| The other day I was talking with someone
about a start up idea. He is a very successful sales person and wanted my view on the
concept. As we moved on with the discussion I realized that there were some strategic
holes in his plan which I wanted to point out. What I had not realized, however, is that
he had bought into the idea lock, stock, and barrel and only wanted to hear me echo his
feelings. The same day my daughter was unsuccessfully trying to explain to her friend that
unlike what she thought, their common friend's behavior was not an affront. A few days
earlier, I was telling my wife to give up the idea of trying to go to India in November
when the chances of getting certain things done on time was practically impossible, but it
was a completely futile exercise.
You know what I am driving at – situations where you
try hard to make someone see reason but feel as if you are banging your head against a
wall. Intensely frustrating as they can be, they are very, very common. I have no doubt
that many of you could recall having been through a similar situation or two in the recent
past. I mentioned a few incidents where I was the one banging my head against a wall, but
I am sure people who know me can point out situations where I have played the wall
instead.
Now these “not uncommon” interactions are not
limited to friends and family members, they are an integral part of how the human mind
works. Maybe it’s something to do with our natural instinct for self-preservation. Or
maybe our egos, fears, and greed gets the better part of our intellect. I am not sure
about that, but what I do know is that we all get caught up in our own ideas so deeply
that we do not see, or want to see what is obvious to others. The numbers driven corporate
world has also had to bear the brunt of executives forging ahead bullheadedly with their
convictions to the detriment of their organizational goals, ignoring the logic of well
prepared advisers.
Obviously, when decision makers and stakeholders have
precarious view-points they need to be made aware of the risks. But bluntly stating your
position will not only make it likely that you would fail to get your point across, it
might also land you into trouble. How one handles such situations makes the difference
between success and failure of projects, goals, and relationships.
So, what are we to do?
There is more than one way to skin this cat, so to speak.
Nobody has a definite set of answers. But here is one strategy that works really well for
me. I call it the PAQ (Pause-Answer-Question) Method. The central idea
behind this approach is to lead the listeners to see the consequences of their current
approach or thinking. Let them arrive at your conclusions on their own.
- PAUSE: When you realize that you have to say something which
goes against the grain for the listener, pause to understand how the listener sees the
situation and plan your communication beginning from his or her point of view and leading
to yours before you state your position. Develop this attitude of restrained
communication. It takes time but you will become more effective with continued practice.
- ANSWER: While you frame your thoughts based upon the
position of the listener make a conscious assessment of his or her emotional stance.
People don’t see reason when they are emotionally attached to certain ideas. So
emotion is where you have to do the real work. Answer the question: What is the degree of
awareness and willingness of the listener? Plan the effect you wish to seek from the
interaction based on what is possible in the given situation. Clearly define what you seek
from the interaction. Remember, you can’t give them the solution until they see the
real problem and are ready to listen to you. You would be wasting your breath otherwise.
Remember, the real problem is that they have not thought through the idea in question
completely as they are bonded emotionally to their position.
- QUESTION: Frame your desired effect as a set of questions
the answers to which should lead to the point you want to make. Lead your listeners to
discovering the consequences of their line of thinking on their own. For example avoid
saying directly why business A will not succeed like Business B because A and B are
fundamentally different, which is unlike what the person believed so far. Instead you
could ask one or more of the following questions -
a. How important is it to succeed?
b. What do you think are the consequences of failure?
c. Is the opportunity cost high enough to demand careful thinking before moving ahead?
d. What do you think can be done to minimize the risk of failure?
e. Are there any holes in the analogy being banked upon?
f. How is this business different from the one managed before?
g. How can we prepare for the differences between the two business models?
As you talk about the issue remove the word
‘but’, ’should’ and the like from your conversation. Substitute them
with “and”. Essentially you are not going to tell them what they should be doing
or how they are wrong, you are only going to provide them with various other options or
perspectives, thus helping them really think through the idea. When you take this approach
you will notice a remarkable difference in your communication. Try, experiment, and
internalize this process, practice it in imaginary conversations until it becomes your
second nature. As you use this method regularly you will have a lot more buy-in for your
idea and the change you expect will be practically guaranteed in most situations, unless
of course if you were wrong to begin with. This process of communication takes longer but
it gets the job done and also saves you from putting your foot in your mouth. |
|
|
Nick Vaidya did his graduate and
doctoral work in business and psychometrics at the Texas A&M University where he has
also served as a faculty. His career straddles sales, marketing, and advertising. Based in
Austin, TX, Nick has consulted with companies like Microsoft, Dell, eBay, Qwest, IBM, and
also several mid sized firms. His consulting practice focuses on business profitability
management and decision making. He works with both large and midsized technology driven
firms. Nick has served as a senior advisor with the Chairman's Strategy Team at a Fortune
100 firm, and was responsible for managing the profitability of almost half the company.
Currently, Nick is focused on exploring the applications of 80|20 principles to understand
the root causes of “Failure-To-Thrive” among small to mid size enterprises. Nick
is the Managing Partner of The 8020Strategy Group, the President of the Global Alliance of
CEO's, and the Managing Editor of The CEO Entrepreneur Magazine ( www.8020ceo.com ). The magazine has been created and
designed to promote collaboration among CEOs, and to inform and inspire the community
towards making businesses more efficient. For keynote addresses, workshops, and consulting
engagements, Nick can be reached at nickvaidya@8020ceo.com
or 512 257 7868. |
|
