There are some people who, by their very nature, cause problems. They may be sloppy, careless, inattentive, and/or unaware of their impact on others. What's clear is that when they leave a situation, things are usually worse than before their arrival.
Usually, these people mean well. I work under that assumption until proven otherwise. That is what this challenge is about: those people who instigate issues and make problems, and don't really mean to do so.
To explain this challenge, I share with you the story of two partners—although it could just as well be about two coworkers or two managers on the same level of the org chart.
These two men are peers, who trust each other, became successful together, and then strayed off the path. Les and Adam were partners in a small start-up technical company. They had been in business for three years, during which time revenues climbed at a steady pace. At the end of their third year, the company had 18 employees and an expected growth rate of 16 percent in the upcoming year. In order to accomplish this growth, they needed to institute more internal controls and processes and further define their respective roles so that they could maximize productivity and quality.
Les and Adam are good complements to one another: Les is a 38-year-old man with a wife and one child. He is a visionary, whose grand plans have helped the partners reach the level of success they have, to date. His favorite activity is to sit in his office, plan, review the financials, and then devise course corrections. He is extremely bright, and does not like chaos; he wants the future to unfold as planned. When you ask Les a question, you get a response that is to the point: no more, no less.
Adam is 36, married, with two kids. He met Les five years ago at a Wall Street firm where they both were working; they dreamed of becoming partners one day in their own company. Adam is the consummate salesman; he can sell anything, anywhere, to anyone. He is also one of those guys who really needs to be liked; you'll often find him walking around the offices with pride, joking and gossiping with the employees. He's equally known for his untidiness; his office is a total mess, and one learns quickly not to give Adam a document or file without keeping a copy for oneself.
As often happens in such partnerships, one is the "inside man" (Les) and the other is the "outside man" (Adam). When an entrepreneurial company grows quickly, shifting from informal to more formal processes is difficult, at best. Les and Adam's company needed to improve customer tracking and internal communications. Most important, the flow of work from client acquisition to customer service needed to be crystallized, or an increasing number of errors would be made.
Both Les and Adam followed individual routines when they came to the office: Les came in between 7:30 and 8:00 AM, made coffee, and retired to his office. Adam arrived somewhere between 8:30 and 9:00 AM. When Adam arrived, you could hear him saying hello to everyone as he made his way to his office. If an employee stopped him to talk, he took the time to do so. He loved to hear the office scuttlebutt and chit-chat—from intrigues that were occurring to clients who were pains in the neck to what last night's football score was.
If there were a conflict at the office, there was no question where one or the other of the disputants would go: to Adam's office. He would listen to the disputants complain about the other person involved, and sympathize with each of them, in turn. The result was that when each of the employees involved in the dispute left Adam's office, he or she was firmly convinced that Adam agreed with his or her take on the problem.
Gregarious as he was, Adam wasn't good at keeping secrets or maintaining confidences. He would share the details of the dispute with others in the office—although sometimes with the intent of using the conflict as an example of a situation others should avoid. One of the unintended consequences of his actions, however, was a growing mistrust employees felt for their colleagues. Besides, no one knew how they were expected to resolve conflict they had with others at work. On the contrary, the individual sessions that Adam held with employees inevitably caused only more mistrust, because he seemed to take sides, and he did not model helpful problem-solving behavior. Rather, he would try to address these issues by confronting one or another of the disputants, and give vague instructions such as, "You really should quit making Tom angry all the time." The person hearing this statement would usually become defensive, and more antagonistic toward Tom, because Tom had gone to Adam.
Adam also created chaos by cutting deals with new clients and then often failing to relate the particulars to Les. He was a superb salesman and so making deals was, for him, enticing—understandable, since he did it very well. Communicating the details to his partner was where he tripped up. Les would, for example, set up a new account, communicate to the appropriate employee, and subsequently find out that Adam had not given all the details he needed to know. Les was, of course, thrilled at how well Adam brought in business—it was, after all, the lifeblood of their company growth. He just wanted to be told about them, so he and the rest of the employees could carry out their part of the work adequately and appropriately.
All in all, Adam's dual roles—managing the staff and making sales—combined to form the core of the chaos. Because he was out of the office a great deal making sales calls, he was not always available for coaching, monitoring, and directing the staff. Furthermore, his great need to be liked by the staff interfered with his ability to deliver difficult messages, when necessary, to his employees.
Not surprisingly, over time, office discipline and morale broke down: some employees began coming in late for work, which then caused delays in the completion of projects, which led to resentment from those employees who did continue to come in on time and complete their work on schedule. The most telling effect of this lack of management discipline was seen in the increasing number of errors being made by certain members of the staff. Les noticed it first, as he was the one who closely monitored employees' results.
As mistrust and disgruntlement in the office grew, tension also built up between Adam and Les. Les would insist, "We have to talk." Adam would put him off, saying he had a sales call to make.
What impact did this tension between their bosses have on the employees? Being in fast-growth mode, confusion grew around who was supposed to do what. Additionally, as typically happens where organizational mistrust exists, information wasn't being communicated efficiently among the staff. Understandably, when two or more people are in conflict, they aren't as willing to share data and information with their colleagues as they should.
Clearly, it was time for Les and Adam to address their issues. Adam's style was to be confrontational; sometimes, he bordered on using an attack mode. Les, unfortunately, took a similar approach to conflict, so even those conversations between them that began quietly ended with both of them shouting at each other so loudly that everyone in the office heard them.
I was brought into the situation through word of mouth: Les knew another client of mine, who recommended that he contact me for help. After meeting both Les and Adam and hearing each of their perspectives, I introduced The Working Circle to them. I had to do minimal facilitation, as they both understood the process; all I had to do was gently guide them through it, as detailed here.
To ensure that the discussion between them would be productive, they agreed to the following:
To meet offsite, on a Saturday morning, at Adam's house, where there would be no interruptions (Adam's wife would be out with the kids).
To allow the other to finish speaking before starting to talk (they each had a habit of finishing each other's sentences).
To each speak for himself and not make assumptions about the other.
To ask questions, instead of interpreting motives of the other person.
To avoid blaming and raising voices.
With Les and Adam's list of agreements in mind, let's now look at the Masculine-Feminine Continuum to examine traditional behaviors for this kind of situation.
When I worked with Les and Adam, they agreed we would use The Working Circle when we sat down for the problem-solving session. I would guide them through the process (in the same way as I am for you here in the book), but the responsibility for the conversation between them was primarily theirs. I did, however, let them know that certain highly charged words and concepts would not be part of the conversation. These included:
"Other people say..."
"I feel that you..."
I encouraged them to instead make statements that began with:
"I need"
"I feel"
"I want"
Speaking for oneself engages the other person and is less likely to activate defensiveness.
Note
Remember: This situation is about two partners. It could, however, relate to any two peers who work together and are experiencing conflict issues.
We'll now join Adam and Les on their journey through The Working Circle.
Both men needed to remember that answers to this question must not include opinions. Fortunately, underneath their problems, they trusted each other and were highly motivated to make this situation work. That was in their favor, for sure.
Here are the points they agreed on in answering Question 1:
They were both talented at what they did.
The fast growth of their company necessitated documented processes that could be replicated.
Not all employees were coming in on time, and some were making more errors.
If the projected growth occurred, they would need to hire three to five more people, and they couldn't oversee 23 employees by themselves.
Adam's paperwork was not in order.
Les spent most of the day in his office; Adam spent most of his out in the field.
Their friendship was suffering.
They both wanted to succeed.
Les was great with details.
Adam was great at sales.
With this list in hand, they were ready to move on to the next question.
Here are the items Les and Adam agreed were negotiable:
Who manages the staff.
How processes get documented, so that they can be repeated.
How sales information is transferred from Adam to Les.
Start times for employees (i.e., can be staggered/flexible).
Whether they can promote someone to a supervisory position.
It was clear to both Adam and Les when discussing what was negotiable that they agreed more than they disagreed on operating methods. They moved on to what was non-negotiable.
Les and Adam's list of what was nonnegotiable was longer than the previous one. It included:
The goals they set for the company.
Adam's role as sales leader.
Les's role as CFO.
Processes that were formalized and institutionalized, so that they could be communicated to everyone consistently
That the atmosphere at the company should not be so casual that it increased the chances of employee error.
Conversely, the atmosphere at the company should not be so stiff that workers became uncooperative, mistrustful of one another, and so formal that everyone was tense.
The employees had to be managed in such a way that they enjoyed working in the company; they had to be well trained, to ensure they performed in an optimum manner.
The friendship between Les and Adam.
Someone had to manage the staff efficiently and professionally, and it could be someone other than Les or Adam.
I noticed that as Adam and Les answered each question, they began to relax. They were not blaming each other, and they were each letting the other finish speaking before adding what he had to say. Their underlying trust and strong goal orientation resurfaced. They began to believe they would be able to come up with a game plan that worked for both of them and their employees.
At this time, however, as with most of my clients, I had to caution them to not jump into game plan design before they had answered all of the questions leading up to the game plan question. This is an important point: Almost without exception, both individuals and groups want to jump ahead to finding solutions before they have thoroughly explored their situation. If the partners had done that, they would have missed some important issues that needed to be uncovered—such as acknowledging that neither Adam nor Les had to be the manager of the staff. If they had overlooked that, they might not have been quite as creative as they ultimately were in devising their solutions.
In the case of Les and Adam, keeping them from jumping the gun was like holding two race horses from bolting—especially Adam, who could see the finish line before he saw the starting gate. Later, they grew to appreciate the process, but at this point in the discussion, it was visibly challenging for them! I mention this so that you are aware of this tendency when you walk the Circle.
Let's move on to Question 4.
If Adam and Les had been working alone, they would not have considered this question. They discovered that looking at the situation from this perspective was enormously helpful. They examined their previous successes and failures then applied the lessons they had learned from them. Without the Circle, they would have forged ahead, without stopping to review the past and what they had gained from their collective experiences. Here's what they came up with:
Les remembered that when he was at the Wall Street firm, he performed more effectively when he interacted with other teams; doing so gave him a broader perspective and provided him with more data with which to make better decisions.
Adam remembered a time when he intervened in an argument between his wife and his mother, hoping that he could help make peace between them. Not only did it not help, but they came to terms with each other without his help and ended up angry at him for interfering! Remembering this, he was reminded not to meddle.
Both Les and Adam remembered one of the managers they had once worked for—a great guy—who scheduled regular team meetings to discuss how to improve things, and at which he welcomed everyone's input. What did the partners learn from working with this man? That the people who are in the trenches often have the most valuable input as to how to make things work more efficiently.
Before answering this question, both Adam and Les had forgotten some of these events, and connecting them now to the current situation brought new awareness for the partners. They were now ready to proceed to Question 5.
Here's where the partners stand at this point:
Les has calmed down enough to believe that he and Adam can reach a viable solution.
Adam has begun to see that some of his well-intended behavior was resulting in the opposite of what he wanted.
Both Les and Adam are ready to create a game plan.
The game plan ideas came fast and furious from both Les and Adam! Consequently, I had to remind them to let the other guy finish his thoughts. Still, their enthusiasm was contagious, as they came out with idea after idea—all the while referring to their responses to the previous five questions. The game plan they produced had a timeline, assigned responsibilities, and follow-up actions.
I admit, it was wonderful to be there and watch them engage successfully in conflict resolution with minimal facilitation from me at this point!
The main points of their game plan were as follows:
Les would make an effort to get out of his office more often.
Les would become the operations manager.
Together, they would begin to structure the team managed by two supervisors, to lighten the load for both of them. Adam would hire a part-time assistant to help him with the administrative aspects of his job.
They would meet formally once a week to discuss issues, problems, and ideas, and develop action plans.
Adam would use his strong interpersonal skills to assist employees in resolving their issues together; he would no longer act as a go-between.
They would develop a company policies and procedures manual, with a focus on consistency and maintaining a relaxed but productive and efficient work culture.
Adam would hire another salesperson, and groom him/her for success.
Les would counsel any employees who weren't performing adequately.
At the end of the year, the partners would add an operations manager position, in order to take more of the day- to-day management tasks off their desks.
They would hold a company meeting, at which they would inform the entire staff of their decisions and plans.
At first, it seemed to the partners as if they had a lot to do. When reviewing the game plan, however, they recognized that all of the actions in it positioned them for further growth. They were ready to spring into action, feeling greatly relieved. Of course, at this stage, I had to remind them that in order to solidify their game plan, they first needed to answer the final two questions.
As the partners considered this question, something very interesting occurred. They began to see the wholeness of their enterprise—that their venture touched every part of their lives. As you read how they responded to this question, you will learn how they came to realize that their game plan would transform them, both professionally and personally.
Their responses:
They would improve communication between them, building more trust and stability in the relationship and the business.
Adam would learn to use his highly effective influence/sales skills in a more directed manner.
Les would become more comfortable managing people and giving feedback.
They would position the business for more growth, while maintaining the relaxed atmosphere Adam and Les preferred.
They would both learn to delegate more—a critical skill for successful entrepreneurs.
They would ultimately feel more relaxed, at home and in social situations with each other, as there would be no lingering tensions between them.
By working the Circle, Les and Adam moved through a conflicted situation into clarity, as well as personal and professional enhancements! Unquestionably, they were ready for Question 8.
As happens so often, answering this question served as an affirmation especially of their game plan, but also the entire process for Les and Adam.
But before we leave these two, I want to add an important footnote in regard to this particular situation. All of us can find it extremely difficult to confront a situation that involves a peer, professional friend, or partner. We may jump to conclusions about how the other person will react, and our concern over our ability to deal with conflict may be magnified when peers are involved, because we value these relationships highly and don't want to disrupt them.
In fact, dealing with this kind of conflict is especially important because it touches on both our professional and personal lives. "I thought I could trust you" is a phrase I have heard often in this situation—even between husband-and-wife business partners. These multilayered relationships make communication more complex and more charged, and so more important to resolve.
Having a process that eases these difficult conversations is so very helpful. Les and Adam used the language of The Working Circle (e.g., "Okay, let's get to a game plan, partner!") to resolve their conflicts. As a result, there was more lightness between them, and even when there was conflict, they were confident they could work things out. More, their collaborative conflict resolution behavior was contagious: their employees saw that the bosses could do it, and soon everyone became more cooperative.
As I write this book, Les and Adam have completed another year with tremendous success, beating their revenue projections. They continue to use The Working Circle as a template for decision making and resolving conflict.
Bravo to the brave-hearted who are willing to initiate a challenging conversation!