Professional Stories
Job Assignments
This PNDC analysis contains four sections:
- Mark's Introductory Remarks
- Background information
- The Non-Defensive Interaction
- PNDC Tips
Mark's Introductory Remarks
I felt quite defensive during this interaction, but instead of reacting
in my normally defensive manner, I applied some of the non-defensive communications
techniques we learned in the workshop. I am very pleased to say the techniques
worked, and that a situation that almost certainly would have resulted
in bad feelings turned out well for all concerned. I'm convinced there
was a definite turning point in the conversation when I took on the non-defensive
posture.
Background Information
The interaction involved a meeting between my boss (John), my co-worker
(James), and myself (Mark). The objective of the meeting was ostensibly
to review John's task load and see what, if anything, he could off-load
off Project A, so that he could spend more time on project Z, which had
higher priority. I am the project manager of project Z. The reason that
I was to attend this meeting, I was told, was not only because I managed
the project in which John wished to get more involved, but also because
I worked with John on his other main project- project A. We worked quite
well together on project A.
John, my co-worker, had originally wanted to manage project Z. On a few
occasions John has "joked" about how he should have been the
manager because he is more proficient in certain technical skills that
I have to go hunting for when I need certain things done. In fact, John
has spent almost no time getting up to speed on the new tools we need
for project Z and at this point does not have the technical skills that
I now need to determine what approach we should take.
My not-too-kind suspicion is that, because project Z is not his, he did
not want to contribute to its success for fear it would end up making
me look good. I have since located other willing and capable resources
who can give me the technical expertise I need for programming these tools.
This fact has not escaped John, who, it seems, has suddenly realized these
tools are the future, and if he wants to be a part of that future, he
needs to get up to speed-fast.
Non-Defensive Interaction
So now we're at the meeting I mentioned earlier. John has listed on the
whiteboard all of his current projects and is lamenting the fact that
he has not had time to get up to speed on the tools we are using in project
Z. He says that he wants to be heavily involved in the project as a key
technical resource. In order to do that, he wants to give up project A.
He says he's done the past three major parts of project A, which have
consumed his time for five straight weeks. He's paid his dues. He doesn't
want to do the next two builds because they use old tools and the new
stuff will be on project Z.
James, who became our manager only 5 months ago and who is at this location
only 6 days a month, turns to me and says, "Well, Mark, John is right.
He's paid his dues. Maybe you should do the next two builds." At
this juncture I nearly said, "Now wait just a @#$%^&* minute!
I've put in as much time coordinating each phase of project A as he has
doing the builds!"
But I didn't. Instead, I paused, took a deep breath, leaned back in my
chair, tried to look very earnest (instead of very pissed, which is how
I was feeling), and said, "So do you both believe that John has had
an unfair share of the project A burden?" I tried to drop the intonation
at the end of the question, but truthfully, without a tape recorder, I
can't be sure how well I did. In any case, they both scrambled to say
that, 'No, of course we realize you've shouldered your share of it, and
have done a good job of it, too, and yes, we know that the coordination
end of it can be equally time-consuming.'
So! With one well-placed non-defensive question, I got them to say what
I wanted to shout at them. From that point on, we focused on how we could
share various aspects of project A without either of us totally off-loading
it on the other. It turned out to be quite constructive meeting.
PNDC Tips
One: Mark used a type of non-defensive question that falls in the category
of asking the other person a question designed to draw out the assumption
behind what he is saying. In this case, when James, the manager said,
"I think John has paid his dues and maybe you should do the next
two builds," Mark believed he was implying (erroneously) that John
had done more work on project A than he had, so John should take over
the rest of it.
Mark asked what I consider to be a fine non-defensive question, which
directly drew that assumption out into the open:
"So, do you both believe that John has born an unfair share of the
project A burden?"
I would not use the word "So," which can sound "leading."
The question than becomes:
"Do you both believe that John has born an unfair share of the project
A burden?"
Two: Although Mark's internal feelings were still defensive, he was able
to take a deep breath (always helpful) and ask a question, using a non-defensive
format in a calm tone.
Three: Mark's saying he was able to "get" James and John to
say what he wanted to scream at them violates the intent of a non-defensive
question. While such questions are often disarming and cause others to
respond non-defensively, they must function as an invitation to the other
person to provide information, not as a way to manipulate.
Four: If Mark is unaware of information that would confirm John had done
more than his share on project A, his (Mark's) question would allow Mark
to find this out.
Five: If the other person does not want to publicly acknowledge that
he/she holds that opinion/attitude/belief, he/she will back off immediately.
This is what happened in this case. James and John had to back off from
their implication that John had born an unfair share of the burden on
project A
Six: If Mark had not questioned the proposed change in job assignments,
the change would have been enacted.
Seven: If Mark had argued back angrily, as he had an initial urge to
do, he would most likely have prompted a defensive reaction in James and
John; he may well have ended up with the unfair job assignment. Even if
he had managed to avoid the assignment, residual hard feelings could have
affected John's and Mark's ability to work together on both projects.
To Top of Page
To Main Stories Page
The Board Meeting: Going Back "After the Fact"
Marta, who heard my keynote at the Northern California Mediation
Association Conference, belongs to an organization where a difficult
decision was being made by the board after putting in great effort to
gather opinions from the whole group. During a discussion between the
board and the organization members, Gregg was asked what his needs were.
He said, "I don't care, the board is going to do what ever wants
to do
anyway."
Of course, after all the effort the board had put in, his comment
shattered the atmosphere in the room. It seemed to Marta and others
that Gregg was suggesting that the board had no intention of really
considering people's opinions. At the moment, she couldn't think of what
to say, but later went up to Gregg, who, she said, often had a negative
attitude. She asked, "Do you think that the board was not going to
take
people's opinions into account when they made their decision?" Gregg
looked startled, and said, "No, I just didn't have a strong opinion
and
thought that the board would make a good decision either way."
Marta said, asking that question and hearing his answer lifted the frustration
she felt toward him. She said, "It would have been so powerful if
I could have asked that question at the moment he made his comment, while
the whole group was there. At the same time, she was very glad she had
followed up instead of just letting it go.
PNDC Tips
It's possible that Gregg was covering his tracks and had truly meant
his comment as a vote of no-confidence. Or, perhaps he simply was a bit
inept in how he expressed himself. Either way, when asked a question about
his beliefs, assumptions, or intentions, he is likely to feel more accountability
for how he answers. If he doesn't want to admit his motives, he'll probably
back off.
What happened to Marta and others at the board meeting often has a very
negative impact and resentments can carry over time. Yet Marta changed
the outcome with one question, later. I suspect, next time, she will have
stronger skills in the moment. I believe that going back to situations
"after the fact" is one of the best ways we can strengthen our
skills. It's too hard to "think and act differently" when under
pressure. By going back after thinking through how you'd like to handle
something, you get practice, as Marta did. With one question, she turned
the situation around, and next time, she'll be more likely to think on
her feet.
To Top of Page
To Main Stories Page
Professor Reassures Student, Causing Defeat
Mac, a professor told the following story: Every time I presented new
material in my logic class, a student, Samantha, would talk to me complaining
that just when she had begun to understand the previous material, we'd
move on to something new. I used to jump into what I now call "cheerleader
mode" [convincing] and tell her that she could in fact understand
the material. She would get more emotional, and blame other students in
the class, her job, and her children for her inability to understand logic.
Eventually, she would leave with a bit more understanding but also (I
sensed) emotionally drained.
Today, she again let me know that just when she was beginning to understand
something, we had moved on. I could see her emotions building up. I said
calmly, "I think that you learn in cycles. You start off not understanding
something, but gradually you take it in, until you understand it all.
I think that's what's happening now. You've likened yourself to a light
bulb that is on sometimes and sometimes off. I think that's right, and
I also think that you're like a fluorescent light, and you just need to
flicker for a while until you're warmed up." As I said this to her,
I could see her frustration melting. When I was done, she said with a
confident smile, "Yeah, I think that's right. 'That is what I do.
I'm just flickering now, but next week I'll be on!" She left after
that in much better spirits than usual."
PNDC Tips
Often when we reassure others, we are actually trying to encourage them
by convincing them to think differently. Whenever we try to convince others
that they are "wrong-headed" in their thinking, even when we
are trying to help them, we increase the odds that they will resist and
stay locked into defeat. By expressing our own viewpoint without trying
to get the other person to change, he or she is much more likely to be
able to hear what we say and feel genuinely encouraged!
To Top of Page
To Main Stories Page
Disrespecting Authority: A Software Development Conflict
- Background Information
- Defensive Diaglogue
- Non-Defensive Dialogue
- Concluding Comments
- PNDC Tips
Background information
The software development team at one of our sites is comprised of a group
of chemical engineers who have no formal training in software development.
They have, however, successfully developed several systems that are currently
used within their group. These systems were not developed using corporate
development standards- i.e., user-friendly standard function keys, menus,
screen layouts, report layouts, etc.
This team is now developing a system that will be used corporation-wide.
Their targeted users are accustomed to employing systems that conform
to standards; i.e., they "look and feel" alike. I have been
assigned to the team to ensure that corporate development standards are
followed. I am not being well received.
Defensive Diaglogue
Prior to Powerful Non-Defensive Communication, a typical review session
with any one of the developers went something like this:
Janet, calm: After reviewing the screens you have developed, it
appears that you did not follow standards. Why not?
Engineer, guarded: We've never followed standards in the past
and our systems work just fine. I don't have time to follow your standards
now.
Janet, irate: Sorry, but you're going to have to re-do these screens
to make them meet standards.
Engineer, yelling: Your stupid standards are impacting my deadline!
I'm not going to work overtime just to please you!
Janet, irate: You will change these screens! I'll be talking with
your supervisor tomorrow morning!
At that point, the discussion was over and both of us would leave mad.
Looking back at that conversation, I now realize that nothing was accomplished.
We didn't even communicate!
Non-Defensive dialogue
After taking the Powerful, Non-Defensive Communication workshop, I went
back to a review with one of the engineers. The discussion went like this:
Janet, calm: I have reviewed your screens and noticed that there
are a few changes that could be made to help them conform to standards.
Engineer, irate: I told you that I was not going to conform to
your standards!
Janet, calm: Do you believe that it would be easier or harder
for a user to use a new system if it had the "look and feel"
of their other systems? [Sharon's note: this question is a little leading,
but it seems she asked it non-defensively enough to get a thoughtful response.]
Engineer, seemed confused: Well, I guess it would be easier.
Janet, calm: Do you think it would be easier to develop a system
if you didn't have to think about what each screen should have on it?
Engineer, seemed confused: Well, I guess.
Janet, calm: Did you know that these standards were developed
by a team of folks that have talked to the users about what is easiest
for them to use?
Engineer, still looking confused: No, I didn't know that.
Janet, calm: Does it make any sense to you that by following standards
we are able to build systems that "look and feel" alike for
all our users.
Engineer, calmer: Yes, I think it does.
Janet, calm: Do you think it takes more time to develop something
using standards than it does to develop something without standards?
Engineer, calmer: Probably not.
Janet, calm: Do you understand why I'm asking you to change these
screens?
Engineer, calm: Yes, I do.
Janet, calm: Do you think the changes I'm asking you to make will
make it easier for the users to use your new system?
Engineer, calm: Well, they might.
Janet, calm: Thank you for your time.
Engineer, calm: I can have these changes ready by tomorrow if
you want to come back and look at them.
Janet,calm: I'd be more than happy to come back. Thank you again.
Concluding Comments
I can't believe the difference the tools you gave us made. We actually
carried on a civilized conversation. There was no shouting, and I believe
he actually saw the importance in using standards. That afternoon he called
and commented on how nice it was not to have a shouting match. He said
his blood pressure actually went down during the meeting.
These tools really work! I do have to admit that the first time he started
raising his voice, I took a deep breath and concentrated on keeping my
voice calm and without emotion so I could ask the questions non-defensively.
It was hard! But, I did it and it worked!
PNDC Tips
As a rule, people initially see the problem as being created by the other
person, so if the situation changes, they think it was because the other
person started behaving better. I suspect in this case, when the engineer
said it was nice not to have a shouting match, he did not see his own
part in creating one. To use another example, the analyst perceived herself
always as irate, never shouting, but perceived the engineer as shouting.
When he referred to the "shouting match," it seems clear that
he perceived both of them as shouting. I think it is possible that she
raised her voice also, but was more aware of his volume.
In this interaction, the computer analyst focused only on using questions.
She did not make statements of her own, which she could also have done
very effectively.
I think some of her questions were a little leading, but she asked them
in a neutral enough manner that he gradually dropped his own defenses.
In the following question, Janet asks directly about her own assumption,
what she believes to be true, to find out if the engineer sees it the
same way. I think this question works very well.
Do you think it would be easier to develop a system if you didn't have
to think about what each screen should have on it?
Ultimately, a non-defensive question is not "scripted." Although
I offer many formats in the book as guides for asking questions, each
of us may create different questions, based on what we are comfortable
with.
To Top of Page
To Main Stories Page
|
