“If that’s the case, I think that you should head the unit,” Wendy offers. “I’ve got a lot to learn from your experience.”
“And I’ve always believed in hiring a number two who is at least as smart as I am, so I’d be happy to put you in that spot and groom you to take over,” he says. “I have a feeling I have a few things to learn from you too.”
There is a palpable excitement in the room. With differences yielding to possibilities, people see a bright future together. One of Bill’s people then puts forward an out-of-the-box solution to the space dilemma: a refurbished brick factory building has recently come on the market not far from the two campuses. Why not start their new corporate life together in completely different and newly designed space?
After completing the brainstorming list, you facilitate a group process in which every point is individually discussed and assigned a number: 1, 2, or 3. If everyone agrees on a point or believes it is feasible, it gets a 1. If there is clear disagreement, it gets a 3. And if there is ambiguity about whether agreement or disagreement predominates, the idea is assigned a 2. After discussing all ideas, you do one last review of those that received a 2, asking whether what was learned could modify and thereby nudge any of them up into the 1 grouping or down to the 3 category. Or perhaps a proposed solution that received a 2 could be modified or traded for something else in order to turn it into a 1. Parties are open to unconstrained dialogue because they are in the no-commitment zone.
Points assigned a 1 are the deal-makers, and those given a 3 are the deal-breakers. It is important to know what is newly possible, and it is just as important to know what is impossible. The points that garnered a 1 will be carried into the next step of the Walk as substantive bargaining gets under way.
Step 4: Aligned Interests
The momentum sparked during the enlightened interests step is carried into the final step of the Walk, the aligned interests. In the first three steps of the Walk, the groups discovered the map of possibilities and the gaps to be closed. That process serves as a prelude to the bargaining—the actual getting and giving. In this fourth step, the agreed-to ideas from the enlightened interests phase are honed. The consensus proposals will be presented to senior management. With an air of collegiality, greater specificity is added.
To align their priorities, the “gets”—what each party wants to gain in the process—are described, defined, and ranked by each side. They each decide which gets are “must haves,” “nice to haves,” or “don’t needs.” The lists for each side are different, as is common in complex negotiations. In similar fashion, each side articulates what they are eager, willing, and unwilling to “give” in order to achieve an agreement. Wendy is willing to let Bill head the unit. What does she want in return?
The discussion during this step encourages the parties to adapt their lists as long as the ultimate dividend—the agreement—satisfies a desirable combination of interests. Some items at the top of their lists drop into secondary positions as it becomes clear that flexibility is necessary for a deal to be reached.
You are cognizant that the arrangement reached here must meet several tests if it is to be upheld for the long run. It must be acceptable to each of the constituents. It must make conspicuously clear what each stakeholder has to gain (the gets) and what each stakeholder has put on the table (the gives). Wendy, Bill, and their teams then will have to lead up together, convincing their bosses that their plan will be beneficial for the newly merged enterprise. Each side evaluates the deal in terms of whether, on balance, it meets the test of fairness. If it does, there will be buy-in, ownership, and championing of the agreement that would never have developed if the arrangement had been imposed from the outside and not generated from within. With development and buy-in from within, the proposed solution is more likely to stand the test of time.
When the T-Pro and OmniTech groups launched their Walk, each had a divergent notion of “success.” The objective of the Walk was to achieve mutual success, not simply have one side “win.” Through the Walk, horizons were expanded to include multidimensional solutions that neither group had imagined at the outset. They redefined shared success together.
The agreements crafted through this Walk in the Woods were finalized as a proposal memo for the CEO and senior management team: It outlined the reporting structure, proposed compensation, and the facilities and workflow arrangements. The report also briefly described the process: the different initial perspectives, the agreements and disagreements, the fresh ideas accepted and rejected, and the alignment and exchanges that led to the agreement.
A few days later, the proposals were accepted with minor modifications.
The format and process of the Walk in the Woods reframed a toxic situation into a win that the parties could share. Similar to the arm-wrestling exercise in Chapter 3, the negotiators shifted from an adversarial push against one another to a mind-set oriented toward their joint situation. The outcome satisfied the merging companies, the R&D teams, and the individuals involved. And it is still working well.
Using the Walk in the Woods in Your Meta-Leadership
Here are some situations in which the Walk can be applied:
1. During meetings: Especially when controversial, complex, or strategic questions are under consideration, the method ensures that everyone is heard, common themes are identified, and outcomes carry the support of key stakeholders. The Walk is a constructive framework for retreats, strategic planning sessions, staff meetings, and venues that convene diverse constituencies. It is a useful guide in your leading down.
2. When caught in high-stakes, emotional, divisive conflict: The Walk provides a process for systematically delineating the issues and seeking resolution of a conflict. If you have a direct stake in the conflict or its outcome, have someone else lead the Walk, such as an impartial facilitator or mediator recruited from outside your immediate circle.
3. To prevent conflict from escalating: The Walk can become part of your group’s vocabulary, thinking, and culture. At the earliest sign of a problem, someone suggests, “Let’s take a Walk on that.” This is a gentle way of suggesting that there is a problem requiring attention and a reminder that it can be addressed without blaming, raising voices, or allowing issues to fester to the point of confrontation. This technique can be helpful in leading across with other departments and offices.
4. In preparing a negotiation: If you or your group are readying for an important meeting, especially a difficult one, you can anticipate what will happen by pondering each step of the Walk. You can do this even if the Walk is not being used to structure the meeting. If you foresee an unavoidably adversarial confrontation, the discipline of going on a Walk beforehand can help you anticipate others’ interests and thereby outsmart them. The Walk becomes a tool for building situational awareness and developing calculated options.
5. To represent your constituency at a meeting and then report back to your boss: The steps of the Walk are a useful way to structure the narrative of a report or briefing. This structure will represent both sides—their interests, points of agreement and disagreement, new ideas proposed, and ideas accepted. Merely reporting the outcome without an account of the process tells only a portion of the story. You will get better questions, discussion, and ultimately buy-in for what was decided by including the full account. The Walk is part of your leading-up repertoire of tools.
6. Anytime you are driven to the basement: When someone or something sends you to the basement, prompt yourself to get up and out by going to your tool box with one word: “Walk.” Do not comment or react in the basement. The most important tool of the Walk is the question. Pose one that seems most relevant: Why? What? Who? Take what you learn and use it methodically to chart your next moves. In personal terms, the Walk is a discipline for exercising your emotional intelligence and getting yourself and others out of the basement.
You have seen how the Walk works in a large, facilitated session. Here is an example from our h
ealth care negotiation practice. Again, the details have been changed slightly to protect confidentiality, though the issues and outcomes are real.
An elderly woman passed away. Following her death, the woman’s daughter learned that her mother suffered from advanced cancer and that it had not been treated aggressively. She filed a complaint against her mother’s longtime doctor and threatened legal action against the hospital. She was persuaded by the hospital to enter into mediation. The Walk in the Woods was used to facilitate the discussion between the daughter and her mother’s physician.
In the self-interests step, the daughter stated that she wanted justice for her mother’s suffering and the pain that it was now causing her. The doctor stated that he wanted to provide the best care for his patients. It was here that the physician revealed that it was the mother’s decision to forgo aggressive treatment for the cancer. The daughter had been unaware of her mother’s choice.
In the enlarged interests step, it became clear that both the daughter and the doctor were interested in quality care and respect for the wishes of patients. The daughter related that her mother had spoken highly of the doctor on many occasions. The daughter’s anger was in part now redirected at her mother for not sharing the cancer diagnosis with her. The doctor disclosed that treating the cancer would have put her mother in a great deal of discomfort without a guarantee that the outcome would be favorable. He also admitted that he could have been more insistent that his patient reveal her diagnosis to her family. He said that perhaps he had not been empathetic enough with the daughter when discussing the mother’s death. A great deal of tension was released during this step of the Walk.
In the enlightened interests step, they discussed how the doctor could have been more comforting to the daughter. For example, he might have offered to speak with her at the time of diagnosis in case her mother was uncomfortable doing so. The daughter still wanted to take some action, though now preferred not to resort to a legal battle.
In the aligned interests step, they agreed that the doctor would make a significant donation to a cancer research charity in the mother’s name—there was a bit of back-and-forth on the exact amount—and attend a patient communication workshop. They also agreed that if he took these two steps within three months, the daughter would not file a formal complaint with the medical board or file a lawsuit.
The Walk process offered an opportunity for each of these individuals to express themselves and hear one another. It deescalated the confrontation and opened the door to a novel solution. In the end, they both left satisfied. It was a cordial conclusion to a contentious situation.
Pragmatic Tips for Leading a Walk in the Woods
The best way to learn the Walk is to use it. First, apply the model as a personal technique to chart problem-solving and negotiation. As you become more familiar with its premises and practices, use it to facilitate meetings or to resolve more complex conflict scenarios.
The specific objectives, methods, and intended outcomes for each step of the Walk lay the groundwork for what comes next. It is useful to begin each step with a brief review of what is to be discussed, why it needs to be talked about, and what the step hopes to achieve. It is helpful to conclude each step with a synopsis of what has been discussed and resolved and the ways in which it leads to the next step.
Be flexible when leading a Walk. Though the process is described here as a neat, linear, step-by-step method, in practice it does not always progress in a straight line. Go with the flow, and go back to earlier steps as needed. The method is a guide and should not be applied so rigidly that it constrains fluid and valuable discourse.
It may be difficult to cajole some of the key players to the table. Take subgroups on strategic and small pre-Walk Walks that prepare them for the full spectrum of issues that will eventually be addressed. One Walk can certainly lead to another. As with all you do in your meta-leadership, these are iterative processes toward ambitious objectives.
The most important dividend of the Walk in the Woods is buy-in. Because the participants formulate their solution, they are motivated to see it succeed, even if is not what they anticipated at the outset. In the first self-interests step, they recognize both the opportunities open to them and the constraints they face. During the enlarged interests step, they build the connectivity necessary to forge a solution together. With this shift, they develop options during the enlightened interests step that would not have otherwise surfaced. The give-and-get negotiation process of the aligned interests step provides a balanced, pragmatic, and workable solution across the array of interests they face together. It is a solution they craft and own—hence the buy-in to its success. This buy-in is what encourages the parties to implement the agreement in good faith.
Participants probably would not accomplish this same buy-in through an adversarial process. By contrast, the Walk reduces hyperbole and posturing and replaces grandstanding with candor and flexibility. The parties redirect their collective energies toward generating gains that would otherwise elude them. It is a simple formula: more gain equals less pain.
The Walk in the Woods is your meta-leadership guide for facilitating decision-making and fostering common purpose. In the end, it is the ownership of process and product that is most critical to the success of the experience, both for the stakeholders who will benefit and for you, the facilitator who has led them through the steps.
The steps of the Walk align and integrate with the phases of the POP-DOC Loop described in Chapter 4: the self-interests and enlarged interests steps are the learning phases in which you perceive the positions of the various parties, orient them toward common challenges and opportunities, and predict where they may be willing to come together. The enlightened interests and aligned interests steps are the action phases in which the group makes decisions based on the options they have generated and then lays out the plans for operationalizing and communicating their new agreements. Use these tools together as you navigate high-stakes conflicts.
Meta-leadership is distilled from real-life experience. Specifically, the dimensions derive from what it takes to succeed in the high-stakes, high-pressure environment of crisis. In our next chapter, we take another Walk: this time through crises that challenge you and your meta-leadership.
Questions for Journaling
Try using the Walk in the Woods at work and at home. Be conscious of the four steps and how you employ them. How do they shape your thinking and actions? What questions did you ask to guide the process? What is the reaction of the other parties as you guide them through the Walk? How does the process affect the outcome?
Have you been through a negotiation or problem that could have benefited from the Walk structure? Compare what actually happened to what could have happened.
You may find that some of these practices and principles are already integral to your problem-solving approaches. How does what you are learning fit into what you have already been doing?
TWELVE
WHEN IT MATTERS MOST
Mastering the Pivots
During crisis or organizational transformation, meta-leadership requires readiness and an ability to shift behavior and direction. You pivot.
Crises arise in many shapes and sizes, and each one wreaks its own havoc. There are big crises with extensive loss of life and major property damage. There are market failures when whole companies disappear. Smaller though significant personal crises mark life’s passages: the death of a loved one, illness, divorce, or job loss. There are crises with advance notice, such as hurricanes and snowstorms, and crises that provide little or no notice, such as a terrorist attack or an industrial accident. All crises require a proper response, and when that response falls short, the result can be disaster upon disaster.
When crisis hits, each step you take involves a pivot. You pivot from your normal everyday reality to the basement, where the situation is unclear and panic sets in. Then you gather information and pivot to your trigger script of learned and intentio
nal actions to reset your brain. Finally, you work the POP-DOC Loop. With each pivot, you systematically advance from unconscious and unaware to conscious and aware, from unintended and innate to intended and learned. This is the process for mastering crisis meta-leadership.
As you systematically traverse these pivots, your thinking, actions, and direction are transformed. You are in a different mode. Alertness heightens. Attention focuses. You move yourself and others beyond the basement. You see both the big meta-picture and the critical priorities for immediate action.
Because such thinking and actions become your routine for tackling day-to-day problems and mini-crises, your pivots during a major crisis are practiced and known. This is among the most valuable assets of adopting the meta-leadership mind-set.
You can’t know for sure the moment when crisis will hit. When you are a leader in that instant, suddenly “you’re it.” People turn to you. What do you do next?
Preparing to Pivot
Resilience is the theme of crisis response in Israel. It pervades the nation’s planning and procedures during terrorist attacks, war, and earthquakes. For a small country in a hostile region, resilience assumes existential import: this is the “why” of what Israel does. The country systematically pivots in times of war. Response systems instantly pivot in the face of terrorist attacks. Pivoting is woven into the personality of its people and culture.
We met Professor Kobi Peleg on our many investigatory visits to Israel to study the country’s preparedness and response, leadership and resilience. Prof. Peleg established the Israel National Center for Trauma and Emergency Medicine Research at Gertner Institute and co-established the Master’s Program for Emergency and Disaster Management at Tel-Aviv University. He contributes groundbreaking research on emergency disaster and terror-related mass casualty incidents. He has joined Israeli international humanitarian assistance missions to Armenia, Rwanda, Indonesia, and Haiti and was dispatched as a United Nations specialist to assist disaster response coordination in the Philippines and Nepal.
You're It Page 25