Beyond.

Listening is Stepping Back.

Listening is the beginning of Leading - Create the Space. 

Listen beyond your answer and towards theirs.  

'You make other people smart by how you listen to them.'

- Steven Tomlinson

Consequences.

The Australian Electoral Commission gave another example of Good Decision Making today. 

Ed Killesteyn the AEC Commissioner was interviewed on Radio National on the decision by the AEC to declare the Senate result in Western Australia despite the disappearance of 1375 votes.

He began by acknowledging the 'gravity' of the situation and apologising to the electors.

He said that he was left with 'a nagging and almost irreconcilable doubt' about the result of the WA Senate election. 

The journalist then asked him if this was the case, 'Why on earth is the AEC going to declare the Senate result in WA this afternoon?'

'I have no choice,' Mr Killesteyn replied. 'I am obligated to declare the result. Legally I have no other choice.' 

'So you need to do this so that it can be referred to the courts?'  the journalist asked.

'That's correct. The 40 day petition period to the courts is only enlivened once the last of all the writs has been returned. '

The Commissioner then summarised to the Australian public, via the journalist, everything that he had done to find the missing votes. 

The AEC had already begun an inquiry into the missing votes and was reviewing its procedures.

Mr Killesteyn understands that he is a servant of the Law, which says that he must declare the election. Despite some withering criticism, he recognises that he must make this decision to allow the consequences to begin flowing from it, whatever they may be.

He steps back from his own doubt and uncertainty and does his job. He produces his Widget so that others may produce theirs.

Like most good leaders, Mr Killesteyn is not in the heroic model. He is a career public servant who appears to have discharged his duties without fanfare or fuss.

In a 2009 speech he listed the four principles under which the AEC operated in order to build public confidence in its impartiality, one of which was 'decision-making in accordance with objective application of the law'.

He quoted from a speech given by the Indian Chief Election Commissioner, who said that the Indian organisation was able to retain the confidence of the electors because it was 'a listening Commission'.

Listening.

The Indian Commissioner concluded by saying: 

'Being human, we can be wrong sometimes, but our intention should never be impure.'

Mr Killesteyn's words and tone of speech showed that he understood and accepted that his organisation had failed in fulfilling its public duty to deliver on nothing short of the democratic process of a Federal Election.

Yet his voice during the interview was calm, measured, steady and without the edge that one expects from someone under so much criticism. Possibly because he was liberated by the knowledge that while he had failed in his Widget, his decision making was flawless.

His response today was even more remarkable given that it was he who decided to overrule the WA Electoral Commissioner's original decision and to allow the re-count that has ultimately revealed his organisation's errors and undermined public confidence in it, and in him. 

Leaders are Brave. 

Listen.

Listen. 

Keep listening. 

Listen until your ears bleed. 

Listen until the other person falls silent. 

Then keep listening.

But they're not speaking.?

Doesn't matter. Keep listening.

They're talking again.

Listen. 

They've stop talking. 

Keep listening?  

Yes. 

They're still not talking. 

Keep listening. 

Neither of us is talking now. 

It's been quiet for a while. 

Okay it's feeling a bit awkward. 

Listen until your ears bleed. 

Sure - but there hasn't been anything to listen to for at least half a minute now. 

Is it feeling awkward? 

Yes. 

Keep listening.

Okay this extended silence is starting to feel a little creepy. 

You can talk now. 

Assembly.

The Atlantic Magazine had a recent article about how some companies in the United States are bringing their factories back home.

While increasing wages in developing countries and higher transport costs from the factory to market are part of the reason, most are found in Widget Thinking. 

The time from when a product came into fashion and then fell out had shortened from seven years to two. It meant companies had to shorten the feedback loop between factory floor and design table.   

General Electric is one company reversing the overseas outsourcing trend. It originally had designers in the United States and manufacturers in China. It decided to bring the workers who built washing machines into the same building as the engineers and designers.

Workers on the factory floor identifying any improvements or issues could immediately inform the engineers who could consult with the designers who could modify the Widget. One example was when workers recommended a design change that cut the hours needed to assemble a washing machine from 10 hours to 2.  

This 'inherent understanding' (unconscious competence?) of the product had been lost with the outsourcing to cheaper labour in China. GE got it back by closing the gap between assembly line and designer. 

Co-located assembly and design also allowed companies to adopt the ‘Lean’ manufacturing techniques popularised by Toyota. Everyone has a say in critiquing and improving the way work gets done, with a focus on eliminating waste. It requires an open, collegial and relentlessly self-critical mind-set among workers and bosses alike –a  culture that is hard to create and sustain.

It requires a Leader. 

Each worker adds their widget to the Widget moving along the assembly line. It's the job of the manager to make sure that the assembly line is itself assembled so that the work is as easy and efficient as possible. The best way for the manager to achieve this is through an open, collegial and relentlessly self-critical approach.

In the GE example, the dishwasher team created its own assembly line based on its practical experience of assembling dishwashers. The result was that it eliminated 35 percent of labour. 

Here's where the bigger SPEAR picture is important to Widget production. The GE workers only shared the information that led to the reduction in labour after management promised them that none would lose their job.

The Leaders and managers had succeeded in creating the Space where the workers felt safe enough to be so innovative that they did put their very jobs at risk. 

Every organisation is making something - its Widget. It's probably not literally an assembly line. It is at least made up of people who each makes something that contributes towards the Widget.

Is this process open? Is  it collegial? Is it relentlessly self-critical? 

Does every worker feel that they have a Leader who has created their Space, defined their Purpose, Equipped them, Affirmed them.?

Then got out of their way? 

Labels.

I was ranting to Jonathon about how poorly most organisations deal with complaints.  I took him through my argument.

A good decision is one that advances us towards where we want to be.

It demands that we remain open to information that may orientate us about where we are in relation to where we want to be.

If we are clear about our Widget.

And authentic in our desire to become who we are.

We should eagerly, actively and greedily seize on any information that helps us to orientate ourselves in relation to our objectives.

One of the biggest obstacles that we have to good decision making is the label that we put on information before we have assessed it.

'Complaint' is the best example. 

Call something a 'Complaint' and our ego hears a call to arms. It activates the equivalent of a bank teller security screen. Zip - up go our defences. 

We look for reasons to dismiss the complaint, or at least filter out the information.

It's anonymous.

It's not in writing.

It hasn't come through the right channels.

The complainant said that they don't want us to do anything about it.

We're like children searching to legitimise not eating our greens. 

Then Jonathon says: 'Imagine if a car pulled up alongside you at the traffic lights, sounded their horn to get your attention, and the passenger rolled down their window and pointed at your rear tyre and then drove off when the lights turned green. Would you ignore their signal because they're anonymous? Would you look away because their information was in the form of gestures and not in writing? 

Complaints are just information in an emotional wrapper. 

Participation.

The Philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah said in an interview something that we all know: 

People who have been heard, and whose position is understood, tend to be more willing to accept an outcome that they wouldn't have chosen because they feel that they've had a voice, that they've participated in the process.

This is consistent with Step 5 of the Five Step Good Decision Making Process - Hearing. 

The 'process' can be a single decision. Or the entire boss-worker relationship.

The job advertisement. 'This is our Widget. If you build Widgets that look like this, we need you to help us build our Widget.'

The interview. 'Have you read the contract of employment that says that if you build your Widget in the way that we describe then we will put money in your bank?'

The informal chat over a coffee. 'What sport do you play?'

The conversation over a copy of the employment agreement. 'Yes, we can add a clause that says that you can leave early on Tuesdays for State representative hockey practice in exchange for those overnight work trips interstate.' 

The tour of the potential workplace. 'Here's your desk and your surroundings where you will spend a lot of hours of your life.'

The job is offered and accepted. 'Thank you for choosing to work with us.'

The Entry Interview. 'Why did you choose to work with us and what are you hoping for in this job?' 

The three days of induction before touching a computer mouse. 'Here are our Values and let's take a tour of our factory floor so you can see the final Widget coming off the conveyor belt with the bit that we want you to build.'

The ad hoc conversations. 'I heard that the Hockeyroos are training down the road today. Let's have our weekly catch up over a sandwich at the oval.'

And so on.

A year on and the boss raises the potential new position in Singapore.

The boss chooses Geoffrey. Disappointment. Hurt. A sting to the ego. Self doubt.

Reflection. Recalibration.

There's a job in the Rio office. 2016 Olympics host city. 

UIOGD.

In gold letters above the Benedictine Monastery gates at New Norcia for all the world to see:

UIOGD.

Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Dei.

That In All Things May God be Glorified.

A mission statement dating back to the sixth century.

God's glory is the Widget and the buildings and surrounds are the monks' efforts to make it visible.

The monks declare their Weekend and Weekday Widget to the world. They open themselves to be made accountable for their progress.

Transition.

The Weekend Australian newspaper published an editorial assessing the pace of decisions by the new Federal Government a couple of weeks after being elected. 

It noted that the various Ministers were not hurrying about their business because of the 'obvious' reason that 'once these decisions are taken the clock starts ticking on getting results'. 

It also applauded the approach of the Government of 'asking departments for advice before leaping into action.'

It also noted that this slow pace may be 'awkward for a leader who promised action'. 

The transition from candidate to leader is almost always awkward, regardless of whether it's moving from opposition leader making promises to the electorate to becoming prime minister or the enthusiastic job applicant selling themselves into the position of being someone's boss.

One of the hallmarks of a leader is the discipline to withhold action after changing roles. The Dreyfus Model of Skill Acquisition posits that an expert is most vulnerable when they have to apply their expertise in a different context. An expert is fragile in this phase for another reason. Experts rely on confidence and yet one of the characteristics of expertise is recognising how ignorant you are. A juicy paradox.

Experts who change roles - whether it be from a member of the opposition to government minister or from one employer to another or from worker to line manager - need to resist the 'quick wins', the grand gestures and other superficial acts that declare their arrival.

Instead they may need to endure a rising level of gleeful ridicule from their critics as well as disappointment from their supporters as they take their time to absorb the new terrain. 

They also need a boss who is expert enough to understand this settling in period and to patiently allow for it. 

Step 1: Step Back. 

Forced.

In his book The Design of Everyday Things, the cognitive scientist turned engineer Norman Davies coined the term ‘Forcing Function’ to describe a physical constraint that is built into the design of an object or system to interrupt the steps required to use it.  For example, a child-proof cap on a pill bottle or a microwave oven that won’t start with the door open. 

Forcing functions are an exception to the rule of good design that using something should be as intuitive as possible.  A forcing function interrupts the user’s intuition to prevent them making an error.  It makes the user pay attention to what they are doing so that they do it well.  

Good decision making has forcing functions built into it.

We need to pay attention.

We need to stop the momentum of our minds and constrain them from taking flight or starting a fight as a result of our prejudices, biases, distractions and even instincts that so often lead us into error.

This doesn’t come naturally.  It needs to be forced.

Examples of forcing functions in decision making include:

Asking questions

Consultation processes

Potential for review

Providing reasons for a decision

Polices that state minimum response times

Complaints

Forcing functions in design lead the user to make a small mistake in order to prevent a bigger one.

Mistakes in decisions are the same.  They are a form of forcing function in the larger design that is our life.  

Mistakes compel us to pay attention.  To pause, rethink and make another decision that moves us closer to where we want to be.

Good decision making needs the forcing function of mistakes.

Curious

Malcolm Turnbull MP the Federal Member for Wentworth said in a recent interview:

'You know, there was very good advice that my father-in-law actually, Tom Hughes when he was a Member of Parliament, was given by a very distinguished member that was much older than him.  And he said:

‘You should treat every question no matter how provocative as a polite request for information’. ’

Substitute ‘complaint’ for ‘question’ and this is even more helpful advice.

If good decision making was to be reduced to two words it would be:

Be Curious.

Time

'Look, you know, everyone stuffs up.

'The question is, you know, what do you learn from it all?

'I think as I reflect back on the period of being Prime Minister, what is really important to do is to - Jeff Kennett, would you believe, gave me this advice, which I didn't properly listen to prior to becoming Prime Minister. He said:

'If you become a head of government, leave yourself time to think, to reflect, and to plan.'' 

- Kevin Rudd, former two-time Prime Minister of Australia, after his first Prime Ministership

Change

"He has the capacity to surprise. He has demonstrated the ability to change which means that he can listen and reflect on his weaknesses which is an admirable quality not obvious in all Prime Ministers."

- Chris Uhlmann, Journalist speaking about Prime Minister-elect Tony Abbott

Emotion.

In the Conclusion of ‘The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis’, the authors assess the decision-making of the Soviet and American leadership that is revealed almost word-for-word in the nearly seven hundred pages of taped crisis meetings in the book.

Khrushchev made his decisions alone and without seeking advice or analysis.  He ‘acted more from instinct than from calculation’, was an ‘impulsive risk taker’ and was described by aides as ‘reckless’.  Khrushchev had little experience or knowledge of foreign affairs and his understanding of the world was framed in simplistic Marxism-Leninism.  He made assumptions about Kennedy based purely on the President’s youth and family wealth, and saw his ‘flexibility’ as a weakness.  Khrushchev also suffered from an inflated sense of his influence on world affairs as a result of his mis-reading of the motivations for America’s responses to his previous decisions.  

In short, Khrushchev’s decision-making was driven by emotion more than reason.  If this made it difficult for the Americans to read and anticipate his actions, it must have been equally so for his generals and ministers.

In comparison, President Kennedy ‘did not make any impulsive decisions during the crisis’.  He ‘opened up much of his reasoning….and likely consequences of his choices before he made them.  He explained his thinking to a range of analyses and critiques from formal and informal advisers and even representatives of the British government.’  He also allows his advisers to ‘reason through the problems’.  

At the height of the crisis, the authors argue that Kennedy ‘seems more alive to the possibilities and consequences of each new development than anyone else’, remaining calm and lucid, and clear about his objectives. 

While Kennedy kept himself open to the advice of others, and had obviously nurtured a working relationship that meant his advisers felt confident enough to disagree with him, he was firm when he needed to be.  He overrode the generals’ planned air strike in retaliation for the shooting down of an American U2 aircraft, even though that was the response that he had initially agreed upon.

The ability to remain uninfluenced by bias is one of the most important qualities of a good decision maker.  It makes her thinking visible, her actions predictable and teachable and gives confidence to her team who may have to execute their own decisions that flow from hers. 

Kennedy used many tools to keep him focussed on the facts.  He verbalised his logic, exposing his thinking even to those outside his circle to avoid ‘groupthink’.  He had private venting conversations with his brother, the Attorney-General Robert Kennedy.  Most importantly, Kennedy did not surround himself with ‘Yes Men’.  

President Kennedy’s willingness to be transparent in his decision making and open in his uncertainties showed courage and were evidence of great leadership.

Questions.

‘The Kennedy Tapes - Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis' is a verbatim account of all meetings that President Kennedy had with his advisers in mid-October 1962 in response to the Soviet Union installing nuclear missiles in Cuba - thus threatening the world with nuclear war.

Kennedy’s first meeting is a lesson in good decision-making.

He called together 12 advisers.

His advisers spoke 285 times.

The President spoke 66 times - mostly no longer than a sentence.

The first 11 times he spoke he asked questions and listened to the answers.  

The first non-question from him was ‘Thank you’.

He then asked 21 more questions - a total of 32 questions - before making a statement.

His first statement to the meeting was a summary of the information that had been given to him.

He then asked six more questions and listened to each answer.

His 40th statement was ‘Well now, let’s decide what we ought to be doing’.

His asked nine more questions.

He made four asides.

His 54th statement was to ask that the meeting reconvene later in the evening. 

He made three more statements.

He followed these with six questions.

Then two statements, a question, two statements, four more questions, one statement.

He ended with a question.

President Kennedy, the most powerful man in the world, facing a decision that could result in nuclear armageddon, asked four times as many questions as he made statements.

The only decision that he made was that they should have another meeting.

But

During a recent workshop I was explaining about a simple tip that my friend Liz used to remind me about that can help avoid or defuse conflict. Simply using the word 'And' instead of 'But'. It can make a huge difference to how another person hears what you say to them. 

'For example,' I explained,  'You will try to give helpful feedback to someone by saying something like 'I really think that you did an excellent job, but you need to try to finish on time'.  Yet the other person will most likely only hear everything after the 'But' and the compliment will be lost on them.

'Now hear how differently this sounds: 'I really think that you did an excellent job and you should also try to finish on time.'

'And' not 'But'.

I scanned the audience to check their understanding and everyone was nodding and smiling. Except for one very attentive elderly woman. Her face was blank and she looked confused.  So I repeated my explanation, finishing with 'So remember, it's 'And' not 'But''. She still looked worried. So I repeated it again, this time looking directly at her. 'You should try not to use the word 'But', and use 'And' instead. Her face suddenly relaxed and she nodded.

'Oh,' the very prim and proper woman said. 'You're saying 'And' not 'But'. 

'I thought that you were saying 'Hand on Butt'.