The Peripatetic Philosopher shares a significant intervention:

 How Well Do You Know How Others See You?

JAMES R. FISHER, JR., Ph.D.

(c) September 6, 2017

In the last missive on “Think Tanks,” some people were mentioned as being engaged in discussions which was the equivalent of an “Internet Think Tank” with The Peripatetic Philosopher.  Cameo descriptions highlighted their particular sui generis.

UNREVELING THE CORPORATE JUNGLE

Some years ago, I was invited as consultant to discover why the executive staff of this $50 million operation continued to lose business while operating costs persisted to soar.

A day was spent with the CEO including lunch at his club listening to a retinue of frustrations with his command staff and their direct reports. 

“I want you to talk to these people and tell me what you think is the problem.” 

This consultant had heard this line so many times it felt as if stapled to his brain.  For that reason, I said wearily, “My sense is that will get you nowhere.”

The CEO gave the consultant a look of disappointment, which was not unexpected.  “With due respect, sir, I suspect your people will oblige by playing cover your ass games with me.” 

He laughed uproariously, taking off his glasses shining them vigorously with his handkerchief then giving me another look.  “You don’t mince words, do you?”

This was met with silence.

“You might have something there,” he said finally.  Then with his glasses back on, he looked at me pensively, “What do you propose?”

This is where it gets tricky.  It has been my experience that no one has a more complex ego, fine sensitivity and engaged intelligence than most CEOs combined with a high energy level.  That said it is also likely that they have a flawed understanding what is actually going on in the trenches, as they prefer to see themselves above the fray and beyond the need for total personal involvement.  Commitment usually suffices as fulfilling their role.   

“Would it be possible to schedule a two-day offsite with you and your executive staff all participating in an intervention?”

“You mean, me, too?”

Silence.  Clearly, this was not expected.

“Why, that would mean me and ten other people.”

Again, silence.  He got up from his chair at the club and said he’d be back in a minute.  He returned twenty minutes later.  “We can do it the second week next month, how does that suit you?”

Before saying, yes, to the offsite, I said, “Prior to that, I would like to conduct extensive interviews with you and all your direct reports, interviews requiring at least an hour with each person.  Is that possible?”   Before he could answer, I said, “And I would like the full use of your secretary during these sessions to take notes.”

“Fine, now are you going to tell me what this is all about?”

“I’m not sure,” I confessed.  “I’ll structure it as we proceed deciding then how to best go forward as the process is never the same.  It has to be right for you and your people and this situation.”

He nodded massaging his jaw.  “There’s a lot of ifs to the way you operate, is that fair to say?”  This was met with a smile.  “Yet, you’re telling me you’re not sure what will be achieved with this major commitment in time and money?  Am I hearing you right?”

“Sir, from what I’ve heard from you over the past several hours is that you are heading for a train wreck, and everything you’ve done, including enlisting the support of other consultants has changed nothing, is that correct?”

“Yes, more or less.  But you’re not promising anything any better.”

“No, I’m not.  My interest, and I think the reason you’ve hired me is that you know I have a reputation for dealing with root causes, not symptoms, for identifying chronic problems interfering with the work at hand.  I’m not sure what these are; nor am I certain what I propose will work, but I am confident those issues will surface.”

Back at the office, he introduced me to his secretary who seemed excited about doing something a little different.  She had no idea how different it would be or how the corporate wilderness would start to unravel.

THE PROCESS

Once the secretary joined me, and we were given a room to conduct our interviews, she opened with a request.  “Human Resources would like to sit in on these interviews, is that possible?”

To myself, I said, I’m sure HR would love that!  What if HR is the seat of the problem?  God!  I didn’t need that!  Instead, I said, “Since the Director of Human Resources is one of the CEO’s direct reports that would be prejudicial, don’t you think?  Next engineering, production and marketing, administration and public relations among others would want to sit in on these proceedings.  Just tell HR that will not be necessary, okay?”  To this explanation and request, she quietly agreed.

Then I outlined the process including her role of taking notes – we weren’t allowed to use a tape recorder and this was before the current electronic era – and then helping me collate the product of these interviews.    

Further, I told her the interviews would be open ended and not structures although the focus would always be on the salient attributes of the individual being discussed as  well as his association with his colleagues in that capacity.  

In the process, attributes, inclinations, biases, pet peeves and rational (and irrational) peccadilloes are likely to surface in terms of:

1.     How comfortable the interviewee feels with this member of the team;

2.     How well other members of the team see this member;

3.     How does the interviewee assess his competence;

4.     His ability to share critical information in a timely fashion;

5.     How territorial is this individual;

6.     What the interviewee sees as the basic problem of the current operation;

7.     What do team members do well (strengths);

8.     Where do they need (weaknesses);

9.     Is this team member a knower or a learner; a doer or a delegator;

10.  How reliable (unreliable) and dependable (undependable) is this team member vis-à-vis the interviewee’s function;

11.  Why does the interviewee feels this way about the team member;

12.  What the interviewee think causes this behavior?

“To a person,” the secretary chirped, “including my boss (the CEO) seemed to leave the interviews in high spirits as if a major load had been lifted from them, don’t you agree?”

“Why do you imagine that was so since nothing changed?”

She looked at me with a quizzical expression.  “I’m not sure I know.  Remember, they were talking largely about someone else.”  There was no point in telling her that when people talk about others they invariably are largely talking about themselves.  It is a propensity that is so obvious to the listener but seemingly never apparent to the talker.  “What I do know is that what is felt surfaces in this format.  We have to see whether it is relevant or not to the problem at hand as we create individual profiles from these data.”

“Individual profiles?”

“Yes, now comes the hard work of assessing, classifying and collating these 121 (11x11) separate individual assessments.  The amazing thing – as I’ve seen before – is that 80 percent of these assessments will show remarkable agreement, proving mainly irrelevant but nonetheless superficially reliable.  It is the 20 percent where perceptive data resides.”

“You’ve got me totally confused.  I don’t follow.”

“Ever notice that when people have been under pressure – say these interviews – and then relax thinking the interview is over the pressure is off, and they make a Freudian slip or a slip of the tongue saying something perhaps unconsciously under wraps?   That truth rises out of the subconscious; that is where the 20 percent resides.”  

She gave this explanation, an, "Oh yeah!"

“Your CEO said we could take as much time as necessary to distill these data.  I hope to get this done in a day, but it may take longer.  In any case, I have your services until we have eleven profiles including one of your boss, are you okay with this?”

“Yes, I suppose you want a rough draft typed up of all their comments first?”

I nodded.

“That will take some time.”

“I know.  I’ll be reading your work as you do each assessment.  You’ll see it will go pretty fast. 

“In the process, we will be looking for consistent patterns for each individual.  We will initially include all the angst, hatred, biases, pet peeves, envies, jealousies and even hostilities towards other members along with those with faint praise.”

“Such as?”

“Instead of calling a colleague a liar, the person may be said to stretch the truth to his own satisfaction; instead of saying the person is an ass, he might be described as someone who punishes you with his knowledge in nonuser friendly terms; instead of saying the person isn’t reliable, he may be described as loyal first and only to himself, implying loyalty to the company is not a priority; instead of saying a person is difficult to work with, the person is said to have his own private agenda; instead of saying the person is dull and just this side of stupid, the person is described as being out to lunch at crunch time; instead of say….”

“I think I get your point.  Are you saying people never say what they think about another person?”

“No, I'm saying they rarely do.  That is partially because they are not actually that interested in another person's views, only in terms of that person's views as they relate to them.”

“That is horrible.”

“No, that is how we are programmed.  It is the reason people talk in code.  They see you taking notes and their natural self-protection kicks in.”

“But you're saying decoding is possible?”

“Oh, yes!  It is not only possible; it is necessary.  To understand the code we must first crack it, and that is possible by carefully perusing these data.  People working together over time come to unconsciously reify the same code.  None of these people has been less than five years in his present position, ample time to be reprogrammed to a common code.”

“Then what?” she said in exasperation.

“Then I’ll look at those attributions that you have typed up for each member of the team, reduce them to twenty or thirty; then collate them again, reducing them further, then give you three group versions of the profiles that will differ slightly and discuss them with you. 

“You know these people on a day-to-day basis.  If you feel any of the profiles are misrepresentative or misleading as to the core identity of that individual, I would like your input.  I will take notes and use them in my final consideration.”

“Then what?” she said again.

“Then I’ll come back to you with eleven profiles each with eleven or so specific bullets that will be highlighted on flip chart paper with the name of the person profiled on the back of the chart. 

“We will then paste these profiles on the walls of the conference room, and invite the participants to come in and view these profiles and pick the one that closest fits what they perceive to be their profile taking as much time as necessary.

“The charts will be numbered 1 to 11.  They will turn that number into you as their chart without having to take it down from the wall.

“You will then give me these names and numbers and I will compare them with the names behind the charts.”

“Any idea how this will turn out?”

“No, not really, but I have a hunch but only a hunch.”

“Will you tell me?”

“I’ll do one better.  I’ll let you participate in the mystery by having you identify what chart belongs to what member of the team.  I will tell you beforehand how many you got right.  And I’ll tell you this before I tell the seated group of the results.”

REVELATIONS & RAPPROCHEMENT

The secretary smiled and shook her head when I revealed the process.  Later, when all eleven profiles were on the conference wall, she walked around and marked on a slip of paper her choices.  She got them all right. 

The reaction of the group when they saw these eleven profiles on the wall was however shuddering silence.  They, too, walked around and chose by number the one that they thought best suited them as they saw themselves.  Not a single person chose his own profile including the CEO.

They wanted to immediately rip their respective profiles from the wall without any discussion as they were truly incensed and embarrassed if not more than a little angry.  The profiles were written in rather innocuous language while clearly suggesting certain attributes that got beyond content and context of character to their subtext nature as perceived by others.

Since this was anticipated, if more than a bit risky, I asked them one question: “Why do you suppose you did not choose your own profile?”

With the exception of the CEO, they looked at me with folded arms across their chests.  The CEO smiled expansively, “Because you don’t apparently expect to get paid for this.”  This broke the tension, as they all laughed, knowing the CEO failed to pick his own profile.  Then the CEO added, seriously, “Let’s take a pause, and listen to the man to what all this means.”

After a period of kibitzing with each other to let off steam, someone said, “Dr. Fisher, you’ve got to admit this is quite unusual.”

“Quite to the contrary,” I insisted, “these results are not unusual at all.  They suggest just how difficult it is for us to see and understand ourselves as others see and know us, especially the people we work with every day. 

“We don’t realize there are many artificial barriers that we unconsciously erect between us.  It is hard work to listen when we are trained primarily as talkers.  We assume to know what another person thinks and means when we interpret this only in the way we think and feel about a given situation.  Consequently, we talk over rather than to each other, assuming they know what we know think what we think and identify problems as we have identified them.”

My premise was challenged by some, defended by others, which led to a lively discussion in which I retired to the sidelines and listened to the eleven members of this Command Staff verify their profiles. 

It would have proven dramatic if the session had been televised but my sense counterproductive as even visual evidence can be as readily denied as verbal.

Since none of the profiles were especially flattering to anyone, and given the consensus, after much discussion, that they had some validity, the state of the discussion was essentially cordial and in good humor largely because of the lead of the CEO.  In the final afternoon session, the CEO took over asking the ten what first steps might be taken for getting everyone on the same page. 

The secretary stayed but my work was done.  I received a note from the CEO months later that “his team” had changed with only four of the original ten remaining on his command staff, but that things were working smoothly.  No mention was made of the intervention or of the profiles.