10.1 THE TALE OF SANDRA CONTINUES…

“That ‘Y’ Conversations Model will be really useful in my next conversation with Daniel,” said Sandra as she sat down with the Coach at the cafe just around the corner from her work. “I’ve always thought that I need to keep the conversation very level regardless of Daniel’s response and the Y model gives me a very clear rationale for shifting my tone, something that I’ve felt a bit guilty for in the past, but I know now that I was quite possibly responding appropriately when I didn’t realise!”

“DANIEL’S SO PRACTISED WITH HIS RESPONSES THAT HE ALWAYS HAS THE UPPER HAND IN THESE CONVERSATIONS…”

“I must admit though”, Sandra continued, “that Daniel seems so practised with his responses that he always seems to have the upper hand in these conversations, and although you’ve been very clear in explaining the tone of these conversations with the Warm Heart to Hard-Nosed model, and the specific tone in a conversation with the Y model, I still feel a little bit lost in terms of the actual route that I need to take in beginning the conversation with him through to its conclusion. He so easily derails the logical sequence of these conversations and so it would be really helpful for me if I had some clear signposts to follow so that regardless of the detours that we take along the way I’ll be able to pull it back to make sure that it’s on track”.

“I think you need a biscuit!” said the Coach.

“I’m fine thanks” replied Sandra, “I’ve not long eaten”.

“Actually, I wasn’t offering you something to eat,” the Coach said with a slight sense of amusement. “It’s actually the ‘BISCuit Model’. This model offers a clear four-point roadmap to navigating these conversations from start to finish. I think you’ll find it a lot more palatable for your situation than a sweet piece of baking…!!”

10.2 A STRUCTURED FRAMEWORK

THE BISC MODEL©

My BISCuit Model is a framework to help give people a clear route when approaching Courageous Conversations, and acts like a roadmap along a difficult stretch of highway where it would be very easy to slip off the edge and careen down the bank. The BISCuit Model encourages people to plan for these kinds of conversations using the acronym BISC (the first four letters of the word biscuit). BISC stands for: Behaviour, Impact, Shift, and only if necessary, potential Consequences.

THE RECIPIENT MAY BE COMPLETELY UNAWARE THAT THEIR BEHAVIOUR IS UNDESIRABLE

Behaviour

In the kinds of conversations where we are bringing up an issue with someone else and we need to influence them to act or perform in a more desirable fashion than they currently are, it is important to clearly spell out the behaviour that is inappropriate or is failing to meet our expectations. For some people this opening part of the conversation will come as a surprise—they may be completely unaware that their behaviour is undesirable. In this case you may need to re-examine, if appropriate, how clearly you articulated your expectations of them in the first place. It is best to think this through prior to the conversation happening, but you should at least be prepared to consider it during the interaction.

If the person is genuinely surprised, and even somewhat disappointed that they have failed to meet expectations, then there is every chance that they are unclear of those expectations in the first place. In cases such as these, some consideration needs to be given to your role in the unmet expectations.

WHEN YOU ARE ADDRESSING AN UNSUITABLE ATTITUDE, GIVE EXAMPLES OF ASSOCIATED BEHAVIOUR

When the Courageous Conversation centres around an undesirable attitude more than an undesirable behaviour, we need to keep the nebulous nature of attitude in mind. Attitude is intangible and unseen whereas behaviour is much more visible and invariably is the tangible outworking of attitude. So, when you are addressing someone about an undesirable attitude it is prudent for you to give concrete examples of how that attitude manifests itself as a behaviour. Give them examples of the behaviours that need to cease or diminish, and on the other hand, give examples of the kind of behaviours that need to be seen more. For instance, if you are dealing with a staff member who has a negative attitude then talk to them about the kind of behaviours they are displaying that are evidence of this attitude, such as; scoffing at new ideas in meetings or making random comments to upset the momentum of constructive conversations.

It is much harder to identify and see attitude change than it is to target tangible behavioural change. It is also clearer for both parties to see progress being made with behaviour shift as compared to attitude shift. The clearer we can define the change that needs to happen behaviourally, the more likely it is to be changed.

Impact

Often people who are behaving poorly fail to see the broader impacts of their actions. If they are already aware that their behaviour is less than adequate, then they may not be so easily influenced to change simply by being told of the offending behaviour. If they haven’t changed when they already have an awareness and clarity about their poor behaviour, then you need to take a step up from simple awareness of the issue in resolving it with them.

In this case, it may be helpful for them to understand the negative impacts that their behaviour is having. If they do not respond positively and in an engaged fashion when the behaviour is challenged, then they may be unaware of the wider implications of their behaviour with relevant stakeholders. A dialogue around the broader impact of their negative behaviour can be enlightening and helpful to their process of taking influence from you regarding altering their conduct.

Some people describe this process as giving people a ‘reason big enough’ to motivate change. Detrimental impacts in a workplace setting that people may be unaware of include: the effect the behaviour is having on other team members, on other colleagues and peers, on clients and customers, on suppliers and other stakeholders, on the broader company and its reputation, and also on the person’s own reputation. It may also be appropriate to talk about the negative impact that the person’s behaviour is having on you as their leader.

IF INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOUR CONTINUES UNCHECKED, IT SENDS A MESSAGE THAT THE BEHAVIOUR IS ACCEPTABLE

If undesirable behaviour is left to continue unchecked, it sends an inadvertent message to the rest of the team that the behaviour is acceptable and therefore lowers the standards of the team. Therefore, it is necessary for everyone’s sake that undesirable behaviour and its impacts are addressed as early as possible in these kinds of conversations.

I worked with one site manager who supervised forestry workers. When he reached a point of impasse with a resistant staff member, he would say to them; “We are not getting anywhere with this, so we will meet again tomorrow morning first thing. In the meantime, go to your locker, grab your gear, go home now, and when your partner asks you why you are home so early you can explain to them why you are risking your future with this company.” That strategy almost always returned positive results, often with people immediately turning their attitude around on the spot!

When we think through the broader impact of our behaviour on others (including our family), it can be revelatory!

Shift

Having talked about the behaviour that is inappropriate and having covered sufficient elements of the impact of this behaviour, it then becomes necessary to talk about the shift required. As important as the clarity of expectations is in the process of initially setting the bar for attitude and behaviour, the same level of clarity is required in terms of the shift that is needed to resolve unacceptable behaviour or performance.

It is the task of the person wanting to influence the behaviour to make sure that the offending party understands the required shift. It is not enough for problematic behaviour to be addressed; it also needs to change. What needs to be eliminated? What needs to be added? What needs adjustment? It is necessary for both parties to be very clear on the nature of the change required, and on how both will know when that change has occurred. If expectations were lacking in the first instance, then it needs to be communicated that these are crystal clear going forward. You don’t want to have to go around that mountain again!

If you are dealing with a staff member, it will probably help to write the expectations down and date and sign them together if there is any concern of lack of compliance going forward. Some businesses call this a ‘Letter of Expectation’ that occurs prior to the instigation of a disciplinary or performance management process.

Several decades ago, while still at school I found myself with some degree of regularity in the headmaster’s office for disciplinary action. This would most likely mean five to ten minutes where the headmaster talked ‘at’ me, and then in conclusion, would ask me some kind of closed question like; “So are we clear?” or, “Do you understand?” Presumably this was to ascertain whether I understood the error of my ways and what the desired rehabilitated behaviour was to be. I often use this in communication training as an example of a poor question choice to establish whether the person has understood the main substance of the conversation, because it does little to clarify that understanding has actually occurred and that we are ‘on the same page’.

BEWARE - THE PERSON WHO DOES THE MAJORITY OF THE TALKING ALSO DOES THE MAJORITY OF THE WORK!

In courageous, performance-based conversations it pays to remember that the person who does the majority of the talking also does the majority of the work. When my headmaster spent most of his time speaking ‘at’ me, I was doing very little thinking about my actual behaviour and the impact that it had on others. In fact, if he was able to see what I was thinking about at the time he would have most likely seen images of a football field or West Coast waves. I was present in body only! The headmaster would have achieved a much more effective result if he had asked me, “So what do you think you need to change?”, and not been satisfied with, “I dunno”, which would have been my immediate response; not because I didn’t know, or couldn’t generate an answer, but because I could be confident that that kind of answer would get him talking again, and I could go back to ‘zoning out’.

In terms of having a genuine influence in these kinds of conversations where the recipient is resistant to change, it is a simple but effective strategy to have them talk more, and you less. This is much more likely to happen with persistent questioning, and especially using the open-ended question starters of “what, how, and why?” By having them feed back to you about their behaviour, their reasons, and rationales for such behaviour, what they know or consider to be the impact on others, and what they believe is the desired shift required, you engage them in the process.

Consequences

The first three stages of the BISC Model—explaining the undesirable behaviour, the wider impact of the behaviour, and the need to shift that behaviour—may be sufficient in terms of getting a positive outcome. If, however, at this point in the process there is still no clear sense of buy-in from the other party, then you will need to be prepared to discuss the potential consequences of the failure to demonstrate the required shift. What will happen if they don’t comply? In what time frame? With what warnings? This is the stick rather than the carrot in terms of getting the donkey to move forward.

OPEN-ENDED QUESTION STARTERS - WHAT, HOW, AND WHY - WILL HELP THE RECIPIENT TO ENGAGE IN THE PROCESS

If the person with the undesirable behaviour is unable to shift simply by being made aware of the untenable situation and its impacts on other people or other factors, then it may be necessary to use the extrinsic motivation of potential negative consequences in the event of failure to deliver. Once again, it is most profitable to have the recipient do a lot of the talking, even in this ‘potential consequences’ stage. The key to getting people talking is asking them questions.

I’ve had people in these kinds of conversations still resistant after working through the first three stages, so I’ll ask them; “What do you think will happen if the desired shift doesn’t happen?” Often, they answer, “I guess we’ll have another chat then.” However, I don’t want to simply have another chat—and another one after that with no change, so I ask them to have another think about what the consequences might be if they fail to shift because we’re having the chat now! At this point they may jump straight to the conclusion of, “I might get sacked!” That’s come from their own mouth, and though in most cases it is a little extreme, it is important for the unwilling recipient to think about the ‘what if’s’ in the event of things not changing.

As I mentioned earlier, my headmaster had little influence on my behaviour as a result of our ‘chats’ (the cane was somewhat more persuasive). When the principal would say to me, “So do you understand?” do you think my response was, “I thought you started out well. I think that your emotions probably got the better of you somewhat in the middle, and then quite frankly I think you could have done a better job in summarizing what you’d talked about because you did lose me towards the end”? I might have wanted to say that but obviously I never did. My response was always a simple, “Yes sir”, not because I had understood, or even cared to understand, but because I was suffering from the disease of

“Getoutoftheprincipalsofficeitis”!

A simple response seemed to work—no doubt because the principal was just as keen to see the back of me as I was of him. But each time he let me leave his office without making me really think about my inappropriate behaviour, and process its impacts, or the desired shift in my behaviour that he required, he missed an opportunity to influence my behaviour. It would not have been too difficult to read my body language and see that I was not ‘on board’. Had he made me genuinely think about the potential consequences of my continued poor behaviour he might have caused me to wake up to the dangerous track I was heading down.

The BISCuit model aims to give leaders a road map for structuring Courageous Conversations. This is vital because so often in these circumstances the recipients have developed life-long strategies for deflecting and derailing such conversations. As the old military adage goes “To be forewarned is to be forearmed.” The better prepared we are for these conversations, the greater the likelihood of success for all parties concerned. So be prepared to:

-          clarify behaviour,

-          elaborate on the impact of behaviour,

-          outline the shift required, and

-          determine the potential consequences if the desired shift doesn’t happen.

The aim is to make shift happen!

BELOW THE LINE RECIPIENTS HAVE DEVELOPED LIFE-LONG STRATEGIES FOR DEFLECTING DIFFICULT CONVERSATIONS

The following chapter deals with the final model of “Predictable Outcomes” and aims to give you that last little boost of confidence to have these conversations in the light of every outcome being viewed as beneficial.

10.3 A STRUCTURED FRAMEWORK

CASE STUDY

Several years ago, I had a young leader on training who had a particularly resistant team member. This team member was very averse to change both in his private life and in his work life. This long-existing characteristic showed up in examples such as bringing the exact same lunch to work every single day of the year, even if the company was putting on a special BBQ that day. Although the team leader struggled with getting the team member to embrace change, the more significant issue was his attitude. He was negative about absolutely everything and in the team leader’s own words, everyone walked on eggshells around this person.

HE WAS NEGATIVE ABOUT EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE WALKED ON EGGSHELLS AROUND HIM

During the training course, I encouraged the team leader to step up and address the team member’s attitude—to have a Courageous Conversation. He was incredibly reluctant to do so because he was new in the position of leadership. Previous management had also been unwilling to address the resistant team member—he seemed like an impossible project. One of my simple philosophies in training and in life is; “The greater the challenge, the greater the reward.” I knew that this was an opportunity for the team leader to experience growth both in his capability and in his confidence.

The goal for me in these situations where the person in leadership is new to the practice of Courageous Conversations, and lacks confidence, is simply that they have the conversation irrespective of the outcome. That’s a much simpler goal to achieve than seeing a positive conclusion come about as a result of tackling the issue head on. All I wanted this team leader to do was to actually have the conversation, something which he had been reluctant to do up to this point. It was about getting ‘on the field and playing’ rather than ‘winning’, and when it comes to confidence and ability, there is no substitute for quantity—the more of these conversations you attempt, the more your confidence (and competence) increases.

“TO BE FOREWARNED IS TO BE FOREARMED” SO WE ROLE-PLAYED THE SITUATION TO GIVE THE TEAM LEADER CONFIDENCE

As the military adage says, “To be forewarned is to be forearmed” so we did several role-plays with the team leader using the BISC model as the framework:

·         Behaviour- being clear on the team member’s inappropriate behaviour and attitude, with clear, written evidence

·         Impact- it was really important for the team leader to be clear on the impact that this team member’s behaviour and attitude was having on other stakeholders; his own team, other contracts, clients, and the reputation of the business

·         Shift in Behaviour- the team leader needed to not only be clear in his mind in terms of the shift required, but needed to come away from the conversation being 100% confident that the team member was aware of, and understood the change that was required

·         Consequences- seldom is it necessary for “consequences of failure to shift” to be discussed—most people have a reasonable attitude towards feedback, and are prepared to go some way to making necessary change. This forth part is reserved for people who do not demonstrate a clear commitment to address the issues raised. If the “Impact” part of the conversation does not help them to accept the need to change, then the consequences are the final tool that may provide the necessary leverage to see acceptance to do things differently. Given the team member’s stubbornness and extreme unwillingness to change, it was necessary to prepare for this aspect of the conversation also.

SELDOM IS IT NECESSARY FOR “CONSEQUENCES” TO BE DISCUSSED - THIS REFLECTS AN UNWILLINGNESS TO CHANGE

We worked on ways to respond to possible deflections and defensiveness that might be part of the conversation. I’m sure that the team leader would have said that these made him feel more nervous rather than more confident, but I’m aware from years of experience that practising and discussing the scenario in advance means that people may not feel any better, but they will be better equipped when it comes to actually having the conversation. When you ask others to help you prepare for a Courageous Conversation you also get the added bonus of sensing other’s support as you step out to have the conversation. Knowing others are standing with you can make a big difference to your own sense of confidence. They can also help you fine tune your own demeanour and language to ensure you present in an appropriate manner.

In less than a week I received a phone call from the team leader saying that he had had the conversation, and it had gone far better than he could have imagined. As is so often the case with new leaders, their fear is greater than the reality of the situation. He called his team member in to address several issues which were going to mean major changes for the team member, including the fact that he would no longer get picked up for work every morning. On top of that he would have to change the vehicle that he had used every day for work for the previous ten years—something he was hugely opposed to. Finally, the team leader addressed his attitude because the rest of the team worked in constant fear of upsetting him. The team member was clearly angered by the conversation to the point that, once all the issues were out on the table, he got up and walked out.

I WAS THRILLED FOR THE TEAM LEADER BUT NOT SURPRISED HAVING SEEN SIMILAR SCENARIOS OVER THE YEARS

An hour or so later he came back into the team leader’s office and thanked him for having the courage to address these issues.  He even went on to say that he was tired of being angry and how much it was detrimentally impacting his own family, as well as his work life. It was a response that the team leader never dreamed of receiving from someone who was so resistant. It was also a huge learning curve for the team leader because he had thought that this team member was incapable of change.

 I was thrilled for the team leader but I was not overly surprised having seen similar scenarios play out in the same way over the years. When we got back together as a group the other participants were extremely complimentary of the team leader and of the outcome of the conversation. The key achievement for this leader though was not his skill in conversing in a way that allowed him to influence the staff member’s life, fantastic as that was, but his greatest achievement was in mustering the courage to have the conversation in the first place.