Here’s part of a conversation roadmap for talking with people about what they need to accomplish. The key to not getting lost in these conversations is reading the signposts of what people need and don’t need.
So we don’t start with, “Here’s what I need you to do,” or what the boss or the head office needs you do to. Do we really want people to see us, as leaders, as the focus and purpose of their work? We don’t motivate people with our needs. We motivate people with their needs.
Even if our team admires and respects us, and wants to give us what we need, the cult of the personality isn’t the best long-term motivator.
So what is the best motivator? This is specific to the individuals we’re talking to. If we’re leading people, we should have taken the trouble to know what motivates them, so we can customize our introduction of the task to suit.
If people have a strong customer-first attitude (different from a customer-first company policy), the motivator may be what the client or customer needs. So we can start with, “This is what the customer needs.”
Or, if people have had a recent success, we might start with, “Here’s another chance to do the kind of work you did on your last (report, design, whatever). I’m confident you can do as good a job or better on this.”
Whatever way we find to start, the key question to ask next, after explaining the task, is this: “What do you think?”
It’s an open-ended invitation, and we have to say it with genuine curiosity. People may talk about the best way to accomplish the task. Or they roll their eyes. Or they suggest who else would be good to work on it. Or they ask for specific additional information. Whatever their answer, it tells us a lot about what we’ll need to do to be sure the task gets done.
Then we follow their lead. We address their concerns, express interest in their view of the way forward, discuss the steps they suggest taking. The conversation is about them, their view, their concerns, and so on.
Only then do we insert ourselves in the equation by offering our experience in places they may not see as clearly.
But we don’t say, “Here’s what you need to understand.” Even said with helpful intent, it’s really a command, not an explanation.
We say, “Here’s what I experienced in a similar situation.” Or, “Here’s something you might look into.” Or something else that still expresses our appreciation of them.
We also don’t say, “I’m here to support you.” It’s a phrase that effectively takes responsibility and ownership away from them. Do we have an “open door” that invites them to interrupt us with a question when they don’t want to make a decision?
Instead we might say, “I trust you to do this. I know you have the experience, and judgment, and tenacity. All I ask is that we check in together regularly so we can be sure you’re getting all the big picture information from me that you need.” These check-ins are of course the chance to correct the course, assess the competence, expect accountability and so on. Those things are part of the big picture that we as leaders are responsible for. But the check-ins start with, “Where is this going well? Where are there difficulties? What can I do to help?” We give people the chance to bring up the shortcomings themselves, before we do.
But what about real resistance? What nice words do we use then?
At the start we said, “What do you think?” We may have to probe here, to invite resistance early. We might even say, “I’m not sure if this is your personal first choice for a project right now.” Or, “I can see that this task might have some downsides for you.” Then we wait, but with a warm, sympathetic attention. We make it safe for people to raise an objection. We’re not laying a trap.
If someone does raise an objection, however small, we say, “Tell me more about that.” If it’s an objection we think others may share, we can ask them, “Who else feels a little of what Joe’s talking about?”
We let people feel heard. More importantly, we actually hear them. And then we ask, “What would make this work better for you?” People may have surprisingly useful suggestions that will improve the effort significantly.
And finally, when objections remain, we say, “I’m sorry this isn’t exactly how you want it to go. What do you need now to go along?” This is a powerful question. It acknowledges resistance, and invites goodwill anyway. And it opens the door for mutual accommodation.
This approach takes time, yes. It requires a lot of trust, yes. It’s an “eyes in, fingers out” approach that can make many leaders nervous, yes. But it saves time in the end. It builds capacity in the people we work with. And it builds capacity in us too.
(Some of the questions about resistance used here come from the Deep Democracy work of Myrna Lewis.)
