by James Brooke
This is the we-want-I-want-you-want opening, and remember it is always followed by a statement along the lines of ‘Have I got that right?’, or ‘Would that be fair to say?’
The first part draws attention to the common interest. The second part establishes your authenticity by putting your cards on the table. And the third part acknowledges that the other person has perspectives and priorities, which, while legitimate, may not be identical to your own. The question at the end acknowledges that you are not making assumptions and that you value the other person’s point of view.
One of the best books on the subject is Professor Samuel Culbert’s Beyond BullSh*t. Professor Culbert stipulates the conditions for ‘straight-talk’, which he explains requires a relationship, not good honesty in a single conversation. He makes the point that ‘I-speak’, where a person owns his or her views, allows people to speak their views with candour because it leaves room semantically for the other conversant to give a different view. This is in contrast with the ‘King’s we’, which implies objectivity that no one really has, suggesting that ‘this is the way everyone sees it or should think’. Culbert says, ‘The way you see it is the way you see it; there’s no need to posture as if you are speaking a universal truth.’
In addition to the ‘King’s we’, we encourage people to avoid ‘you-speak’. ‘You-speak’ is the antithesis of ‘I-speak’. It implies that the culpability for the situation lies with the person to whom you are talking. Watch out for ‘you-speak’, for example:
• You do this …
• You cause this to happen …
• You make people feel …
Instead, try ‘I-speak’, for example:
• It seems to me …
• I see this happening …
• I feel concerned that …
• I get the impression that …
• I sense that …
Building on the principle of ‘I-speak’, ‘This is the way I see it’ is a great phrase that you will hear among people who make a habit of straight-talking. It’s important, of course, that you give equal weight to the second part: ‘How do you see it?’
Now, people sometimes ask: ‘Shouldn’t you start by asking the other person for his or her point of view?’
There is certainly a time and place for asking open questions and seeking to understand. However, our suggestion is that, in a straight-talking conversation, if you have a clear opinion about something, your integrity and credibility will increase if you are open about it from the outset. It does not, in any way, lessen the importance of listening to others.
The next point is to use ‘interest-driven’ not ‘position-driven’ language. When we take up a position, we encourage others to take up a position, too. When we argue from the point of view of our position, we cause others to defend their position.
We are at our most effective when we free ourselves up from positions and focus on interests: ‘This is my interest in this situation. Let me understand yours, so that we can work out a way forward that works for both of us.’
During times of pressure or conflict, there is always a risk that we use position-driven language, as opposed to interest-driven language.
Interest-driven language encourages others to be more open and less defensive:
• Help me to understand
• What’s important to you?
• I can understand that this is really important to you
• Tell me how you see the situation
• How can we work through this together?
Position-driven language encourages others to defend their position:
• The spotlight’s on everyone. No one can stand still, or the grass grows under our feet
• And surely you must appreciate that
• I need you to show a more positive attitude
• Can’t you see the bigger picture?
Case Study 8.3
Kate was head of intermediary business at a big insurance firm. She aimed to launch a training programme about sophisticated ‘partnership selling’ for all senior executives. Kate felt that she had worked collaboratively to get the buy-in of all the senior stakeholders in the company, and she looked forward to launching the programme. It was a bit of a punch to the solar plexus when she received a frosty email from Sergio, the head of training, saying that he intended to veto the programme. He claimed that he had not been consulted and involved and that, therefore, Kate had not followed due process. Kate felt sure that she had done so. She referred back to notes which showed that a meeting had taken place at which agreement had been sought and apparently reached.
Kate’s cave dweller started to steel herself for the fight. Determined to win this round, she gathered her evidence. But Bulletproof Kate knows that this would simply leave Sergio determined to block her, or at least win the next round.
Bulletproof Kate sat down with Sergio and said, ‘I think it is really important that you are fully consulted and engaged with this programme. The way I saw it was that we had achieved this together in the meeting on … but I now understand that you see it differently. I know people are waiting for this programme, and I think it would be great if we could show that we are collaborating together on it. What do you see as the best solution that would work for both of us?’
Try out a straight-talking conversation. Become aware of how it works for you. As always, become aware of your thoughts, the assumptions that you are taking in with you, and visualise yourself leaving them at the door. Give yourself permission to be straight-talking and at the same time recognise that you have shared interests and, simultaneously, your own personal interests.
You may well find that, step by step, you find yourself enlisting straight-talking allies across the organisation.
Summary
Like office politics, bullshit arises when people create a pretence that we don’t have individual needs
Bulletproof people use straight-talking conversations wisely to cut through bullshit
Bulletproof people use ‘I-speak’, not ‘you-speak’, in their straight-talking conversations
Bulletproof people use ‘interest-driven’, not ‘position-driven’, language
Avoid being a martyr to politics
Think back to Jack, the 51-year-old, whose IT department went through a merger, the politics of which led him to feel like he had gone from a senior and admired stakeholder in the company to a dead man walking.
Until he started to take action by writing things down and looking more objectively at his situation, Jack had been made stressed and unhappy by what was happening. It hovered over him, even when he was outside of work. Jack was in danger of making himself a martyr to the politics. Distortions easily enter our thinking, particularly at a time of conflict. The process probably served two purposes for our ancestor. One is the process of increasing our personal feelings of righteous indignation, helping us to summon the resources for a potential fight. The second is that making our potential adversaries unambiguously in the wrong reduces any potential moment’s doubt that could have been fatal to our ancestor if a physical fight ensued.
As Jack felt under increasing pressure, his mind was beginning to polarise: martyrdom or victory. Jack needed to learn how to avoid being a victim or a martyr to politics, how to quieten the inner child who angers at life not being fair, how to survive politics with your integrity intact, and how to see politics for no more than it is and create situations where you play to your strengths in spite of the politics.
If you are reading this at a time when you feel that you are on the wrong end of the politics, then you are understandably likely to feel hurt, tense or stressed. There are a number of things that you can do.
It’s important to consider how you are defining success in this situation. Your instinct will be to seek outright victory over your political opponents. We would suggest that you can only effectively define success as the achievement of your higher goals, regardless of the politics. This seems e
minently reasonable and it is a plan that will appeal to your frontal cortex. This part of your brain likes to assess the situation, weigh things up in a practical way and have a plan.
But remember, to your inner cave dweller fairness is extremely important, and the adversarial principle is deeply rooted. Again, succeeding in the face of politics means allowing your frontal cortex to run things, while your inner cave dweller takes a vacation.
We start our working lives expecting life to be fair and, in particular, hoping that large corporations run by adults will be fair. Of course, they are not. They are a complex set of interdependent relationships and competing interests. No two people have exactly the same perspectives and priorities. Humans collaborate together to meet both their collective and their individual interests.
One of the earliest coherent thoughts that we are capable of articulating as humans is the concept of ‘it’s not fair’. One of the most common sources of anger is the feeling that this innate sense of fairness has been transgressed. We are capable of articulating to children the idea that life cannot be expected to be fair, but this crying infant inside us never seems to altogether go away. To be effective, we need to quieten the toddler inside us.
As Dr Amy Silver advises, by identifying his thoughts Jack was able to try out more ‘functional’ ways of looking at things. Jack became aware that he was carrying a very strong sense of ‘should’ in his mind: ‘They should admit that they have been out of line’; ‘They should acknowledge my experience and contribution to the company’; ‘They should admit that they have been petty and vindictive.’
These were Jack’s rules about the way that people should behave. Of course, as Jack always recognised, his ‘shoulds’ would never be met, but they were still difficult to let go. Jack reframed his rigid rules into a flexible preference:
• I prefer to feel that colleagues are …
• I prefer things at work to be [this way] …
• … but, if that’s not likely to be the case, I am okay
Note that Jack modified the statement to ‘I prefer to feel that colleagues are’ as opposed to ‘I prefer colleagues to be’. This acknowledges that Jack observes things in his colleagues and feels a certain way. The phrase does not pass judgement on his colleagues, as if his judgement were an objective fact.
Jack needed to calm his inner cave dweller who railed against things not being fair. This was not to say that Jack suddenly became free of any emotional processing (nor would that be healthy or realistic). The key was to put a little space between Jack and his instinctive emotional responses. He pictured his inner cave dweller as a hotheaded little brother. If feelings of unfairness welled up, Jack would calmly remind him that he could live with it, and the important thing was to stay focused on his higher aims. Jack told us, ‘It was as if he [Jack’s inner cave dweller] soon started to say, “Okay, I know what you’re going to say. I’ll simmer down.”’
If you’re going through a tough time, how are you seeing yourself? If you feel badly or unfairly treated, is there a risk of slipping into martyr-syndrome? Are you still hoping that things will be fair?
The feeling of being on the outside also causes ‘social pain’. We need to challenge our inner cave man. Being on the outside and lacking a sense of status creates visceral fear and anger, because we still feel that not having a seat around the campfire will mean that we don’t get to eat or mate so well. We need to remind ourselves that we don’t need to react like our inner cave dweller. This bout of politics won’t hurt us.
Jack was encouraged to think about his thoughts to understand how these were governing his behaviour.
Our minds look for meaning in what happened. The meaning that we give things can soon become conflated with the facts. It is always worth asking ourselves: ‘When X did this, what did I make it mean about myself? What actually happened and how much is it my interpretation of what happened? What other interpretations could there be and how do they work for me? When I have thought “Y” (for example, “These people are plotting to get me”), how did I act and how did that work for me? When I have thought “Z” (for example, “These people are probably okay with me and have their own priorities”), how did I act and how did that work for me? What if I could choose?’
Now go through this exercise: How are you defining a successful outcome in the situation? Does it involve triumphing over the colleagues with whom you are at loggerheads? If so, redefine it. Then think: Is my definition broad enough and flexible enough?
Summary
Corporations might be run by adults, but they aren’t always fair
Bulletproof people avoid being a victim or a martyr to politics
Bulletproof people reframe any rigid personal rules into flexible preferences
Bulletproof people define success as achieving their higher goals, regardless of politics
You don’t need to be in with the in-crowd
There will always be an in-group and an out-group. In the same way that group collaboration and bonding occur spontaneously, so too do group fragmentation and polarisation. And no matter how frequently you get people together at conferences to sing the company song, them and us becomes an issue in all organisations. We once worked with a small market research agency. All of the company was on the same floor, but as the company expanded and took on more floor space, some staff were relocated to the other side of a linoleum walkway that ran down the middle. Pretty soon people started talking about ‘them, on that side of the office’. Again, this tendency is part of an ingrained human habit. In experiments, psychologists have discovered that they can readily cause a group to split and polarise simply by assigning group members one of two different colours. Experiments show that hostility between groups can be created on the flip of a coin.47
There are many books promising to tell you how to win at politics. Many contain some good advice, but if playing the politics game is not naturally your thing, we would suggest that attempting to carry ever more complex strategies around in your head will prove exhausting and distract your focus. Our goal with Jack was to help him to function effectively, given the inevitable backdrop of company politics; part of that involved helping Jack to realise that it is okay not to be in with the in-crowd all of the time.
In his book, Who Really Matters: The Core Group Theory of Power, Privilege and Success, Art Kleiner argues that typically both large and small organisations tend to evolve into a larger group of outsiders and a smaller group of insiders: an ‘in-group’ and an ‘out-group’. Kleiner refers to this in-group as the ‘Core Group’. You’ve probably seen this in an organisation that you’ve worked for – people who seem to have the CEO’s ear, who seem to know more than you about what’s going or who always seem to be given the best assignments.
Essentially, the Core Group appears to be the group of individuals for whose benefit the organisation seems to work. They become the locus of power and influence, often formally, by virtue of their positions in the company, but their real power and influence is implicit and informal. It is implicitly understood that they have special privilege and influence. As Kleiner puts it, the organisation seems to simply ‘have fallen in love with’ this group.
Naturally we do not carry a gene that organises us into Core Groups and outsiders, although it is quite conceivable that something in our neural circuitry, which relates to social organising, means that these distinctions are likely to occur.
The existence of the Core Group can lead to feelings of marginalisation, envy, politics, Machiavellianism and a range of other organisational neuroses. The strength of the Core Group comes from their power of patronage. In other words, because others seek to enter the Core Group, this is a favour that they can grant or withhold at will. And because of this source of power, entry to the Core Group will never be given away lightly. Demand to enter must always outstrip supply. (Of course, Core Group members do not sit around thinking of how to withhold or bestow patronage, nor would they be likely to acknowledge its e
xistence, at a formal level. However, most organisations intuitively follow this dynamic.)
The tragedy is that many of us spend much of our valuable working lives either trying to manipulate our way into the Core Group or resenting those who are in it. People resent the political manoeuvrings of others. People try political manoeuvres of their own. People cry into their beer and complain about brown-nosers or schmoozers … and the fact that they could run the company better. All of these responses are, of course, wasteful, disempowering and counterproductive.
Politics often comes down to the idea of the in-crowd and the out-crowd. We want to be part of the in-crowd, primarily because we fear the risk of being in the out-crowd, with those who are ostracised, who have no or few alliances, little profile and whose name simply doesn’t seem to surface when it comes to possibilities of advancement, perks or promotions. Most of us do not consciously decide to get actively involved with politics (with a few exceptions); most of us are drawn into politics out of fear. We wish that we did not have to play the politics but we feel that we have no choice. We feel that we should because if others are doing so they’ll get ahead of us and we’ll be the nice-guy losers.
The first strategy to deal with the in-crowd is precisely as we advise people about dealing with bosses. In this case, view the Core Group as simply another customer group. The advice here is always to remember that you have skills, expertise or knowledge of value. Working with the Core Group as your customers means that the value you create soon becomes clear and, assuming that they want to sustain this sort of value, they will need to ensure that you are rewarded for it. You can be respected and valued by the Core Group without ever having to develop strategies to enter it. The alternative is to create your own Core Group. People who have the drive and initiative to strike out independently are rewarded with their own Core Group. People show entrepreneurial spirit, setting up their own ventures.