Mike Lehr's Blog

In 12Most I wrote about business lessons from various battles. Pydna in 168 B.C. – the titanic clash between two undefeated armies, the Macedonians and the Romans – illustrates flexibility’s inherent power by working with smaller units. We can become better problem solvers if we can train our minds to see the smaller aspects of everything.

At Pydna, the Macedonians fought as a single, massive phalanx in which soldiers fought using 20-foot long pikes. This created a massive wall of sharp daggers. The Romans fought in smaller cohorts; their soldiers used short, 20-inch swords called a gladius. Cohorts became buzz saws as they slashed and cut.

When confronting an enemy directly (Figure #1), the phalanx crushed him. However, the cohorts were flexible and surrounded the Macedonians (Figure #2). While those in front suffered heavily, the pikes did not allow the Macedonians to turn quickly enough to defend against the other Romans. Consequently, the Romans all but obliterated the Macedonians.

One of the best ways to train our minds to see the finer aspects of problems is to think about the differences in similar words. Don’t accept they are the same; if they were we wouldn’t need both. Also, don’t worry about being right; just try to come up with differences. It’s similar to physical exercise: doing is beneficial and winning unessential. As examples, I’ve written about the differences between clarity and truth, intelligence and wisdom, and optimism and Pollyannaism.

We can then apply this by writing the problem down, attacking definitions and breaking our description into smaller parts. Just as breaking change down into small, simple steps makes it easier to effect change, breaking problems down into smaller parts makes it easier to solve them.

The challenge is training our brain to see a solid unit as many parts.

Imagine soil so toxic that nothing will grow. No matter how good our seeds, our farming techniques and the weather are; nothing will grow. The same thing happens when we try to promote great ideas in a bad relational environment: they fail.

That’s why relationships are more important than vision, culture more important than strategy. Vision and strategy can’t grow in toxic relational and cultural soil. This analogy also frames leadership as an affect influencing the hearts and minds of members, requiring the ability to tap both aspects of an interpersonal relationship: emotional and rational.

While this analogy’s point seems obvious, we are biased toward reason; thus, when problems arise, we tend to believe presenting new ideas, educating on the facts or reasoning better will solve them. It’s not unusual for me to have to restate this analogy several times in order to get people to focus on plans containing tactics to improve relationships or to manage conflict. In other words, our tendency is to just find better seeds, use better farming techniques or hope for better weather rather than address the soil.

This happens because no matter how good our ideas are, people will tend to decide that they’re bad if they don’t like or trust us. Our facts won’t change things either because people tend to believe perceptions over facts. People will naturally find reasons to discount our logic and facts.

When we combine all of this with the fact that a diverse workforce improves business, there is great stress on traditional management styles typically unsuited to nurturing the right positive feelings that can dramatically improve performance. By framing problems with this analogy, I increase my success in introducing relational solutions, which are often seen as too “fuzzy” or “soft.” Perhaps it will help you too.

We often don’t learn the value of listening techniques in building relationships. Consequently, people might not realize we are listening; this needs to occur in relationship building.

Summarization rephrases the information or key points of the person in a condensed version. The technique verifies what we heard, demonstrates listening, allows focusing of the conversation, and defines parameters for additional discussions.  It also allows the other person – once we summarize – to alter, modify or restate so we can correct misunderstandings early.

Typically, summarization will rephrase the point of a sentence, paragraph or entire discussion. The focus is on subject matter not feelings and emotions, such as:

• Information
• Ideas
• Facts
• Opinions
• Logic
• Instructions

Of all the relationship-building techniques, it will tend to be the most lengthy and involved; however, if too long, its effectiveness diminishes. Often it’s followed by a closed question such as, “Did I understand you correctly?”

Some examples of summarization include:

• “Just to make sure I heard you right, Jack, you’d like us to find a way to secure a steady supply of our old product from this vendor, to negotiate a price based upon our minimum usage, and to find someone else to produce our new product.”
• “To make sure I’m on the same page, let me summarize what I heard. You want to send Sue and Tom out west and to promote Sally to run the plant. Also, you want to find a recruiter to help us to fill Sally’s job and to find us a good service person to manage our top customer.”
• “It seems that what you’re saying is that you want us to start over.”

From a relational perspective, summarization conveys the feeling that you are:

• Understanding and valuing what the person is saying
• Paying attention to detail and quality
• Someone in whom the person can have confidence

The effect of summarization is to create:

• A common understanding of what was said
• Opportunities for correcting any misunderstandings upfront
• Confidence in your abilities in the eyes of the other person
• Confirmation that you know what was said or needs to be done

Summarization, is really a result of the other relationship techniques. It’s used less frequently, but when it is it covers a lot of ground – often the entire conversation.  Summarization heads off many problems before they damage relationships. It has helped me much in my career.

Other posts in this series:

• Relationship Building Technique #1: Open-ended Questions
• Relationship Building Technique #2: Closed Questions
• Relationship Building Technique #3: Pause
• Relationship Building Technique #4: Acknowledgement
• Relationship Building Technique #5: Encouragement
• Relationship Building Technique #6: Synchronization

The research behind behavioral economics is full of emotional solutions to everyday problems. By tapping into the emotional biases behind our decisions, we can expand the range of limited solutions offered by rational thought models. The exploring of emotional solutions has gone big time as the article, “Nudge Nudge, Think Think” explains in the March 24, 2012 edition of The Economist by focusing on the amount of investments governments are making in this area.

Said simply, “How we phrase things matter.” I’ve written how this can change the taste of food and even change the reactions to a bonus plan. As the article explains, nudging “shows it is possible to steer people towards better decisions by presenting choices in different ways.”

For example:

• People were three times more likely to pay an outstanding vehicular tax when the letter was simplified and included a picture of the automobile.
• Boys did better than girls did when a technical drawing class was called “geometry,” and girls did equally well or better when it was called “drawing.”
• People were more inclined to use less energy when their consumption was compared to their neighbors.

Not only does this help us solve problems, it also helps us avoid them by being aware of what we say so we don’t sabotage our well-intentioned plans. Choosing the right words for a personality can go a long way in helping us to effect the change we desire by tapping the right emotions.

For example, my wife won a bet at a party by talking a friend’s six-year-old daughter into selecting a vegetable over chocolate to eat. Understanding and appreciating the power behind words’ connotations helps us immensely here, and Roget’s Thesaurus is invaluable in our efforts.

Remember, people eat escargot not snails.

We often don’t learn the value of listening techniques in building relationships. Consequently, people might not realize we are listening; this needs to occur in relationship building.

Synchronization is using words or phrasing of the other person to ask, comment or respond. The technique facilitates communications by ensuring he and you are “speaking the same language.” It’s keying in on the person’s pet words and phrases that emphasize key thoughts or emotions. It can be difficult to use since it requires intense listening and conscious avoidance of mocking or mimicking. We might also require some time and experimentation to ensure we are using the person’s words the way he does.

Some examples of synchronization include:

• Buzz words, for example:
  • “Reorg”
  • “Rush job”
  • “Strategize”
  • “Devi’s in the details”
• Acronyms:
  • ASAP
  • RFP
  • Industry specific ones
• Particular to person:
  • Person: “Run this by Sue before doing anything.” You: “Ok, I’ll run this by her first.”
  • Person: “This is an awesome idea.” You (later in the conversation): “I believe this other idea is awesome too.”
  • Person: “This report has some sound and strong recommendations.” You (later in conversation): “The reasoning behind Tom’s idea is sound and strong.”

From a relational perspective, synchronization conveys the feeling that you are:

• Complimentary through subtleties
• Connecting, recognizing similarities
• “On the same page”

The effect of synchronization is to create:

• Synergies
• Perception of being on the same wave length
• Establish and improve common understandings

Synchronization effectively builds relationships when integrated with other techniques.  It ensures that we use words the other person understands, thus reducing miscommunication. More importantly, since this technique, when done well, is very subtle, it promotes the development of relationships on a more interpersonal, emotional level.

Other posts in this series:

• Relationship Building Technique #1: Open-ended Questions
• Relationship Building Technique #2: Closed Questions
• Relationship Building Technique #3: Pause
• Relationship Building Technique #4: Acknowledgement
• Relationship Building Technique #5: Encouragement

Someone once asked me, “What are the twenty most influential books in your life?” I listed Roget’s Thesaurus as one. It gives us appreciation for the relationship between definitions and connotations so we can:

• Defend ourselves since it’s a verbal martial arts guide
• Find appealing names for initiatives, projects and services
• Assess personalities better in real time since people’s words tell us much about them
• Solve problems better since we often think in words

For example, consider someone calling you “stubborn.” Using the Fifth Edition edited by Robert L. Chapman, I immediately find six words from which to choose: persevering, obstinate, strict, tenacious, inflexible and tough. So, in response to your critic, you can reply, “Thank you, I do consider myself persevering.”

Don’t like this selection? Pick one and explore it. Since Roget’s groups words by categories, we can easily find similar groupings of many similar words including “determined.” Using this same approach, we can find appealing names for new initiatives and projects.

Want to gain insight into personalities? Listen to people’s words. Through words’ connotations, Roget’s helps us discover patterns and insights into how people view concepts, plans, things and people. For instance, someone who uses many order-oriented words in a positive way probably won’t like a plan giving people a lot of flexibility in their decision-making.

Lastly, since we use words to form thoughts, by looking at words differently and from many more perspectives, this will expand and alter our thought processes. Rather than see stubbornness as a problem, we might see it as a solution by discovering it is determination instead.

However, don’t be fooled by the increasingly popular alphabetical thesauruses. They don’t group words effectively. Thus, they don’t have nearly the magic and potency of a Roget’s.

We often don’t learn the value of listening techniques in building relationships. Consequently, people might not realize we are listening; this needs to occur in relationship building.

Encouragement directs the other person to elaborate on a point. It’s similar to an acknowledgement except it’s a clearly worded, short statement expressing a more direct interest. It’s also more effective in directing conversation to a previous point. Encouragement usually occurs as a conversational transition from open-ended questions to closed questions.

Some examples of encouragements include:

• Short statements such as:
  • “Tell me more . . .”
  • “Explain that further …”
  • “Please elaborate …”
  • “Please explain, I’m not sure I understand . . .”
• Redirections of conversation such as:
  • “A few minutes ago you mentioned the analysis that was done by the group, tell me more about that and its findings.”
  • “Please go back to your comments regarding when you started the project and tell me more about that.”
  • “You mentioned that earlier as well. Elaborate on it since it’s obviously important to you and the team.”

From a relational perspective, encouragements convey the feeling that you are:

• Interested in the conversation
• Closely listening when you are able to redirect conversation to a previous point
• Remembering what was said earlier

The effect of encouragements is to:

• Encourage further comments especially from quiet people
• Substantially increase receptivity when redirection occurs
• Move the conversation to a more personal or confidential level

Encouragements effectively build relationships when integrated with other techniques.  They promote a more casual, interactive, directed and friendly conversation as opposed to an interrogative one. More importantly, through redirection of the conversation to a previous point, they can dramatically convey to others that you’re listening to them.

Other posts in this series:

• Relationship Building Technique #1: Open-ended Questions
• Relationship Building Technique #2: Closed Questions
• Relationship Building Technique #3: Pause
• Relationship Building Technique #4: Acknowledgement

In response to my post, “Relationship Building Technique #4: Acknowledgement,” a reader emailed the following observation:

I often find this is a simple [technique], which has a very sensitive component to it and is frequently very “fake” . . . . I know of several peers whom I converse with who “appear” to be practicing acknowledging and listening to others. . . . I have noticed over time, for example, although they may seem engaged and interested at the very moment, they are either preoccupied (and do a good job of hiding it) or are insincere . . . . This is often evident in subsequent conversations with them as you realize they have very little memory of prior conversations. . . .

First, these techniques won’t have the same effect on everyone. Obviously, they didn’t work on this person. However, why this occurred isn’t simply a case of the speakers being insincere; it could just be that they were very different from the listener. The latter could have been born with  much greater sensitivity than the others were and thus greater sincerity.

As a result, despite the listener’s view, it’s very possible that the speakers felt that they were sincere. Furthermore, they might not even be self-aware enough to know they were coming across as insincere. It’s also quite possible that they didn’t care.

We need to remember that any human attribute will vary widely across individual humans. That’s why not remembering might be a sign of poorer memories than the listener’s and not just lesser abilities to express sincerity. Thus, the problem isn’t so much one of sincerity or listening but rather one of differences in personalities. It’s going to be very difficult for less sensitive people to convince those with higher sensitivities that they are being sincere.

The article, “The Modern Matchmakers,” from the February 11, 2012 edition of The Economist contained two major business lessons that I’ve discussed earlier regarding the solving of people-related problems:

1. What people think they want isn’t necessarily what they will choose
2. When faced with too much choice, people have less energy to think about them

For example, the article cites the work of Eli Finkel of Northwestern University on speed-dating in which he found that “people’s stated preference at the beginning of the process do not match the characters of the individuals they actually like.” Furthermore, “that when faced with abundant choice, people pay less attention to characteristics that require thinking and conversation to evaluate . . . and more to matters physical.” In short, just as Sheena Iyengar of Columbia University and Mark Lepper of Stanford concluded that too much choice is demotivating,” Finkel found it can dull thinking processes.

As I had also done in an earlier post on online dating, we can translate these themes to our business efforts by asking three questions:

1. How much freedom does someone want?
2. What does someone really want; what will he really do or decide?
3. How much (and what kind of) thinking will someone require from a leader?

These further translate into more tactical questions for managers and executives such as:

1. How much flexibility or process must I give someone?
2. What differences do I see between what he wants and what he actually does?
3. What kind of decisions do I give her to make and what (or when) do I decide for her?

Complicating this further is the fact that the answers will vary for each employee, requiring deeper and more interpersonal skills from managers and leaders. Are your managers up for the challenge?

Previous post on online dating:  What the Failures of Online Dating Can Teach Us

People often have unrealistic expectations for intuition, sometimes thinking it’s a crystal ball, magic lamp or answer giver. This usually stems from trying to see it as we do cognition. However, if cognition is a map, intuition is our compass. If cognition is our street address, then intuition is our city, state or nation.

Of course, visualizations help to differentiate between cognition and intuition. I use the schematic below that way. Cognition represents logic and reason, easily connecting each point because one naturally follows the other. One thought connects the next.

Intuition on the other hand is like trying to find the best line to represent a group of observations. It doesn’t connect them as easily and new points don’t always fall on or near the line; however, taken as a group, our observations form a pattern giving a sense of direction to them. Thus, intuition narrows our possibilities. More significantly, we don’t need many observations to get this directional sense.

For example, we can predict tendencies of people simply by looking at what they buy. In some cases, if we know their favorite car, beverage, hobby, store and book, we can make predictions about their favorite restaurant. Political campaigns take such consumer information and make accurate predictions about what candidates and issues potential voters might prefer. We can form psychological profiles of people from consumer – and other – activities, similar to what we see on crime shows when tracking criminals.

While these examples are very conscious, we unconsciously pick up patterns too. These are translated into feelings, emotions and finally intuitions. That is why it’s important to listen to how we feel. It might be our intuition giving us some direction, giving us a north. In this sense, intuition can be our guiding star.

Related link: My Intuition White Paper (3 pages)