7: Thinking in Terms of Solutions
To get beyond merely accepting problems, a behavior that enables and encourages tyrants, a victim has to think in terms of actions they are able to take to address the problems - not just once, in terms of a specific incident, but consistently, and not just in terms of a single action that will fix the problem all at once, but as an ongoing process.
What is a Process?
The author defines process as "a framework of actions that drive results." In a business setting, processes are used to discover a pattern of actions that can be undertaken to achieve a desired result. A process is the opposite of random action: it is designed to accomplish a goal, followed consistently, and altered when it is found to be ineffective. It is implemented to deal with recurring situations.
The method by which processes are formed is:
- Define the issue or problem
- Consider possible solutions
- Choose the system that is most likely to succeed
- Develop a plan to implement the process
- Execute the plan
- Monitor progress and outcomes
- Modify as needed and repeat
Communication processes with a boss are little different than any other recurring situation, and developing a process can be helpful in achieving the ends you want (a productive and mutually respectful relationship)
Building consensus is a prerequisite to defining a problem. In terms of relationships, both parties must acknowledge that a problem exists. The author suggests that you have to create an opportunity where your boss is receptive to issues, paying careful attention to how you present the information so that your boss will pay attention and not deny the existence of a problem. This can be addressed by finding "the right moment" and appealing to your boss's interests rather than merely expressing your own concerns.
A few examples are given of ways an employee can address issues from the boss's perspective. Rather than complaining that your boss yells at you, indicate "When you yell at me, it's not as clear as when you ask something of me calmly, and I want to make sure I accurately hear all that you are asking." Rather than suggesting that the boss is inconsiderate of your personal life, suggest that "We need to find a way that I can complete this work before I leave for vacation."
(EN: This seems a bit facile, and assumes that the tyrant will not ignore the problem or choose to rephrase it in the original, negative sense. In instances where you are dealing with a rational person whose behavior is misguided, it seems a logical approach. If you're dealing with a person whose goal is to exert control rather than achieve results, I'm not so sanguine this approach will be effective.)
Once a problem is acknowledged, the next step is to define options for addressing it. The author suggests having a number of suggestions in mind and presenting them to the boss as options, as it is likely he will be more accepting of a course of action he has chosen from several, rather than being given an ultimatum (which threatens his sense of control) to merely accept or reject.
The goal of this step is to create a "clear alignment" on the ways in which you can work cooperatively to resolve an issue and achieve a desirable outcome, with an explicit understanding of what each party is expected to do.
The implementation phase is merely a method of taking the actions defined in the previous steps. The danger is that the process is not adopted, and that you and your boss fall into old and familiar patterns of behavior rather than acting on the plan you have formulated. It may take a number of tries to get it on track, and perseverance and patience is necessary to avoid giving up when it doesn't seem to be going quite right.
Communication Style
Each person has a communication style they prefer to use when interacting with others. There are various assessments and quizzes that can be used to assess and classify communications systems, and the author suggests they are useful, but he will present his own categorization scheme nonetheless:
- Detailer - An individual who takes an analytical approach and is methodical in the way in which they present facts and offer support. They are frustrated by others who do not provide as much detail, or who seem unable to follow a fairly complex train of thought.
- Controller - An individual who seeks to dominate a conversation and direct the course of the conversation. They know what they want from a conversation and are not interested in what others might be trying to express to them. They are frustrated by others who do not follow their conversational lead.
- Socializer - This individual is often concerned with the people involved in a conversation rather than the conversation itself: it's not so much what is being said as where the speaker is "coming from." They are frustrated by brief and factual communication or conversation in which participation is skewed to one side.
- Appeaser - This individual is more attuned to the emotions being expressed in a conversation, and are looking to make interaction as pleasant as possible. They are frustrated by those who state objections or raise topics of disagreement.
Where two people have the same communication style, their interaction is generally effective, but where communication styles are different, the interaction becomes strained. A common conflict is between a technical worker (detailer) and a boss (controller), as one party wants to examine the nuts and bolts details while the other wants a quick decision that the other party will obey. The appeaser and socializer are difficult for either of the two types to get along with because they are more focused on emotional matters that seem to be distractions from "the point" of the conversation.
Accommodating another person's communication style can be effective in getting others to be more receptive and positively disposed to what you are saying.