Alistair Cockburn has written that developing software is like a cooperative game. Whether cooperation needs to occur between IT and business, program management and teams, architects and programmers – I do not often see the flow of ideas, solutions and decision-making happening collaboratively. Coaches can not solve communication problems unless there is both the awareness and the willingness to have those kinds of problems solved. It is a bit of a chicken and an egg issue.
I’ve recently come up with a few sports metaphors for the way the interactions go, or could go, if only deliberate learning would take place around communication excellence. I’ll use an example to illustrate this.
The backdrop for this setting is a large agile transformation. It has a fairly lightweight governance process but the leadership must report monthly to the business side whether the IT side is on track for the target deployment. The delivery date was set 2 years earlier and is now months away. The pressure on IT to paint a rosy picture is high. The program manager must update the governance reports. Because the Program Management Office personnel who normally pull that data are on vacation, the program manager asks a coach to fill in last month’s data – using a chart the coach has not seen before. The program manager provides her only a paper copy. There are no calculations, queries or information on where the earlier data came from or exactly what it represents.
The coach asks a lot of questions about the data behind the graph, but her questions are given short shrift by the program manager – who really can’t adequately answer the specific questions. The coach does as close to what the program manager requested as possible and provides the data – though with some discomfort.
The baseball metaphor
The coach has recreated the graph using a new sheet, augmenting it using her own ‘queried’ information for the current month in question. The coach delivers this to the program manager: “I worry when we present data that may be misleading, especially when the data I have provided is mixed with data from other queries or sources and overall I think the story it tells is different from reality. When I pulled all the data that I think represents the current state, I see a different picture.”
The program manager immediately shoots back: “The data from the tool is just that, data from a tool. It will never be accurate or up to date.” [she looks annoyed and wants to move on to her next issue of the moment. She shuffles other papers and looks back at her email.] The coach does not think that pressing the point will be helpful at this point.
This interaction is not atypical in the IT and/or business world. The coach (batter) has pitched a ball. The program manager (hitter) hits it strong; the ball soars over and out of the stadium and there is nothing left to discuss. Batter wins.
The golfing metaphor
Here’s another way this could have gone – using one of my favorite listening and inquiry tools: Clean Language.
It starts in a similar way: Coach to a program manager: “I worry when we present data that may be misleading, especially when the data I have provided is mixed with data from other queries or sources and overall I think the story it tells is different from reality. When I pulled all the data that I think represents the current state, I see a different picture.”
The program manager listens and then asks one or more of these clean questions – first repeating a portion of what she heard – clearly showing she was listening ‘and you worry when data is used that may be misleading… ‘
and what kind of misleading is that? [asking for more attributes]
and what kind of worry is that?’ [asking more about state of the coach’s feeling]
and is there anything else about that data? ‘ [opening space for more observations]
and where could ‘misleading’ come from? [getting at the source]
and when misleading, then what happens? [getting at significance, if nothing happens]
Clean questions let you stay with the thinking of the person who is talking to you, rather than reacting right away. To me, this interaction is like a golfer hitting the ball into the hole. The coach has found a sweet spot with the program manager – a ‘time/place/space’ where the concern is heard and embraced. The environment is one in which the program manager assumes the coach has a valuable intention as well. I imagine in this scenario, the two explore further mutual needs and resolve the discrepancy so both parties are happy and more importantly so that the program governance body gets an accurate picture – with all the consequences that might entail.
The first conversation is frustrating because the coach wanted to ‘do the right thing’ – and perhaps was a bit fearful that not fulfilling the request for the data would be unprofessional. She provided the data and did not argue past her initial observations and reflections to the program manager. The program manager’s response and overall sense of urgency seemed to drown out her ability to stay present and listen.
Whether using Clean Questions or other types of listening and inquiry models, the type of attention given in the second example is rare … especially in stressful situations when it is MOST needed. I do not accept ‘urgency’ or ‘time-pressures’ as excuses for not taking the time to listen and to investigate. It is precisely in the slowing down that in fact you can speed up with confidence. Yet it takes some training and intention to create an environment and culture where this can happen well.
The mindset shift that comes along with knowing how to use Clean Language can help projects, companies, and relationships thrive; it can create more vibrant classrooms, happier employees, better students, thriving business results. I’ve got many examples of this in my book of interviews of people who use Clean Language in their work.
If you want to learn more about Clean Language, please let me know by contacting me at email@example.com