Signage is a critical part of an effective infrastructure that allows for “silent” (non speaking) communication.  We rely on signage every day to navigate through work.  Signage is used to guide and direct traffic, get us into and out of buildings, and tell us which restroom we should use.  Signage, in the form of uniforms, also makes it possible for us to know who we are talking to, who belongs to which group, and what people are accountable for.  We depend on signage to help us coordinate work.  Given our reliance on signage, therefore, it should not come as a surprise that failing to play attention to it can create performance breakdowns.

I work on a conference project where people are assigned to different teams.  Each team has a particular accountability and must coordinate their part of the conference with others.  One way we distinguish who is on which team is by the type of name tag they wear.  That way, when the conference is happening, we can tell instantly who is suppose to be in certain places and who isn’t – all without ever talking.

In a way, it is like the way the teams on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier distinguish themselves by the color of their uniforms.  Since the flight deck is loud, oral communication is not always possible or effective.  And, because the deck is dangerous, it is imperative that coordination get done or people die.  One way the Navy accomplishes the necessary coordination is through the use of colored uniforms.

Although the conference I work on is nothing like the flight deck of an aircraft carrier, effective coordination of it nevertheless requires being able to know who is who quickly, and in many cases, quietly.  We do that though name tags.

Recently the client we do the conference for said that a new person was going to be at the conference doing work for them.  “No problem”, we said, “what name tag will he wear?”  Rather than answer the question, they proceeded to explain what he would be doing at the conference and why it would be important and valuable.  They didn’t understand that we were asking a question about infrastructure and they answering a question about activity – they are not the same.

We didn’t want to know what he would be doing, we wanted to know how to “tag” him so that people at the conference could appropriately coordinate with him.  We explained that if he wears a conference participant nametag, he will be related to in one way, but if he wears a conference worker nametag, he will be related to in another way.  No one will ask (or even care) what activities he is engaged in other than as they relate to his name tag.

All this over a name tag????!!!!!  Yes, because that is the power of infrastructure.  It is one of the key elements we use in coordinating with the world and each other.  I suspect that there are far more breakdowns and upsets related to issues of infrastructure that many of us imagine.  In our case with the conference, the client had no idea they were violating a piece of infrastructure we rely on for coordination.  Instead, they believed we were being resistant to the person (“You don’t like him?” they asked) and what he would be doing.  Each time we would ask about the “name tag”, they would try to explain what he would be doing.  We were not communicating and both sides were upset, but for different reasons.

I am beginning to wonder how much things like “resistance to change” or “poor performance” are a function of infrastructure breakdowns rather than motivation, leadership, commitment, etc.  What do you think?

When Ed Koch was mayor of New York, he was concerned about the number of accidents resulting from bikers darting in and out of traffic. Determined to solve the problem, he had “bike lanes” painted on the sides of city streets. But instead of making things better, the bike lanes actually made things worse. Drivers, undeterred by the double yellow lines identifying bike lanes, crossed them so frequently that police could not write enough tickets, and accidents involving bikers increased. As a result, Mayor Koch had the bike lanes removed, ending a futile exercise that cost the city millions of dollars.

Plenty of editorial space was given to criticizing the blunder and Koch’s poor judgment. Reporters, looking for blood, sought interviews with the beleaguered mayor. In one television interview he agreed to, which was scheduled to last thirty minutes, the host was armed with a list of questions that were sure to make Koch look bad. The host began by asking, “Mayor Koch, you spent millions of taxpayer dollars to paint those bike lanes only to remove them. That tax money could have gone to valuable social services. What do you have to say for yourself?”

Pausing, Mayor Koch replied, “You’re absolutely right. It was a huge mistake. I made the wrong decision, and I apologize.” The host, stunned by the mayor’s response, gathered herself and proceeded through her list of questions, each of which was an accusation of some kind. To each accusation, Mayor Koch gave a similar response, admitting the mistake and apologizing for it. The interview lasted for only five of the scheduled thirty minutes after which the topic was dropped, never to be raised again.

Mayor Koch’s success in this interview demonstrates the power of what we call Closure Conversations. By acknowledging the facts that New Yorkers already knew—that the bike lanes were an idea that didn’t work—and then apologizing for it, Mayor Koch completely disarmed the issue and brought it to a close. In the process, he restored some of his credibility and the confidence New Yorkers had lost in his stewardship of the city.

Closure Conversations can restore credibility and confidence, reduce resentment, build accomplishment and accountability, add velocity to projects, and increase the engagement of participants and potential participants.  Try them – they work.

[From “The Four Conversations: Daily Communication that Gets Results” by Jeffrey and Laurie Ford, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, p. 131-2]

I recently talked to a manager – let’s call him Roy – whose company had completed a series of employee satisfaction surveys.  It turns out that although Roy’s unit scored higher than others on overall happiness, there were a few areas in which his unit was lower.  To find out why, the people who conducted the survey had a meeting with the employees in Roy’s unit in which they were asked to talk about the things they didn’t like.

“After that meeting, I am convinced people were more unhappy with work than they were before,” Roy told me.  “Why is that?” he wanted to know.

What Roy’s unit went through is what might be called “trauma sharing”, which is a form of understanding conversation in which people want other people to understand how bad things really are.  There is no purpose to the conversation other than to get the misery out.  In the process, people try to “one up” each other with how their problem or situation is so much worse than anyone else.  The result is a form of emotional contagion in which people become increasing dissatisfied and unhappy.

An alternative to “trauma sharing” is to have people talk about what they like at work and how they could get more of that.  In this case, people talk about the things that give them satisfaction and happiness.  The point here is not to outdo each other, but to share the things that you like about your work: the people, the assignments, the equipment, and humorous interchanges, anything that gives you satisfaction.  The result is a positive form of emotional contagion in which people become increasingly satisfied, animated, and happy.

People’s emotions and attitudes are a product of the conversations they are having.  If they are having conversations about things they find dissatisfying, they will become increasingly dissatisfied.  By the same token, if they are in conversations about things that are satisfying to them, they will be satisfied.  Want to increase your satisfaction at work?  Change what you talk about from what you don’t like to what you do and see what happens.

During our discussion, several people pointed out how often they are not told why something is being undertaken and how much it bothers them.  Laurie and I heard similar comments from the managers and supervisors at Rolls Royce in Ohio who were going through several organizational changes.  When we told them about the four different types of conversations, they pointed out that they were not told why the particular changes were being made.

What was particularly interesting with both the COSI and Rolls Royce groups was that they were not so much concerned with the WHY itself as the fact that they were not being told.  In other words, it wasn’t important to them what the reason for the changes were, or why it they were important as much as it was that they were not being told; they were given no explanations.  For the people at Rolls Royce, the fact that they were not being told was seen as disrespectful and distrusting.

People want a reason for why you want something, and if you don’t give one, they can become resentful and hold it against you.  Some people may argue with the reason, dislike the reason, or even think its stupid, but they want a reason.  There is a story about people waiting in line to use a copier when someone tries to cut into the line without giving a reason.  People already inline got upset and “threw” the person out of line.  However, when another person tried the same thing, and gave the reason that they were in a hurry to meet a deadline, they were allowed to cut.  Telling people why you want something or explaining why you are doing something helps people to make sense of what is happening.

If you want more effective working relationships with people, try telling them WHY something is important.

I was recently at a holiday dinner reception at the Fisher College of Business hosted by the Dean.  At my table were several other faculty members.  At some point, the conversation turned to a favorite complaint of faculty – “Why don’t students do what is needed to do well in class?”  Now, if you notice, this is a general complaint in that with a few minor substitutions, it can be applied to anyone, anywhere, at anytime.  Consider “Why don’t [fill in the person or group] do [fill in the blank] to [fill in the blank]?”

Examples:

• Why doesn’t Ed do the report according to the specifications so we can move the project forward?
• Why don’t the Democrats/Republicans put more effort into cooperation to get things done?
• Why doesn’t the faculty spend more time with students so that they will do better in class?

What each of these (any many other) complaints have in common is that someone is not doing something someone else thinks they should when and how they think it should be done.  With those at my dinner table, students were not behaving in what was considered by those at the table in a responsible way; they were not being personally accountable.

It was during this discussion that I realized something was really missing – common ground.  The faculty at the table were assuming that students saw the world much in the same way they did.  But they never tested the assumption.  They just held students accountable for not being personally accountable.

The term “common ground” has different meanings.  For many, it means a common or background understanding of something.  For example, if we both go to a professional football game, then we have a common background understanding of what such a game is like; we have a similar experience.  Or, if we both take a course on art appreciation, we have a background understanding in common. Accordingly this meaning, the way you increase common ground is by exposing people to the same or similar experiences and information.

In the case of performance and accountability, however, I don’t think this meaning of common ground is sufficient because it does not necessarily provide mutual knowledge.  Mutual knowledge is another view of common ground in which both parties know the same thing.  For example, if you like chocolate ice cream, and I know you like chocolate ice cream, and you know I know you like chocolate ice cream, and I know you know I know you like chocolate ice cream, we have mutual knowledge.  We both know you like chocolate ice cream and we both know that each other knows it.  We have that knowing in common.

There are two things that make common ground interesting to me.  One is that it seems to be necessary for good communication between parties.  The other is that it is apparently missing for most of us.  Creating common ground takes work – it takes dialogue and really getting to know people.  But rather than do that, we seem to assume that they know what we know (or they should) and then operate from there.  Or worse still, we dismiss their world as invalid.

I have just started my investigation into the role of common ground and how it impacts performance, but what I have learned so far indicates it could be a key ingredient in “misunderstandings” and “miscommunications”.

I recently had a conversation with a manager who was disturbed by her inability to meet the expectations of those “higher up” (her term).  They would give her assignments and then, when she would complete them, they would point out something that was missing they expected to be included. Has this ever happened to you? Although it is easy for this manager to blame the “higher ups” for not being clear, she shares some of the responsibility for not finding out what they wanted.

If you look at each of your current assignments, are you confident you are 100% clear about what is expected of you in every case?  Is everyone else involved in the assignment also 100% clear about what you expect of them?  Or are you assuming you’ll figure it out, or they already know?

Assumptions and expectations are “silent standards”. We take a big risk when we assume that everyone knows what to do. If creativity is desirable, it’s fine to give a general direction. But if there are specific creative requirements that matter, you’ll want to get them spelled out.

Take the time to spell things out. What should the final product look like? What are the components? When do they need to be ready? Are there other people who should be involved and if so, who?  Is there a particular method or process that should be used or avoided? What restrictions and specifications apply? Don’t take a chance: assume nothing is obvious.

Remember: everyone associated with an assignment has expectations and assumptions.  Some people expect you to ask for their advice, others want to be kept informed, and some only want to be involved in an emergency.  And, they expect you to operate according to these expectations even if you don’t know them!  Ask people to take time with you to spell out their expectations.  Yes, you have to ask.

Sometimes people are afraid to ask because it might make them look less competent or capable, or they don’t want to deal with an unpleasant reaction.  One way around this is to say something like “I want to be sure you get exactly what you want and in order to do that, I want to be sure I understand the assignment clearly.  I don’t want to complete it only to find out there is something missing that you wanted included.  Could we take a few more minutes to clarify some things?”

Getting clear creates a common ground in that both of you know what is expected.  This has the effect of turning an expectation into an agreement and gives you (and them) the opportunity to say whether you can or cannot do what they ask. If something new comes up later, you can always say, “I didn’t agree to that, but I’m willing to consider it.”  What you want to avoid is having to say, “I didn’t know you needed that,” or, “I thought this is what you wanted”.

Reduce your risk by taking time to unspoken expectations into clear agreements that everyone can see and understand.

If you go into any workplace, what you will see is people doing things.  They are talking to each other, walking from one place to another, working on their computers, sitting in meetings, etc.  In short, what you see is people and their behavior.  What you don’t see are such context factors as the hierarchy of authority (titles and reporting relationships), workflow, accountability, trust, personal relationships, goals and objectives, or most of the other things that happen “in between” people.  People and behavior are in the foreground, context factors are in the background.

Why does this matter?  Because it leads to what is called the “fundamental attribution error” in which observers overattribute behavior to the dispositional factors (e.g., attitudes, emotions, motivations, skills, traits) of people rather than to contextual factors.  I can see you and your behavior, but I can’t see all the context factors or how they are impacting you.  As a result, when you do something – more often when you don’t do something – I look to you and you alone for the explanation.  I assume it has something to do with your commitment, your attitude, your motivation, your competence, whether you care, etc.  I don’t look to me and our relationship, or to the myriad things you have to deal with, or any of the factors going on between you, me, and others.  In short, your behavior is a function of you and you alone.

The impact of making this “error” is that if I want you to behave in some different way, for example, being more accountable, then I will try to alter your disposition in some way.  I might send you to training, talk to you about the value of being accountable in an attempt to motivate you to be more accountable, or any number of other things to change your disposition.  What I won’t do, however, is consider other context explanations, such as our conversations, and whether your being accountable is a function of the requests I make and whether I consistently follow up on them.

In my MBA class on management, I assign the book “Leadership and Self Deception” (I strongly recommend it).  Its and easy and engaging book in which the “hero” of the story discovers he has been interacting with people based on erroneous attributions, how and why he made those attributions, and the impact the errors have had on his leadership.  What I find particularly interesting is that students don’t want to talk about how they make similar attribution errors and how to overcome them.  They want to talk about how then can stop their boss or the people around them from making the error!

That was the second part of my insight – the fundamental attribution error is extremely persistent.  Even in the face of evidence to the contrary, people will continue making the same attribution error.  In other words, telling people, even demonstrating to people, that they are making an error, an error that has negative real life consequences, they will persist in the error.

For years I have wondered why it was that even though countless of articles and experts have said it is not possible to motivate others, that motivation is an internal state, managers persisted in wanting to know “How can I motivate them?” I now see an answer – they believe behavior is a function of disposition, not context, and anything said to the contrary is ignored.  That belief makes my job harder and reduces the opportunity for breakthroughs in leader effectiveness.

Many managers believe that understanding is key to getting people to act.  Managers spend a considerable amount of time explaining, describing, and discussing things on the assumption that if people really understand what is needed, they will be motivated to do it.  The problem, however, is that understanding alone is not sufficient to get people to act.  People understand that if they want to lose weight, they need to eat less and exercise more.  But that doesn’t get them to exercise.  The same is true with people at work.  Just because they understand the need for something, doesn’t mean they will do it.

If you want to increase the likelihood of people taking action, use REQUESTS and PROMISES.  The intent of a request is to have someone else commit to producing a specific result or completing a specific action by some due date by asking them to do so.  Here’s an example of a request: “This is what I’d like you to do: Have the XYZ report on my desk by 5 PM this Thursday. Will you do that?”  When they accept your request, they make an agreement with you to produce the result or complete the action.  Of course, they can also decline your request or counteroffer.

The intent of a promise is to have you take action by saying you will produce a specific result or complete an action by a specified time.  Here’s an example of a promise: “If you need support on getting the report done, I will assign someone else to help you by the end of today.”

When people accept your requests and you make promises, both of you know what is to be done and by when.  They are no longer left to figure out what you want based on their understanding – you have told them.  Making this switch from “understanding” to “performance” (requests and promises) makes a remarkable difference in managers getting what they want, when they want it.

Managers seem to believe that accountability is a personal attribute or characteristic of someone, like being introverted, or charismatic.  So when they say “we need people to be accountable”, they are talking as if they have nothing to do with the fact that accountability is missing.  They are wrong.

Accountability is something that is learned.  It is something that is built and developed.  It is built and learned through relationships where accountability is part and parcel of the relationship.  Relationships where both people are accountable, but for different things: one for doing something and the other for seeing that it is done.  What this means is that if accountability is missing, then it is missing in that particular relationship.  I have seen many cases in which a person is not accountable in one relationship, but is accountable in another.  If accountability were a personal attribute or characteristic, it would be present in all relationships.

If managers are looking for greater accountability, then they need to be sure that they are fulfilling their side of the accountability equation.  This means that they are sure that people know WHAT they are to do, deliver, or produce, by WHEN they are to have it completed, and WHO they are accountable to.  If these are not in place, then you can try to hold someone to account, but for what?  Not doing something they didn’t know was to be done?  For not completing something according to some timeline they didn’t even know about?  Or for not communicating to the person or persons they didn’t even know they were to communicate with?  If you want people to be accountable, you have to give them the things they need in order to succeed, otherwise accountability becomes some kind of blame game.

Oh yeah, there is one other thing.  If you are sure people know WHAT is to be done, by WHEN it is to be done, and to WHO they are accountable, then you have to follow up with them at the due date to find out if they succeeded or failed.  When you follow up on the things you assign or ask for, people learn that you will ask them to account for the results, positive or negative.  Just knowing this begins to build accountability.

What more accountability in your workplace?  Then stop waiting for people to somehow magically become more accountable, and start building accountability into your relationship with them by making sure that WHAT, WHEN, and WHO are clearly in place and then following up to have them account for the results.

Flying back from a seminar in California, I read an article by Clive Thompson in Wired Magazine (Issue 17.08) entitled “Forgetful by Design”.  In it, he discusses how we forget most things and that forgetting is really useful.  However, the internet, particularly You-Tube, Facebook, and other sites where all manner of personal information is posted make it more difficult to forget.  Why?  Because we can Google people and find all kinds of things that might otherwise have been forgotten.  The internet, unlike our memory, doesn’t forget.  Even though it might be hard to find, if its posted, its out there.  So, he proposes that we now have to remember not to remember.

What has all this to do with management, leadership, or anything else for that matter?  First, it reminds us that in the absence of some mechanism to keep us from forgetting, we (and others) probably will.  Posting something on the internet keeps it in existence.  It doesn’t disappear.  We might forget that it is out there, but a good search will find it, allowing prospective employers, spouses, and others to recall what we did.

Second, it reminds us that if you want to remember something, or want others to remember something, you have to find a way to keep it in existence.  One of the reasons people keep “To Do” lists is so that they will remember what they have to do.  The same with schedules, they help us remember meetings, appointments, and when we will work on things.  Relying on memory is not sufficient in today’s world.

If you find that people are often late with things, start sending them polite and respectful reminders to see if there is anything they need from you or that you can do to support them.  If people don’t write things down they say they will do for you, send them an email thanking them and briefly outline what it was they agreed to do.  The point here is to give them some support in remembering, since the odds are they will forget.