ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Kerry Patterson is author of three bestselling books, Influencer, Crucial Conversations, and Crucial Confrontations.
READ MORE

  Dear Crucial Skills,

I am a relatively new supervisor, and several of my former peers are now my direct reports. One has been with the company for twenty-five years and her attitude has become increasingly combative. She questions almost everything I tell or ask of her, she is very negative about company policies, and she makes comments in front of other employees that undermine my authority and the company. My managers think she is detrimental to our entire department, but I am trying to save her job because I think she would be hard to replace.

It has become increasingly difficult for me to have conversations with her and I end up avoiding these conversations as much as possible. How do I turn this situation around?

Undermined

This conversation could eventually lead to the other person being disciplined in one way or another. While I know you’ll do your best to not go down that path too quickly, you have to be prepared for the worst. How you’re supposed to handle performance problems within your company—including the disciplinary steps you need to follow—is often formalized. That means the formalized steps need to be carefully followed if you expect to be supported by HR, your boss, the legal department, and the company.

Why worry? For years I have watched as well-intended supervisors have stepped up to a performance challenge, done their best to hold a crucial conversation, and ended by disciplining an employee. Then the supervisors learn that they should have first given a verbal warning before putting a letter in the employee’s file or provided a written warning before putting the person on probation, etc. Now the supervisor is in trouble with HR and needs to go back and reverse the proposed disciplinary step.

I’ve even seen a supervisor fire someone only to be forced by the legal department to bring the employee back to work (complete with back pay) because the supervisor didn’t follow the formal disciplinary process. This is not only discouraging to the supervisor, who has done his or her best to fulfill the responsibility of holding others accountable, but completely undermines his or her authority and puts the relationship at risk.

So the first step in starting a conversation that might lead to discipline is to know the formal disciplinary process your company follows. A simple conversation with an HR specialist (as well as a heads-up to your own boss) should be enough to teach you all you need to know. If your company does not have a formal process in place, consider the following guidelines. Catch problems early, before they get out of control. Always remain calm and respectful. Otherwise, the attention will soon be on you and how you became abusive during the discussion. Be crystal clear about the infraction itself and both the short- and long-term implications if the person doesn’t change. Far too many people leave a performance discussion (1) unclear about what they need to do differently and (2) unaware that if they don’t change there will be repercussions.

Here are a few tips for holding that conversation.

First, set aside time to talk in private about an issue that has you concerned. Start the conversation with a statement of your good intentions, but one that also conveys the severity of the situation. “Today I’d like to discuss a problem I’ve noticed over the past few weeks. I want to solve it before it becomes more serious. I hope to come to a resolution that works for both of us.”

Next, pick one or two of the problems from the variety you’ve suggested. You described the problem with short-hand terms such as “negative,” “detrimental,” and “combative.” These words, of course, are both inflammatory and vague. The listener isn’t likely to know what she has actually done, but is likely to be insulted by your unflattering characterization. Think about the specific behaviors you want her to change. Pick the actions you care the most about, not the ones that may be easiest to address. Don’t sell out by choosing the wrong behavior or back down by candy coating your description.

Now practice. Describe the actions you most care about to a friend or confidant. See if your friend understands the meaning of your words. Describe actions not conclusions. For instance, “Last week you suggested that our new cost-cutting plan was stupid and when I tried to explain why I thought it might work you rolled your eyes and called me naïve.” This clear description helps the person know exactly what you want to see change. Contrast this clear explanation with “You’re disruptive in meetings,” or “You’re constantly negative.” Inflammatory conclusions offend instead of inform.

Next, stop and ask the other person if she understands the issue. Don’t keep piling on new problems. Deal with one issue at a time. Since the problem you described is now big enough that your own boss wants to let the person go, you must also explain the disciplinary steps you’ll take if the person doesn’t change. Even if the person has already agreed to comply, explain that you’re glad she is willing to change, because if not, you’ll take the following disciplinary action. Since this isn’t the first infraction, and discipline may follow, you can’t leave out this information. Don’t phrase it as a threat, simply describe the reality.

This should be enough to get you started. I commend your willingness to actually work on the problem rather than simply let it slide or let the person go.

Kerry

awalston@vitalsmarts.com Influencer

ABOUT THE EXPERT
Neil Staker is founder of PeopleSmart Solutions and a Master Certified Trainer in Crucial Conversations, Crucial Confrontations, and Influencer Training.
ABOUT NEIL
BOOK NEIL

I love the Olympics—hard work, stress, anxiety, competition, disappointment, and triumph—all packed into one crucial moment. I was particularly drawn to bronze medalist, and Canadian figure skater, Joannie Rochelle. Her mother unexpectedly died from a heart attack just two days before Joannie skated her short program.

Under extraordinary stress and emotional turmoil, Joannie still managed to do her best when it mattered the most. The Olympians who did their best experienced joy even if they didn’t get a medal. Those who didn’t live up to their potential were disappointed—sometimes even when they received a medal.

We all face crucial moments when we want to do our best to be both candid and caring. Unfortunately we often feel the disappointment and frustration of falling short when we clam up or blow up. What makes the difference between success and failure in these crucial moments? Let’s go back to Joannie for a deeper look at two variables: emotional control and practice.

Emotional Control
We often go into a crucial conversation with the best of intentions, then something goes wrong and we end up angry, frustrated, scared, or hurt. If we don’t have the tools to control our emotions, they’ll end up controlling us. Listen to how Cynthia Phaneuf, a teammate, described Joannie after the short program. “She skated kind of like a computer. She didn’t let her emotions get to her. That’s how she needed to skate—she can’t be distracted by emotions.” When facing a high stakes, emotionally divisive conversation, we need to do the same. Negative emotions can cause poor performance.

Practice
In Joannie’s own words, “I went to Vancouver expecting to go into a battle, and that battle was obviously tougher than expected.” In an interview she talked about how the hours of practice took over as she skated. Unfortunately, while many of us frequently find ourselves in tough situations, we spend very little time practicing the mental, emotional and verbal skills of dialogue. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if your honed skills kicked in the next time you found yourself in a difficult conversation?

* Cynthia Phaneuf quote from the NY Daily News, February 25, 2010.

awalston@vitalsmarts.com Influencer

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Joseph Grenny is the author of three bestselling books, Influencer, Crucial Conversations, and Crucial Confrontations.

READ MORE

Dear Crucial Skills,

I’m a manager in a tech company that seems to be clueless. While I know unemployment is high, management seems to be oblivious to the fact that we are losing some of our key people to poaching by competitors. We haven’t increased salaries in the past two years and I’ve personally lost three of my best people because our salaries are so far below market. My peers have seen similar losses.

I know HR is sympathetic—but senior management just doesn’t seem to care. We’re losing great people and it’s impeding our ability to get the work done. Should I just give up and cope?

Signed,
Exodus

Dear Exodus,

I’m going to assume that you’ve held crucial conversations about this issue with your immediate supervisor and HR. In our thirty years of studying influence, we’ve found the most direct and effective way to bring about change begins with these conversations. However, sometimes influence involves more than talk. Interpersonal influence is efficient and often incredibly effective, but if talk isn’t cutting it, you’ll have to do more to penetrate the status quo.

Let me suggest a couple of options.

1. The influence of data. People who successfully lose weight tend to weigh themselves daily. People who read international newspapers tend to talk more about foreign affairs. The “Gas Wars” of the 1970s began when fueling stations were required to post prices visible to passing motorists.

We each live in a certain “data stream.” The stream we live in brings us certain information. We read certain newspapers, attend certain meetings, receive certain reports, and interact with certain people. These sources of information profoundly affect our behavior. They set our mental agenda—decide what we care about, what we worry about, and what we believe is true.

The problem you’re up against is that your data stream involves a firsthand view of the reality and consequences of staff losses. Senior management’s data stream may not. If, for example, HR is reporting that staff turnover is 5 percent—which is low for your industry—senior management may see this number and assume all is well. According to you, this number obscures more than it reveals. You’re suggesting the quality of the turnover has changed substantially and you need to find a way to reveal that data to senior management. If what you’re saying is correct, then the kind of people who are leaving in that 5 percent are more critical to corporate success than a similar number two years ago. My challenge to you is to:

a. Confirm your assumption. There’s a possibility you are wrong. The turnover you’ve experienced may be atypical across the organization despite what your peers say. Or your perception of salary gaps may be wrong. Find out. Consult with HR—learn more about the data sources they draw from in setting their policy.

b. Change the data stream. There’s a principle in newspaper journalism that the lead point should be the opening sentence of an article. If you’re right about the turnover, influence HR to ensure their reports don’t “bury the lead” and that this data is presented to senior management.

2. The influence of stories. As influential as data is, it will not impel action with the same force as will a compelling anecdote. So in addition to influencing the data stream, arm those who will present the data with a story that illustrates the problem. The presentation may sound a bit like the following:

“The good news is that turnover is at an all-time low. The bad news is that almost all of our turnover is in key positions. Poaching has become an urgent concern. In prior years, ‘critical turnover’ averaged one technical lead per month, recently it has risen to three—a 300 percent increase.”

“Six months ago, for example, we lost Anja. As far as we can tell, she was offered 15 percent more by a competitor, plus a signing bonus. We have interviewed more than 150 candidates since then but haven’t found one qualified to fill Anja’s shoes at our current salary levels. The six-month hiring gap has left us paying overtime at a higher rate to cover her work. Anja is just one example—but is typical of what we’re dealing with across many departments.”

If you want your executives to feel and think as you do, you’ll need them to see what you see. Your challenge is to influence their data stream so they appreciate the reality you’re dealing with. As you do so, do your best to understand their data stream as well. But be warned, spending some time in their data stream may also change how you think and feel!

Best wishes,
Joseph

Joseph Grenny Influencer

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Joseph Grenny is author of three bestselling books, Influencer, Crucial Conversations, and Crucial Confrontations.

READ MORE

Dear Crucial Skills,

My husband and I have $40,000 in credit card debt. We’ve made all kinds of budgets and set all kinds of goals but still can’t get together on this. We fight about it a lot and it’s become a real source of conflict for us. We both want to get out of debt, but one bad deed keeps leading to another. How can we stick to our budget?

Signed,
Good Intentions

Dear Good Intentions,

What a great question to kick off the New Year. I’m sure you’re not alone after a tough financial year—many of us have had to try to change our spending habits to help us weather everything from economic anxiety to a true financial famine. Fortunately, there’s a lot you can do to change your good intentions into good behavior.

First, I’d suggest you and your husband play a game together. Let’s call the game Name That Influence! The object of the game is to identify all the different sources of influence that are undermining your good intentions. You’ll be shocked at how long the list is. Here are three questions to help you generate some specific answers:

1. What visual images in your home get you thinking about spending rather than saving? (Hint: Do you longingly browse shopping pages on the internet? Do you have a Library of Congress-sized stack of catalogs by a comfortable reading chair?)
2. How do your interactions and conversations with friends or family affect your thoughts, plans, and actions toward spending? (Hint: Is shopping a social event?)
3. What sources of influence keep you from immediately counting the cost of your spending choices? (Hint: Do you buy with cash? Checks? Credit cards? Do you have “one-click” purchasing enabled on favorite Web sites?)

Set a goal with your husband to come up with at least a dozen different influences that both motivate and enable you to spend more than you should. Be honest with yourself and recognize your role in your current situation. As you do this, something very important will happen. You’ll realize the problem is not that the two of you are weak. The problem is that you are blind and outnumbered. You’re blind to the many sources of influence that are shaping your choices. And the one source working for you (your willpower) is hopelessly outnumbered by the sources working against you. (If you read our book Influencer: The Power to Change Anything, you’ll find you’re outnumbered 5 to 1. Not good odds!)

When you finish creating this list, your job is to change as many sources of influence as you can to support your good intentions. Dismantle those sources you know are encouraging your indulgence. Create positive influences that will keep saving top of mind, make it easier, and help you feel rewarded for following through.

For example, you could:

1. Make it a game. Create a progress chart for your savings goal. Keep it visible. Make a ritual of posting progress as a couple and generating the “completion endorphins” that come when you color in the next progress bar.

2. Banish temptation. Change your home page, delete tempting web pages, toss out magazines and catalogs or other “triggers” of spending impulses. Make no mistake—shopping generates dopamine in the same pleasure centers of the brain that cocaine does. You’re fighting a pleasure-driven habit and your best defense will be to minimize the temptations.

3. Make spending harder. Eliminate any structural enablers of mindless spending. For example, research shows people spend far less if they have to fork over cash than if they can simply slide a credit card through a slot. You might try carrying nothing but cash with you for six months. You’ll find this one physical change will profoundly affect your choices. You may also choose to undergo “plastic surgery” by cutting up your credit cards.

4. Change an accomplice into a friend. If shopping and spending are social activities, you’ll need to identify your accomplices. For example, if you and a girlfriend enjoy a regular outing at a mall, you’ll need to change that relationship. Eat some humble pie and let her know you are in desperate need of change. Ask for her help. If your husband is the accomplice, find a substitute activity you can do together. You won’t succeed by simply eliminating social activities; you’ll need to generate new ones. Our research shows that changing habits almost always involves engaging the help of at least two trusted friends.

These ideas may or may not be the right ones for you. But one thing I can promise you is that if you’ll examine your situation carefully, you’ll realize the problem is out there. There are myriad sources of influence working against you—and until you recognize and reverse them, you’ll continue behaving in a way you don’t want.

Best wishes for a prosperous, frugal, and fun New Year!

Joseph

Joseph Grenny Influencer

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

David Maxfield is coauthor of the New York Times bestseller, Influencer.

READ MORE

Dear Crucial Skills,

I am currently attempting to put the principles of Influencer to work, but I am struggling to find those vital behaviors that are more than hunches. I am looking for the vital behaviors that will lead to telemarketing sales and I’m wondering where I can go to find statistically supported, tried-and-tested vital behaviors for this outcome.

Searching for Research

 Dear Searching,

Your question is relevant to everyone—not just those involved in telemarketing sales—because few of us can ever find statistically supported, tried-and-tested vital behaviors that deal with our specific issues. Most of the time, we have to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and do our own research. I’ll use your question to suggest some steps anyone can take to find and refine vital behaviors.

Here are the steps I follow: 1) begin with Google and Google Scholar to find tips and best practices; 2) create a process-flow chart that maps the temporal flow of the activity; 3) collect data on key points in the process; 4) use positive deviance—with myself and others; 5) set up an ongoing tracking system to analyze and adjust. Here’s what these steps look like:

1. Begin with Google and Google Scholar: I did some Google searches using the terms “telemarketing sales” and “best practices.” With these search terms, I mostly found marketing pitches for seminars. Google scholar was full of books and academic research that was not very interesting.

So I broadened my search and found a lot of useful tips by searching for the terms “telemarketing sales” and “tips.” These tips were a great place to start, but I was skeptical so I asked myself two questions: “How relevant are the tips to my exact situation?” and “How credible are they?” Most of the tips were somewhat relevant, but many had little credibility—other than sounding more or less plausible. Most came from commercial firms that are selling something and didn’t have any research data supporting them.

While internet research is a good place to start, be cautious with the information you find, and most importantly, never let a Google search be the end of your research. To find the most accurate behaviors, continue with the following steps.

2. Create a process-flow chart: Map a sales person’s day from beginning to end. What do these people do? Map the progression of a sales call. What is actually said and done? Try to capture a typical day and a typical call in five to seven steps.

In addition, it is helpful to map an “ideal process” based on what you know about the activity. For example, most sales calls include the following steps: Greeting, verification, questions, responses, information drops, and closes. Each of these steps is designed to move the customer further through the buying process—to bring them closer to a buying decision. Now you can compare what you actually do to the ideal activities you should perform.

3. Collect data: Next, begin collecting data. Of course you are most interested in the end results: number of sales and percentage of successful sales calls. However, also collect data on interim steps. Track “move forwards” on each step in the sales process you’ve mapped. Evaluate which step you excel in based on the data. Also look at the steps where you could use some improvement. Identify the exact steps or behaviors that need your particular attention.

4. Use positive deviance: If you have a sales team, the next thing to do is to look for the positive deviants: the salespeople who are markedly more successful than the rest. If you are on your own, look for the times when you’ve been the positive deviant. These are the specific calls, days, or weeks when you’ve been most successful. If possible, have the less successful salespeople observe and listen in on the most successful salespeople, and vice versa. Have the observers use the process-flow charts and the tips to guide their observations. Specifically, note the behaviors that set the positive deviants apart.

One of my favorite examples of this kind of positive deviance research comes from David Marsh and his team with the Save the Children Federation. They were working in refugee camps on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border to reduce infant mortality. They’d mapped the birthing process from one week before the mother’s due date to one week after. Their team included physicians who had plenty of tips at hand. They identified the positive deviants—a few families who had never lost a child during childbirth—and trained families to observe each others’ practices. What did they find? The vital behaviors involved the father’s role. Successful fathers planned ahead for emergencies—they arranged to have a car and driver available—and they were present during the birth so they would know if an emergency was developing. These vital behaviors were quickly adopted across the camps, and as a result, they experienced a dramatic reduction in infant deaths.

5. Set up an ongoing tracking system: At this point, you’ve identified some behaviors that may or may not be vital. You acquired this list by finding researched best practices, examining a process-flow chart, measuring your results, and studying positive deviants. With this initial list in hand, you are ready to test your hypothesis.

Begin trying the two or three behaviors that seem most vital. Put all your efforts into these few behaviors. Set a goal to drive them through the roof. Meanwhile, continue to track your results—both the end and interim results. Don’t lose faith in the behaviors too quickly. Double or triple their use, and give them some time to work. Then analyze their impact, and make adjustments. Remember that the behaviors that are most vital to your success will change over time. For example, you may find that “making more calls” is the vital behavior that gets you the most traction early on. However, once you maximize your number of calls, a different behavior may be required to drive further improvement.

Good luck, and enjoy the process.
David

David Maxfield Influencer

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Joseph Grenny is author of three bestselling books, Influencer, Crucial Conversations, and Crucial Confrontations.

READ MORE

Dear Crucial Skills,

Our company has a review policy called the 70/20/10 rule. This means that 70 percent of my staff must be rated “Meets Expectations,” only 20 percent can be rated “Exceeds Expectations,” and worst of all, 10 percent must be rated “Needs Improvement.”

I find this rating system unmotivating and unfair for many obvious reasons. Specifically, at the present, I don’t have anyone I’d describe as “Needs Improvement.” However, I must come up with two people to fit this category.

At the other end of the spectrum, more than 20 percent are exceeding expectations and deserve commensurate rewards—yet I must arbitrarily leave people out so I don’t exceed the quota.

I raised my concerns over this policy but was told I should always be able to find 10 percent who “Need Improvement.” This seems like a losing battle, but I’d like to encourage the decision-makers to rethink this policy.

Sincerely,
Frustrated Reviewer

 Dear Frustrated,

I find the performance appraisal system you’re describing to be as unjust as you do. However, I believe it was designed to address an even more egregious injustice.

Forced rating systems have been imposed on managers for decades because managers were failing to manage. The heart of good management is the speed and effectiveness with which managers hold crucial conversations. However, they typically put off holding crucial conversations for many months and, even when holding them, tends to gloss over the most fundamental messages.

I believe that forced ranking systems have been imposed on managers primarily because senior leaders believed that, without the compulsion of these systems, managers would continue to shrink from their responsibility to deal candidly, ethically, and professionally with performance problems. Managers are now being governed by unjust systems because so many failed to exercise ethical and leadership responsibilities in addressing performance problems willingly.

Now, with that said, most system responses to behavioral problems are doomed to fail. They produce unintended consequences of the kind you describe. They are brute force solutions to entrenched influence problems. Those familiar with our work on influence know that problems exist because there are six sources of influence that are perfectly aligned to produce the negative results you’re experiencing. To change those results, you must affect four or more of those sources of influence—nothing less will do.

Okay, soapbox aside, here are some thoughts as you decide how to be an ethical manager, a loyal employee, and a decent human being at all once.

1. Keep the spirit of the law. Given that the 70/20/10 system’s intent is good, first make sure you are not fooling yourself about the quality of your team and are stepping up to crucial conversations scrupulously—both in the interest of your organization and in the interest of your team members. You lose the moral authority to claim there is a “better way” than the 70/20/10 system if you aren’t an example of that better way yourself. For example, if you conclude that 40 percent of your team is in serious need of development, you should acknowledge that just as honestly as when you believe 40 percent deserve a rating of “Exceeds Expectations.”

2. Choose only from ethical options. When considering my options in confronting value conflicts in organizations, I distill them down to three. I can quit, stay and accept, or stay and influence. In other words, I could conclude that I would be a hypocrite to stay in an organization whose practices so conflict with my values. If you take this option, I’d suggest you use your exit as an opportunity to exert influence. In a clear and respectful way, detail what you admired in the company and all of the reasons you are reluctant to leave. Add your concern with this system and the inequities it made you participate in. One strong and clear voice like this can be remarkably effective at influencing change. It may not happen overnight, but it can plant seeds of doubt that spur reflection after you leave.

Second, you can stay and accept the circumstances. The only ethical way to do this is to decide to loyally fulfill your duties, even though you personally disagree with the system. If you stay in your current position at this company, carry out the 70/20/10 system as you are bound to do, and avoid badmouthing the system or the leaders who choose to continue with this program.

Third, you could stay and influence. You could, for example, decide that you are remaining only contingent on your success at influencing the system. If you do so, you must do so under the same ethical terms as the previous option. You must carry out the spirit and letter of your management duties. But at the same time, you can make your best effort to influence change. If this is the approach you take, I’d suggest a time limit to your efforts so you don’t become the angry rebel and waste your professional efforts in a lost cause.

If you choose to stay and influence change, here are a couple of options you could consider:

1. Invite study. If you have influence with HR or senior leadership, attempt to invite them to study the effectiveness of the 70/20/10 system rather than simply criticizing it with anecdotes. Honestly share your concerns with some of its effects, but also express openness that further study may convince you it’s the best approach. Encourage HR to declare what “dependent measures” they believe will be positively affected by the employment of the system, then study over time whether or not better results are following. It’s likely you’ll find that the system did produce some worthwhile effects—which will help you make recommendations more useful than just “throw out the bad system.”

2. Teach influence. As I mentioned earlier, the intent of the system is to influence managerial behavior. Our research into the six sources of influence is often a very effective way to help leaders see the limited success of their “single source” influence strategy. Share copies of Influencer: The Power to Change Anything with key leaders and attempt to engage them in reflecting on its application to managerial behavior in your organization.

I applaud your desire to do right by your people and your company and wish you the best as you make this crucial decision.

Warmly,
Joseph

Joseph Grenny Influencer

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

David Maxfield is coauthor of the New York Times bestseller, Influencer.

READ MORE

  Dear Crucial Skills,

My supervisor often gives me leadership responsibility for projects involving multiple departments. However, my position is not viewed as one of authority. As a result, I struggle to get results from others when I ask them to do something. When I present my lack of progress and ask for assistance, I’m told I need to stop blaming others for my lack of results. Since I have been trained to teach Crucial Conversations, my supervisor assumes I should be able to convince others to shift their priorities. Unfortunately, people outside of my department are not able to make my request their No. 1 priority, no matter how many Crucial Conversations skills I employ.

How do I get my supervisor to see that I need her support, without making her think I am blaming others? I am at the end of my rope!

Without Support

 Dear Without,

You are not alone. When I was teaching at Stanford’s Advanced Project Management Program this was the participants’ most frequent concern. You’re given lots of accountability, but no authority, and you’re expected to use your skills and charm to get it all done.

It doesn’t work that way, does it?

Crucial Conversations and Crucial Confrontations focus on dialogue skills—the skills required to reach shared understanding and commitment. These skills would be all you needed if the lack of cooperation you were experiencing was the exception, not the rule. However, it sounds as if it’s the rule, and that tells me you need to change the rules. You need a structural solution—a solution that involves all six sources of influence.

The situation you describe calls for a project-management system, one that people buy into and have the skills to use. Then it requires holding people accountable to the system—not just to your individual projects.

I will walk through the influence model found in our book Influencer to help you solve this problem. The process starts with identifying measurable results you want to achieve; next, you identify a few key behaviors that, if changed, will bring about those results; and finally, you must outline strategies to accomplish your vital behaviors using six different sources of influence.

Measurable Results. Your goal is to ensure project schedules, budgets, and specs are met.

It sounds as if your projects have to compete with employees’ other tasks. That’s to be expected. The problem occurs when your projects never get a high enough priority, or when the priority gets bumped. Instead of focusing on your project, focus on the overall project-planning process. Your goal is to get people to commit to a fair process—one that meets their objectives as well as yours. Then your challenge is to help everyone stick to the process. Become a champion for the process, not just your project. This change will create greater Mutual Purpose.

Vital Behaviors. The vital behaviors you’ll want to focus on are:

1. Prioritizing all of your project’s tasks against people’s competing tasks.
2. Ensuring that people who complete the tasks have input into the project plan and sign up to deliver on realistic schedules, budgets, and specs.
3. Ensuring that when people have reason to believe they could miss a schedule, budget, or spec, they will immediately update the team on the problem.

The Six Sources of Influence. The sources of influence and specific strategies you’ll need to target are:

Source 1 - Personal Motivation: The people you rely on are feeling a lot of pain. Their plates are too full; they feel as if they have five bosses; and they’re constantly being blindsided with new unexpected demands. Instead of turning up the heat regarding your projects, get their buy-in to a more consistent process—one that has realistic priorities and plans.

Source 2 - Personal Ability: You and your colleagues may have to learn basic project-management principles. Look for resources that are already available within your firm. such as a project-management specialist. Once you have a project-management system in place, you’ll find your Crucial Conversations skills will become more powerful.

Sources 3 & 4 - Social Motivation & Ability: The most important social support you need is from your manager and the managers your resource people report to. They need to fully support a more robust project-management system. Ease their concerns that the priority-setting process may take more time and is less flexible by demonstrating how results are delivered far more reliably.

Source 5 - Structural Motivation: I bet the employees you count on are rewarded for achieving results within their own departments, and not for achieving your goals. Goals that require cross-functional teamwork are often shortchanged. Work with your manager and the resource managers to find ways to reward people for executing on their plans and for keeping to the project-planning process you’ve outlined. Even tiny changes to these reward systems will send a powerful message that managers are serious.

Source 6 - Structural Ability: This entire approach relies on implementing a project-management structure. Check to see if you already have one that’s gone dormant. Check to see if your organization has a Project Management Office that can help you re-invigorate your project structure. Here are some basic structural elements I’d want to see: a priority-setting process that involves the right stakeholders; a project planning process that results in realistic schedules, budgets, and specs; project status meetings that keep the projects on track; a measurement system that provides ongoing feedback on how well people are keeping to their project plans.

Report Back to your Manager. Meet with your manager and frame the larger issue. It isn’t just about executing your projects; it’s about executing any and all projects. Bring in whatever facts you can to back up your case. If you don’t have data on missed deadlines, budget overruns, and failures to meet specs, then bring in examples of the problems: for example, people have unclear priorities, priorities that constantly change, objectives that aren’t realistic, and no clear project plans to follow. Explain that solving this larger problem is the best way to solve your specific problem.

Best of luck in influencing your organization,
David

David Maxfield Influencer

VitalSmarts’ most popular junior scientist, Hyrum Grenny, conducts a playful experiment to solve America’s hand-hygiene problem—a problem that leads to infection and avoidable medical errors. In fact, in America’s hospitals, hand washing compliance rates hover between 30 to 50 percent! Watch as Hyrum teaches strategy and principles to change behavior using a group of 80 unsuspecting kids and cupcakes.

Please share this video with your teams, organizations, friends, and family. To spread these powerful principles of influence, consider:

• E-mailing this link to your colleagues: http://www.crucialskills.com/2009/09/all-washed-up/
• Embedding the video on your blogs and Web site with the following code:
  <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/osUwukXSd0k&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0×3a3a3a&color2=0×999999"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/osUwukXSd0k&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0×3a3a3a&color2=0×999999" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Would you like to solve hand hygiene problems in your organization? What about changing other entrenched behaviors that are returning dismal results?
Influencer Training is a step-by-step strategy for solving entrenched problems by changing behavior. Learn how you can bring this award-winning training into your organization today by calling us at 1-800-449-5989 or visiting our Web site.

Or, consider booking a VitalSmarts speaker to discuss principles of influence with your teams and organizations. For speaking information call or visit our Web site.

editor Influencer

VitalSmarts has captured vignettes of some of the most sensitive crucial conversations. Watch as one boss is faced with an awkward performance review, or as a couple tries to talk with their elderly father about his ability to drive. Let us know what you think about our latest round of videos.

For more humorous videos of timely crucial conversations, visit www.vitalsmartscanhelp.com.

editor Crucial Confrontations, Crucial Conversations, Influencer

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Joseph Grenny is author of three bestselling books, Influencer, Crucial Conversations, and Crucial Confrontations.

READ MORE

Dear Crucial Skills,

I read your survey results on long-distance loathing with great interest. I work for a multi-site corporation and approximately two-thirds of our staff are in one city while the rest are dispersed over five smaller sites. Despite significant efforts to bring our teams together, there is still a strong sense of us and them. Can you recommend any strategies to make long-distance working relationships more cohesive?

Teamwork at a Distance

Dear Teamwork,

Yes! There is a great deal you can do to build teamwork among widely dispersed people. A good way to begin organizing your change effort is to think about all the sources of influence that create conflict and alienation in your current environment.

So first you need to ask, “What can I do to increase conflict?”

It turns out you can get almost any two people to resent each other if you do a number of things:

• Give them a separate identity or goals.
• Make it difficult for them to communicate.
• Have them associate with a social group that already resents the others.
• Make it difficult for them to help each other or limit their communication to official channels by imposing a chain of command.
• Reward them for individual achievements or for supporting those in their geography but not the larger team.
• Keep them physically isolated—allow few means for them to communicate and then only in sterile ways (voice only, e-mail, etc.)

Now, if you’ve read our book, Influencer: The Power to Change Anything, you’ll notice I’ve just outlined six unique sources of influence. I’ve also described reality for most dispersed teams. And finally, what I’ve done is describe a set of influences that will make it inevitable that individuals will, at best, tolerate those in other locations and at worst despise them.

Now some readers might think “inevitable” is too strong a word. But take a look at the findings from our recent Long Distance Loathing study:

• Employees are 243 percent more likely to have problems with distant coworkers than co-located coworkers.
• Employees report that these problems are much more difficult to solve and last much longer.
• In order to cope with annoying distant coworkers rather than step up to crucial conversations they resorted to the following tactics when working with these colleagues: avoided their phone calls, stopped reading their e-mails, avoided working with them altogether, witheld information from them, criticized them to others, and challenged their decisions.

So, what can a leader do? Well, if the six sources of influence I already outlined are the reason for the resentment, then distance doesn’t make conflict inevitable. Distance is only one source of influence. You’ve got five other sources you can use to create a cohesive team. However, it will require work. It will require intentional effort. But what human change doesn’t?

Here are a few examples for using multiple sources of influence:

Source 1: Personal Motivation—Make a greater effort than usual to create team identity and purpose. Have a mission, charter, and operating rules. Have a team name. If possible, have periodic face-to-face meetings. Take extra care as new members join the team. Create as much face time as possible so people connect at a human level, not just a task level.

Source 2: Personal Ability—Build much better crucial conversations skills. This isn’t just a self-serving argument—it is an essential skill-set for ensuring people don’t resort to the dysfunctional games we describe above.

Sources 3 & 4: Social Motivation and Ability—bWork to build bonds of friendship and trust. Begin meetings by having one or more people share a personal anecdote. Have the team work together on volunteer tasks, personal betterment tasks, etc. For example, have them raise money for United Way as a team, run races in their communities, or come together to build a Habitat for Humanity home.
Have team members from different locales meet together at client sites or work together on the same client’s projects.

Set the norm that everyone holds everyone accountable—you can’t afford to involve a manager.

Schedule frequent, formal feedback sessions—times when you specifically ask about what’s working and what’s not. When you have a concern, talk it out—don’t act it out.

Source 5: Structural Motivation—Use small prizes or awards—maybe competitions—that provide the occasion for recognition. Distance often removes informal opportunities to say “thanks.” Make sure you frequently let people know you are aware of their contribution and appreciate their work.

Source 6: Structural Ability—Provide daily or weekly progress on key business indicators that track the team’s performance.
Make sure people have visual reminders of their team members—photos that are near their phones or computers.

Create a Web site, Facebook page, or other social networking hub for sharing information. Stay on top of technical barriers—for example, often small changes to the organization’s network will deny access to remote workers.

If possible, have a physical “teaming space” where team members can meet. You may also have shared workspaces where people can set up temporary offices for more intensive face-to-face interactions.

Ask team members to define their core work hours—to build in some predictability as they attempt to contact each other.

Bottom line: If you systematically and intentionally counter the sources of influence that create conflict, you’ll inevitably see cooperation. Conflict is not the natural human condition. We are social creatures at the level of our DNA. All that’s needed is wise leadership to bring out the best and truest parts of our nature!

Good luck,
Joseph

Joseph Grenny Influencer