How to disagree with the ideas: Perfection Game and 3 steps to check the solution for sustainability
In the fall of 2006, the fate in the person of the leadership abandoned me to a training session with Jim McCarthy. Jim at one time was the project manager of the first version of MS Visual Studio, after which, together with his wife, Michelle went to trainers-consultants.
At that moment I already knew about Jim, because his book “We Program Team Spirit” (in the original “Software for Your Head”) was gathering dust on the shelf. I couldn't go through the book, so I went to the training with a heavy feeling that I would spend two days missing work.
In the morning I arrived at the Moscow office of Microsoft, got drunk on coffee and got ready to be bored. Jim came out - badly wrinkled. Everything was dented - face, hair, pants, jacket. It was obvious that the person was introduced to Moscow, and it was clear that Moscow liked Jim.
')
Jim sat down on a high chair and ... began to burn. He talked about simple but unusual tools. About seemingly familiar problems that were unexpectedly easily solved by elementary methods that had never occurred to me before. Something of these techniques then stuck, something not. Say, we later applied the technique of reforming the commands from below to Intel twice, and it really worked. But this is a topic for a separate article.
In short, two days passed like one hour. And in particular, Jim talked about this technique of discussing ideas and solutions like the Perfection Game.
What is the essence. When someone offers a solution to a problem or problem, you should rate it from 0 to 10. At the same time, if you value the idea, say, 7, you should offer 3 more points that would improve it.
You cannot say: “Well, this is an idea for C grade ...”, because to this you have to add 7 points that would improve it. If you can’t offer anything that would improve the idea, say: “I rate this idea at 10.”
Pretty funny technique, which just did not take root. Because it was not clear what to do if you disagree with the idea. Especially if I strongly disagree. And I found the answer to this question many years later, when slavapankratov and I worked out an algorithm for solving problems with people .
We just discussed what to do when everyone agrees with the problem, but the person proposes a solution with which you disagree. slavapankratov offered different ideas, I objected that this would not work, because ... The colleague was boiling up, he began to explain why it would work. In short, the first time we did not agree. After that, they parted to think further. And that's what they came to.
The way we discussed this issue is exactly what usually happens. There is:
1. “My solution is better.” One person says: let's do this. The second one says: let's do it this way because ... First: yes no, let's do it, because ... And then they are jostling at the decision level, trying to prove that his decision is better.
Here we note that if the conversation takes place at the “boss-slave” level, and the boss will be able to convince the employee that his boss’s decision is better, then write-write is gone.
People feel more responsible for their decisions. They often do not feel responsibility for other people's decisions.
The employee will go to implement the initial decision. He will not succeed. Who is guilty? Obviously - the author of the decision. And then begins the classic dialogue. Employee:
And so on to infinity.
2. “Your decision is not the right one.” Man offers a solution. The second says:
Either the “But” model is included, or the person simply begins to explain that the claims to his decision are not consistent.
In life, these two models are sometimes combined right in the framework of a single dialogue. And we scold the opponent's decision, and we push through our own.
Something like this, with slavapankratov , we discussed the algorithm for solving problems with people. We have not yet come to a new way of discussing solutions, which has become part of the algorithm, and which we now use ourselves in our discussions.
If you do not like the proposed solution, then you need to specify for yourself what exactly you do not like.
Here people are divided into two types. The former immediately clearly understand what exactly this decision is bad. The latter feel in one place (probably by intuition) that the decision is bad. But why - can not say.
For example, I belong to the second type. At first, intuition suggests, and specifics come to mind a little later. Someone will say: “Alexander, yes you are a brake”. I will object that it is such a psycho.
So, if you are of the second type -do not get into a fight, take a pause. For example, with these words: “Listen, I feel that something is not right here, but I cannot formulate it yet. Give me half an hour, I'll cook, think about it. ”
Yes, yes, just say so: "Yes, this is an option." A man just strained his brain, gave birth to a decision - why not praise him for it? Moreover, let a person have a feeling that this is his decision - especially if he is to embody it later.
And then we move on to the third step.
You can say so: “Let's test it for stability.” I sometimes say: “Let's shake it.” Then we ask:
Or:
Example. Your colleague is proposing a new system architecture. And you see that it is not extensible, not scalable, and does not at all comply with the principles of SOLID (or what the architecture should not correspond to).
You can say: “So it does not hold the load. Let's do it better ... ”, but according to the proposed algorithm, it will sound a little differently:
Or:
We do not reject the decision of man. We do not argue at all, it turns out. Man has nothing to protect. Plus, questions include the human brain and allow you to modify its solution.
Example. Suppose a new team leader offers to switch to a new test run system. Arguments: she considers some additional statistics there + makes it more convenient to analyze the drop in tests.
You understand that with the implementation of this system, 20% of the tests will no longer be run at all, since you wrote the crutches for your current run system that allow these tests to run.
You can try to convince the team leader to abandon the new test run system, but according to the algorithm, the discussion can be structured as follows:
An example from life. A colleague of slavapankratov is known to a narrow circle of well-known people by the fact that he constantly generates different ideas. Which usually sends sms. That is, to receive eight text messages from slavapankratov within an hour is a normal phenomenon: the thought went. And then one day there comes a text message with the following content: “I thought of everything, we will post vacancies.”
In the discussion it turns out the essence of the idea. As you know, recruitment agencies make good money on finding candidates. An agency commission for a found engineer or manager can be one to two of his monthly salaries. In the case of directors, even more. The idea: to post vacancies in our newsletter (we had 25.000 subscribers at that time). We recommend vacancies, we earn money.
The idea seems to be normal. But I feel something is not right. I begin to object - I get in response: “But we will earn money”. After a heated argument, I get out of the conversation: “Uncle Slava,” I say, “in one place I feel a dirty trick, but I cannot formulate it. Let me think for half an hour. ”
Then comes. Our corporate clients may not take this initiative very well. Can I send my employees for training to those who help other companies to search for employees? Big question ...
Back to the conversation. “Uncle,” I say, “how can we make sure that our favorite corporate clients do not turn away from us?” And then they slaughter people to send us for trainings. ”
Oh, this is a clear question. We are starting to refine the idea. We decide that it is necessary to state in the letter that this vacancy is published only in the mailing list, and not on our forum, where the employees of the corporate building are present in the online programs. And that we care about our corporate clients.
Already better. And most importantly, the idea has been worked out. (We, however, did not become a recruiting agency, remaining a learning center. Well, not all ideas work. This is not a reason not to refine them, right?)
You may have noticed that Jim McCarthy has one principle in his Perfection Game. We do not directly criticize the decision of man. His idea is his child, whom he recently gave birth to. Maybe a crooked child, but yours. You can say: my child is better. But it is better to help someone else's child.
If you already use this technique - write examples in the comments. when she helped. Examples better fix the material.
If not, try. By the way, it is verified that she works well not only with colleagues, but also with children and spouses. :)
PS After the previous article about a powerful question a few comments were received about the features of communication with the management. In the next article we are just thinking of opening this topic.
At that moment I already knew about Jim, because his book “We Program Team Spirit” (in the original “Software for Your Head”) was gathering dust on the shelf. I couldn't go through the book, so I went to the training with a heavy feeling that I would spend two days missing work.
In the morning I arrived at the Moscow office of Microsoft, got drunk on coffee and got ready to be bored. Jim came out - badly wrinkled. Everything was dented - face, hair, pants, jacket. It was obvious that the person was introduced to Moscow, and it was clear that Moscow liked Jim.
')
Jim sat down on a high chair and ... began to burn. He talked about simple but unusual tools. About seemingly familiar problems that were unexpectedly easily solved by elementary methods that had never occurred to me before. Something of these techniques then stuck, something not. Say, we later applied the technique of reforming the commands from below to Intel twice, and it really worked. But this is a topic for a separate article.
In short, two days passed like one hour. And in particular, Jim talked about this technique of discussing ideas and solutions like the Perfection Game.
Perfection Game
What is the essence. When someone offers a solution to a problem or problem, you should rate it from 0 to 10. At the same time, if you value the idea, say, 7, you should offer 3 more points that would improve it.
You cannot say: “Well, this is an idea for C grade ...”, because to this you have to add 7 points that would improve it. If you can’t offer anything that would improve the idea, say: “I rate this idea at 10.”
Pretty funny technique, which just did not take root. Because it was not clear what to do if you disagree with the idea. Especially if I strongly disagree. And I found the answer to this question many years later, when slavapankratov and I worked out an algorithm for solving problems with people .
We just discussed what to do when everyone agrees with the problem, but the person proposes a solution with which you disagree. slavapankratov offered different ideas, I objected that this would not work, because ... The colleague was boiling up, he began to explain why it would work. In short, the first time we did not agree. After that, they parted to think further. And that's what they came to.
The way we discussed this issue is exactly what usually happens. There is:
Two common decision discussion models
1. “My solution is better.” One person says: let's do this. The second one says: let's do it this way because ... First: yes no, let's do it, because ... And then they are jostling at the decision level, trying to prove that his decision is better.
Here we note that if the conversation takes place at the “boss-slave” level, and the boss will be able to convince the employee that his boss’s decision is better, then write-write is gone.
People feel more responsible for their decisions. They often do not feel responsibility for other people's decisions.
The employee will go to implement the initial decision. He will not succeed. Who is guilty? Obviously - the author of the decision. And then begins the classic dialogue. Employee:
- It doesn't work. What to do?
- Well, then do like this.
- (having tried) Too does not work. What to do?
- Then so.
- ...
And so on to infinity.
2. “Your decision is not the right one.” Man offers a solution. The second says:
“No, it's bad because ...”
- But it can be quickly implemented (options: it will be cheaper / better / more convenient for customers / ...)
Either the “But” model is included, or the person simply begins to explain that the claims to his decision are not consistent.
In life, these two models are sometimes combined right in the framework of a single dialogue. And we scold the opponent's decision, and we push through our own.
Something like this, with slavapankratov , we discussed the algorithm for solving problems with people. We have not yet come to a new way of discussing solutions, which has become part of the algorithm, and which we now use ourselves in our discussions.
How to discuss a decision with which you disagree: THREE powerful steps.
1. Specify what is wrong.
If you do not like the proposed solution, then you need to specify for yourself what exactly you do not like.
Here people are divided into two types. The former immediately clearly understand what exactly this decision is bad. The latter feel in one place (probably by intuition) that the decision is bad. But why - can not say.
For example, I belong to the second type. At first, intuition suggests, and specifics come to mind a little later. Someone will say: “Alexander, yes you are a brake”. I will object that it is such a psycho.
So, if you are of the second type -
2. Agree that the proposed solution is working.
Yes, yes, just say so: "Yes, this is an option." A man just strained his brain, gave birth to a decision - why not praise him for it? Moreover, let a person have a feeling that this is his decision - especially if he is to embody it later.
And then we move on to the third step.
3. Check the solution for stability.
You can say so: “Let's test it for stability.” I sometimes say: “Let's shake it.” Then we ask:
- And what will happen if [a specific situation, when you see the solution does not work], because [the reason why you care about it]?
Or:
- How can we make it work when [a specific situation, when you see the solution does not work], so that [the reason why you care about it]?
Example. Your colleague is proposing a new system architecture. And you see that it is not extensible, not scalable, and does not at all comply with the principles of SOLID (or what the architecture should not correspond to).
You can say: “So it does not hold the load. Let's do it better ... ”, but according to the proposed algorithm, it will sound a little differently:
- Yes, this is an option. And what will happen if our load grows 100 times, how do we plan in 3 months? Sustain architecture?
Or:
- Yes, this is an option. And how would we make it hold a 100 times greater load, as we have planned in 3 months?
We do not reject the decision of man. We do not argue at all, it turns out. Man has nothing to protect. Plus, questions include the human brain and allow you to modify its solution.
Example. Suppose a new team leader offers to switch to a new test run system. Arguments: she considers some additional statistics there + makes it more convenient to analyze the drop in tests.
You understand that with the implementation of this system, 20% of the tests will no longer be run at all, since you wrote the crutches for your current run system that allow these tests to run.
You can try to convince the team leader to abandon the new test run system, but according to the algorithm, the discussion can be structured as follows:
- New system? Well, a good topic. And how would we not go to quality when switching to it, otherwise 20% of tests will not be chased?
An example from life. A colleague of slavapankratov is known to a narrow circle of well-known people by the fact that he constantly generates different ideas. Which usually sends sms. That is, to receive eight text messages from slavapankratov within an hour is a normal phenomenon: the thought went. And then one day there comes a text message with the following content: “I thought of everything, we will post vacancies.”
In the discussion it turns out the essence of the idea. As you know, recruitment agencies make good money on finding candidates. An agency commission for a found engineer or manager can be one to two of his monthly salaries. In the case of directors, even more. The idea: to post vacancies in our newsletter (we had 25.000 subscribers at that time). We recommend vacancies, we earn money.
The idea seems to be normal. But I feel something is not right. I begin to object - I get in response: “But we will earn money”. After a heated argument, I get out of the conversation: “Uncle Slava,” I say, “in one place I feel a dirty trick, but I cannot formulate it. Let me think for half an hour. ”
Then comes. Our corporate clients may not take this initiative very well. Can I send my employees for training to those who help other companies to search for employees? Big question ...
Back to the conversation. “Uncle,” I say, “how can we make sure that our favorite corporate clients do not turn away from us?” And then they slaughter people to send us for trainings. ”
Oh, this is a clear question. We are starting to refine the idea. We decide that it is necessary to state in the letter that this vacancy is published only in the mailing list, and not on our forum, where the employees of the corporate building are present in the online programs. And that we care about our corporate clients.
Already better. And most importantly, the idea has been worked out. (We, however, did not become a recruiting agency, remaining a learning center. Well, not all ideas work. This is not a reason not to refine them, right?)
Finally.
You may have noticed that Jim McCarthy has one principle in his Perfection Game. We do not directly criticize the decision of man. His idea is his child, whom he recently gave birth to. Maybe a crooked child, but yours. You can say: my child is better. But it is better to help someone else's child.
If you already use this technique - write examples in the comments. when she helped. Examples better fix the material.
If not, try. By the way, it is verified that she works well not only with colleagues, but also with children and spouses. :)
PS After the previous article about a powerful question a few comments were received about the features of communication with the management. In the next article we are just thinking of opening this topic.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/249301/
All Articles