Managerial tools: 4 principles of constructive communication, or why do we live in the mode of achievement?
Have you ever heard accusations of unconstructive behavior? Maybe they themselves blamed someone? How do you understand that this particular discussion is not constructive, but is it constructive?
If you start thinking on this topic, then there is something to spend a couple of hours. We will try to make this task easier now. And as part of our series of articles on management tools (which went on vacation during the New Year holidays), we will analyze the principles of constructive, proposed once by Andy Grove, one of the founders of Intel.
The principles are simple, but they explain quite a lot of workers and not only working conflicts. And having dealt with them you:
')
There will not be 2 by 2 matrices that we love, but we will analyze a couple of schemes.
So let's go. The first principle is:
But in real life, things are a little more complicated. Therefore, here we should talk about two probably the most common cases of violation of this principle.
There is exactly one problem with the past - it cannot be changed. Therefore, questions in the past, people often perceive as an attack on them personally. Moreover, to the question “Why did you not do this yesterday,” the person begins to answer in good faith why he did not do it yesterday. There are always a lot of reasons for smart people: the neighboring department sent requests late, then the other department could not do the assembly for a long time, then the director was distracted by an important task, etc.
In fact, the fact that tests were not chased away is not good and not bad in itself. This is a fact. I, for example, did not dispel tests yesterday either. Moreover, I haven't been driving them for five years. And while everyone is happy.
But judging by the heat of emotions, this fact creates some kind of problem IN THE PRESENT. For example, a manager cannot send an assembly to a customer. Or can not report on the successful completion of works upward, etc. And this problem must be solved in the present.
And when it is solved, then you can just look into the FUTURE: how can we make sure that such situations do not happen again. And here it will be appropriate to analyze the past: why didn’t tests be banished then? But at this point a person no longer perceives this attack on him as a personal one. When the current problem is resolved, the guilty ones are no longer being sought. We are discussing the future now.
That is, the correct discussion sequence:
What happens in reality? The manager perfectly solves the problem - to set up the environment for the new employee. But after that he forgets to look into the future and think about how to make sure that such situations do not recur.
Note that the most remote has no problems in this situation. A novice came to him, he sent him in a reasoned way. And everything's good. And this is a guarantee that on his part the model will not change until the manager raises this question.
Quite often, management and customers come to us with urgent requests for a feat. And the words “this is impossible” always contain the argument “guys, really need”. After that, we usually take on this cart, do not sleep at night and perform a small miracle (sometimes with the team). Exhale and hope to calmly work on. And it does not work.
Because how does this situation look like from management / customer? You come to the guys, ask to do something. At first they resist, they say that it is impossible, but after the argument “it is very necessary” - they take and do, great lads!
Or vice versa, the leadership begins to suspect that when you say “impossible,” to say the least. cunning. Hence, the need to continue to load.
No real feat should be left “not sold”. Any feat is an occasion to discuss with the customer a feat (after the commission, when the customer is in a pleasant mood, he treats you well and is ready to listen to you): “How is it, everything is fine? So, that's why I came. What happened is a miracle, because ... How would we do this to provide for all this and not to let you down next? ”
Often the solution to one problem creates the next one, which we lose sight of. And this is also a common violation of the principle of timeliness.
Now, if someone after this conversation, goes to the office to the authorities to find out what and how to move - that was the switch to the constructive.
The principle of targeting suggests that the problem must be solved with those with whom you can solve it.
The public criticism of anyone is often a violation of the principle of targeting. Any public criticism is perceived by most people as an attack on them personally. What should be done? That's right - to smudge the source of criticism. Then all the viewers with popcorn will immediately see who is right and who is not. And then the heroes of the discussion uncover trophy kakashkomety and begins dr-p-cancer!
One has only to start a personal correspondence with a person, and it is even better to call him or come live to talk, as the degree of emotion drops to zero, and the problem is solved by itself.
People listen to personal criticism much, much better. And personal criticism allows you to maintain good constructive relationships in the long term.
For example, you are a strong supporter of flexible development methodologies. Accordingly, morning squad meetings are held in your team (they are scramble rallies or standup rallies). And now your new colleague is constantly late for them. Why?
He can sincerely believe that this is complete nonsense. Because before that, he worked 10 years in other companies and other projects. And they quite successfully did projects without any ritual planning meetings.
“It worsens the team spirit” is an excellent argument, but how does it express itself? What is team spirit? This is when you enter the room, and there is such a “strong team spirit” hovering in the air ?!
“What is this expressed?” Is a strong question, which allows to understand whether there are facts in the argument or not. The facts are good because you can not argue with them. That is why they are convincing, that is why they allow a person to see and understand what the problem is.
The arguments are “these are the best policies of Agile,” “these are the rules of our company,” “so bequeathed by Ken Schwaber,” by the way, although they are facts, they are not much better. because it does not show what specifically is wrong due to human behavior.
And such arguments as:
these are more concrete facts, in the sense that they show that this is not the case and why you decided to discuss this problem at all.
If in the course of the discussion there is a feeling that a person is trying to prove that he is not guilty, then the DISSOCIATION reception works very well: “Wait, I am not hitting you, but the situation itself ...”
If in the comments you share your stories, how these principles were violated by your interlocutors, or you personally - I will be grateful, and to all readers, IMHO, it will be useful. If you have something to add or want to share your communication techniques, thank you in advance!
And in the next article we will talk about the 4-phase problem solving algorithm proposed by the same Andy Grove. Because principles are good, this is correct, but they do not give an answer to the question of where to start and how to lead the discussion of problems with people step by step. And the algorithm - it is just about that.
PS Previous articles in the series:
If you start thinking on this topic, then there is something to spend a couple of hours. We will try to make this task easier now. And as part of our series of articles on management tools (which went on vacation during the New Year holidays), we will analyze the principles of constructive, proposed once by Andy Grove, one of the founders of Intel.
The principles are simple, but they explain quite a lot of workers and not only working conflicts. And having dealt with them you:
- Understand the reasons for the behavior of your colleagues, management and customers in some situations.
- Bring a few simple tricks into your arsenal that will help you more easily negotiate
- You can absolutely accurately explain to any colleague that he is non-constructive (and in what way) if he is truly non-constructive
')
There will not be 2 by 2 matrices that we love, but we will analyze a couple of schemes.
So let's go. The first principle is:
1. Timeliness.
It would seem a no brainer that problems should be solved when they need to be solved. After all, not without reason, when someone tells us: “Well. I saw a month ago that everything is likely to fill up here, and really ... ”- I want to hammer a nail into the head of this observant person.But in real life, things are a little more complicated. Therefore, here we should talk about two probably the most common cases of violation of this principle.
Error number 1. Attack to the past.
For example, the manager comes running to his employee with the sacramental question: “WHY didn’t you run the tests yesterday? !!” What should the employee do at that moment? Get into the time machine, rush into the past, get rid of the tests there and come back with the tests that have already been turned off?There is exactly one problem with the past - it cannot be changed. Therefore, questions in the past, people often perceive as an attack on them personally. Moreover, to the question “Why did you not do this yesterday,” the person begins to answer in good faith why he did not do it yesterday. There are always a lot of reasons for smart people: the neighboring department sent requests late, then the other department could not do the assembly for a long time, then the director was distracted by an important task, etc.
In fact, the fact that tests were not chased away is not good and not bad in itself. This is a fact. I, for example, did not dispel tests yesterday either. Moreover, I haven't been driving them for five years. And while everyone is happy.
But judging by the heat of emotions, this fact creates some kind of problem IN THE PRESENT. For example, a manager cannot send an assembly to a customer. Or can not report on the successful completion of works upward, etc. And this problem must be solved in the present.
And when it is solved, then you can just look into the FUTURE: how can we make sure that such situations do not happen again. And here it will be appropriate to analyze the past: why didn’t tests be banished then? But at this point a person no longer perceives this attack on him as a personal one. When the current problem is resolved, the guilty ones are no longer being sought. We are discussing the future now.
That is, the correct discussion sequence:
- We solve the problem in the present. We don’t remember the past here.
- We are thinking how to prevent (or react) a problem in the future. And at this stage:
- We analyze the past
An example from life. Our good friend, let's call her Tanya, told such a case. Something broke off at the customer, and the customer scheduled a meeting for the morning of the next day. Where Tanya (project manager) and Sergey (a technical specialist who knows all the technical details about the system, including why it broke, what happened, how it was repaired, and what conclusions were made for the future) were supposed to arrive. Next, a free retelling of Tanya's story:
- I come to the customer. What can I say - it is not clear, because yesterday we did not have time to discuss with Sergey. Well, okay, I think, now Sergey will still come and everything will be under control. Just in case, I dial it - the phone is outside the network coverage area. 10 minutes before the meeting, no Sergey. I dialed it again - the phone does not work. I'm starting to get nervous. 3 minutes before the meeting - the same. I have a real panic. 1 minute - Sergey picks up the phone. I scream:
- Why do not you take the phone?!!!
- I didn’t find charging at home yesterday ...
- Do I have to give you exercises? !!!
Oru and I understand that I am wasting precious time when I could urgently find out from him when he would be and what to say to the customer ...
Error number 2. One problem was solved, the second was forgotten.
Let's start with an example.An example from life. At our recent training in Moscow, one manager shared his problem with a remote employee:
- You see. He is responsible for setting the working environment. And so we hired a new employee. He calls our remote server asking him to set something up, and that 4 hours he explains why this can not be done. After that, the new employee comes to me in frustrated feelings, and I set everything up for him in 5 minutes.
- So what is next?
- And then the situation repeats with a certain periodicity.
What happens in reality? The manager perfectly solves the problem - to set up the environment for the new employee. But after that he forgets to look into the future and think about how to make sure that such situations do not recur.
Note that the most remote has no problems in this situation. A novice came to him, he sent him in a reasoned way. And everything's good. And this is a guarantee that on his part the model will not change until the manager raises this question.
An example from life. At one of the trainings at the stage of collecting expectations, we usually ask all the participants what they expect from these two days and what questions they want to make out. It is the turn of the engineer 30 years old with a very tired look:
- I would like to learn how to abandon projects.
-? .. Tell us more ...
- You see, now I work on five projects at the same time. And it's very hard for me. I would like when the sixth project is brought to me, somehow so cleverly to refuse it, so as not to take it for myself, and so that the management would not be offended either.
- What happened when they gave you the fifth project?
- [after a pause] I worked on four ... It was very hard for me ... I told them that I would not pull ... And they said that they really needed ...
- So how are you pulling?
- pulled ...
“Then the management knows how to give you the sixth project ...”
Quite often, management and customers come to us with urgent requests for a feat. And the words “this is impossible” always contain the argument “guys, really need”. After that, we usually take on this cart, do not sleep at night and perform a small miracle (sometimes with the team). Exhale and hope to calmly work on. And it does not work.
Because how does this situation look like from management / customer? You come to the guys, ask to do something. At first they resist, they say that it is impossible, but after the argument “it is very necessary” - they take and do, great lads!
Or vice versa, the leadership begins to suspect that when you say “impossible,” to say the least. cunning. Hence, the need to continue to load.
No real feat should be left “not sold”. Any feat is an occasion to discuss with the customer a feat (after the commission, when the customer is in a pleasant mood, he treats you well and is ready to listen to you): “How is it, everything is fine? So, that's why I came. What happened is a miracle, because ... How would we do this to provide for all this and not to let you down next? ”
Often the solution to one problem creates the next one, which we lose sight of. And this is also a common violation of the principle of timeliness.
2. Targeting
When two employees complain to each other in the smoking room to the bosses: “Damn, again moving to a new office. How can? For the third time in a year! .. They started to shake already ... ”- this is not quite constructive. Because if there is a problem with moving. it is unlikely that they will decide between them at a smoking room.Now, if someone after this conversation, goes to the office to the authorities to find out what and how to move - that was the switch to the constructive.
The principle of targeting suggests that the problem must be solved with those with whom you can solve it.
The public criticism of anyone is often a violation of the principle of targeting. Any public criticism is perceived by most people as an attack on them personally. What should be done? That's right - to smudge the source of criticism. Then all the viewers with popcorn will immediately see who is right and who is not. And then the heroes of the discussion uncover trophy kakashkomety and begins dr-p-cancer!
One has only to start a personal correspondence with a person, and it is even better to call him or come live to talk, as the degree of emotion drops to zero, and the problem is solved by itself.
People listen to personal criticism much, much better. And personal criticism allows you to maintain good constructive relationships in the long term.
3. Facts and data.
Sometimes people absolutely honestly do not see the problem that you came to discuss. Everyone has their own experience.For example, you are a strong supporter of flexible development methodologies. Accordingly, morning squad meetings are held in your team (they are scramble rallies or standup rallies). And now your new colleague is constantly late for them. Why?
He can sincerely believe that this is complete nonsense. Because before that, he worked 10 years in other companies and other projects. And they quite successfully did projects without any ritual planning meetings.
“It worsens the team spirit” is an excellent argument, but how does it express itself? What is team spirit? This is when you enter the room, and there is such a “strong team spirit” hovering in the air ?!
“What is this expressed?” Is a strong question, which allows to understand whether there are facts in the argument or not. The facts are good because you can not argue with them. That is why they are convincing, that is why they allow a person to see and understand what the problem is.
The arguments are “these are the best policies of Agile,” “these are the rules of our company,” “so bequeathed by Ken Schwaber,” by the way, although they are facts, they are not much better. because it does not show what specifically is wrong due to human behavior.
And such arguments as:
- “We can not take into account your opinion, then more than once had to redo”
- “All interesting tasks are parsed before you come.”
- “You only get the routine”
- “On routine tasks I can’t assess your height”
these are more concrete facts, in the sense that they show that this is not the case and why you decided to discuss this problem at all.
4. The intention to solve the problem, not the person.
In a constructive discussion, we are not looking for the guilty. Our task is to solve the situation.If in the course of the discussion there is a feeling that a person is trying to prove that he is not guilty, then the DISSOCIATION reception works very well: “Wait, I am not hitting you, but the situation itself ...”
An example from life. I have two children - boys of 8 and 10 years. The first phrase, when you come to them with constructive criticism, very often: "I am not guilty."
In due course, it has already become a habit to taxi: “So I’m not guilty, not guilty. Just like now ... ”and then there are possible options“ let's go play football if the shoes are wet ”,“ see a movie if we need to get out now ”and so on ...
From principles to practice ...
That's all four principles. Simple in theory, but constantly broken in practice. As a small exercise, you can recall some difficult conversation from your recent past, when you were arguing with a person, and think about what principles of the constructive were violated there.If in the comments you share your stories, how these principles were violated by your interlocutors, or you personally - I will be grateful, and to all readers, IMHO, it will be useful. If you have something to add or want to share your communication techniques, thank you in advance!
And in the next article we will talk about the 4-phase problem solving algorithm proposed by the same Andy Grove. Because principles are good, this is correct, but they do not give an answer to the question of where to start and how to lead the discussion of problems with people step by step. And the algorithm - it is just about that.
PS Previous articles in the series:
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/210170/
All Articles