to drive.

Aligning the front end of the car distributes the load evenly. It feels like less weight. It handles more easily, and is more responsive to the driver. The tire appears light as a feather when it’s balanced, and the car seems to weight less when it’s aligned.

It’s these two things that add up to relevance: You balance each task before you add it to the mix. You make sure the task is aligned with the goals of the department and the company, and then you align them with the goals of the person doing the task. Same workload, but it’s easier to carry. Same tasks, but they seem to spin on their own. We’ve all worked like this: It’s fun.

Balancing the task
A task will spin on it’s own when nothing is bogging it down. When a task wobbles and threatens to lose momentum, we’re quick to point to the motivation, skills and even the character of the person doing the task. And, that is one element of balancing the task: Making sure the task fits the skills of the person doing it. But, the other elements can be far more important: Is the task properly budgeted for, adequately staffed, and has it’s impact been thought out? Is there someone in the organization who hates what this task or project and has the power to stop it? Is there another department or person who’s life will be made miserable if this task is completed? Anticipating these obstacles and planning for them eliminates the wobble. Being blind-sided by them wipes out momentum.

And, finally, if this task is done successfully, will the person be rewarded or punished for it? This one is worth lingering on: If I give you a difficult, gnarly project and you knock it out of the park, is giving you another tricky, difficult project a reward or a punishment? This is personal and can vary moment-to-moment. If you can’t answer that question for everyone who works for you, you’ll never be able to get a task to spin.

Aligning the task with the organization and the person: WIIFM.
Nothing gives a task wings like alignment. You’ve seen how people can work when they believe in something. You’ve experienced it yourself: When the task matches your talents and goals, it’s worth all the energy it takes. That’s how you know it’s aligned with the person doing it. Organizational alignment shows up in organizational commitment: People walk their talk, the project is funded, when people get wind of what you’re doing, they get involved and spend time with you. It’s easy to get appointments with stakeholders, and they help you. You can see the momentum build.

WIIFM - What’s in it for me? - is always operating, for the organization and each person in it. Fighting it doesn’t work for long. Joining it builds momentum. Which will you choose? Write and let me know - I’d love to hear about how you navigate this.

“That was a great report!” vs.”I loved the way you used white space in that report and the pull quotes on the side were pure genius. Best of all though, was the content: Clear, concise and at exactly the right level of detail. The tone you used was also spot on: Casual and accessible without being condescending. Thank you for doing such a great job.”

“All weekly status reports must be completed in a timely manner.” vs.
“Weekly status reports are due by noon every Friday. Please email them to me using the attached format.”

“I want you to lead this project. You’ve shown such exemplary leadership, I know you’re up to it. Any questions?” vs.
“Biff, the plunger improvement project needs your skills. I’ve watched you pull together teams that were fighting and get them working together to come up with innovative approaches. The fly swatter improvement project you led was breath-taking. No one else would have thought to use the fly’s sense of smell against it like that. We need that kind of breakthrough thinking here. What questions do you have so far?”

Specific. It’s a matter of giving someone enough information to be successful rather than giving them a vague notion and shoving them off a cliff. When you follow-up, you find out how unclear you are. These too aspects of the SMART goals create an ideal communication loop.

And there’s a bonus: When you are specific, you find out exactly how much control you are willing to give up. Here’s the surprising part:

The more specifc you are, they less likely you are to micro-manage. I think we often believe that when we are vague, we are showing respect, and giving them plenty of room. There are 2 problems with this: 1) Being vague means you are asking someone to read your mind. This is not a management skill. 2) Being vague is what we do when we aren’t ready to give up control. In either case, the see-sawing begins: Vague directions and expressions of confidence alternate with intense micro-managing or doing it yourself. There are many, many flavors between giving someone absolute freedom and micro-managing them within an inch of their lives.

When you’re specific, it gives someone a more precise target to shoot for. It lets you know when to step in and when to butt out. When you are specific about what you want to see, what you liked, what you want done, you will be more comfortable leaving how it gets done to someone else. Conversely, when you are vague about what you want, your only recourse is to micro-manage. That’s because the specifcs you thought obvious aren’t. Not until you speak them. My advice: Do this in the beginning so your employees can spend their energy producing amazing work rather than trying to guess what’s in your head. The world is still waiting for a breakthrough plunger technology.

SMART goals: No concept is more important to being an excellent manager of groups or individuals. SMART goals can set you free. They can set your employees free. They are the key to successful delegation. However, their misuse can lead to senseless micro-management, planning overkill and employee ennui. I thought I’d write a reliable guide to walking the fine line between using SMART goals to free you and your peeps, and rendering them listless with managerial overkill.

Over the years, a couple of the letters in the SMART acronym have taken on a life of their own. I’ll do what I can to trim them back a bit. Here are the versions I’ve come across:
S = specific
M=measurable, memorable
A=Achievable, actionable
R=relevant, realistic
T=timely, time-bound

I’m going to start with T. For one thing, it’s the easiest to do. Even more important though is this: It’s the key to managing energy, and managing energy is the key to performance. Without a deadline, even the most specific, measurable, important goal flops around like loose string on Itzak Perlman’s Stradivarius.

Nothing tightens up a team like a deadline. And, nothing ensures a deadline will be met like setting a follow-up date. That’s all it takes, really: Give a specific deadline, like “Saturday, 10:00am,” then set a follow-up date to check on progress: “Let’s talk on the phone in 3 days - how about 3:00 on Wednesday?”

You’ll be astonished at how quickly things start to move.

I can almost hear your objections: “But, Liz, isn’t that treating adults like children?” Or, “Why should I have to babysit my employees? They’re professionals. They know what to do - they should just do it.”

Except:  You don’t set follow-up dates for them. You set them for you. Setting and keeping follow-up dates are what allows you to manage a project without having to step in and do it yourself. Follow-up dates give you all the opportunities you need to manage well. Here’s what I mean:

• Setting a follow-up date shows your commitment to the goal or task. Time spent is how you show people what’s important. When something is a high priority, you make time for it.

• Setting a follow-up date shows your commitment to them. Time spent is how you show people that they are important to you.

• Setting a follow up date gives you easy access to teachable moments. Regular contact makes this easier. The result is better alignment, early course correction and - best of all - the ability to express appreciation often.

• Setting a follow-up date keeps you both current. Has there been change in the priority of this project? In relevant information?  Regular follow-up dates make it easy to pass this information along.

You see? All the critical tasks of a manager, there in easy, bite-sized pieces, built right into the fabric of your day. No inertia to break through, no big hill to climb to reach your goal. Follow-up dates enable you to tag on to the energy and momentum of the actual work while working your management agenda. They are a twofer.

But the primary reason you set a follow-up date may surprise you: It will give you instant feedback about how clear you were in the first place. And, take it from one who knows: You weren’t nearly as clear as you thought you were. You weren’t as comprehensive either. You may have forgotten some critical detail, or failed to think things through to a logical conclusion. Follow-up meetings show you this with painful clarity. It can be embarrassing to respond to questions that arise during a follow-up meeting, but it will be some of the best time you’ve ever spent.

Next week: S is for specific.

As always, I welcome your ideas, input and stories.

I’ve never forgotten reading about the architect who waited to pave the walkways in an office park until he saw where people walked. He simply paved the paths they created, figuring that they’d choose the most efficient route. And that they’d walk there anyway. I can’t remember his name, but the fact of it made quite an impression on me. I thought the idea of legitimizing where people walked was genius - and much more effective than trying to control their moevments through sidewalks. Now, whenever I see those little footpaths that get worn in the grass, often at the end of a paved pathway, I remember.

I’m reminded of it again everytime a group gets off the agenda and starts arguing about something, passionately, and with fire. I can either wrest them back on to the walkway, I’ve planned, or find a way to put a sidewalk right under their feet which will legitimize their passion and their disagreement. When I have the wit to choose the latter, I’ve got 2 ways to go: The first is to invite everyone to structure their dissent, which I’ll address here; the second involves the skill of resolving impasses, which I’ll cover next week.

Structure the Dissent
This is best used when the whole group is bubbling with dissenting points of view. Your group is ripe for this when several people are straining to speak, and are not building on each other ideas. In fact, they may not be hearing each other at all. Tension is beginning to build and some people are openly frustrated. Here’s what you do:

1. Stop the conversation and say: “Several of you have strong opinions about (your group’s issue goes here). So we can hear what each of you has to say, let’s structure our dissent. Take 60 seconds to gather your thoughts, then we’ll go around the room and hear from each of you in turn. You’ll each have 2 minutes to make the strongest possible case for your point of view, without holding back. The rest of you will be listening. Responding to someone else’s point of view during your 2 minutes is out of bounds. There is no interrupting and no arguing - either advocate your point of view or listen. What questions do you have about this?”

2. Time the preparation period and each of the speakers. Do not allow speakers to go over. Only one person speaks at a time. There is no cross-talk. Do not allow speakers to attack another’s point of view. This is a time for them to advocate their position on it’s merits.

3. At the end of this first round, summarize the areas of agreement. Ask if anyone has been swayed by anything they’ve heard. If not, restate the issue and ask participants to do another round of structured discussion. Time and manage it as before.

4. Again summarize the agreements you heard and ask if anyone has changed their mind as a result of what they’ve heard. Restate the issue/problem and conduct another round.

5. Summarize the points of agreement. By this time, one of two things will have happened. Either they’ll have come to an agreement or a very thoughtful open discussion will erupt and lead naturally to an agreement.

Why does it work?
Open discussion is the default process for most meetings. Unfortunately, in open discussion, the discussion happens before all the information has been revealed, and usually involves the extroverts in the room and those higher on the org. chart. Conflicts become ritualized and stay unexplored and unresolved as everyone seeks to not offend. This is the kind of process that leads to the the deja vu meeting syndrome: because the issues are not surfaced, explored and resolved, you will get to have this meeting again. And again. And again…

A better practice is to get all points of view heard and clearly delineated before discussing them. It’s a lot like eating the peanuts before you chew the gum rather than chewing both at the same time. Structured discussion separates the peanuts from the gum. It encourages listening, rather than simply waiting to talk. It legitimizes and makes welcome stridently different points of view. And, nothing sparks creativity like sharply divergent points of view.

Because of this, structured discussion much more efficient than open discussion, and will get your group to agreement quickly and cleanly, like a hot knife through butter. Even better, the agreement will be solid, well-informed and owned by everyone. Why doesn’t everyone use this, you ask?

I have no idea.

So often we want to convene a group to get the benefit of their expertise and differing points of view. So, we ask them to brainstorm. And, it starts out well. An idea is offered, then another, then 3 more. The next idea that’s offered seems to be a response to one that’s gone before and the the next “idea” is a response to that response, and pretty soon you’ve got an open, unstructured discussion among only a few of those present and it’s going nowhere. Not what you wanted at all.

You’re not alone. Most of the time, brainstorming devolves into exactly this: The extroverts talk to each other, everyone defers (sometimes resentfully) to those with the most status, and the conversation veers off course.

Which is why I almost never use brainstorming with groups. It’s too easily overtaken by group dynamics. The first time it happens, it’s not so bad. By the 5th time, no one in your group really believes that brainstorming will include them and some of them will sit it out. Not what you’d hoped for.

There’s another reason it’s not my first choice: Brainstorming is best used when a creativity is what’s wanted. Most of the time, in most corporations, creativity is the opposite of what’s wanted. What’s wanted is an action that will represent progress without rocking the boat. You can’t trust creativity not the rock the boat. Sometimes it seems as though creativity’s job is to rock the boat.

So what to do? How do you get what’s inside people’s heads out into the room without totally losing control. How do you get them thinking together, hearing the same information the same way, and not simply vying for air time?

Round Robin Does All This

Round robin is the process of choice when you need to hear from everyone and they need to hear from each other. No other process will erase the difference between introverts and extroverts or between levels of status and seniority. No other process enables - insists - that people listen to each other.

It’s simple, it’s easy and, once your group has experienced it, they’ll immediately grasp it’s utility and fairness. Here are the steps, all of which must be adhered to:

1. Pose a specific open-ended question (”what do you think is causing sales to drop off?) rather than a general topic (sales)
2. Set a time limit for the round robin. (10 seconds is a good minimum, 30 seconds is a good maximum. More than 30 seconds each will lead to open discussion.)
3. Give everyone a minute or 2 (time it) to come up with a response or list of responses. This greatly increases the quality of the responses.
4. When you are ready to start, establish a clear, simple order for people to speak in.
5. Ask people to give only one of their answers for each round.
6. Time everyone and cut them off if they go over. They’ll have another chance to speak in the next round. Do this with a sense of play. If everyone goes over, it’s your bad: Extend the time limit and try again.

That’s it. Try it and let me know what you think.

We’ve all done it: We’re running a meeting and someone says something that just floors us, something like “That will never work - we’ve done it before and it failed. It will fail this time too.” You want to say something…pointed. But you know better. It’s your job to stay calm, cool, collected and above it all. To lead. To keep things moving. After all, there are 8 other people in the room and they are all looking at you.

So you say everything but what’s on your mind. You say, “I understand your point of view, but” Or “Thanks for that, John. Let’s get back to our…” Or: “I think it will work and here’s why.” Or “Things are different now and I need your help.” Or, you say “That’s great, John, we’ll explore that in a minute,” but your palms are facing John and pushing toward him. Pushing him and his ideas away. Running right over him.

Everyone of those tells John to shut up. He hears it, and so do the other 8 people in the room.

There is another choice, and it works better. By better, I mean faster and you get to take John with you into the rest of the meeting.

Tell rather than show. Instead of showing your irritation, anxiety and time pressure, just say it. But not just part of it: Tell John all of what’s on your mind. It might sound something like this: “John, I hate hearing that. I find it discouraging and that makes tense up and want to push right past you.” (Pause here and exhale. Notice that John has not exploded or expired from the force of your rage.) Then say the rest: “And, I know you’re trying to tell me something that’s important to you, so I’m going to do my best to listen. What is it you want us to know?”

Several things are possible now: John has a much better chance of articulating the information concealed in his unskillful first attempt (it is in there, and may have little to do with what he said at first), and you have a better chance of feeling more sane, human and connected as does the rest of your team. Chances are good that someone is smiling, maybe even John. Maybe you.

Even if John stands by his original complaint, it will have less bite. And, no one will be squirming.

Two things make this effective:

1. Say both sides of what you’re thinking - share both sides of your dilemma. You hate hearing it AND you know you must. Leave the first out and you risk sounding insincere; leave out the second and your risk sounding hostile.

2. Keep it in the present. This is not the time to let all your frustration at John’s past — and probable future — negativity spill out. It’s a moment - a moment for John, a moment for you. That’s all the weight it deserves. Staying in the here and now keeps it at the right level of intensity and lightness.

The careful reader will notice that I only listed 5 ways to say shut up. I was hoping to get your help with the other 45. I’ll start:

Refusing eye contact, saying nothing, looking at our watch, multi-tasking, reading anything, turning away, shuffling papers, talking over someone, interrupting, saying “I hear what you’re saying…”

Every year about this time, I have the same problem: I need a great book on building teams through meetings for the Small Group Process Consultation class I teach at Alliant International University.

Every year, I can’t find that book. I own most all the books on meetings, facilitation and teams, and many of them have great, great information. Problem is, not one is what I need: a soup-to-nuts approach to interacting with groups without freaking out. Or freaking them out.

Last year I was in Portland, and I was certain that Powell Books - Mecca for readers - would have what I was seeking. The meetings section was easy to find; I eagerly started looking for the book. Except, every book in the meetings section was on either presentation skills or Robert’s Rules. Huh?

Nothing about equalizing participation, the proper use of groups, or having fun. Nothing about how a good meeting builds a team, and a bad one tears it apart. No practical guidance about the dynamics of groups, the psychological needs of leaders or what it takes to meld all this into a structure that invites magic.

And, isn’t that the whole point of having a meeting? Of working in teams?

I moved to the teams section, thinking maybe the book was there. Nope. There, it was all about how the latest and greatest team model would unlock the potential of your team. Like it was about a secret handshake or the decoder ring you got when you drank the koolaid. Click your heels three times and say “There’s no place like team.”

Not helpful.

I was looking for help explaining the crucial link between meetings and teamwork, which is this: You can’t have one without the other. Saying “team”won’t do it. Saying you’ve got a team without making your meetings team-friendly is like…lying. Becuase every meeting affects the team: The group meeting, the 1:1 meeting, the casual drive-by in the hallway. Which means you’ve got many opportunities to build your team each day, opportunities that add up to much more than what you’ll get from the big annual off-site. It’s such good news, I thought someone might have written about it. Not so far.

This year, I realized who that someone is: me. I’m going to write the book I’ve been wanting to read.  Wish me luck.

This is simple, even obvious. You’re going to kick yourself when I tell you, because you already know this. Are you ready?

ASK.

Just ask. Here’s a question you can steal: “What will it take for you to be fully committed to this approach?”

That’s it.

When you ask this question, it shows you’re committed to the course of action you’re proposing. This is rare. More often, I see managers trying to get buy-in for an approach they aren’t committed to. Here’s how you can tell: Buy-in is enthusiastic follow-through. It’s visible. It builds momentum. If you aren’t getting buy-in from others, look in the mirror. Are you following through enthusiastically, even aggressively? No? There’s your problem.

Before leaping into ineffective action and hoping others will join you, ask yourself this: What would it take to get my full commitment to this? Then follow up enthusiastically. You’ll be amazed at how receptive people are when you ask for what you need to commit to their goals.

Might it feel awkward? It could – you are saying a whole-hearted yes, which might be a new experience for each of you. Will you get “push-back” and have to horse trade a bit? Of course. Stick it out and make sure you get what you need to do your best for them. You’ll be delighted to discover what it’s like to work with the wind at your back instead of beating into it.

This is a contest I just made up. It’s either last night’s Academy Awards show or all the reading I’ve been doing about positive psychology, saying thank-you and filling yer bucket. It could also be the fact that I woke up with the sound of Julie Andrews singing “My Favorite Things” in my head this morning. Seems clear to me that we’re not doing nearly enough to appreciate and recognize those collaborative break-throughs we’ve all experienced. According to the experts, that means we’re leaving a lot of happiness on the table. I say it’s time for a little experiment.

I’m kicking this off with three or my all-time favorite moments. There’s plenty of room for yours in the comments below. Let’s get happy!

The Plate Incident. The scene: A weekly staff meeting where a group of 7 intrepid survivors of a recent organizational bloodletting, struggle to find a new purpose that will attract funding and clients. The manager is showing signs of agitation: if the furrow in her brow gets any deeper, we’ll have a place to put the hamster Oz has been trying to unload.

The manager erupts: “Why is it that every time I speak the rest of you stop talking?” Out of the arctic silence, a single voice quavers: “Because I assume you’ve made a decision, and further discussion is pointless.” Cult-like, we all nod.

“But, that’s not…I don’t always…” The realization breaks over her face like the yolk of a 3-minute egg and she grabs 2 of the paper plates we always have handy. She writes “D” on one and “O” on anther. “I’ll hold up D when I’ve decided and O is when I’m adding my opinion to the conversation.” Which she did from then on. It was just one tiny moment, but the hamster lost her new home, and our team transformed.

The Come to Jesus Meeting. The scene: I’m facilitating a weekly work group meeting to design a structure that will give nurses a voice in decision affecting them. The team is mostly staff nurses.

Word has gotten back to the nursing exec sponsor that a group member has been speaking out of school. Apparently, he’s mis-characterized what team members think of what they’re doing, telling the board of the nurses union that “we all know this is just an exercise management is taking us through.” Watching the nursing exec confront him and admit to feeling betrayed, him admit to speaking those words, and each nurse say “you don’t speak for me” was like watching the wave at a baseball game: slo-mo wonderment. Except I felt much, much fuller.

“You Can Say That?” The scene: An annual care-planning meeting at an eldercare facility. The team is multi-disciplinary, the participation lop-sided. The doctor gives a not-very-inspiring recitation of the treatment plan (meds, vitals, symptoms) and the others, who have much more contact with the patient, say nothing. The meeting feels like the moment before a thunderstorm, when the skies want to erupt, but can’t. In my role as meeting coach, I say: “So far Dr. X has been doing most of the talking. I don’t see how such a one-sided conversation can add up to a care plan, especially when the rest of you have more contact with the patient.” In the stunned silence that follows, the social worker turns to me and says: “You can say that?” It’s the doctor who says “YES.” Now everyone is talking, and leaning forward, their faces alive: The social worker, the nurses aide, the housekeeper. The new aide mentions a chance observation, nothing much, but the room goes silent and the doctor is looking at the aide like a compass tuned to true north. 2 questions later and the treatment and care plans have both changed.

It’s working - as I write, I’m smiling.  I can’t wait to hear about your moments.