The Practice of Leadership » Collaboration

Good Leaders Balance Advocacy and Inquiry to Resolve Conflict

George Ambler — Sun, 25 May 2008 19:28:19 +0000

Striving towards a vision and bringing about successful change is one of the hallmarks of leadership. However, vision equals change and change is often accompanied by conflict and tensions within and between teams. The leaders ability to effectively resolve this conflict and get people to move forward, acting to bring the vision into today is the result of great leadership. Unless we learn to productively deal with conflict, our change efforts will result in failure. One of the best tools to help with resolving conflict is the art of balancing advocacy and inquiry. What do we mean by advocacy and inquiry?

Advocacy: is about how ideas are presented and explained. It’s primarily, one-way communication. When communication is one-way it becomes difficult for the the listener to understand the reasoning which supports the ideas being presented. This makes it unlikely, that people will commit themselves to any meaningful course of action. Before people will commit to a course of action they need to understand the reasoning behind the ideas. Advocacy is about making your point, taking a stand in an attempt to influence others, supporting your viewpoint with a relational argument, whilst remaining open to alternative views.
Inquiry: is about how questions are raised and answered. Inquiry allows people to inquire into one another’s reasoning and understand the conclusion they have reached. Inquiry help us to understand what others are thinking and the reasoning behind their viewpoints.

Advocacy alone is insufficient. Likewise, inquiry alone is insufficient. Without a balance, people do not commit to action, they remain neutral. Learning to balance advocacy and inquiry increases likelihood that others will commit to take action. To gain a better understanding of the differences between advocacy and inquiry the following matrix, illustrated below, which I have adapted from “The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook” provides a great overview of the various ways of dealing with conflict.

The above matrix shows that their are dysfunctional forms of advocacy (politicking and dictating) and inquiry (withdrawing and interrogating) which we need to be careful to avoid.

How to balance advocacy and inquiry

It’s important to understand when to use advocacy and when to use inquiry. Mark Gerzon in his book “Leading Through Conflict” provides the following guidelines to help leaders in combining these two very different styles:

“The general rule is this: inquiry precedes advocacy. If you (1) are uncertain about having reliable, complete information; (2) have not yet engaged all the relevant stakeholders; and (3) doubt that you have sufficient votes, power or other support to put your plan into action, then it is time for inquiry not advocacy. However, if you (1) have access to all the necessary information, (2) have obtained input from all the necessary people, and (3) have mapped a clear road to implementing a viable plan, then go ahead. Advocate your ‘solution’ to the issue or conflict, and begin to rally everyone behind you.”

Balancing advocacy and inquiry enables constructive two-way communication and learning. “I state my views, I inquire into your views, and I invite you to state your views and I inquire into your views.”

When balancing advocacy and inquiry we expose our reasoning and encourage others to challenge and probe our argument. Having a viewpoint is important as much as being open to learning about the viewpoints of others. Some useful tips for improving advocacy and inquiry from “The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook” includes:

State your views providing the assumptions and data you used that led to your view. – “Here’s what I think and how I got there“
Always seek to make your reasoning explicit. – “I came to this conclusion because….”
Keep your viewpoint in context, what’s your purpose, who will be affected, how and why.
Provide concrete examples. – “To get a clearer picture as to what I am talking about imagine you’re…“
Encourage others to explore your thinking, assumptions and data without becoming defensive. – “What do you think about what I have just said?… What can you add?“
Ask other to explain their thought process without interrogating or making people defensive. – “How did you arrive at this view?“
Ask questions that help to gain insight into why people have the views that they do. – “Can you help me understand your thinking here?“
Explain how your questions help to clarify you concerns and assumptions.
Test what others are saying by asking or examples.
When advocating, keep listening, remaining open to different viewpoints.

Leaders often make the mistake of relying too much on advocacy to get their message across. Time pressures also make it more likely that leaders default to as means of getting commitment to their vision and to drive action. Usually leaders want to be the first to provide answers and they push their views too strongly, not leaving enough room for discussion and debate. How about you? This month why not try to balance advocacy and inquiry in your conversions, you’ll be amazed at the results.

Moving Beyond Debate: Start a Dialogue

George Ambler — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:03:26 +0000

I posted previously about the importance of leading through conversation. Leadership conversations are those difficult conversations we have about exploring who we are, what we value, what we stand for and where we are going. They’re about breaking new ground and exploring together the future that we want to create. Often the staring point for these type of conversations is a clear understanding of our current reality. In my experience seeing current reality as it is as opposed to how we wish is were is, without becoming defensive and rationalizing away what we find, is a very difficult conversation. I believe that effective leadership conversations occur when we learn. When leading conversations, it’s important that as leaders we encourage a specific type of conversation, a conversation that Mark Gerzon refers to as dialogue.

Mark Gerzon author of “Leading Through Conflict: How Successful Leaders Transform Differences into Opportunities” wrote a great article on HBS Working Knowledge titled Moving Beyond Debate: Start a Dialogue which captures the difference between debate and dialogue and provides a good foundation for building great leadership conversations. As Mark points out, people prefer dialogue over powerpoint!

As I worked in more than a hundred organizations or communities over the past decade, I kept track of which form of discourse my clients most often wanted. They did not want more speeches and presentations. They did not want more debates between two know-it-alls, each of whom was sure they were right and the other person was wrong. They did not want yet another “exchange of views” that skirted difficult issues and papered over problems. What they yearned for was deep, honest, inclusive, and respectful dialogue.

Key insight….. effective dialogue is built on trust!

Trust is the foundation of great dialogue. It’s trust that allows people, who each have different world views, beliefs and frames of reference to engage in productive dialogue. Julio Olalla says that ”Trust is the precondition for coordinated action“. Trust makes conversation possible and where there is trust defensiveness is reduced and learning can begin. As highlighted in the article:

“….polarized debate (which is rampant in both corporate and civic life) does not raise the level of trust; conversely, genuine dialogue (which is rare) often does.”

Trust increases a teams creativity. This allows people to explore new territory and bridge different worldviews:

Our goal now is to build the trust necessary to create alliances between adversaries (bridging) so that they can catalyze new approaches to, and potentially breakthroughs in, the conflict (innovation).

Trust is built by engaging in dialogue which is described in the article by the following table:

Debate	Dialogue
Assuming that there is a right answer, and that you have it	Assuming that many people have pieces of the answer
Combative: participants attempt to prove the other side wrong	Collaborative: participants work together toward common understanding
About winning	About exploring common ground
Listening to find flaws and make counter-arguments	Listening to understand, find meaning and agreement
Defending our own assumptions as truth	Revealing our assumptions for reevaluation
Seeing two sides of an issue	Seeing all sides of an issue
Defending one’s own views against those of others	Admitting that others’ thinking can improve one’s own.
Searching for flaws and weaknesses in others’ positions	Searching for strengths and value in others’ positions
By creating a winner and a loser, discouraging further discussion	Keeping the topic even after the discussion formally ends
Seeking a conclusion or vote that ratifies your position	Discovering new options, not seeking closure

In discussing the above table Mark makes the following observations:

Notice how debate is a powerful strategy for advocating a fixed position, while dialogue is far better for inquiry, building relationships, and creating innovations……While debate is useful for making decisions and taking votes, dialogue is the key to renewal. The power of debate is that two polarized voices are free to speak. But the power of dialogue is that these voices can actually be heard.

One of the benefits of engage in dialogue is that leaders are able to gain higher levels of commitment those involved in dialogue. As Steven Covey observed “No involvement, no commitment“.

An organization or community can develop the clearest, most inspiring plans. But if those involved do not feel heard and engaged, and if their concerns are not taken into account through genuine dialogue, those plans will not be well executed.

Dialogue is what effective conversation is all about. The interesting part is that there seems to be so little dialogue happen in business today. We’re so busy rushing to get things done that we fail to slow down and make time for meaningful dialogue. The consequences are an increasing lack of meaning and purpose in organisations (see previous posts here and here). We may have gained efficiency, but at what cost? It seems to me that too many businesses have lost their soul in the process!

“I never saw an instance of one or two disputants convincing the other by argument.” —Thomas Jefferson

Technorati Tags: Conversation, Communication, Management, Collaboration, Leadership, Business, Business, Learning

How to improve your effectiveness when leading from below

George Ambler — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:07:21 +0000

With organisations under pressure to constantly produce short-term results there is a need to have leaders at all level within an organisation. Leadership today is not about position or authority, it’s about influence and responsibility. And those who are leading from below, rather than from the top of an organisation have a unique set of challenges. Middle and lower management need to deal with the day-to-day operational issues, whilst at the same time focusing on bringing about the necessary strategic change. With this in mind the Wall Street Journal has published a great article with the following insights on improving a leaders effectiveness when leading from below.

Make the decision to be a leader. “….In every case of successful leadership from below that we have studied, the manager made a conscious decision to move beyond the service and governance roles, without waiting to be told to do so…. [how?] ……. First, they reorganized their group to make themselves less essential to the provision of services or the exercise of governance. This began to free up time and energy for leadership…. Second, the managers we studied opened themselves up to influences from outside the company. In many companies, middle managers have been trained to focus on internal rather than external signals…… To take on a leadership role, managers needed to listen to the signals coming from outside — customers, competitors, suppliers, neighbors, the media. Then they could begin thinking about what those signals meant for action inside the company.“
Focus on influence, not control. “Every successful case we have found of leadership from below involved a basic shift in thinking: The managers did their job with their colleagues — not to them or for them. People simply react more enthusiastically to being enlisted in a common cause than they do to being ordered around…… [how?] ….Adopt the perspective of the people you’re trying to influence; don’t make them adopt yours….. Expose others to your information; don’t hoard it….. Aim to influence existing work processes; don’t build new ones…… Don’t worry about being proved right….. Keep things clear and simple…… Keep a sharp focus.“
Work on your “trusted adviser” skills. “You have to earn the right to influence people. People have to want to talk with you, and value what they hear from you. This requires more than being seen as a technical expert. It requires being seen as a trusted adviser…..[how?] ….. The trusted adviser has skills that turn conversations into meaningful discussions that make people want to seek you out. Listen more than you talk; ask questions that broaden people’s perspective, instead of telling them how to think or what to do. Without violating confidences, share what others have seen and done in similar circumstances.”
Don’t wait for the perfect time, just find a good time. “There is never a perfect time to take the risks of leading from below. When times are good, everyone is too busy and no one seems bothered by the need to do things differently. When times are bad, everyone is too busy (or too scared) and there are too many other demands….. [how?] …. look for situations where the complacency that pervades most companies has been disturbed. In those situations, there will be less resistance to change. There may even be an active desire for new approaches. Mergers, acquisitions and divestitures all break the existing patterns in the way a company operates.“

I think these are really good insights, some of which I already use with effective results….

Technorati Tags: Upward, Management, Leadership, Skills, Business, Influence

Eight principles that support a collaborative system

George Ambler — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:09:22 +0000

In an article The Philosophy Behind Our Systems by Emily and Dick Axelrod they propose that:

Systems succeed or fail, based upon the philosophy behind them.

I think that this as true of leadership, here are some of the philosophies that The Axelrod Group build into the collaborative systems they design.

Principle 1: A compelling purpose creates interest. The organizational task you’re trying to accomplish must have depth and purpose, and this depth and purpose must be made clear to everyone.
Principle 2: Public information and decision making creates trust. Information is valuable only when shared. Thus, all information needed for discussion must be public. This includes all of the information developed and decisions made during the change process. There cannot be information that some have and others do not.
Principle 3: Involve the whole system to understand the whole system. When many stakeholders dialogue, they begin to understand each other and the larger system. As they learn how they fit into the larger whole, new possibilities emerge.
Principle 4: Create a safe enough environment. Allowing employees to express fear and doubt is key to moving forward. To do so, though, requires bravery.
Principle 5: Involve the whole person. We have a dominant learning style. Some of us are auditory learners, others are visual learners, and still others are kinesthetic learners. When we convene people, we design the process to reach everyone through his or her preferred learning style. When we use only one style, we run the risk of not reaching important contributors.
Principle 6: Have a future orientation. Ron Lippit’s research about groups concluded that when people focus on what they want to create, they become excited and energetic. When they focus on problem solving, they become lethargic. Robert Fritz identified that when people clearly understand both the present state and the future they want to create, structural tension develops, and they move towards that preferred future.
Principle 7: Egalitarian spirit builds trust and community. The answers are everywhere and in all of us. Egalitarian spirit means working together in a way that blurs the privileges associated with roles and titles. It does not mean denying legitimate power or authority, but rather evaluating input on the basis of its worth, not the position of the person offering it.
Principle 8: Co-creation builds ownership and commitment. Ownership is the taking hold of an issue, solution, strategy or course of action, and making it your own. When you own something, you sustain it and see it through to the end. When we make a commitment, we promise to perform, produce, and perpetuate a course of action.

How well do these principles reflect your work environment?

Technorati Tags: Leadership, Management, Business, Collaboration, Philosophy, Participation

High performing cultures share five key values

George Ambler — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 19:58:02 +0000

An article by William C. Finnie provided some insight into five key values that support high performing cultures of companies like GE, 3M and Johnson & Johnson. The five values discovered by Dr. Robert Lefton, co-founder of Psychological Associates, who works with Fortune 500 companies using behavioral science to provide business solutions, are:

Openness and candor: Nothing truly good happens without candor. Jack Welch (“Winning” chapter 2) points to three ways candor leads to higher performance. First, it involves more people, and more ideas surface. Second, candor results in speedier decisions, a necessity in the global marketplace. Finally, candor cuts costs by replacing meaningless meetings and mind-numbing presentations with “real conversations.”

Collaboration: The benefits of collaboration are enormous. Once Detroit automakers got research and development, engineering, operations and marketing working together, the time to launch a new car was cut from 60 months to 30 months.It’s easy to talk about teamwork but difficult to achieve. People are naturally protective and territorial. Protecting your turf is almost evolutionary. You have to rise above it.

Common shared goals: This is another way of saying a good mission and compelling vision. It’s what Jim Collins calls a BHAG — Big, Hairy, Audacious Goal (“Built to Last” 1994). A shared goal that grabs people in the gut is the “hard strategy” element that can motivate people to work together.

Involvement: Getting the different perspectives of everyone on the management team leads to a better mission statement and strategy. Similarly, departmental plans are better when they reflect broad involvement. More important, getting your people involved in developing and discussing common shared goals leads to understanding and commitment, which are essential for effective implementation.

Feedback: Feedback is formalized candor. It compares performance to plan. It identifies root causes for deviations. It eliminates “hockey stick” projections because you have to start this year’s plan by comparing last year’s actual performance with last year’s plan. Feedback is essential for the continuous improvement of both people and businesses.

These attributes are directly related to high performance. This does not mean that all organisations should have similar cultures, each company has it’s own unique identity and character, however these values should be lived by leaders and encouraged at all levels.

As a practicing leader how does your leadership style compare to these five values?
Are you open? Do you collaborate?
Do you involve others?
Do you provide feedback?

The High Cost of Pessimism