8. The Care and Feeding of Relationships

At the start of a project code-named FixNet, the ten members of the team were enthusiastic about working together. But as the project progressed, tensions started to surface. One gnawing grievance was that the geographically dispersed team members communicated primarily by e-mail and some team members were convinced that the others weren’t reading their messages.

For example, the team leader sent out biweekly updates to everyone on the team. When team members questioned matters that had already been explained in the updates, he complained that if people weren’t going to read the updates, then he wasn’t going to send them. One team member, when asked about a written procedure she had e-mailed to team members a few weeks earlier, groused, “If nobody read my last message, will another one that repeats the same procedure be any more likely to be noticed?”

If one or two people voice a particular complaint, it may be an isolated occurrence. But if three or more people express similar grievances, the situation bears looking into—and sooner rather than later. Nevertheless, although several team members had expressed frustration about their messages going unread, none of them noticed any overall pattern. Fortunately, however, members of this team had selected one of their teammates to observe their communication processes and to provide feedback.

Before unrest about unread messages could escalate, the observer noticed the pattern of complaints and informed the team so that teammates could address it openly. Several positive results ensued: First, team members acknowledged that they’d been lax about reading messages and made a commitment to read and heed future project e-mail. Second, they designated one team member to devise an on-line catalog of procedures and to notify everyone by e-mail when new entries had been posted. Third, team members laughingly agreed that only those who read, digested, and retained every single message could demand perfection of the rest.

An appointed, and therefore “official,” observer can help groups notice and combat potentially damaging communication patterns. The role of such an observer is described in this chapter, and is critical in the care and feeding of relationships.

Clearly, not even a rock-solid foundation can guarantee everlasting freedom from relationship problems. Although an appreciation of one another’s communication style and perspective is important, it is not enough. Relationships take work; they require mindful attention on an ongoing basis. This chapter focuses on communication techniques designed to help groups maintain a strong foundation and create a caring culture.

The “to whom it may concern” thank-you. A program chairperson invited several well-known speakers to fly to an out-of-the-way city to speak at her conference, and she requested that they waive their standard speaking fee. Eight speakers agreed to her terms, with the result that the conference was a major success. Afterward, the program chair e-mailed a single three-line message to all eight. The message began: “Thank you for participating in our conference.” No names, no individual greetings, no indication that what each speaker had contributed had any particular value.

A thank-you ought to be personalized. Given that only eight speakers were involved, the program chair could easily have sent each person a separate message, in which, at the very least, she addressed each by name. There is, after all, a difference between the generic “Thank you for participating in our conference,” (whoever you are) and the minimally personalized “Scott, thank you for participating in our conference.” And there is an even bigger difference between a generic message and one in which details specific to the individual’s contribution are noted. How much more acknowledged Scott and the other speakers might have felt to be personally appreciated, rather than to be part of an impersonal list.

The sideways thank-you. A company event to which I was invited included a recognition ceremony for people who had been involved in a complex and highly successful implementation. I was pleased that the IT director, John, had planned this acknowledgment, because so often, management views the successful completion of a tough job by employees as nothing more than “what they are paid to do.” In other words, their effort is not worthy of any special attention.

Unfortunately, though, instead of looking directly at each person and saying, for example, “Sarah, thank you for the role you played in designing the customer database,” or “Sarah, your role involved designing the customer database, and I thank you for your efforts,” John looked at the audience and said, “Sarah’s role was to design the customer database.”

The difference between these expressions of gratitude is monumental. Instead of speaking to each person, John spoke to the audience about each person. He understood the value of public recognition, but his tribute would have had greater impact if he had expressed it directly and personally to the individual who earned it.

The clueless thank-you. A colleague of mine forwarded to me this e-mail message sent by a senior vice president to his managers and directors:

“I want to congratulate you for your superb work in recent months. I hope you will pass along my deep appreciation and personally thank those who report to you. I’m excited about our people and the performance the company has experienced through their efforts. We have a great year ahead. Let’s maintain our momentum.”

As positive as this message sounds, very few people felt truly thanked by the senior vice president. The message might have been effective if it had been part of a culture of appreciation—but it wasn’t. In this company, the culture had fostered a prolonged pattern of non-appreciation, made worse by a reorganization in which employee concerns were treated as irrelevant. In such a context, an isolated, long overdue, impersonal thank-you, combined with a remotely issued pep talk, worsened morale and hastened turnover.

If you want people to feel thanked by your thanks, create a caring culture in which individuals are acknowledged personally and directly.

As with a thank-you, an appreciation should be direct and personal, such as: “I appreciate you, Jonathan, because . . .” or “I appreciate you, Sandra, for . . .” Find the wording that’s most natural for you, such as, “I really liked the way you . . .” or “I was so impressed when you . . .” or “It was great the way you . . .” In other words, when you give an appreciation, speak directly to the person you wish to acknowledge rather than speaking to others about the person.

Appreciations don’t need to be reserved for significant undertakings. You can give one for anything, whether large or small, and whether critical to the team’s efforts or simply a kind gesture. Appreciations among team members might include, “I appreciate you, Sandra, for your great advice when the network went down,” as well as, “I appreciate you, Jonathan, for bringing me a snack when I couldn’t get to lunch.”

If you aren’t accustomed to giving appreciations, you might be surprised at how satisfying it is to do so. Seeing people light up in response to your acknowledgment can be a delightful experience. When I expressed my appreciation to one member of a team for outstanding work on behalf of her project, she responded, “I’m startled to receive such glowing praise. This is the first time anyone has commented on what I’ve done, and it feels very, very nice. Thank you.” The impact an appreciation can have on its recipient usually far exceeds the effort of giving it.

Sadly, many people are unable to graciously accept simple appreciations. One reason is that they have been unaccustomed to receiving appreciations at any point in their professional lives, and so when one is expressed, they don’t know how to handle it. Other factors that may make it difficult for people to accept appreciations include a person’s upbringing, past experience, a conviction that he or she is unworthy of attention, or the misguided notion that it’s immodest to accept compliments. For such people, accepting an appreciation is uncomfortable, and they tend to respond by downplaying the compliment, saying, “Oh, it was nothing.” However, a self-deprecating response discounts a sincere expression of appreciation. Therefore, if you are the recipient of an appreciation, accept it as such, and use the proper form for receiving it. It goes like this: “Thank you.”

There’s no need to wait for a group gathering to give an appreciation. Do it as soon as the thought strikes you. It’s a wonderful habit, one that helps a relationship withstand the inevitable trials and tribulations it faces. I firmly believe that stress in the workplace would diminish if people would make a habit of giving appreciations.

Even if appreciations aren’t part of your team’s or your organization’s culture, you can set an example simply by saying, “Thanks. I really appreciate you for that!” whenever someone does something that pleases you. If we each do this once, and then again and again, others will soon start doing the same. Together, we will set the stage for a more caring and productive workplace.

Self-appreciation is easier for some people to acknowledge than for others. At one end of the spectrum are people who are comfortable with self-appreciation; they know their contributions, they feel good about themselves, and they need little prompting to acknowledge their contributions publicly. At the other end of the continuum are people who have great difficulty in appreciating themselves. The possible reasons are many, and some of the reasons run deep. Except in professionally facilitated contexts, coaxing someone into expressing a self-appreciation isn’t wise. However, people who seem incapable of expressing self-appreciation might be encouraged to think about what they appreciate themselves for and to write one appreciation a day, a week, or a month in a private journal.

Think about yourself now: What have you done that deserves your appreciation? The list may be longer than you anticipate.

¹ Virginia Satir et al., The Satir Model: Family Therapy and Beyond (Palo Alto, Calif.: Science and Behavior Books, 1991), pp. 309–16.

Some groups devote a portion of every staff meeting to a Temperature Reading; others conduct one at monthly intervals, at key project milestones, or at the conclusion of a project. Any member of the group can serve in the role of facilitator, which requires no special training. In some organizations, team members take turns facilitating, so that each gains experience at this skill.

A Temperature Reading consists of five segments, described in the five numbered sections that follow, and can take anywhere from fifteen minutes to an hour or more, depending on the size of the team and its circumstances.

If time doesn’t permit a full Temperature Reading, focus on this first segment and skip the rest.

Anyone with information to share can offer it during this segment. For example, a team leader may mention an upgrade that has been planned but has not yet been announced. A team member may describe a technique he or she learned in a recent class. Another team member may want to share information about a visit to a remotely located team member.

When I facilitate a Temperature Reading, I deliberately place the New Information segment before the Puzzles segment because the sharing of information may resolve an issue that would otherwise be presented during Puzzles.

Although “Complaints with Recommendations” is Satir’s name for this segment, some groups call the segment “Recommendations for Improvement,” aptly shifting the emphasis from what’s gone wrong to how to do better.

One reason Temperature Readings are so valuable as a communication technique is that, with only slight adjustments, they can be adapted for use in many situations. For example, you can use a Temperature Reading to gather customer feedback by translating the five segments into questions, such as,

• What’s working well?

• What’s coming up that could be important?

• What kinds of problems or puzzles have you been experiencing?

• What recommendations do you have for improvement?

• What are your hopes for the future?

Similarly, you can orient the segments for use in a post-project review by asking

• What worked well?

• What important information seemed to be lacking?

• What was puzzling or confusing?

• What improvements would enable us to function better in future projects?

• What are our hopes for the future?

By changing just a few words, you can adapt these questions for use in assessing the quality of your personal or organizational communication.

Such companies remind me of the one in which an IT vice president wandered through the employee areas every year just before Christmas, wishing everyone happy holidays. Most people didn’t even know who he was. This may have been personal attention of a once-a-year sort, but it was certainly not personalized; indeed, it revealed how little the executive knew about his employees, their efforts, and their accomplishments. Recall that the director discussed in Chapter 3 was equally clueless: His response to an employee survey that recommended more communication was to increase the number of memos he circulated. Communication would have been better served if he had spent time moseying through employee areas, interacting with employees, and showing evidence that he knew they were there.

A few words are all it takes to be a certified attention-giver. For example, I discovered how easy it is to acknowledge someone’s contribution—and how good it feels to be acknowledged—during aerobics class.

In case you’ve never partaken, aerobics classes entail a series of vigorous, fast-paced exercise routines in which your arms and legs flail in all directions to the beat of music that’s much too loud. Doing that is tough when you have difficulty following directions that require one foot to do one thing while the other foot does something else. On occasion, my feet get into an argument that threatens to flatten me.

But every now and then, from across a crowded room, the instructor would say, “Nice job, Naomi,” or “Naomi, keep up the good work.” Hearing her acknowledge my efforts gave me a nice feeling. I may have two left feet, but the instructor saw to it that they weren’t two anonymous left feet. This instructor was astute enough to realize that personalized attention is a picker-upper. And anticipating that she might deliver this little zing of attention felt great every time, even when I knew it was coming. In the end, my two left feet rallied and completed the class in unison.

Clearly, giving personalized attention isn’t about coddling people or catering to their every whim. It’s a way to treat them and to show respect for them as individuals. Few methods for maintaining contact are so easy! This technique is particularly effective in companies in which people in virtual teams or provider/customer relationships are great distances apart.

Sometimes you can do no greater good in building and maintaining a relationship than to give it attention—whether the relationship involves subordinates, peers, customers, coworkers, or others. By listening attentively, offering a compliment, asking about work in progress, and commenting on activities of interest to the person, you show people that you care about them as individuals. People like to know that others know they’re alive, and a little attention can have a huge positive impact.

In fact, giving personalized attention may at times be more important to people than addressing their complaints. Indeed, their complaints may be a reaction to a lack of attention. Sometimes, when people come to you with a problem, what they want is simply to hear you agree that it really is a problem, and that they are justified in being concerned.

To whom can you give some personalized attention today? Don’t plan it. Don’t schedule it. Just look around and do it.

Members of the group forged ahead, so eager to complete the project that they were oblivious to the growing tension. They also didn’t notice that two classmates who previously had been active idea-generators had turned silent. A third person muttered wisecracks, while a fourth slid his chair outside the circle the group was seated in.

Each of these behaviors could have several different explanations: Perhaps the Silent Ones simply needed time to reflect. The Wisecracker might have used quips as a way to release tension. The Chair Slider might have wanted to gain the perspective of an outsider looking in. Another possibility, though, was that these people had become dissatisfied and even disillusioned with the proceedings and had mentally checked out. Sure, they were still physically present, but their minds and spirits were miles away.

As tension escalated, I stopped the group’s effort and asked each member to offer the group a few words to describe what he or she was experiencing. Among their responses were the following comments:

• I’m feeling stressed.

• No one’s listening to me.

• I’m not having any fun.

• No one’s paying attention to my ideas.

• I’m feeling frustrated.

• I’m really nervous we won’t get the problem solved in time.

• I hate the whole thing.

I then asked them what, if anything, surprised them about these responses. Several members of the group said they didn’t realize they weren’t the only one feeling stressed. Others said they didn’t realize the extent of the stress. One person was particularly upset, noting, “I didn’t realize so many of you were unhappy. I feel bad that I didn’t notice.”

People who know each other well often neglect to pay personalized attention to each other when they’re working to meet a deadline. The members of this group had been together for almost a full week, tackling tough issues, laughing with each other, and talking about common interests. Many of them cared about each other. Yet when problems arose, they didn’t notice or, if they noticed, their rules for commenting prevented them from expressing what they saw. Once they again became aware of each other, they decided to take periodic time-outs during the remainder of the project to check in with each other. They made a commitment to pay attention not only to the project, but also to the people engaged in it. Afterward, they commented that paying attention to each other’s experience during the project seemed to reduce the stress of that experience.

As it turns out, though, he did as much to obstruct the team effort as to support it. For example, he dismissed several ideas that differed from his own, and discounted some suggestions without trying to understand the reasoning behind them. He seemed unfazed when people spoke simultaneously, although none of their comments could be heard clearly. As the effort proceeded, he failed to notice expressions of annoyance on the faces of some team members—or if he noticed, he did nothing to alleviate their distress.

This fellow’s heart was in the right place. He was a team player. How could he not be, given how genuinely he wanted the team to succeed? Yet from the way he worked, it seemed as if he’d been directed to see how many different ways he could come up with to make the problem more difficult to solve than it actually was.

The group’s problems were not caused solely by the facilitator, however; some were due to the activities of other participants—team players all. For example, one woman said she was good at listening to simultaneous speakers, yet she misstated a speaker’s key point moments later. Another member of the group said he’d support any solution as long as the session ended quickly, but he then proceeded to bring up idea after idea, prolonging the discussion. None of these people seemed aware that their behavior counteracted the very success they wanted the team to achieve. Their actions, motivated by time pressures, ensured that their effort would need more time rather than less.

Did they solve the problem by their deadline? Yes, just barely. But in the process, they demonstrated that people who view themselves as team players can still impede a team’s ability to function successfully.

Paying attention to yourself is a process that I call “catching yourself being yourself.” It requires that you, in a sense, reserve a part of yourself to step back and look at the situation, to take note of how you act. It requires practice, but is an excellent way to notice your own personal contradictions between what you say and what you do.

Interestingly, however, relationships can be just as difficult to sustain when people work side by side. Often, people don’t know what their coworkers in neighboring cubicles are up to, let alone what people who work far away are doing. Why don’t they know? Too busy! Urgent demands! Priorities! No time to get together! When the pressure is on, staff meetings are all but impossible. Or are they?

Some organizations have found a technique to help group members stay connected and informed about each other’s doings. The meetings these organizations hold are quite unusual, however, and work like this: Every Monday, promptly at 9 A.M., the entire group assembles. Each person gets exactly one minute to describe his or her plans for the week. One minute. That’s it. Oh, and one more thing is required—unless prevented from doing so by a physical condition, everyone remains standing for the duration of the meeting.

Sixty seconds per person may not sound like much, but it’s longer than you may think. In fact, one minute is just enough time for each participant to bring everyone else up to speed. Knowing they each will have sixty seconds to speak makes people think a little harder about what they’ll be doing during the coming week and how to communicate it.

Brief though it may be, this type of meeting is surprisingly effective in surfacing redundancies, overlapping efforts, or the need for greater coordination. For example, one group that tried this technique discovered that a particular customer had contacted several different members of the group with the same request. The contacted teammates each had planned to spend time responding to the customer’s request, while the customer presumably waited to see which solution he liked best.

Knowledge of task redundancy is clearly advantageous to a team but why should everyone remain standing during this meeting? Because when people settle into comfortable chairs, sit back, and relax, they tend to take longer to get to the point. They go on at length. They meander. They think of just one more thing to say and then talk about 27 more things. Before you know it, the sun is setting on yet another unproductive day. By contrast, keeping people standing assures that everyone will remain alert and goal-oriented and that each speaker will get to the point quickly.

Two ground rules are important in making this type of meeting a success. First, the information presented must be specific to the projects or activities people will be working on during the coming week (or alternatively, worked on last week, if that’s your preference). They can’t cut their minute to four seconds by saying they’re working on the same old stuff. Each person must take his or her minute seriously, making the most of the opportunity to speak; any member who will be unable to attend the meeting must provide a written statement of the week’s plan for a coworker to read to the others.

The second ground rule is that discussion is prohibited. If someone’s one-minute presentation triggers ideas for further discussion, that’s natural—but stick to presentation of planned tasks, and pursue any discussion after the meeting has concluded.

If you want to maintain a relationship, it’s crucial to find time to stay connected. But as this technique shows, sometimes all it takes is just a minute.

The Anxiety Metric measures internal conflict by focusing on feelings of stress and that sick-to-your-stomach, tied-up-in-knots feeling that signals that all is not well. This metric helps a person working on a project recognize strong reactions to what he or she is experiencing. Identification of the anxiety prompts the taking of appropriate action to resolve the stress.

When King notices that his anxiety is on the rise, his first step is to identify its cause. Once he has determined its leading cause, he then seeks out the person or people who are in the best position to help him relieve it. Often, that person is the one who contributed to the anxiety. In other situations, it might be someone who can offer some perspective on the situation. Either way, he aims to present his case in a non-blaming manner. As King points out, “if I don’t do it, my anxiety merely continues to grow.”²

² Bob King, “Life as a Software Architect,” Amplifying Your Effectiveness: Collected Essays, eds. Gerald M. Weinberg, James Bach, and Naomi Karten (New York: Dorset House Publishing, 2000), p. 51. See also www.rc-king.com.

The Conflict Metric is King’s externally focused metric that concentrates on strong feelings that exist between individuals and groups as they work together. But contrary to what you might expect, the metric does not measure the presence of too much conflict, but rather is used to detect just the reverse: the absence of strong feeling. Based on his experience as a software architect, King states, “I enter this arena fully aware that there will be places where conflict lurks. . . . The sooner these conflicts surface, and are resolved, the better for the project, so if the Conflict Metric seems too low, I suspect that I don’t yet understand all of the project’s business ramifications.”³

³ Ibid., p. 49.

King’s point is worth taking to heart: A certain amount of conflict is normal. If you don’t see or experience any, it’s probably not because there is none, but that it just hasn’t surfaced or is being deliberately concealed. As uncomfortable as conflict can be, the kind that hasn’t yet surfaced is probably a greater risk to the success of an undertaking than the kind that emerges and can be addressed.

Metrics such as these or others you develop yourself will signal you that the time has come to take action. As a work group, you and your teammates can establish metrics that signal that it’s time to openly discuss issues that are interfering with the ability of group members to work well together. Groups that devise and discuss relevant metrics are more likely to air grievances that might otherwise remain beneath the surface.

For example, when two colleagues became mired in conflict, they turned to e-mail to try to resolve their issues. I suggested to one of them that despite the travel involved, they meet face-to-face. However, he convinced me otherwise when he explained his reason for preferring e-mail: “Joe clearly has some major grievances that I’m not sure he’ll surface if we’re face-to-face. At this stage, e-mail gives me a chance to study his comments and carefully compose my own. If I can get a little clearer about what’s really bothering him, then I’ll consider getting together with him.” E-mail was clearly the communication channel of choice in this situation.

In some situations, e-mail may be the communication channel of choice even when relationships are strong and people live and work side by side. In Ice Bound, Dr. Jerri Nielsen describes her experience living at a South Pole research station. Remarking on the fact that her colleagues at the station corresponded with each other by e-mail, Dr. Nielsen comments, “You would think that forty-one people living together in a little hole would just talk, but I think the writing helped us express our feelings more precisely and more freely.”⁴

⁴ Dr. Jerri Nielsen, with Maryanne Vollers, Ice Bound: A Doctor’s Incredible Battle for Survival at the South Pole (New York: Hyperion, 2001), p. 172.

To resolve conflict, choose the communication channel that best fits your comfort level. Use e-mail to resolve disputes when it serves both you and the other party well. Although e-mail cannot capture the nuances of verbal communication, it has one compelling benefit over the spoken word: Once you’ve written a message, you can always hit the Delete key if you feel the message is not right. Nothing comparable yet exists with spoken communication.

Most organizations put more effort into taking care of relationships with people who are external to the company than they devote to caring for their own employees. Externally oriented positions with titles like client-relations manager or vendor-relations manager focus on relationships with customers and suppliers. Rarely, however, do groups have internally focused positions designed to help them monitor and improve their own functioning. Such positions can be extremely valuable in maintaining or strengthening relationships, because the people in these relationship-tending roles serve as extra eyes and ears.

Several roles can help the members of a group function congruently as they face the stresses and pressures associated with achieving their goals. The roles of Observer, Compassionate Listener, Guide, Team Jiggler, and, yes, even Corporate Fool, are described in the remainder of this chapter.

You see, every autumn, when leaves begin to fall, I somehow find myself in the role of Designated Leaf Raker. One October, though, I hoped my husband, Mr. I Don’t Do Outdoor Work, would see how busy I was and rake the yard himself. He didn’t. I waited for him to notice the growing carpet of leaves. He didn’t.

I decided to try something dramatic to get his attention. I raked a section of lawn, but—and here is the genius behind my idea—I left a pile of leaves in the shape of a heart in the center of the cleared area. I was certain Howard would look out the window, see the valentine, think how romantic it would be to lend a hand, and rake the rest of the yard.

A day or two passed, but Howard didn’t notice the heart of leaves. I didn’t worry; these things take time. How much time was something I had badly miscalculated, however. After several weeks, I was concerned that the leaves would damage the lawn, and so I went out and raked my heart out. Sure enough, the leaves had burned the lawn, leaving a perfect yellowish-brown lawn-heart. Then I raked the rest of the yard. It was clear he wasn’t going to do it.

Soon enough, snow covered the yard. I forgot about the lawn. Spring came. One day, Howard looked out the window and motioned me over. “Look at the lawn,” he said, sounding puzzled. “That section over there is the strangest color. And it’s in the shape of a heart.” I decided not to confess that I’d had a role in creating the heart shape, but I did adopt a more direct approach to getting his help with the yard that Spring, designating him as official Yard Observer. Which is why, in organizations as in households, it’s valuable to have designated Observers, people whose explicit responsibility it is to see specific things.

Observers are people invited to unobtrusively watch a group, identify noteworthy patterns of behavior, and provide feedback and recommendations. Observers help to answer a variety of questions, such as: How are people getting along? Do miscommunications occur? What kinds of interactions are taking place? Are people communicating at cross-purposes? Are they unintentionally taking action that negatively impacts others? What issues are contributing to conflict? What important issues are not being discussed?

An Observer can provide both ongoing observation, such as during a project, and event-specific observation, such as during team meetings. Observers don’t participate in the group’s interactions, but instead pay diligent attention to what is transpiring. They offer feedback at whatever points or intervals are mutually agreed to, such as at designated periods during a meeting, at the conclusion of a project, or upon noticing a matter likely to benefit from feedback.

Outside consultants often serve as Observers. But another option—one that costs far less and yields considerable learning—is for a group to have its own members serve as Observers in addition to carrying out their normal responsibilities. By virtue of being assigned as Observers, these individuals tend to notice instances of miscommunication, misinterpretation, and misunderstanding that others miss. They see how easily even the most well-intentioned efforts can go astray. In fact, two Observers are better than one because they will see different things and will see the same things from different angles. Group members can rotate Observer duties, so that everyone has the opportunity to experience both the challenges and the benefits that the role entails.

Observers must offer feedback in an objective, caring, and nonthreatening way. The emphasis must be on describing intake—that is, what they saw and heard—rather than interpretation. When they do offer interpretation, they must be careful to qualify it as such: “When I saw . . . my interpretation was . . .” In return, those being observed must try not to be defensive as they listen to the feedback offered. Being both the observer and the observed takes practice.

A good starting point is for group members to create a list of things to observe. This list could include

• how often the group deviates from one of the published norms, such as the “no interrupting” norm

• patterns of complaints by group members

• evidence that people may be unclear about their responsibilities

• messages that don’t get through

• evidence that team members are, or are not, staying connected

Any one or two of these would be plenty for new Observers.

If you’d like to get some practice as an Observer before an actual opportunity arises, you can easily do so during the next boring meeting you attend. When you reach that point in the meeting when you’d rather be having a root canal, put on your invisible Observer hat. Don’t try to observe everything; you can’t. Instead, pick something specific to observe, such as,

• how often people interrupt each other

• the words used by people who discount others’ ideas

• how often the meeting veers off course—and who steers it that way

• how the most persuasive people convince others

• how often people smile or laugh

As a self-appointed Observer in this setting, you may see far more than you expect. In the process, you’ll be refining your observation skills. And you’ll survive the meeting. You may even look forward to the next one.

⁵ The Compassionate Listener, Guide, and Team Jiggler roles described in this chapter are adapted from the work of Eileen Strider (www.striderandcline.com), Marie Benesh (www.mbenesh.com), Rick Brenner (www.ChacoCanyon.com), and Kevin Fjelsted (www.pcte.com), who created the roles for a project the five of us, and others, worked on together.

For situations like these, it is valuable to have a small team whose responsibility it is to ask: “How are we doing as a group?” Although many people are concerned with how well the group is functioning, appointing specific people within a larger team to pay attention to the answer is an effective organizational strategy. Typically, members of this team perform their role in addition to their other responsibilities.

Two possible roles for this team are Compassionate Listener and Guide:

Compassionate Listeners provide confidential support, on request, to coworkers to help them through stressful or confusing situations. The role entails listening attentively, asking questions, seeking clarifying information, and helping to identify options and alternatives. Compassionate Listeners don’t fix problems; they help others find ways to resolve their own problems.

Guides assist group members, on request, in resolving conflicts they are experiencing with each other. As with the Compassionate Listener, the Guide’s job is to listen attentively, ask questions, and seek clarifying information. The Guide also helps the parties hear each other and find a resolution that will enable them to communicate more effectively, understand each other’s perspective, and improve how well they get along. Certain situations might call for multiple guides, one supporting and guiding each party to the conflict. The Satir Interaction Model is one of the most commonly used tools in this process.

At first glance, it may appear that these roles ought to be restricted to those with relevant training or experience. But, in fact, almost anyone can serve in these roles provided he or she maintains confidentiality, brings a genuine concern to the role, and strives to remain objective.

Clearly, individuals selected for these roles must have the trust and respect of those who might seek their assistance. It’s advisable for groups to have more than one person serving in each of these roles so that they can offer support, guidance, and encouragement to each other as well as to the rest of the group.

During one project on which I served on a team with Compassionate Listener and Guide responsibilities (designated a Care and Feeding Team), we periodically conducted a confidential survey to gauge how team members viewed the project, their roles, and their interactions with others. We published summary reports, keeping individual feedback confidential. (In such situations, if team members feel safe enough to disclose their views and all are willing, confidentiality may be waived.) We came to see this role as valuable for any project, as a proactive way to help teams avoid or resolve problems.⁶

⁶ Thanks to my Care-and-Feeding-mates, Eileen Strider (www.striderandcline.com) and Esther Derby (www.estherderby.com).

One caution, though. Serving as a Compassionate Listener or Guide can be emotionally draining if a lot of support is needed—and in some situations, a considerable amount is needed. Listeners and Guides might benefit by creating a metric to help them judge when demand for their efforts becomes excessive either for themselves personally or for the effective functioning of the team. If requests for assistance exceed a certain level, the group may require a larger and more proactive form of intervention.

Another type of relationship-tending role is that of a Team Jiggler, a specialized Observer whose function it is to help raise awareness of interdependencies and overlaps. Team Jigglers do not function as part of their own team but instead help by joining in on all forms of communication among another team’s members—with that team’s prior permission only. Teams may invite a Jiggler to their meetings and include them on their e-mail distribution lists to help them develop and maintain their awareness.

A Jiggler’s ideas and insights are especially valuable when team members are making important decisions and would like assistance in determining how their work affects or is affected by others. Jigglers don’t interfere with the team’s activities or decision-making (tempting though it may be to do so). Rather, they raise awareness, ask questions, and provide feedback. Because they have permission to offer feedback, they can contribute at will without being viewed as intrusive.

⁷ David Firth, with Alan Leigh, The Corporate Fool (Oxford, U.K.: Capstone Publishing, 1998).

According to Firth, the Corporate Fool operates by four principles:⁸

⁸ Firth, op. cit., pp. 7–9.

• The Fool is an outsider, because (Firth maintains) it is only from the outside that one has a clear perspective.

• The Fool sees things as they really are. He or she doesn’t become trapped by the psychological phenomenon of perceptual adaptation, which Firth describes as “the ability to see distortion as normality and not know it.”⁹

⁹ Ibid., p. 7.

• The Fool is honest. If the Fool sees that the emperor has no clothes, he or she isn’t afraid to say so.

• The Fool is a master of communication and, in particular, of the ability to listen, understand, and build rapport in order to present his or her perspective in a way that people will find palatable.

Now, the truth is, I don’t know of any organizations that have formally designated positions for Corporate Fools. Consultants sometimes play a comparable role (although some may be viewed as fools rather than Fools). Many consultants, however, find it difficult to communicate with absolute honesty; indeed, not all managers and executives who hire consultants want to hear the truth. Still, the very notion of a Corporate Fool is a fascinating one, if for no other reason than to provoke thought about what it takes to see, acknowledge, and respond to what’s really happening. Ideally, we can all participate as Corporate Fools in our various ventures.