Fierce conversations principle 4: Name the problem and stop mole whacking

Mole whacking

Having grown up in Seattle, I can relate to the rodent analogy that Susan Scott uses to start the fourth principle of her Fierce Conversations premise.  Six-inch dirt mounds were a common feature in our family yard. Attempts to remove the moles were futile at best and we eventually resigned ourselves to sharing our property with the uninvited rodents.

We had dogs, but their attempts at mole extermination only turned dirt mounds into dirt holes. We tried sticking a water hose down the holes, and discovered wildlife in rainy Seattle is fairly resilient to flooding. My dad even tried sticking oxy-acetylene down the holes for about 15 minutes before lighting it off.  I suspect his motivation was more to blow things up (which he did) than actually kill anything (which he didn’t).

In the end, we expended a lot of effort, felt varying degrees of short term satisfaction, and realised nothing in the way of actual results.  Scott shares this experience along with her revelation that removing moles is more a matter of poisoning the grubs they feed on.  Removing the source of the issue removes the problem.

The application to organisational life is obvious.  How often do we sit around meetings whacking moles that emerge in our organisations? How much of our day is spent carrying a hammer, ready to temporarily subdue annoyances that we know will recur as soon as we step away?

Dealing with the problem

To remove the moles, Scott presents strategies and barriers to address the underlying issues.

The firsts step is to name the problem through asking questions such as: “What is the recurring problem in the organisation? How does the system reward this? Where does the system originate? What is the ‘grub’?” This can be a challenge when individuals engage in a practiced form of self-preservation.  It can be difficult to identify the “common denominator” of issues when those who contribute most to the issue have the most to lose.

There exists in organisations the “undiscussables” – topics in the form of quid pro quo agreements: without discussing it, everyone instinctively understands the deal has been struck. Topics are avoided because of fear of the consequences, when in reality the consequences of not discussing the issues can be much worse.

As Scott notes:

“The very outcomes we fear if we confront someone’s behaviour are practically guaranteed to show up if we don’t. It will just take longer, and the results will likely occur at the worst possible moment, when we are least expecting it, with a huge price tag attached”

The fear of confrontation results in trade-offs. You temporarily keep the client or your job, but lose your integrity and creativity. You avoid angry outbursts, but lose your culture and your staff.  You avoid dealing with your own responsibility, but end up repeating the same mistakes. The sad part of this situation is that the outcome that was feared becomes inevitable, but now with additional baggage from not dealing with the issue.

The opportunity is to re-position what is perceived as conflict.  Reality is rarely as frightening as our belief in what might happen.  It is our beliefs that determine how we feel and therefor what we do. To borrow on the adage of “what we focus on we create”, we can create the very outcomes we are afraid of. This relates to Scott’s previous notion of going into conversations with empty hands.

Part of this approach is realising that no one person has the answers, including yourself. All confrontation is a search for truth; each of us owns a piece of truth, and nobody owns all of it.

Five common barriers to confronting behaviour

Whether you are managing up or managing down, Scott notes five common barriers to dealing with the underlying issue:

1. “So, how’s it going”
   People can smell an agenda a mile away. If this is a meeting about poor performance, say this is a meeting about poor performance.  If targets are not being met, say targets are not being met. Don’t lead into the conversation with small talk. Not only do you not get to the root of the problem, but all small talk in the future will then be suspect.
2. The Oreo cookie
   Couching the issue on either side with praise sends mixed messages. Topping and tailing a critique may seem like compassion, but it is actually enabling the person an “out” of accepting responsibility for their actions.
3. Too many pillows
   It is human nature to avoid pain, but there is often no change without some form of pain.  Softening the message may leave the person thinking they just had another casual chat.
4. Writing the script
   If everything has been decided before the conversation begins ,there is no point in calling it a conversation.  If you are not prepared to be open for input, then you may as well just tell the person to not say anything at all.
5. Machine Gun Nelly
   The example here is firing wildly with criticism then running away. You may hit a few points, but you are just as likely to miss the mark overall and make a mess.

The need for the conversation

Countless conversations occur every day in organisations, but they are often not the right conversations.  Talks at group meetings do not reflect hallway discussions.  Inner monologues and Skype chats never make their way to those that matter. This may be due to a need to make nice or self-preservation, where there can be a sense of an either/or proposition that people can be right or they can be employed.

We bash with strong words to deal with moles, but we can tend to soften the hammer if the root problem lands too close to home.  If there is a conversation that needs to be had, life is too short not to have it. I would hope to surround myself with people who feel they can feel the same.

I wish you the best in your mole eradicating journey.