Got a Goal? Fork It!

part two:
reaching agreement

Now that we have had several weeks to focus on our personal and professional goals, we can look back and see that we have made great progress on some of our goals and less progress on others.

In the last issue of this newsletter, we suggested that one can make better progress in solving problems and reaching goals by imagining a fork with a long handle and multiple tines. The tines represent the multiple PATHS OF INFLUENCE, and the long handle represents the effort required to REACH AGREEMENT.

The first step in tackling any big challenge is to understand what combination of influences can be forged into a single overwhelming strategy. (See the article linked HERE.)

The second step is to gain agreement among the participants on their personal role in executing that strategy.

So, how do you gain agreement?

As it turns out, there is no simple answer. (But you knew that already.) Let's take a look at some approaches. Buried within are approaches that will resonate with your situation and be most useful:

AGREEMENT AS THE FUNDAMENTAL UNIT

According to my friend Bruce Anderson, a Master Certified Coach and founder of Thinking Partners, the fundamental unit of organizational behavior is not task, but agreement. He says, "agreement precedes the task. If the agreement is not clear, then the task is either not done or not done according to expectations."

He suggests looking at every project not as a collection of tasks to do, but as a collection of agreements between individuals. Then, if something gets off track, it's not a question of who is at fault, it's a matter of discovering which agreements were misunderstood or misprioritized.

"Exceptional leaders are masterful at clearly and concisely eliciting agreements, allowing others to negotiate and clarify when necessary. This way individuals are more likely to perform as expected and there will be fewer misunderstandings and breakdowns regarding tasks. When people are held accountable to the agreements they make, things simply go well," Anderson notes.

AGREEMENT THROUGH SEVEN TRIGGERS

Author Russel H. Granger delves a bit more into the science of reaching agreement or, as he calls it, "The Seven Triggers of YES." (http://www.seventriggers.com/)

He notes that people have long recognized the power of persuasion. Going back to ancient times, leaders developed skills to persuade by a) Logos, the appeal to logic, reason, and facts; b) Pathos, the appeal to emotions; and c) Ethos, the appeal of the speaker's character and credibility. More recently, we are able to study the brain's most complex structures and can better understand the persuasion process and know the biological and biochemical underpinnings of agreement, action and results through others.

He says, "Research has uncovered the 'super seven' triggers that we universally employ to help us make quick, easy, non-thinking decisions. The triggers reside in the other person, and when properly activated, will create automatic compliance. These seven triggers powerfully impact every level of communication, every interaction we have with others. Whether you are sending an email, a letter, creating an advertisement, speaking before a group, or conducting a one-on-one chat, the right triggers will save time, effort, energy, and resources. They can produce the results you want."

Obviously, the person you are trying to persuade probably has free will, common sense and a normal desire to act in the best interest of all concerned, including themselves. This is not some silly hypnotic parlor game. But as Granger notes, “We are not thinking machines. We are feeling machines that think.”

Granger identifies the hard-wired, inherent and natural brain triggers that are most effective in reaching agreement as:

1. The Friendship Trigger: Activates trust and agreement through bonding.
2. The Authority Trigger: Creates a perception of expertise that activates acceptance.
3. The Consistency Trigger: Motivates consistency with past actions.
4. The Reciprocity Trigger: Taps into the rationale that when you give, you get something back.
5. The Contrast Trigger: Makes your request better than other available options.
6. The Reason Why Trigger: Poses reasons that activate an automatic “Yes.”
7. The Hope Trigger: Instills positive expectations that deliver agreement.

You can imagine from your own experience where these triggers have played a role in reaching an agreement with others. Who hasn't said "yes" to a friend simply because they are your friend? (By the same token, who hasn't had someone try to become their friend simply to be in a better position to get an agreement? Big difference, right?)

Look at the last Presidential campaign... One candidate effectively appealed to the "Authority" and "Contrast" triggers. The other effectively appealed to the "Hope" trigger for himself and applied the "Consistency" trigger to his opponent.

AGREEMENT AS A RESULT OF THE "GOLDEN RULE"

Author and organization consultant Dean Meyer (www.ndma.com) sees agreement not as a result of brain triggers but as the result of applying the "Golden Rule". Not the "Golden Rule" you are thinking of, but this one described as the most fundamental rule, absolutely essential to the success of every organization:

Authority and accountability must always match.

If authority and accountability are separated, Meyer says, problems are inevitable:

• Those with accountability but lacking matching authority are powerless. They cannot perform, and are set up to be scapegoats. They will adopt a helpless "victim" mentality, take no initiatives, and spend a lot of time reading Dilbert and laughing about how futile it is to try to accomplish anything important.
• Those with authority but not matching accountability are unconstrained. They can make decisions without bearing the consequences; they can tell others what to do, and blame others when their commands backfire. Without checks and balances, they do as they please, and ultimately become tyrants.

Essentially, Meyer says, the Golden Rule is the definition of "empowerment." With authority (and freedom) come accountability. Empowerment means managing people by results, and leaving them free (within bounds) to figure out how to produce those results.

Agreement, then derives from everyone managing their own pieces of the organizations goals and bearing the benefits and the consequences of their choices within the framework of their authority and accountability.

For example, if you are tasked with a project that requires the agreement and compliance of others, AND you are held accountable for the success of the project but with no authority over the others involved, then it becomes your job to:

1. identify who would ideally be responsible for which elements of the project
2. affirm that those individuals actually have the authority themselves to be accountable
3. reset expectations on the part of the person who tasked you with the project that you can be accountable for communications, leadership, and coordination of the project, but that OTHERS have critical elements of authority and the accountability MUST rest with them.

Meyer describes an example of a Compliance Officer in an IT department to illustrate the same point. See: http://www.ndma.com/resources/ndm28830.htm.

AGREEMENT ON AGREEMENT

So, whether agreement derives from leveraging our communication skills, leveraging our human brain wiring, or from leveraging our organizational structures -- or some combination -- it appears that gaining agreement is both necessary and worthwhile!

Wouldn't you agree?

Has THIS article put you at a fork in the road? We always enjoy feedback! Contact me at john.sweney@brookwoods.com.