Making sense of the world as I know it

Denmark was declared the "happiest country in the world". That news was met with a mixture of pride and skepticism among Danes themselves. I was congratulated by friends and family outside of Denmark for my good fortune to live in such a country. Very few, though, took it seriously. And very few, myself included, understood how "happiness" was being measured. I also found it difficult to comprehend in the midst of all the conflicting news stories about the high consumption of anti-depressants among Danes and the high level of stress.

So I set out to find out what it was all about and discovered that many researchers have taken the study of "happiness" very seriously for some decades. They base their analyses on a wide range of data, for example: the Gallup World Poll, the World Values Survey and the European Values Survey. Well-being is probably a more appropriate term than happiness - but the latter certainly attracts more attention.
Although the research and evidence has been building up for many years, the notion of "happiest countries in the world" was an outcome of a resolution of the UN General Assembly. On 19 July 2011 the General Assembly called on United Nations Member States to undertake steps that give more importance to happiness and well-being in determining how to achieve and measure social and economic development. In a resolution adopted without a vote, the Assembly invited countries “to pursue the elaboration of additional measures that better capture the importance of the pursuit of happiness and well-being in development with a view to guiding their public policies.” The resolution said “the pursuit of happiness is a fundamental human goal” and embodies the spirit of the globally agreed targets known as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The resolution notes that the GDP indicator “was not designed to and does not adequately reflect the happiness and well-being of people in a country,” and “unsustainable patterns of production and consumption can impede sustainable development.”  UN News Center  

1. that public policies should be guided, among other things, by the evidence collected through research on well-being and happiness;
2. that the MDGs and "pursuit of happiness" are integrally linked; and
3. that Bhutan's Gross Domestic Happiness is a better indicator of real well-being than Gross Domestic Product!

So what does this resolution actually say?

Money can't buy you love, can't buy you love ….

Since the resolution was passed in 2011, Denmark was claimed number one in 2012 and 2013  - 2014 report to be published soon. The other top scorers were northern European countries. Since I am not a statistician, epidemiologist, social scientist or in any way work with or even understand statistical research, I don't have the skills to examine the data myself. I am confident, though, that the authors of the reports do. One of the men behind the reports is Jeffrey Sachs - hope you have already heard of him. He is an economist who is completely committed to making the world a happier place for everyone - in the true meaning of the word. For him, sustainable development is based on four pillars: ending extreme poverty; ensuring environmental sustainability; promoting social inclusion; and implementing good governance.

The authors claim that there are basically four key external factors that determine happiness: (1) income, (2) work, (3) community and governance, and (4) values and relations. Internal factors are: mental and physical health, family experience, education, gender and age.

Income and employment are factors we take for granted. Of course  you need enough money to survive and work provides an income - along with other key factors like social recognition and relations. We tend to think less about trust beyond our own small circle:

"A successful society is one in which people have a high level of trust in each other - including family members, colleagues, friends strangers, and institutions such as government. Social trust spurs a sense of life satisfaction." World Happiness Report, 2012

What is actually being measured? Quality of life that can guide public policies …

In surveys, people are asked questions such as:

• How happy are you now? - current emotion report

• How happy were you yesterday? - remembered emotion,
• How happy are you with your life as a whole these days? - life evaluation.

The Gallup World Poll is based on annual samples of 1000 respondents aged 15 or over in each of more than 150 countries. The responses are used to evaluate the quality of life on an 11-point ladder scale. (p11….)

Happiness - or Making sense of the world as I know it!

Denmark was declared the "happiest country in the world" in both 2012 and 2013 - and is still very close to the top. The announcement in 2012 was met with a mixture of pride and skepticism among Danes themselves. I was congratulated by friends and family outside of Denmark for my good fortune to live in such a country. Very few, though, took it seriously. And very few, myself included, understood how this thing called "happiness" was actually being measured.

I also found it difficult to accept in the midst of all the conflicting stories in the Danish media pointing to a high consumption of anti-depressants and high level of stress, just to mention two.

I decided to at least find out how "happiness" was being defined and measured in the survey.  Turns out that one of my "old friends" Jeffery Sachs is one of the key researchers and authors. He is an amazing man - I have great respect for his work. And for his commitment to making the world a better place by driving UN initiatives. It is so easy to criticize the United Nations - most people tend to think of it only it terms of the Security Council, which was set up to "fail" in that decisions to be unanimous. It's a lot more than that. More about that later.

My previous postings have been about communication and more communication, negotiation, assertiveness and management. Now I am planning to shift course and get a better grasp on what being the happiest country in the world really means!

Pushing and pulling

Managing expectations is one of the biggest challenges in launching just about anything in any workplace. For example: running a leadership programme for high-level managers in an international organization. Lots of lessons there. One thing you can expect is debate and skepticism - both natural and useful reactions, though not always easy to intercept and move forward. Some participants had to be pushed into the programme (prisoners) and some had to be pulled (more prisoners). Many really did want to participate - they had an expectation that it would help them improve their managerial skills. Super - a willingness to learn. But leadership? Most participants did not perceive themselves as leaders - despite the fact that they were responsible for leading teams. Leadership came from somewhere above. Change was imposed. Nothing to do with them. Facilitate the change for their staff? Not something they saw as their role.

Yet, there was lots of good stuff in the programme and positive outcomes for those who were committed to start at A and continue to Z. The point of this entry is not to dissect the programme design and goals, rather to highlight what I thought worked well. The stuff that has remained with me over the years and perhaps with many of the participants as well.

Step 1: understanding what talented people need

Step 2: being honest with yourself about your own performance

The starting point of this type of learning is self-assessment - what type of manager are you? And the answer should not be expressed as "good" or "bad" or just "OK". What type of style do you tend to adopt? do you use it all the time, or does it change depending on the dynamics of the team and the individual members? Participants were presented with six styles of manage and leading. The programme designers and facilitators had based these styles on John Heron, known for his work on collaborative inquiry. The styles were grouped into two categories: push and pull.

Now where I come, from the facilitative manger would be labelled "good" and the directive "bad". The point is that an effective manager needs to master all six styles. And to do that, he/she needs to be able to assess the situation quickly and take the appropriate action. That takes self-awareness and a willingness to move out of the comfort zone and take on new behaviours.

Each one of the styles requires a core skill set and conscientiousness when arranging and conducting an interview with the individual staff member. For a productive interview the manager should:

• set the scene (time, place, space) 
• build trust
• balance direction and facilitation
• use appropriate body language
• ask appropriate questions
• listen actively (on three levels! *)
• give and ask for feedback
• conclude the interview
• agree concrete action plans
• ensure necessary level of commitment (yours and theirs)

Quite demanding! Yet, that is exactly what staff expect from their managers.

* In previous entries, I have covered communication, negotiation and listening - lots on listening. Because that is the most essential communication skill. The facilitators at the leadership programme had an interesting twist on the conventional exercise on active listening; that is, to listen on three levels: fact, feeling, intent. Listening for intent means trying to understand what the person is actually concerned about, what is important to them, what is behind the words. That involves reflecting feelings and asking appropriate questions to understand the situation and the drivers - the story.

So what are "appropriate" questions? Ones that:

• develop awareness
• sharpen focus
• stimulate responsibility
• help staff find their own answers
• get the staff member to take ownership of the process.

This is where John Heron and collaborative inquiry come into the picture - "taking ownership" is based on a set of assumptions about the manager/staff relationship which may not apply or which cannot be merely transferred to any cultural context in any workplace anywhere. But that takes us down a whole other road. Let's just stick for the moment with the six generic managerial styles and assume that being able to apply them correctly at the right moment in the right setting would greatly enhance the effectiveness of any manager.

"Instead of pushing solutions on people with the force of your argument, pull solutions out of them".  

(How to motivate your problem people, Harvard Business Review, Jan 2003)

Part of the course material was the above HBR article on motivating “problem people”. It emphasizes the need for the manager to get a clear picture of their staff. Data that provide information about the staff - and most of that "data" should come directly from the staff through brief informal conversations. What does the world look like from where the employee sits? What drives that person?

"Remember to include these figures in your report."

From staff member's perspective what would be the expected reaction to this comment? Is it intended as advice? information? control? Is it helpful? condescending?

All of the above. Below are some suggestions as when to pull and when to push. Beware of oversimplifying. It can be difficult to figure out when to apply which style when ... Overcomplicated? Perhaps. The main point is to become aware of your own preferred style and try to adopt different approaches if the one is not getting you where you want to go.

Or you can just apply the "simple" approach by being genuine and demonstrating empathy and respect. And of course listening actively - on 3 levels!

The six managerial styles

PULL

Supporting: building the subordinate's self esteem

When: building morale and self-confidence; encourage risk-taking (* within workplace boundaries …); reward success, promote further learning
Skills:

• expressing appreciation
• showing YOUR confidence
• encouraging self-respect
• apologizing when necessary

Traps:

• patronizing
• giving "yes, but..." support
• overdoing it so it feels false
• held back by own inhibitions
• sending mixed signals

PULL

Enabling: promoting self-discovery, self-directed learning

When: achieve a deeper level of understanding; encourage staff to take responsibility; promote motivation and commitment
Skills:

• wide range of questions
• reflecting and paraphrasing
• provoking curiosity
• keeping hands in pockets!
• silence

Traps:

• too many closed questions
• structuring too soon
• prescribing
• following your curiosity
• not clarifying objectives

PULL

Releasing: releasing emotions which block progress

When: If the staff member is afraid of risk or failure; If the staff member feels incompetent; If the staff member is frustrated, demotivated, angry
Skills:

• active listening
• questioning
• showing empathy
• feeding back what you perceive
• creating a support climate

Traps:

• talking, not listening
• making it hard to express emotions
• spending too long
• going too deep
• sympathising too quickly
• denying or critcizing their feelings.

PUSH

Confronting: raising awareness, challenging assumptions

When: show consequences of the staff member's actions; challenge the staff member to re-think assumptions; raise the staff member's awareness of others' perceptions
Skills:

• direct questions
• giving constructive feedback
• challenging defensive excuses
• giving 'space' to reflect

Traps:

• avoiding painful issues
• punishing
• acting like an angry parent
• making character judgements
• confronting on a trivial issue
• creating win / lose outcomes

PUSH

Informing: Giving information and knowledge to the staff member

When: showing where to find extra help, information; supplying missing facts; explaining what just happened
Skills:

• presenting information clearly
• checking for understanding
• inviting and handling questions

Traps:

• overloading
• using too much jargon
• not structuring information
• not saying WHY it's important
• teaching focus, not learning

PUSH

Directing: giving directions, advice, recommendations

When: if the staff member lacks confidence; if the staff member is unable to direct own learning yet; if there are legal, safety  ethical guidelines

Skills:

• diagnosing learning needs
• insight into learning process
• giving clear instructions
• explaining why
• motivating

Traps:

• giving unwanted advice
• taking over, imposing solutions
• creating dependency
• hesitating when firmness needed
• over-controlling

The gentle art of verbal self-defense

Just a few words for now about Suzette Haden Elgin´s work. That is, how to arm yourself so that you can withstand those verbal sticks and stones that you bravely claim don't hurt at all but in fact pierce our defenses and hurt badly. Ouch. Elgin is a linguist and a science fiction writer - a woman with amazing accomplishments.

I am re-reading her "LAST WORD" on this topic - the book was published in 1987. Which means that her first two books - The gentle art of self-defense and MORE on the gentle art of self-defense - were published earlier. She has since written a whole slew of related books on linguistics and how it influences our behavior and understanding of verbal interactions.

Of course, like so many others, I was captured by the title. This is precisely what we dream of when we feel put-down, belittled, ridiculed and all that other stuff that does happen with intent but - as we often forget -  can also be said without malice. Nonetheless, we still feel like we have been punched in the solar plexus.

When running workshops on effective inter-personal communication this subject always came up. It is natural to want to fight back when you feel assaulted. And since we live in a civilized world (…!) we want to defend ourselves with scathing retorts rather than bazookas. When caught in the heat of the moment, however, we are often at a total loss for words - let alone ones that will help us exit the scene triumphantly, unbruised and intact. Participants were hoping that there were some "tricks" they could learn to be able to say just the right thing at the right time. And there are. Just have to unlearn our own patterns and re-learn some other more effective communication strategies.

Elgin adds some interesting perspectives to all the others that I have reviewed in this blog - assertiveness, active listening, principled negotiation and meta-messages. She refers to the work of Dr Virginia Satir, a family therapist who described five patterns of language behavior of people under stress: blaming, placing, computing, distracting and leveling. Elgin uses these patterns as a way of understanding - i.e. getting information about - what we are hearing and seeing in verbal interactions.

Blamers: tend to use words like always, never, nothing, nobody, everything, none, not once, and to ask an excessive amount of questions - usually putting the stress on the question word: "WHAT is the matter with you."

Placaters: exact opposite of Blamers - Satir compared them to "cocker spaniel puppies, desperate to please".

Computers: avoid the words I, me, my, mine, you, your, ours. They try to keep their language as divorced from the real world as possible; give the impression of being emotion-less so little body language or facial expression.

Distracters: exhibit linguistic chaos and panic; skipping through other patterns randomly: "WHY don't you ever ask ME what I'D like to do on the week-ends? Not that I matter … YOU know how I am, I don't CARE what we do, just as long as it makes YOU happy …"

Levelers: can be difficult to decode - use the same words as other categories but - as Elgin notes - with one striking difference: "the Leveler means exactly what the Leveler says". And uses appropriate body language (unlike the Computer, whose body language is restricted).

Elgin emphasizes the importance of stress patterns in language - they provide valuable information about intent - verbal attack or just an innocent question or comment? Compare these two sentences, which she gives as an example. Say them out loud to really hear the difference:

Leveler: "Why do you always smoke so much when you're driving?"
Blamer: "WHY do you ALWAYS SMOKE so much when you're driving?"

Get it?

So here's where the 1st rule of self-defense comes into the picture:

"IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO, GO TO COMPUTER MODE AND MAINTAIN IT. Always." 

This is in case of an emergency under stress when you don't have sufficient information to make a choice. And most often we don't have sufficient information - we make assumptions instead.

The 2nd rule is to try not to match the Safir mode being launched at you - except for the Leveler. You can just imagine where you would end up if you tried to cross swords with a skilled Blamer or Placater with years of experience!

Stay tuned for more on how to handle verbal attacks with dignity!

The usefulness of curiosity

My intention was to re-read Tannen's You just don't understand. Woman and men in conversation as a follow-up to the last blog entry. Got side-tracked by pondering how to build trust among colleagues. Now that's a good question! Which prompted me to search for books on "trust in the workplace". You can imagine how many books would have popped up on that topic on the web! So of course I didn't do that. I narrowed my search to books in English that I could borrow in Danish libraries in greater Copenhagen using "trust" as the key word. Which led me to Coaching at work. Powering your team with awareness, responsibility and trust, by Matt Somers (2007). Deviations from a plan can be useful - get it, key thought here ...

Have to confess that I have always been wary of books on coaching - there's just so much stuff out there. Some good, some not. I would recommend Somers' book to any manager who would like to 1) define his/her own approach to managing people and 2) learn now to make that approach more effective. Good summary of Theory X and Y management styles. Good advice to managers on how to apply coaching to areas that can be tough to discuss with staff like performance management and career development. Other good tips on how to overcome presentation nerves and improve personal organization.

What I really liked was his 8th "law on coaching":

Curiosity is more useful than judgement.

That neatly sums up just about all my previous entries on communication, on listening, on seeking to understand. Just be curious. Ask open, non-judgemental questions. 

Is that really so difficult?

That's not what I meant - really!

OK. So now we know about the importance of seeking to understand, of listening actively, or even mindfully. We know that any communication has layers of meaning, that we should not jump to the top of ladder of inference, etc. etc. Enter Deborah Tannen a sociolinguist whose realm is private speaking. Everyday conversations. Her work is not just about communication - it is about how underlying communication mechanisms can impact a relationship negatively. Even with those who are closest to us. In fact, especially so because we expect people we love to understand not only what we are saying but also what we are thinking or intending.

Tannen sheds not only light but a huge projector on why even seemingly mundane conversations between two people can go horribly wrong: differences in conversational styles.

"You said so." 

"I said no such thing!" 

"You did! I heard you!" 

"Don't tell me what I said" 

In fact, both parties may be sincere - and both may be right. He recalls what he meant, and she recalls what she heard. But what he intended was not what she understood - which was what she would have meant if she had said what he said in the way he said it."

Phew!!!

Great. So now we also need to be aware of our communication "devices" and "signals" - the way we pause, or don't, our directness, or indirectness, the way we ask questions, or don't. 

Re-reading Deborah Tannen's book That's not what I meant was as relevant an experience today as it was back in 1986, when it was first published. Haven't I learned anything since then? Well, I like to think so.

Working in an office with staff from over 40 different countries, with another 20 nationalities dispersed in country and other offices in the region, meant that cross-cultural communication was an underlying factor in any discourse every day! Paradoxically, diversity was the source of greatest job satisfaction among colleagues - and at the same time the source of greatest frustration. There was an awareness of differentness but an expectation of "sameness"; and a lack of understanding of how cultural differences play out in managerial settings and everyday work life.

Deborah Tannen made me realize that the focus on cultural differences may have been misleading. She claims:

"All communication is more or less cross-cultural."

That, in a way, makes everything easier - no focus on cultural differences and running the risk of stereotyping. Yet if every single conversation has potential for misunderstandings, what a risk we run every time we open our mouths - or don't!

Tannen echoes to some extent the work of Covey, Dickson, Fischer & Ury. Don't assume ill intent. "Sometimes strains in a conversation reflect real differences between people: they are angry at each other; they really are at cross-purposes. Books have been written about this situation: how to flight fair, how to assert yourself. But sometimes strains and kinks develop when there really are no basic differences of opinion, when everyone is sincerely trying to get along. This is the type of miscommunication that drives people crazy. And it is usually caused by differences in conversational style."

The book describes conversational signals, devices and strategies, and analyses why we won't say what we mean and why we can't say what we mean. Power's in there - but that is only one element. When it comes to relationships, we are on a teeter-totter between involvement and independence. Note that the subtitle of her book is "How conversational style makes or breaks relationships".

Good communication is two-way, we claim. Yet even where both parties are open and eager to share, seemingly simple differences in conversational styles can get in the way - tone, pace, pausing, indirectness, asking questions and so on.

For instance, when is someone finished? When is it my turn? Tannen points out that when styles are different one person may start to talk before the other is finished - perceived as interrupting - or the other person may not take their turn, leading you to believe that they are not listening or having nothing to say. 

This was one of my Ah-ha! moments. I am from New York - which means I tend to talk fast and talk-over, displaying (I believe) my enthusiasm for what the other person is saying, I am listening (I claim), I am not interrupting (I claim), just jumping in when there is a pause - a micro-pause or non-pause to the other person, not to me. I have done that all my life. I realize that it can be extremely annoying and considered rude - yet it's a habit I find hard to break. Almost part of my DNA. According to Tannen, I am using loudness and fast pace to show that I am really listening and that I get the  point. Exactly! She gets me! Why don’t others ...? It is possible to all talk at once and communciate - if everyone knows the system. But they don't.

Everything we say is said in some way, becoming meta-messages which are per definition indirect. Pitch, tone, facial expressions frame what we say as serious, joking, sarcastic, etc. 

And for all of us that preach that communication should be honest and open - well, think again! So we should be dishonest and indirect? No! We do, however, need to recognize that:

"... our expectations of the benefits of honesty are unlikely to match the reality of communication. ... The belief that sitting down and talking will ensure mutual understanding and solve problems is based on the assumption that we can say what we mean, and that what we say will be understood as we mean it. 

Any system that successfully gets meaning across is honest."

Is there hope? I take heart in Tannen’s claim: “We can learn to stop and remind ourselves that others may not mean what we heard them say."  How to relearn?

• know your own style
• step back and observe the interaction
• change the interaction by reframing, talking about the communication
• let the style fit the context.

That’s the easy part. Tannen has also done research on conversation styles and gender differences, and claims that "Women listen for meta-messages". Stay tuned!

Getting to yes, Part II - Changing the rules of the game

My last entry, Part I, summarized Fischer & Ury's basic principles for reaching a "wise agreement". Wisdom - a scarce commodity. Fischer & Ury are not suggesting that "principled negotiators" are like lambs to the slaughter. On the contrary, the approach is tough - tougher than traditional positioning. Why? Because the strategy is based on satisfying your interests by changing the rules of the game. Making it a joint search for solutions is smart.

Negotiation is two-way communication - which involves listening and being prepared to come out of the negotiations with something other than you thought when you entered. That "something other" can be more than you envisioned. A win/win because you have been tuned into creative problem-solving.

Does that mean you need to show all your cards? No. Good faith negotiation does not require full disclosure.

"A principled negotiator is open to reasoned persuasion on the merits; a positional bargainer is not. It is the combination of openness to reason with insistence on a solution based on objective criteria that makes principled negotiation so effective at getting the other side to play."

In most cases, "the other side" is not just one person. There are usually multiple parties on either side. Which means that thorough preparation is even more critical, because the various interests might be conflicting. 

Fischer & Ury describe 4 major obstacles that prevent us from generating options - and if we don't explore all possible options before the negotiation, we are not likely to be able to do it during stress-provoking discussions.

• premature judgement
• searching for the single answer
• the assumption of a fixed pie
• thinking that 'solving their problem is their problem'.

To overcome these obstacles: (1) separate the art of inventing options from the act of judging them; (2) broaden the options on the table rather than look for a single answer; (3) search for mutual gains; and (4) invent ways of making their decisions easy. 

Steps 1 and 2 are clear - not simple but clear. Mutual gains? Needs some explanation. But inventing ways to make their decisions easy - Huh?

Look for mutual gain by:

• identifying shared interests: make them explicit, concrete and future oriented (goals); and
• dovetailing differing interests: or the "Jack Sprat" principle! - differences in interests and belief make it possible for an item to be of high benefit to you, yet low cost to the other side.

Make their decision easy by:

• confronting them with a choice that is as painless as possible: put yourself in their shoes;
• framing it as the right thing to do: shape solutions as fair, legal, honorable;
• searching for precedent: recognize their desire to be consistent;
• considering the consequences of the decision from their point of view: make your offers credible.

Establishing objective criteria is a powerful way to do this. It shifts the discussion to how to decide, rather than the other side's rigid positions.

"The more you bring standards of fairness, efficiency or scientific merit to bear on your particular problem, the more likely you are to produce a final package that is wise and fair... A constant battle for dominance threatens a relationship; principled negotiation protects it. It is far easier to deal with people when both of you are discussing objective standards for settling a problem instead of trying to force each other to back down."

Examples of fair standards: market value, precedent, scientific judgment, professional standards, efficiency, costs, legal standards, moral standards, equal treatment, tradition, reciprocity.

Examples of fair procedures: dividing a piece of cake, one cuts the other chooses; taking turns, drawing lots, agreeing on 3rd party opinion, evidence, and so on.

What if they won't play?

Fischer & Ury address this question as well. After all, it would be incredibly naive to expect any negotiation to be easy. But we shouldn't make the not-so-tough ones tougher than they are by sticking to a bottom line. Instead of adopting an often arbitrary standpoint that is limiting, you should develop a BATNA = best alternative to a negotiated agreement. This requires preparation - if you enter negotiations without a BATNA you really do risk becoming a chump. 

"The reason you negotiate is to produce something better than the results you can obtain without negotiating... your BATNA, that is the only standard that can protect you ... " 

Fischer & Ury offer some very interesting insights on strength. You may think you don't have any. Think again! Use your strengths to their best advantage. Be a fair - and strong - negotiator by developing a BATNA, generating options (yours and theirs), insisting on objective criteria, learning the art of "negotiation jujitsu" or using the "one text procedure". 

"People think of negotiating power as being determined by resources like wealth, political connections, physical strength, friends and military might. In fact, the relative negotiating power of two parties depends primarily upon how attractive to each is the option of not reaching agreement."

Read the book - please! Then apply the principles ...