When to use a Close the Gap pattern

When to use a Close the Gap pattern

by | - Finance, - Patterns, - Project Management, - Technology, 2 - Develop your storyline

Today’s thought emerges from the group coaching session we held just before Christmas.

The key takeaway for those present related to the difference between the technically ‘right’ answer and the one that addressed the people issues that needed to be addressed.

Playing with patterns enabled us to tease out the real issue that involved more senior leaders taking on responsibility for a non-financial loss.  Here’s how it played out.

  1. At first, the story seemed superficially simple, but it included a twist
  2. Playing with patterns enabled us to tease out the real issue and identify the best story
  3. Merging two patterns together was the best way to address both the practical and political issues


1 – The story was superficially simple, but included a twist

We were preparing a request for Brooke who needed to gain agreement from stakeholders about who would absorb the hit to their P&L if a particular change was implemented.

The plot twist here was that implementing the change was in line with the objectives of the broader streamlining initiative, but Brooke didn’t want her team to ‘take the hit’.

2 – Playing with patterns enabled us to tease out the real issue

So, we played with some storyline versions and ended up comparing two after discounting Houston: Close the Gap and another story which merged Opportunity Knocks and Watch out.

Houston didn’t work because the statement was actually known to the audience. It looked a bit like this

  • Fraud will occur when there is an opportunity to transfer funds outside the bank [known, not news so doesn’t belong below the so what]
  • However, there is good commercial reason for transferring funds outside the bank
  • Therefore, consider enabling the capability of allowing OFI transfers within term deposit widget

Close the Gap was promising and looked a bit like this

  • Successfully streamlining customer experience requires us to enable customers to transfer early maturity funds outside the bank [list of reasons aligned with the criteria including allow maximum use of digital channels]
  • However, we currently don’t allow them to transfer early maturity funds outside the bank through the online portal
  • Therefore, allow them to do those transfers online

The merged Opportunity Knocks and Watch Out was even more promising and looked a bit like this

  • There is an opportunity to improve customer experience by enabling customers to transfer early maturity term deposit funds outside the bank in line with brand Z  [the statement from the ‘Opportunity Knocks’ pattern]
  • However, enabling this new digital feature will expose the bank to greater non-lending losses [the comment from the ‘Watch Out’ pattern]
  • Therefore, decide whether to accept greater non-lending losses [the recommendation that naturally follows from the statement and comment]


3 – Merging two patterns together balanced the personal and political issues best

Once we could see all of the potential patterns laid out in front of us, it was pretty easy to decide which way to go.

The merged story targeted the real reason why Brooke was raising the issue. It went further than just saying ‘we should do this because it will support customers better’.

It focused on getting agreement for who will take on the risk that needed to be accepted to allow customers to transfer funds outside the bank through the digital portal.

The leaders were of course then free to decide whether they supported this new capability being included in the program or not.

You can watch the session recording below.

I hope that helps. More next week.

Kind regards,
Davina

RELATED POSTS

How to get a yes for out of cycle funding requests

How to get a yes for out of cycle funding requests

by | - Business Case, - Finance, - Project Management, - Stakeholder Management

A client of mine once told us about her experience putting storylining into practice, and I thought you might find her experience useful.

The most important thing to note is not so much the techniques for getting funding – which might or might not interest you – but the way she thought about her communication strategy to engage the different stakeholders.

Read on to learn how she did it …

Getting out-of-cycle funding for new projects can be difficult, particularly if they won’t immediately add to your bottom line.

Elizabeth, a project manager with a large Australian finance house, recently proved how fully understanding each of your gatekeeper’s concerns and pitching them individually at their point of interest (not yours) increases your chances of getting the funding you need.

Upon receiving a ‘request’ from the industry regulator to improve the way her business was reporting on some of its activities, Elizabeth’s first reaction was to approach the finance team for the $10 million she needed to complete the work.

However, she realised that finance may well say ‘no’ as her division had a heavy balance sheet and a habit of running a budget surplus.

To solve this, she used three storylines to negotiate her way through a tailored, four-step communication strategy to manage the different stakeholder agendas.

Here are the steps she took:

Step 1: Mapped out the stories for her key stakeholders

First, Elizabeth worked with a colleague to map out the general architecture for the stories she needed to take to the leadership team and to Finance.

Step 2: Prepared a story about her communication strategy for her boss

Once these were bedded down – hand written on one A4 page – she prepared a story for her manager to gain his approval of both her strategy and the general content of her presentations to both audiences. The stories and a copy of her paper to the leadership team are available for download below.

It was a short meeting: In 10 minutes he agreed with her strategies and her presentation storylines and also to support her approach among the other leaders.

Step 3: Gained leadership team agreement

Once this was agreed, she arranged a slot in the next leadership team meeting to discuss the budget prioritisation that was needed. This meeting was predictably difficult with team leaders not wanting to give up their budgets, however with quite some negotiation she extracted $2 million seed funding for the project.

She then tweaked the Finance storyline to add in the details stemming from the leadership team meeting.

Step 4: Gained Finance team agreement

Finance was predictably reluctant to part with such a large sum and agreed to allow her to start the projects by running them in deficit, effectively over riding the leadership team’s protection of their budget numbers.

So there you go. That's how she did it.
You can download her storylines as a PDF or PPTX below.

I hope that helps. More next week.

Kind regards,
Davina
Download PDF
Download PPTX

RELATED POSTS

Iterating from Good to Great

Iterating from Good to Great

by | - Deductive storylines, - Exercises, Marketing, Recommendations

In this morning’s working session, we took a deductive storyline from being ‘good’ to being ‘great’.

I thought you might be interested in the journey so have pulled out the insights and offered the recording here for your use. As Brooke mentioned, it’s much easier to rework someone else’s story!

We elevated the quality of both the structure and the reasoning by iterating through a couple of versions. Here are the highlights of the changes we made.

The original version was a flow that made sense but was light on reasoning which is core to a powerful deductive structure. Here are the weak points. The original

  • Was light on reasoning. The story highlighted the problems and aligned the solution with the problems rather than justifying why this was the right way to fix those problems.
  • Was not truly deductive. The story flowed from one thing to the next rather than starting with a broad statement, commenting on that statement and then leading to a powerful recommendation.
  • Contained assumptions. The assumption was that fixing the internal problems would be sufficient to regain the company’s leadership position in the market. While that may be a good place to start, that’s rarely enough to succeed in a competitive environment. If it is, however, then that’s good news and worth a mention!

The new version followed a tightly linked structure that was stronger at all levels. The new version

  • • Elevated the thinking in the statement. We tied together the two potential causes of the problem rather than splitting them across the two limbs of the story.
    • Strengthened out the quality of the thinking in the comment. We felt the original version did not really explain why focusing on the marketing strategy was the right thing to do. While we had to ‘make up’ the data, we could imagine the sorts of information that would be needed and used placeholders for that.
    • Put the actions in context. Instead of saying ‘fix these three things’ in the recommendation, we outlined a phased approach.

So, here’s a challenge for you:

  • Download the original (visualised below) and ‘have a go’ at fixing it. Give yourself 20-30 minutes to do so.

 

 

  • Check out the solution below – reviewing the video if you have a chance
  • There is one more thing wrong with the original version. See if you can find it. Email me if you do.

 

I hope that helps. More next week.

Kind regards,
Davina

Download Exercise
Download Solution

RELATED POSTS

Can pushback be good?

Can pushback be good?

by | - Stakeholder Management

Earlier this week I received some fabulous pushback on a project I am working on. I had got to a place where I thought it was pretty good – and ready go to production.

I had received some very positive feedback from a number of stakeholders so had confidence.

Then one key stakeholder landed a real punch.

He called out a number of issues that I had missed and the others would not have known to look for.

I was deflated. Frustrated too because he (of course!) called out problems not solutions.

But I got over myself and spent a day of hard thinking on it and addressed his concerns.

Guess what?

I LOVE where it is going now. A massive step up for two important areas of the work that feed into others.

It is more insightful
It is more cohesive
It is more useful

So … Do you open yourself to challenge? Do you go there by offering it to others?

Go on. Be brave. It's the right kind of hard.

Here are four specific thoughts on how to receive input from others:

  1. Ask for advice, not feedback. I know I cringe when someone says they have feedback for me. I have to check myself to remember this is a good thing. Somehow advice is easier to accept.  
  2. Ask permission before offering ideas or suggestions. Again, this is about tone and avoiding getting your colleague offside before engaging in tricky conversations.
  3. Always seek peer reviews of your one-page storylines before preparing important documents. I cannot tell you how often someone else has seen things I plain missed.
  4. Try ‘how about this' language. Instead of launching in to explain an error, try and step past that to say ‘what if we did it this way?' or ‘how about we do that'? In showing a potential solution your colleague will see their mistake without having to be told.


I hope that helps. More next week.

Kind regards,
Davina


PS – In the spirit of bravery, I am now working on ANOTHER new project and would love your thoughts.

If you write board papers, would you be happy to fill in this tiny survey? I so appreciate your help. Click here.

RELATED POSTS

Who to invite to collaborate on storylines?

Who to invite to collaborate on storylines?

by | 1 - Design your strategy, 2 - Develop your storyline

It can be hard to know who to ask to help you clarify your messaging. How do you get the right balance of input without overburdening the team?

Do you work solo, include your immediate team or include others?

Here are four criteria to consider next time you are preparing an important piece of communication.

  1. Expertise – are they familiar with problem or have a usefully different perspective? Consider including your most ardent objector early in the process so you hear different perspectives.
  2. Evaluative ability – do they think deeply about things, are they a smart thinker?
  3. Effort – will they make the effort?
  4. Elevation – do they have sufficient visibility of the strategic environment to help link your story to the broader business objectives?


I find that consciously considering who I involve early in the thinking process gets me a far better outcome.

I hope that helps. More next week.

Kind regards,
Davina

 

RELATED POSTS

How to keep track of storyline structures inside lengthy docs

How to keep track of storyline structures inside lengthy docs

by | 2 - Develop your storyline

Do you lose yourself inside the hierarchy of your thinking when preparing long papers in MS Word?

I happened upon some terrific features of MS Word that have helped me enormously over the past weeks as I draft my two new books.

I shared these features in a recent conversation with one of our members and have included the recording below.

In short, if you haven't used styles combined with the outline and contents page features you are missing out!

I hope that helps. More next week.

Kind regards,
Davina

PS If you would like to review the book draft let me know.

The leaders book, which I am calling Elevate is ready for review and the individual practitioner draft will be ready in the coming weeks. Engage will replace The So What Strategy.

 

 

RELATED POSTS

Why too much background is a problem

Why too much background is a problem

by | - Board communication, - Introductions (CTQ), 2 - Develop your storyline

A Board Director recently described his problem with Board papers to a colleague of mine.

He said: “He disliked feeling as though he was conducting an Easter Egg hunt when reading Board Papers.

“He would much prefer spending his energy evaluating the ideas in the paper than trying to find them.”

One of the main reasons this happens is that background sections are too long. Many paper-writers often feel the need to deliver lots of history, definitions and detail at the start of the paper.

The idea is that doing this helps the audience understand what the paper is about so they can understand the punch line.

Unfortunately, it has the reverse effect, switching most audiences off.

This is one of the key reasons why I encourage you to keep your context and trigger short, to no more than 15 percent of the length of the whole paper. Here are some thoughts to help you achieve that.

  1. Include definitions in an appendix. You can refer to it the first time you mention a technical term that you think some readers may not be familiar with. If it is a completely foreign idea to all, then define it at the point of reference, perhaps as a footnote.
  2. Only include familiar ideas in the context and trigger. By this I mean, only include things that you can reasonably expect your audience not to be surprised by. Save new and surprising items until the so what or later.
  3. Use the context to introduce the topic in a timely and tight way. You might, for example, think back to the last time you discussed the relevant topic with your audience and remind them of that.
  4. Weave history and detail into the story itself. This way you present ideas as they are relevant to the audience rather than out of context.

I hope that helps. More next week.

Davina

 

 

 

RELATED POSTS

How to pitch for more team members

How to pitch for more team members

by | - Patterns

A number of my Australian clients are currently thinking through their workforce planning activities for next financial year, which begins on 1 July. This has been particularly important in environments with hiring caps, which feeds talent competition between teams.

Some useful insights emerged from this week’s conversation with a finance team that I wanted to share with you.

A combined Houston-To B or Not To B pattern can build a burning platform around the workforce shortage and your recommended solution. Let me explain how we structured the supporting points and then share an example:

  1. The Houston statement allows you to explain why you do not have sufficient staff to meet current and future demand.
  2. The To B or Not To B comment allows you put forward your recommendation. The supporting points address, and likely rebut, other solutions to the capacity problem that your leadership are likely to raise.
  3. The recommendation flows naturally from the two, enabling you to explain how you will continue to do what you can to improve efficiency, while also seeking the new hires.

I have outlined it further in the diagram below (also available for download) which you may find useful for future reference. 

I hope that helps. More next week.

Kind regards,
Davina

 

PS – I am hosting a Thinking Skills workshop this coming week. It's a great, light-touch way to introduce storylining to your colleagues. Here's the link to learn more.

Download PPTX

RELATED POSTS

What if you don’t have a recommendation or action to share?

What if you don’t have a recommendation or action to share?

by | - Articulate your Answer (So What), - Grouping storylines, 2 - Develop your storyline, Options

Have you wondered how to use a storyline when you don't have a recommendation or an action to share?

One of my clients asked me this terrific question during a workshop last week, and I thought it worth unpacking for you also.

The easiest way to think about this is to view the ‘so what' as a point of view rather than always being a recommendation or an action. You could do that two ways, which I have unpacked below.

Sharing your findings to stimulate a discussion

Context – We have been analysing a supermarket full of breakfast options to decide which one suits us best.

Trigger – We are now ready to share our findings.

Question – What did you find?

So What – All available options have sufficient merit, making it difficult to choose one over another.

Sub question – why is that true?

Nutrigrain cereal offers a higher carb, low protein option that includes plenty of nutrients

  • includes lots of vitamins and minerals
  • offers plenty of fibre
  • is low in fat
  • includes a moderate amount of sugar

Porridge is lower carb but not as tasty or high in protein
  • includes lots of vitamins and minerals
  • offers plenty of fibre
  • is low in fat and can lower cholesterol
  • is low in sugar


Omelettes are high in protein but potentially high in fat

  • includes lots of vitamins and minerals, especially if vegetables are included
  • offers plenty of fibre when vegetables are included
  • is higher in fat and cholesterol than the others
  • has virtually no sugar



Explicitly asking for help to decide which is best

The difference between this option and the previous one lies in the trigger and the so what. The rest of the story remains almost the same. I have adjusted the tense slightly to reflect the difference in the sub question that ‘falls out' of the so what, but kept the supporting points the same.

Context – We have been analysing a supermarket full of breakfast options so we can decide which one suits us best.

Trigger – We need your help to decide which one is best.

Question – How can I help?

So what – Please help us weigh up these equally suitable breakfast options so we can decide which one to choose.

Sub question – what options?

Nutrigrain cereal, which offers a higher carb, low protein option that includes plenty of nutrients

  • includes lots of vitamins and minerals
  • offers plenty of fibre
  • is low in fat
  • includes a moderate amount of sugar


Porridge, which is lower carb but not as tasty or high in protein

  • includes lots of vitamins and minerals
  • offers plenty of fibre
  • is low in fat and can lower cholesterol
  • is low in sugar


Omelettes, which are high in protein but potentially high in fat

  • includes lots of vitamins and minerals, especially if vegetables are included
  • offers plenty of fibre when vegetables are included
  • is higher in fat and cholesterol than the others
  • has virtually no sugar


You would then follow on to outline your reasoning about each of the options to support a healthy discussion around your analysis.

Please note that we have not provided a list of pros and cons. We have listed how each breakfast option stacks up against key criteria.

I hope that helps. More next week.

Kind regards,
Davina

PS – Do check out the podcast series inside the portal. We have now uploaded all that we have recorded so you have early access. I think you will enjoy the discussions.

 

RELATED POSTS

Optimising your ‘end of year’ review for maximum impact

Optimising your ‘end of year’ review for maximum impact

by | - Board communication, - Updates

Late November is the time when many of us are reflecting on our progress for the year and updating our stakeholders.

This can be fraught, particularly in an increasingly cost-constrained environment. Many recent working session stories have had a cost theme, as have many of the stories I have been working on with my corporate clients.

In that light I wanted to share one critical idea to focus on when preparing your next progress report.

Prioritising impact over activity is ever more important in these increasingly cost-constrained times. Let me explain what I mean.

Saying ‘we have been busy' is rarely enough. Providing a list of things you and your team have completed over the past period is the easy way out and only marginally useful. Even when the list is well-grouped, it is rarely insightful. It can also be overwhelming and just says ‘we have been busy'.

I once worked with the head of projects at a global car company and she asked me why her CFO never responded to the weekly update email he requested.

When I reviewed it I could see why.

She had listed literally 100 project tasks that had been worked on, categorised by area, without offering any insight as to how these linked to the overall objectives.

Saying ‘we are on track' is better. Our Traffic Light pattern helps you tell a straightforward good news story. You can say ‘all is well' and then back that up using a classic time-ordered structure. It works from past to present and then future by beginning with what has been done, moving on to what is currently in train and then what is planned.

This at least offers stakeholders comfort to know that they have nothing to worry about. This can be sufficient, but is not always so, especially in times of heightened attention to costs.

Saying ‘we have delivered X value' is better still. You can tweak Traffic Light a few ways to achieve this.

  1. Order by project area. Instead of ordering the ideas by time, you could outline how much you have achieved in each project area. The difference here is that you would say, ‘we delivered xyz results' rather than ‘we completed abc activities'
  2. Order by impact. Another way to structure the supporting points is to explain where you have delivered the greatest impact first, then move to moderate then to the least.


Explaining how your team could deliver more impact is best. This requires you to take a step back and look for opportunities to optimise your ways of working within your area as well stepping outside that area to focus on your purpose.

If you reflect on the reason why your program of work exists and ask whether your priorities and activity are still the best way to achieve that goal, you may find some gems. Here are some questions you might ask:

  1. Are the boundaries or constraints that we believed to be in place at the start of this program still relevant?
  2. Has anything changed outside our area that would render some of our work either more or less useful, and so deserve to be reprioritised?
  3. Could we work in parallel rather than in sequence to deliver more quickly?
  4. Are we gold plating for the sake of technical perfection rather than value?
  5. Do we have capacity to support another critical area of the business? (Dangerous, I know … but potentially value adding all the same!)


I offer these as thought starters rather than a complete list of questions. If you have seen others in play that are not here, let me know and I can share them in next week's email.

I hope that helps. More next week.

Kind regards,
Davina

PS We have now uploaded two new podcasts into the portal that are not yet available anywhere else. Check them out … I think you’ll enjoy them. 

RELATED POSTS

Political Trade-offs

Political Trade-offs

by | - Articulate your Answer (So What), - Grouping storylines, - Project Management, - Stakeholder Management

 

Have you been in a position where you must implement a solution that you disagree with?

This is the situation Anya found herself in recently, which set up a great discussion around trade-offs, politics and what to do when your CEO is one of your objectors.

In tonight’s working session we helped Anya craft a story that has some useful lessons.

In sum, respectfully documenting disagreement can place responsibility where it belongs while also providing one last chance to reverse the decision.

  1. Disagreement can be respectful
  2. Feeling pushed into a taking a poor decision may signal that you are taking on someone else’s responsibility
  3. Communicating your disagreement can put that responsibility back on the decision makers

Disagreement can be respectful

We played around for quite a while to work out how to present this story so that it both gave the leaders what they were insisting upon while explaining the costs of this approach.

We decided to

  • Avoid going in ‘all guns blazing’ and recommending the Clarity solution given it would get the general manager, executive director and CEO offside.
  • Stick with the leaders’ preferred recommendation but help educate them about some areas where they were ill informed. For example, they were conflating ‘on prem Clarity’ and ‘Cloud Clarity’. Their high-cost experiences were based on the on prem version of Clarity being used for project payslips, not the Cloud version Anya preferred to use for project management.

Feeling pushed into a taking a poor decision may signal that you are taking on someone else’s responsibility

Part of the difficulty in crafting a story like this is the emotional frustration that can get in the way. As Anya said, she had expected to sit down over the weekend with a couple of gins and tonic to work out what to say to her leaders.

The reason it felt difficult is that she was feeling the heat of a poor decision that would be costly and time consuming to implement in comparison with her preferred solution.

Laying out the trade-offs for the leaders gave her an opportunity to pass the responsibility for those trade-offs back up the chain to those who were making the decision.

If the reports were costly or late, it would no longer be her problem.

Communicating your disagreement can put that responsibility back on the decision makers (and protect you too)

Leaders are charged with making decisions with the whole organisation in mind, which can lead to unpopular decisions. Sometimes, however, these decisions can also be ill informed simply because they are not close enough to the trade-offs incurred.

This is where a delicate effort to convey those trade-offs while respecting someone’s position is essential to return the responsibility for the costs of a decision to the decision makers.

 

Tonight we took two steps to achieve that. We

  • Balanced curtesy with a directness that meant they could not avoid seeing the cost to the business they were recommending. For example, we edited the so what …
    • From this … Given our existing relationship, I recommend proceeding with Service Now for the 5 PMOs, despite delayed reporting and greater cost when compared against Clarity.
    • To this … I recommend proceeding with Service Now for the 5 PMOs, prioritizing our existing relationships over delayed reporting and greater cost compared against Clarity.
  • Structured the story to compare the two options by factually comparing them to draw out the trade-offs they were making.

I have laid out the storyline below for your use, but do encourage you to check out the recording further down. It was a great conversation.

I hope that helps. More next week.

Davina

Download Storyline

A New Influence Framework

A New Influence Framework

by | - Stakeholder Management, - Understand your audience, 1 - Design your strategy

One of my colleagues, Louise, has a treasure trove of practical human relations models.

I have her to thank for introducing me to the Bolton and Bolton Work Styles framework we use in the Core Curriculum, for example.

Over coffee last week she shared another one that I think will help you too.

David Rock's SCARF model identifies the key drivers that trigger reward and threat responses, so shaping our ability to influence others. Let me first introduce the model and then offer an example to illustrate how it can be used.

Model – SCARF offers five psychological triggers that can trigger reward and threat responses. Here they are:

S: Status. Withdrawing status can cause stress circuits to light up more than physical pain. Equally, if status is nurtured it can light up reward circuits more than if someone is given a financial prize.

This is why receiving negative feedback can create significant stress. It affects how we perceive others perceive us.

C: Certainty. David suggests that the brain is a certainty creating machine always trying to predict what is going to happen. Great leaders create certainty with clear expectations providing great certainty. This also lights up those reward circuits in the brain.

A: Autonomy. Most of us value having a certain degree of autonomy, control and choice in what we do and how we work. This is why being micromanaged is rarely enjoyable. It may also say a fair bit about why so many employees are reluctant to return to the office full time.

R: Relatedness. Our brains interpret new people as an automatic threat. This reduces once we have a small interaction that moves people into the category of ‘like us' rather than ‘not us' and therefore fearful. He suggests that even small personal interactions can build significant relationship capital.

F: Fairness. He says that a fair exchange activates the reward circuitry, and an unfair exchange triggers the danger response. Being more transparent than you think is ‘really needed' about the reasons behind decisions and how they are fair is key. This triggers the reward circuitry and avoids creating threats.

Example – understanding which two or three drivers most affect us and our stakeholders helps us have greater influence.

David says that all five SCARF ‘drivers' influence us to some degree. The trick is to know which are the dominant drivers for us and our stakeholders.

These dominant drivers help consciously nurture positive relationships and avoid pushing people's buttons.

For example, it is easy to create conflict with someone who has ‘status' and ‘autonomy' as their two primary drivers. All you need to do is say that their work is substandard and to micromanage them toward improvement.

This will ‘trigger' those who prioritise status and autonomy more than those who don't.

It will deliver a primal response that moves them toward a stress state rather than a reward state. This heightens the risk of conflict and reduces our ability to influence that person.

In contrast, inviting someone with status as a dominant driver to improve their work in a way that lifts their status may trigger a reward state. You might, for example, invite them to improve their work before sharing with others.

He suggests that being aware of our own drivers and that of others enables us to build better relationships and so have greater influence.

You can learn more about David and his work at the Neuroleadership Institute here.

I hope that helps. More next week.

Kind regards,
Davina

 

PS – My first podcast episode is now out. Learn more from risk expert Anthony Wilson about how he has successfully engaged decision makers on risk management. His top tip: risk management = change management.

Access the Cutting Through podcast inside the portal in the new podcast tab.

What if stakeholders are wedded to out of date views?

What if stakeholders are wedded to out of date views?

by | - Deductive storylines, - Patterns, - Stakeholder Management

I had a fabulous conversation this week with a client who is head of technology strategy for an insurance company.

He has come to a roadblock in his efforts to shepherd a major technology decision through the ExCo that I thought might interest you.

A dominant decision maker is wedded to an out-of-date view, which he has formed through discussions with friends rather than experts. This not-uncommon challenge is compromising my client's ability to get the best decision on a major technology investment.

The solution is of course challenging, but tweaking a Watch Out pattern before working out how to navigate it through the hierarchy was key. Here are the three steps we took:

Firstly, remember that a deductive Watch Out pattern starts with a positive statement to build rapport and then alerts to negative events on the horizon. Here is what that looks like:

Statement – We have been going well with project alpha

Comment – However, there are risks ahead that will affect project alpha

Recommendation – Therefore, address risks

Please note that I have revised the language being used here to describe Watch Out to improve on the language from the book. We too learn and grow!

Secondly, tweak the pattern to begin by validating the ExCo member's point of view before ‘adding to it' with new information in the comment and recommendation. Here is how that worked:

Statement – Previously XYZ solution was the best available solution even though it required a number of workarounds to meet our needs. He then explained why this was so in fleshing out this part of his paper.

Comment – However, now that ABC new technologies have evolved, DEF is a superior solution that requires fewer workarounds. He then put his case as to why DEF is now the best solution.

Recommendation – Therefore, we recommend investing in DEF solution.

This is the skeleton of the story that he felt would work.

Thirdly, think deeply about how to shepherd the story through the hierarchy to influence the key decision makers.

This involved working out who would be best to deliver this message to whom and in what format.

My client thought deeply about the relationships he has built across the leadership over the past year to work out who was best placed to influence the particular ExCo member and his peers.

He has intentionally nurtured these relationships for a time such as this, which is now paying dividends.

Without having these relationships to leverage, he would not have the influence needed to see his technology investment through.

I hope that helps. More next week.

Kind regards,
Davina

PS – I am starting a podcast called Cutting Through in the coming weeks. As Clarity First members, you have early access. Watch out (!) for an email bringing you the first episode.

 

Thinking harder about the context

Thinking harder about the context

by | - Synthesis, 1 - Design your strategy, Context

You will I hope be familiar with the Ten Point Test by now, and may have even used it to check whether your storyline is robust.

As much as I think this is a robust tool, the question for testing the context has been niggling me as incomplete.

Having ‘noodled on it', I now have some thoughts on how to improve that question.

Here's the new question: Is the context timely, topical and tight? Let me break that down for you.

Timely: Make sure the material is recent for the audience.

Try to avoid, for example, starting every project update with a description of the project which has been in play for some time.

Rather, use the context to remind your audience what you covered in your last interaction with them about that topic. For example:

In our last SteerCo we explained that Project X was on track across all metrics except budget, which we planned to correct this coming month.

Topical: Introduce aspects about the key topic that should be known to the audience.

This anchors your story around the right issue and sets you up to use the trigger to explain why you are discussing that topic with this audience right now.

It also doesn't surprise them with potentially controversial ideas that are unfamiliar to them and which may stop them reading further.

Tight: Keep it short, ideally less than 15% of the whole story.

If you find yourself going beyond that, you are most likely adding too much detail which flags two potential problems. You are

  1. explaining something, which means your audience doesn't know it and raises questions about whether it is appropriately ‘topical'
  2. about to bore your audience by ‘drowning them in data'


I hope that helps. More next week.

Kind regards,
Davina

A ‘hack’ for helping you synthesise your so what

A ‘hack’ for helping you synthesise your so what

by | - Articulate your Answer (So What), - Q&A Recording, - Synthesis

​It’s not often in a working session that we are reflecting on hospital entrances! This morning we were helping one of our new members craft her manifesto as an architect.
 
It was fascinating on two fronts. We learned more about the nexus between architecture and people and were again reminded of the value of inviting people from vastly different disciplines to help each other think through a proposition.
 
Being an ‘objective outsider’ who knows and understands the process but isn’t too close to the detail is hugely helpful.
 
From a more technical standpoint, however, there was another takeaway that related to techniques for synthesising the so what message.
 
My suggestion is to focus on the recommended action and the reason for undertaking rather than stepping through the steps to get there.
 
Let me use today’s example to illustrate what I mean.
 
Here is where we landed after reviewing the process steps in the original (below) with the sections annotated separately.
 
The whole ‘so what' …
 

Architecture should be seen as an interdisciplinary approach for designing and delivering restorative experiences that enhance health and wellbeing.

 
The ‘so what' broken into two sections for your reference …
 

Part 1 – recommended action – Architecture should be seen as an interdisciplinary approach for designing and delivering restorative experiences
 
Part 2 – reason for taking that action – that enhance health and wellbeing. It might also help to think of this reason as a benefit rather than a feature. The list of ideas in the original version could also be described as a feature of this approach.
 


Here is the original version with the highlighted process steps that we tied together by asking ‘why are we taking these steps?’
 

Architecture should be an interdisciplinary practice [that draws on humanistic and scientific disciplines to build with an intimate knowledge of human nature and the natural environment to improve health outcomes in healthcare facilities]


 
Focusing on ‘what is to be done’ and ‘why that is a good idea’ is a simple hack for lifting the quality of the synthesis in the so what.
 
I thought this was a perfect example to illustrate that point. You can watch the full recording below.
 
I hope that helps.

Kind regards,
Davina

Another idea for engaging tricky stakeholders

Another idea for engaging tricky stakeholders

by | - Stakeholder Management, 1 - Design your strategy

​

It always amazes me how these emails naturally follow a theme. The last two weeks I have written about techniques for influencing difficult stakeholders.

Today I had a coaching session with a consultant from a management consulting firm and he shared a terrific technique that fits this theme.

‘Fred' often uses questions to thaw difficult stakeholders before moving the conversation onto his recommendations. Let me unpack his strategy here for you.

Fred took four steps to engage a particularly prickly mine maintenance manager. He

  1. Understand their concerns fully
  2. Meet one-on-one when stakeholders are hostile to your or your recommendation
  3. Start with questions to demonstrate you are focused on their needs
  4. Use neutral language to segue to your own agenda


Understand their concerns fully. Fred understood well that the maintenance manager at the mine was ‘not a fan' of him or his colleagues.The project had begun too aggressively before Fred joined, and he now has to repair the relationships.

The maintenance manager had felt as though he had been accused of running a sloppy shop. He felt this was harsh given he had made important improvements in his first 3 months at the site.

Fred used our storyline planner to flesh these issues out. Download the latest version here.


Meet one-on-one when stakeholders are hostile to you or your recommendation. This reduces the risk that either one of you might be ambushed. It also allows for easier course correction if the conversation does go off track.

Start with questions to demonstrate that you are focused on their needs. Fred's gem of an opening question won the maintenance manager over and also unearthed extra ways Fred and his team could help.

He asked: What is keeping you up at night? and then gently probed to get the mine manager talking.

He deliberately did not offer solutions but held back, making sure he allowed the mine manager to unload fully.

Use neutral to segue to your own agenda. He then suggested that perhaps ‘looking at' maintenance processes might help address the issues that the mine manager had raised. Fred deliberately avoided using value-laden terms like ‘addressing', ‘fixing' or ‘improving' and remained very factual in his recommendations.

The mine manager was then ready to hear what Fred had to say, and allowed Fred to work through the introduction and lead to the ‘so what' for his story.

I will hear how it all went when I work with Fred again in a couple of weeks.

I hope that helps. More next week.

Kind regards,
Davina

More on nudging indecisive stakeholders

More on nudging indecisive stakeholders

by | - Stakeholder Management, 1 - Design your strategy

​

Last week I shared some ideas for engaging indecisive stakeholders by redefining your proposal. I suggested three steps: make it matter, make it easy and make it a win for them.

Given the often great difficulty of nudging stakeholders over the line, I wanted to share some more ideas for ‘making it matter'.

I find I can sometimes tip the balance toward a decision by putting more responsibility on stakeholders and less on myself. Here are four tactics that I have used recently:

First: ask your stakeholders to prioritise for you. You might explain that your team will need clarity around their work to continue to add maximum value over the coming period. If we don't proceed with this, what would you prefer us to work on?

Second: create competition. Explain your own decision frame so they have visibility around your own constraints. For example, I explained to a potential client this week that I can only hold dates in my diary when I have formal confirmation of a project. I explained that there are currently two clients wanting me to help their teams, both of which are working through their procurement processes. The one that comes back first will get their preferred schedule.

Third: ask them what is holding them back. You can decide whether you do this privately or together. In understanding their barriers around time, money or competing priorities, you can get a better sense of the problem. You can then tailor your proposal accordingly. This is the strategy we used for Ravi's issue last week. 

Fourth: decide that it is better to get a firm no than no answer at all. Indecision requires work. It means that you and potentially your team are distracted by repeatedly trying to get something over the line that may or may not proceed.

I refer back to Kenny Rogers here: Know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em and know when to walk away.

Being open to receiving a ‘no' can be liberating. It opens you up to new ways of thinking about the existing problem or creates room for new opportunities.

I hope that helps. More next week.

Kind regards,
Davina
How to handle indecisive stakeholders

How to handle indecisive stakeholders

by | - Stakeholder Management, 1 - Design your strategy

​

Has this happened to you?

You put your case multiple times to the decision-making team. They like your proposal but aren't ready to commit.

Yet, they all know your proposal is important. Nobody disagrees with that but even after multiple presentations to answer their questions they still won't sign.

What is going on here? How do you handle that?

While there are many strategies you could employ, I offer one today that I have used successfully and which was the focus of discussion in one of this week's calls.

I encourage you to dig deeply so you can get develop a small proposal that will intrigue your stakeholders enough to make them want more.

My three thoughts are to make it matter, make easy and make it a win for them. Let me unpack this using Ravi’s example from today’s working session.

First: Make it matter. Identify a current pain point that your recommendation will solve for your stakeholders. We discussed this during today’s working session. Ravi brought a challenge that was more complex than it appeared on the surface.

He has an idea for improving math education in his school district and is beginning to engage with the superintendents in it.

The initial challenge here was not just what to say in the email, but what to propose.

What was the best way to hook the school superintendents in the conversation, not just jump to his desired outcome. We needed to understand the barriers he would face in engaging the superintendents. We did this in four steps. We

  1. Thought about what else the stakeholders might be balancing. We got quite specific about this. What would a typical teacher’s day look like at the moment? How full is it? What is it full of? What unusual stresses might there be at this time?
  2. Brainstormed the sorts of concerns the stakeholders might have about his recommendation. What tradeoffs would stakeholders need to make to say yes? Does your recommendation require
    1. Too much time?
    2. Too much money?
    3. Other projects to be sacrificed?
  3. Used those as a stimulus to draw out the key concerns your stakeholders have
  4. Honed in on how he might overcome those concerns by throwing more ideas around


We realised there was a big opportunity here. Students in his school district were already behind the average before covid appeared. Despite this, teachers were continuing with pre-covid teaching strategies.

We thought Ravi’s approach might help change their strategies so students leapfrog ahead, rather than continuing the previous slow trajectory.

Second: Make it easy. As you can imagine, wherever students have been in covid lockdowns they are behind in their learning. Teachers are struggling to catch them up and looking for ways to do that. They are also overburdened and reluctant to take on anything extra.

We discussed strategies to reduce the initial burden on teachers while still finding a way to pilot the approach in schools.

For example, Ravi might help teachers’ aides learn the www.ProblemSolvingMaps.com methodology. This would reduce the burden on teachers preparing for maths classes.

BTW – if you have school children, you might enjoy looking this up. It looks like a terrific technique for teaching children to build general problem-solving skills.

Third: Make it a win for them. While you will no doubt have a longer-term vision for your recommendation, it may be too big a ‘sell’. Start with something small that will solve a problem for them while also creating an opportunity for you.

Our suggestion here was for Ravi to connect with some local teachers. He could ask them to identify the biggest inflection point in a student’s math journey and to offer to pilot a solution focused on that point.

He could then work with a small group of teachers’ aides who might appreciate their own opportunity to learn and to help their students at the same time.

So, although we only drafted the start of the email, we made substantial progress for Ravi in helping him think through his challenge.

I hope that helps. More next week.

Kind regards,
Davina

Download Handout
EXERCISE: Strengthen your ‘synthesis muscles’

EXERCISE: Strengthen your ‘synthesis muscles’

by | - Articulate your Answer (So What), - Change management, - Emails, - Exercises, - Finance, - Risk management, - Synthesis, - Technology, - Test your structure

 

Synthesis is at the core of everything we do at Clarity First, and so when I saw an example come across my desk this week I couldn't resist turning it into an exercise.

This email is laid out nicely and yet there are a couple of areas where synthesis can be improved.

When reviewing this one, remember our ‘value ladder' that lays out the different kinds of messages and ask yourself some questions:

  1. What level are these messages at?
  2. How can I synthesise to make it easier for the reader to glean the messages by skimming?

I have included the latest version of the Value Ladder here as reference as well as download links for the before and after versions.

I hope you find it useful.

Dav

 

PS – Those of you who have been following our ‘synthesis project' will note two things with this version of the ladder.

  1. ‘information' includes data that may be catalogued and categorised.
  2. ‘synthesis' can be both informative and insightful. I have labelled that extra level of insight as ‘flair'. We can no doubt debate this more in our next Momentum session!

 

DOWNLOAD ORIGINAL
DOWNLOAD SOLUTION

EXERCISE: Rewrite this invitation so your grandma could understand it

by | - Emails, - Exercises, - Grouping storylines, - Human Resources, - Q&A Recording, - Synthesis, - Test your structure, 2 - Develop your storyline, Calendar Invite, Writing

This week we worked on an email and ended up discussing another truism that can be very hard to execute on.

This morning’s one was: ‘Write it so your grandmother could understand it’.

As an idea it is both good and infuriatingly difficult to execute on.

How to do that?

The key to this morning’s example was to focus on the substance of the message, rather than on the ‘process’ required to gain accreditation.

Here are two steps to take to transfer the learnings into your own work:

In general, focus more on the ‘why’ …

  1. Introduce not just the topic but why it matters. In the example below you can see there is an embedded assumption that the audience knows why this accreditation process matters. I have added some definitions on the slide for those unfamiliar with the human resources landscape.
  2. Dig further into the ‘why’. Ask yourself why you are communicating to this specific audience about this specific topic that they now understand is important.

Practice this by leveraging the example we used in the working session.

  1. Take note of the graphic below that highlights some of the problems with the original.
  2. Download the original, be inspired by these problems and rework it yourself.
  3. Review the recorded working session where we wrangled with it as a group
  4. Check out an enhanced version of our ‘after’ for your reference. I took what we did in the group (which was helpful but not ‘finished’) and refined it further using my knowledge of the actual situation.

I hope you find that useful.

Have a great week.

Dav

DOWNLOAD ORIGINAL
DOWNLOAD AFTER