By Susan Begeman Steiner
One of the complaints I often hear in companies sounds like this: “So-and-so does not respond to my emails.” My question back is, “What is your agreement with So-and-so about responding to emails?” Invariably I’m told that there is no actual agreement in place.
As much as one might assume that people should respond to emails in a timely manner, that doesn’t mean that they will…unless there is an agreement in place. If not, then your options are to complain, hope the person gets the hint, nag him or try to work around the unworkable situation.
The simple fact is, agreements up front can solve problems before they arise and make interacting with others a lot easier.
Why don’t we make agreements?
Because it seems like too much trouble
Because it’s easier to just complain and feel like a victim
Because we don’t know what to do when an agreement is broken, so why bother making one
As an alternative to complaining or feeling victimized, try this experiment:
Think about something that’s keeping you from your goals. Ask the person(s) involved if he will make an agreement with you that will help you reach your goals.
3 Steps to Making Agreements
Note: These steps work with both teams and individuals.
1. Figure out what agreements you want.
• Propose an agreement such as, “Let’s agree to respond to emails from each other within 24 hours.”
• If your partner says okay, write the agreement down.
• If he says no, then negotiate. For example, “Okay then, let’s say that within 24 hours we will respond even if it’s to say, ‘I’m really busy now, but will answer you soon.’”
• Keep making agreements with him until the two of you can’t think of any more.
2. When the list is done, send it to him so you both have a copy.
• You want the agreements in writing so you can refer to them and change them as necessary as time goes on. Agreements are not written in stone.
3. If one of you breaks an agreement, the other one needs to “call it” as soon as possible.
“You haven’t answered my email from 2 days ago. We agreed to answer within 24 hours. Do we need to change our agreement?”
It is well worth the effort to set up agreements. So much time is wasted in the drama of being upset about someone else’s behavior. Imagine your life being focused on how well you keep your agreements and hold others to theirs, rather than on wondering why people won’t stop doing things that drive you crazy.
Make agreements and you will notice that your life just works better.
Life works to the degree that you keep your agreements.
-- Werner Erhard
Article by Qui Huy, INSEAD Associate Professor
Comment from Heinz A. Müller: Interesting to observe how “soft” skills, the human factors, continue to become more important in the world of business. This article by Qui Huy, INSEAD Associate Professor and Director of Strategy Executive Programme explains an aspect that is often overlooked.
Leaders who are able to identify and manage patterns of emotions in a collective are better able to make their ambitious strategies a reality.
What do President Obama, Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft, and Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo, former CEO of Nokia all have in common? All three had ambitious and laudable strategies (universal healthcare for the USA, dominating the world software industry and dominating the mobile phone industry respectively), yet all three had serious difficulties in executing their strategies successfully.
Time and time again, senior executives spend much time and resources developing and promoting a visionary strategy often to be let down by its execution. For many executives, strategy execution seems just straightforward operational project management to organizational change: breaking it down into different tasks, assigning various project managers and allocating appropriate resources such as people, equipment and money, and setting up a schedule for delivery. Then, once the project planning structure is established, they assume “mission accomplished” and things should automatically unfold.
What they fail to do is take into account are the hidden traps related to soft human factors, including the collective emotions of middle managers and others who influence the process of strategy execution and have a critical impact on the outcomes, as illustrated by the fall in popularity of President Obama as a result of poor information technology, and the exits of both CEOs Ballmer and Kallasvuo as their companies could not execute successfully their intended business strategies.
Breaking the taboo
Emotional and political issues tend to be taboo subjects in the corporate world. People may talk about them in corridors or around the water cooler, but rarely in the boardroom. There are no automated project management models that allow executives to accurately and comprehensively diagnose, detect or think systematically about these issues and many executives continue to believe that emotional suppression and task focus are the best ways to deal with emotional situations.
Similarly middle managers, concerned that top executives could doubt their leadership ability and motivation, are often reluctant to display negative emotions in connection with change or express personal concerns that were not linked to organizational effectiveness. Yet as research in neurology and psychology has shown, emotions can influence human thinking and behaviors in powerful ways and impact performance in organizations. Studies show that emotions that are driven underground tend to incubate and surface later.
During times of transformation – and strategy often entails considerable organizational transformation – these negative group feelings can come to the fore and influence strategy implementation.
Recognizing the power of collective emotions
At INSEAD* we have begun addressing this issue with research and teaching to better equip senior executives to identify collective emotions, who has them, what are the causes, what are the political agendas and how to command trust.
To manage collective emotions you first have to understand the nature of it and to differentiate collective emotions from personal emotions.
As human beings, we all have emotions and our moods swing. These personal emotions can be managed by talking to peers or co-workers and people soon realize that expressing their personal feelings such as pessimism or anger within an organization is usually not a good thing for their career.
Collective emotions, however, are different. They are the emotions a large number of people feel about a cause or new strategy – and this is not likely to dissipate so easily. If someone is unhappy about something a CEO has intentionally or unintentionally done and speaks about it, the feeling can fester and be reinforced during conversations about similar incidents with other middle managers. The feelings will be validated, amplified and over time – it could be years - expand to become a vast coalition of individuals sharing negative emotions about the strategy because they believe it can harm their group’s welfare - even if their personal welfare is not at stake. For example thousands of football fans may feel collective anger about the defeat of their team and go into a riot even if it is unlikely such a loss would impact their professional jobs or the welfare of their families. We call this phenomenon “group-focus emotions.”
It is not even necessary for group-focus emotions to be expressed or shared with other people. It is possible for many members of a group to feel the same group-focus emotions if, for instance, they interpret an event in a similar way in corporate settings, we have observed how these group-focus emotions can prompt middle managers – even those elevated to powerful positions by top executives – to support or covertly sabotage the implementation of a strategy even when their immediate personal interests are not directly under threat.
Breaking the barrier
Managing collective emotions, and taking appropriate emotion management action is a key – yet often ignored – role for executives who want to increase the odds of success of strategy execution, which are normally between 20 percent to 30 percent. One way to break the barrier is to actively encourage the expression of emotions and their causes at work – in a climate of relative psychological safety.
More specifically, managers and leaders can create norms of experiencing and expressing a wide range of emotions and their causes by carefully re-examining taken-for-granted beliefs, languages, and practices that devalue, discourage, or constrain those feelings. Actively removing cognitive, normative, and behavioral barriers in organizations may require much re-education and unlearning. Managers should also look at increasing their emotional self-awareness by understanding the causes and consequences of various emotions such as shame, guilt, anger, pride, and joy so they can recognize them, regulate them, and express them to others in an articulated way.
Channeling collective negative emotions to constructive ends
Obviously, freedom of emotional expression needs to be balanced with respect to other individuals’ sensitivities and company’s interests. But by accurately perceiving patterns of emotions in an organization, leaders will have greater chance of identifying and channeling negative emotions toward constructive ends. We cannot emphasize enough the urgency in attending to the collective emotions of middle managers whose cooperation is vital to implementing change by giving them greater voice and ownership in the design and implementation of the myriad of details that ensure successful strategy execution.
* With three full campuses in Singapore, France and Abu Dhabi, INSEAD is one of the largest Executive Education providers in the world. http://www.insead.edu/home/
Self-Help Book / Personal Development