If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.
—African proverb
Before I came to work at LinkedIn, I was a leader at Axialent, the consulting firm I cofounded. Our operations center was located in Buenos Aires, where we ran administration, finance, marketing, executive assistance, and materials production. It was an arrangement that allowed us to serve our worldwide clients efficiently and at low cost.
In one of our one-on-ones, Skip, the manager of our Sydney-based Asia Pacific subsidiary, complained that he was not getting the service he needed from Buenos Aires. Due to the eleven-hour time difference, coordination was sloppy, materials were not ready on time, scheduling client appointments took forever, and communications in general were extremely cumbersome—squeezed to a one-hour window that was awkward on both ends. “I want to hire an administration person, but Charlie (the manager of the operations center) is blocking me,” he said with some bitterness. I listened to Skip and told him that he had a good point, so I’d speak to Charlie—something I later regretted.
I called Charlie and told him about my conversation with Skip. His first comment was an untranslatable and irreproducible Argentinean expression that refers to the genitalia of the female parakeet. That, and the fact that he referred to Skip as a backstabbing son of a bitch, made me guess that he was not happy at all that Skip had talked to me. Then Charlie proceeded to remind me that it was company policy to centralize operations in Buenos Aires, and that this policy was decided (by me, mainly) for many good reasons: it was cheaper, it was better for managing operations employees, it created a sense of community among them, and it allowed us to leverage them as they could shift from one region to the other when there was some peak in demand, and so on. I told him he had good points, so I’d speak to Skip again. (I ended up regretting this, too.)
After several individual conversations with Skip and Charlie without getting any closer to a solution, I realized that my managerial process was flawed. I was sick of the virtual shuttle diplomacy between Buenos Aires and Sydney, of the escalating conflict between Charlie and Skip, and I resented having to come up with a solution by myself. So I sat down to develop a conflict resolution process that would prevent all this. I called it “escalating collaboration.” Before I describe this process, let me describe what happens when people have to work together under pressure.
A gasoline pipeline explodes in a drought-parched town. The fire department and ambulances rush to a nightmarish scene: thick flames licking through dry brush and trees, black smoke, houses and barns on fire, screaming animals and burn victims writhing on the ground. A first responder radios the local hospital’s emergency room. “We have at least eighteen burn victims here. How many can you take?” “We don’t have enough staff to deal with this,” the emergency room coordinator replies. “You’ve got to triage.”
In emergency rooms, disasters, and on battlefields, triage is the process of sorting victims based on their need for immediate treatment when medical resources are limited. To maximize the number of survivors, first responders and medical personnel divide the victims into three categories: (1) those who are likely to live, regardless of what care they receive; (2) those who are unlikely to live, regardless of what care they receive; and (3) those for whom immediate care might make the difference between living or not. Only people in the last group receive immediate medical attention.
On the face of it, triage may seem cruel because some people are left to suffer and others to die, but it is the only rational response to such a situation—the one that maximizes the number of survivors. Mistakes by first responders can result in avoidable deaths. There are three possible mistakes: (1) treating someone who will live, even without treatment; (2) treating someone who will die, even with treatment; and (3) not treating someone who could have lived with treatment but will die for lack of it. The first two errors are called “false positives” because the responder has accepted a patient who should have been rejected, thereby wasting precious resources. The third error is called a “false negative” because the responder rejects a patient who should have been accepted. As you can imagine, having to make fast, life-or-death decisions in an emergency situation puts terrific stress on first responders.1
Now, imagine that you and I are first responders treating two burn victims. Each of them has been assessed as worthy of medical attention—meaning that each can probably live with treatment but is likely to die without it. As we work side by side, your patient goes into cardiac arrest. You could surely use my assistance to save him. But as you are about to ask me for help, you look over and see that my patient is also in a dire state. Would you want me to stop what I’m doing in order to help you? Would you accuse me of lack of collaboration if I remain focused on saving my patient?
If you are committed to saving the maximum number of people, the answer to both questions is no. In this instance, team collaboration is not about trying to help each other “horizontally” as friends do, but about working together “triangularly” in the pursuit of a shared goal. Paradoxically, the best way to collaborate may not be for us to help each other, since what each of us is doing is more valuable for the goal. So we can work side by side, without any interaction, and still be collaborating.
While the logic of this argument is unassailable for someone like Star Trek’s Mr. Spock, in normal humans emotions can block rationality. We take it personally when others refuse our requests for help; we can feel that they are not being collaborative. I have heard people complain that someone is not being collaborative when what they really mean is “he refused to do what I needed.”
Then there is the familiar problem of attribution bias. To paraphrase Matthew 7:5, we all tend to see the speck in our brothers’ eyes and miss the log in our own. We use a totally different standard to define noncollaboration when someone refuses to help us (“She only cares about her needs!”) than when we do the same to him (“I’m staying focused on what the organization needs most!”). When my coaching clients complain that someone hasn’t collaborated with them, I ask them, “Do you believe you have to accept all requests for help from those around you?” They’re often stumped.
I’ve shown earlier how disengagement, disorganization, disinformation, and disillusion can tear a company apart. Because individuals work to achieve their own KPIs (key performance indicators), they optimize their subsystems, disregarding the system. They consider those who contribute to their individual goals as collaborative, and those who don’t as uncooperative. True collaboration disappears because nobody is willing to consider the best way to help the team win—regardless of whether doing so means pursuing their KPIs or deferring their own tasks to help someone else achieve a more important goal. And so it is that organizations stumble along, behaving inefficiently, incoherently, and self-destructively.
Recalling the analogy of the blind men and the elephant from Chapter 4, each of us holds specific information about our piece of the organization, but no person—not even the senior managers who only see the whole elephant’s outline from afar—can calculate the best course of action. Even the most truly engaged people who are committed to accomplishing the organizational mission can disagree about strategic choices. They may be aligned around the goal but misaligned regarding the way to achieve it. That’s why conflict is a fact of life, even in the best-led organizations.
Skip and Charlie were touching different parts of the elephant. Skip cared about serving the clients in his region in a time-efficient manner; Charlie cared about efficiency, flexibility, and keeping a lid on costs. Their interests led them to different recommendations. They both wanted the organization to succeed, but they disagreed vehemently on how it would happen. To make matters worse, they became so attached to their opinions that they saw each other as enemies—which led to personal strife, loss of cohesion, and poor decisions.
When people disagree with each other, their discussions typically turn into a tug-of-war in which one person tries to convince the other that he or she is right and the other is wrong. This zero-sum dynamic always ends up in a stalemate or an argument, with each person trying to prove his or her point and undermine the other’s, making it impossible (a) for either of them to learn something new or (b) for the two of them to work together creatively to come up with better solutions.
When two parties fail to reach an agreement in a one-off interaction, they can just “agree to disagree” or “walk away from the deal.” But when the parties are members of a team with a shared objective, that isn’t possible. They have to figure out a way to work together in pursuit of the team goal. So when two parties fail to reach an agreement in organizational settings, each party resorts to a kind of lobbying I call “unilateral escalation”—the equivalent of siblings running to “tell on” the other to Mommy or Daddy. Each party goes to the manager (usually behind the other’s back) to argue in favor of his or her position and against the other party’s. Their common goal is to enlist the manager’s help to overwhelm their opponent with superior force. This escalates the conflict and further erodes the relationship. The “loser” feels defeated and resentful, which is especially bad in a long-term work relationship.
This kind of contention also fosters a political atmosphere, creates a divide between winners and losers, and puts the manager in the role of choosing a favorite. Instead of reinforcing commitment to the goal, such arguments generate malicious compliance. The losing party may try to prove that he or she is right by sabotaging the decision while appearing to toe the line, just to prove a point. As a client once told me: “One of the greatest satisfactions in life is being able to say to those who made a bad decision, ‘I told you so.’ ”
When managers need multiple conversations with each of the conflicting parties to find out what the different parts of the elephant are, everyone’s time is wasted. There’s no joint problem solving; there’s no exploring of creative alternatives. Productivity goes out the window. In short, this kind of triangulation is a disaster. Unfortunately, such behavior is standard practice in most organizations.
Escalating collaboration allows people to express and understand each other’s needs and create new solutions. It addresses the It dimension of task through intelligent decision making, the We dimension of relationships through mutual respect, and the I dimension of self-worth through the consideration of everyone’s needs and values. And it does all this in the context of the shared goal the team is pursuing.
In escalating collaboration, people focus on winning with the other rather than against the other. Collaborators understand that to create the most value, they need a working relationship, and that such a relationship can only be founded on respect for each party’s interests. This approach reveals people’s preferences and constraints and engages everyone in building solutions that go way beyond the original alternatives. It maximizes efficiency through cooperation.
In escalating collaboration, the disagreeing parties work together to prepare a shared narrative that integrates their arguments without hostility. If they can’t come to an agreement after conducting an integrative negotiation, following the rules of escalating collaboration, they invite a senior person into the discussion as a facilitator-arbitrator. The senior person’s job is to contextualize the information of both parties, bring in a more systemic perspective, and make a judgment call if necessary.
Escalating collaboration doesn’t guarantee the right decision, but it produces a more intelligent process that strengthens relationships and helps everybody feel appreciated as valuable contributors. The objective is to use all available information and everyone’s creative powers to reach a superior decision, a decision that everybody will buy into and commit to implement because they’ve participated in it. Escalating collaboration keeps everyone engaged in the pursuit of the organizational mission, without any sour feelings between apparent winners and losers.
THE SEVEN STEPS OF ESCALATING COLLABORATION
Escalating collaboration requires the attitudes and skills I explained in my earlier book Conscious Business.2 I won’t repeat those explanations here; instead I’ll briefly summarize the specific instructions for this process. I encourage you to make this process one of the cultural norms of your organization and use it to define the way to resolve any conflicts among all your employees from day one.
When two people with different points of view enter into a discussion, the goal is not for either of them to “win” or to prove that one of them is right, but rather to figure out the best decision for the team. The rules are:
1. Those in conflict frame the issue collaboratively. Every conflict among organizational members is a disagreement about the best strategy to achieve a common goal. The difference of opinion about what to do arises in the context of a larger collaboration to achieve a mission they are both committed to accomplish.
2. In a dialogue with each other and in the absence of the manager, each person presents his or her point of view. The other listens appreciatively (as I describe below). To define their points of view, each speaker answers five questions put to them by their counterpart:
(a) What do you want?
(b) What do you plan to achieve with that?
(c) How will that further the organization’s mission?
(d) What leads you to think so? (What facts and what logic?)
(e) What do you propose we do?
3. Each person inquires, trying to understand not only each other’s point of view but also his or her reasoning and the larger context in which that point of view makes sense. They respectfully check each other on matters of fact and logic, clarifying assumptions, beliefs, and inferences.
4. The two parties use creative problem solving and integrative negotiation (see “How to Be Understood” below) to dissolve the conflict. That is, they work to find a way in which both parties get what they need while respecting the resource constraints. If they find it, then there is no more conflict and everyone commits to implementing the decision.
5. If the parties can’t find a way for everyone to get what they need, they look for a compromise both can live with. If they find one, then there is no more conflict and everyone commits to implementing the decision. (If they can’t compromise, it is essential that neither party surrenders in order to “not raise a fuss,” “get on with the program,” or, ironically, “be a team player.” Both must hold their positions so that the organization can find the best new equilibrium through steps 6 and 7.)
6. If no compromise is acceptable to both parties because it appears to jeopardize one or the other person’s ability to contribute to the organizational goal as they have committed, the participants explore how relaxing some constraints might dissolve the conflict or help them reach a compromise.
7. Then the parties jointly escalate the conflict to the next level of management. Together, they meet with the manager and ask for his or her help in creative problem solving, relaxing the constraints, or prioritizing the alternatives through a judgment call.
Escalating collaboration means that all the parties to a conflict engage their managers together rather than separately. It’s out of bounds to ask a manager for an intervention or resolution without the other party being present. Nor can any manager intervene unilaterally in the conversation between conflicting parties—or, worse yet, discuss the issue with another of their managers.
Admittedly, there are times when someone can be just plain wrong. But those times are much fewer than you believe, and even then it is best to first elicit the reasoning that brings the person to the wrong conclusion by seeking to understand his or her point of view. Then you can explain much more effectively why you believe that the person is in error.
Let’s say that you and a colleague are touching different parts of the elephant, as Skip and Charlie were doing. To avoid triggering a conflict, consider that you and your counterpart hold your opinions because you have different points of view, different experiences, different beliefs, different assumptions, different needs, and different tactical goals. Against all your instincts, you must find out how your counterpart, the one who disagrees with you, is “right”—meaning his or her position makes sense given his or her information, beliefs, assumptions, goals, and values. Furthermore, you have to let him or her know that you really “get where he or she is coming from.” That’s what you do with appreciative listening.
“Seek to understand before you seek to be understood” is a wonderful recommendation. But most people have no idea of how to do it. In my many years of teaching people how to communicate, I haven’t found a single client who, without intensive training, was able to do consistently the five things I describe below when under the slightest hint of emotional stress:
Listen quietly, without interrupting or completing the other person’s sentences.
Let the other person know you are listening by focusing all your attention on him or her (instead of on your phone), maintaining eye contact, nodding, and saying, “mm-hmm.” Occasionally encourage the other with short phrases such as “Go on, please,” “Tell me more,” or “How was that for you?” A particularly effective technique is to repeat the last few words of the other’s statement in an inquisitive tone.
When the other person finishes an idea, summarize its essence and ask if you understood him or her correctly. Let the other modify or add to your understanding until he or she is are satisfied that you really “got” what he or she wanted to say.
Ask questions to understand the reasoning that leads your counterpart to his or her point of view. Use open questions as much as possible, and avoid confrontational questions (you can challenge the other’s ideas later in the conversation). During the answers to these questions, continue to apply points 1, 2, and 3.
Validate that the other’s perspective makes sense and seems reasonable (given his or her beliefs). If you disagree with something the other said, don’t get into an argument about it; rather, acknowledge his or her point of view and wait for your turn to explain yourself to present any disagreement.3
There’s a funny story that illustrates how radical these simple instructions can be. I was in Shanghai, teaching a workshop for executives of a financial services company. As usual, I gave them an assignment after teaching them the “seek to understand” process. “Go back home and, without saying anything about the workshop, ask someone in your family (or a friend), ‘What’s on your mind these days?’ (or simply ‘How was your day?’). Then just seek to understand without saying anything else for at least ten minutes.”
Before I could say “good morning” the next day, one of the participants said he wanted to share something. He was so eager that I gave him the floor. He pulled out his phone and told us that he had called his wife (in Beijing, where they lived) and had a conversation, which he recorded. He proceeded to put the phone next to the mike and pressed the play button. I couldn’t understand anything from the recording because it was in Chinese, but after about thirty seconds the whole room burst out in laughter. People were laughing so hard and speaking in such an animated tone that I was very curious. After the jokes died down, the owner of the phone translated for me. The conversation went more or less like this:
Husband: What’s on your mind?
Wife: Why do you ask?
Husband: I’m interested in listening to you.
Wife: What’s wrong?
Husband: Nothing is wrong, I just want to know what’s on your mind.
Wife: Something’s wrong. You never listen to me.
Husband: I want to listen to you today. Don’t you like it?
Wife: No! It makes me wonder what’s wrong.
I’ve since changed the instructions so workshop participants don’t shock the people in their professional and personal lives by suddenly behaving strangely. “Most people are used to you not seeking to understand them,” I tell the participants, “so you might raise their suspicions if suddenly you start behaving as I propose. I recommend you explain to them what you’ve learned and make an agreement to try it out as an exercise.”
People might use appreciative inquiry deceptively, just as much as they can lie about any feelings or intentions. But appreciative inquiry is not a manipulation tool. It is an ethical tool for mutual learning that follows the rule “Seek to understand others as you wish to be understood.”
HOW TO BE UNDERSTOOD
If you want to make it easier for a colleague or employee to understand you, you need to present your view as a personal perspective, rather than as “the exclusive truth.” Instead of saying, “You’re wrong and I’m right,” your attitude should be, “You have valid reasons for holding your opinion, and so do I.” Here’s what I suggest.
1. Explain to your counterpart that you don’t want to argue that you are right. Rather, you want to present to him or her what you consider is an argument worthy of consideration. You would like him or her to understand your point of view to compare it with the one he or she presented, correct it if it seems wrong, or integrate it if it seems useful.
2. Present your point of view in first person. Use “My opinion is,” “I think,” or “I believe.” Avoid saying anything in second person, as it can be inflammatory. “You are wrong,” “You should,” “You don’t know,” and other such expressions will almost surely derail the conversation. Also avoid using third person. “This is the way it is” or “The fact of the matter is” are almost as bad as “You are wrong.” Avoid using first person plural as well. “We need to,” “We are supposed to,” or “What we ought to do is” will sound to the other as “You should” and cause a reaction. There is no “we” without an alignment of the “I”s. Really, the only safe way to speak is in first person. (And no cheating. You can’t say, “I think that you are wrong.” “I think you are an idiot” is no better than “You are an idiot.”)
3. Explain why you think what you think; share the evidence and reasoning that lead you to your conclusion. Illustrate your argument with examples and concrete stories. Tell your counterpart or team member what you believe are the implications for action of your reasoning and what you’d like to see happen. Include any proposals for next steps that you have.
4. Offer to clarify anything that the other person wishes to understand better. Invite him or her to ask any questions he or she has about your point of view.
5. Invite the other to state any questions about the accuracy or completeness of your evidence and reasoning.
6. Ask the other for his or her opinion of your point of view. This is the way you open the next phase of the conversation, where you try to integrate the arguments into a single narrative.
If you have a disagreement with someone, the way to stimulate a constructive resolution is to frame the issue collaboratively, building a narrative that finds a mutually beneficial outcome for the conversation. This is obviously the case when people belong to the same organization, but even in apparently oppositional situations it is always possible to frame the issue collaboratively.
For example, instead of the buyer saying, “My goal is to buy the product for the lowest price,” and the seller saying, “My goal is to sell the product for the highest price,” both could say, “Our goal is to find a mutually beneficial transaction.” Then you must acknowledge each other’s interests, concerns, and needs and discuss the best way to take care of them for both of you.
In the classic book about negotiation called Getting to Yes, Roger Fisher and William Ury showed how individuals who disagree achieve a win-win outcome. They call their process “integrative bargaining.” The key to integrative bargaining is to negotiate based on interests rather than positions. For example, after my wife suggests we go out for dinner, I might tell her: “I don’t want to go out tonight.” When I stake out my position in this manner, I am setting myself up for an impasse, since my wife will surely say, “Well, I do.” If my goal is to resolve the situation, I might ask instead, “Why is eating out tonight important to you?” Suppose she answers, “I’m tired and I’d rather not deal with cooking or cleaning.” (Our deal is that one cooks, the other cleans.) Then I have several options. I could say, “I would like to watch tonight’s game. Do you mind if we stay home for dinner but I take care of the cooking and clean up after the game?” Or “Do you mind if we order takeout?” or “Do you mind if we go to the sports bar in the mall?” Or we could explore several other options that would allow me to watch the game and her to avoid cooking or cleaning. By identifying the interests that motivate both of you, you can come up with creative solutions that integrate everyone’s needs.
The Golden Rule is the first requirement of any fair process. When Skip and Charlie escalated unilaterally to me as a manager, I should have asked them, “How would you feel if your counterpart came to me alone to advocate for a decision that favors him? What would you like me to do in that case?”
The obvious reply would be something like Charlie’s colorful Spanish curse. Both wanted me to hear their side of the story. The only way to do that fairly is in a three-way conversation. (The exception is when an employee fears retribution, as in a whistle-blowing or harassment case. In such an event, the employee should speak to the manager privately.) I realized that by discussing the problem with only one of the parties to the conflict, I was rewarding their unilateral escalation and fostering the practice in the future. I was getting only biased, incomplete information, and putting myself in between two people who’d never learn to work through their differences together.
To nip this dynamic in the bud, transcendent leaders have to get a commitment from everyone in the organization to abide by the principles of escalating collaboration. Everyone has to understand that this is the way in which any conflict will be resolved, and that any deviations will be frowned upon. Of course, this doesn’t prevent someone from sharing information with someone else, or asking for coaching from his or her manager; only unilateral escalations are discouraged. Sometimes this is a fuzzy boundary, but most often managers can tell whether the request for help, communication, or coaching is genuine, or if it’s a subtle way to advocate for a position in violation of the established escalating collaboration process.
If one of your employees attempts to escalate a problem unilaterally to you, you must demonstrate the standard and hold him or her accountable to it. The first time someone tests the boundaries I tend to be soft, educating the person about the rules of the process. After that, I tend to be hard, confronting the person about breaking the commitment to only escalate collaboratively, not unilaterally.
Knowing what I know now, this is how I would have responded when Charlie came to me to lobby against Skip:
I’d ask Charlie, “Have you discussed this matter with Skip?” If he says no, I’d remind him of the commitment against unilateral escalations and ask him why he is bringing the matter to me without having discussed it first with his counterpart. I’d explain that I’m willing to help him and Skip if they can’t find a solution by themselves, but that I’m only going to participate in a three-way conversation that has been properly prepared.
If Charlie answers yes, I’d ask him, “Have you invited Skip to come with you to see me?” If he says no, I’d remind him of the commitment against unilateral escalations and ask him why he is bringing the matter to me without having invited his counterpart. I’d explain that I’m willing to help him and Skip if they can’t find a solution by themselves, but that I’m only going to participate in a three-way conversation.
If Charlie answers something along the lines of “Yes, but he said it wasn’t worth it,” I’d ask him, “Have you told Skip that you would come to see me alone?” If he says no, I’d ask him to tell this to Skip, because if he doesn’t, Skip is likely to believe that Charlie went to see me “behind his back.”
If Charlie answers yes, I’d thank him for bringing the matter to my attention and explain that I would like to discuss it with both parties present. Then I’d call Skip and ask him why he refuses to jointly escalate the matter to me. I’d explain to him that he does not have a choice on this, as the agreement is that when people can’t agree, they must escalate the issue collaboratively.
At LinkedIn, we established a ground rule called “Five-day alignment.” It prescribes that if two people cannot agree on a decision within five days, then they automatically escalate jointly to their managers. We established that rule after some decisions that had been delayed for weeks and months were finally escalated to the leadership team, who were able to resolve the issue in less than an hour. It’s understood throughout the organization that refusing to escalate jointly when two people have failed to reach alignment after five days goes counter to our cultural norms.
Escalating collaboration emulates the court system; managers in the hierarchy are analogous to appellate judges, with the senior leadership team being like the Supreme Court. After going through their initial negotiation without a mutually satisfactory resolution, both parties come together to the manager with a common narrative and a shared objective. No person can argue for his proposal on the basis that it will affect his individual or his team’s performance. Such argument would be rejected as illegitimate. The goal is not to score a point for his subteam, but to win the game as a part of the organizational team.
Managers carry the decision authority because they represent the “property rights” of the organization’s owners. They get to make decisions not because they are right, but because they have been empowered by the owners of the assets to do it on their behalf. The managers, in turn, have a fiduciary responsibility to act on behalf of the owners. If they make a mistake, the price will be paid by the owners—who in turn could lose trust in the management. So the managerial authority comes with responsibility and accountability. The managers make a decision because they have a wider perspective of the organization, because they can internalize costs and benefits that are externalities to the parties of the conflict, and because it’s their head on the chopping block if they miss out. They put the owners’ money where their mouth is and have to explain themselves if results are not what the owners expect.
It’s important for everybody to understand that there are no winners or losers from the process. Managers don’t make “the right decision.” They make a decision that seems best to them, but they could be wrong. When managers rule in favor of one alternative to the detriment of the other, it’s essential that they explain to all the parties in the conflict why they do so, in alignment with the organization’s mission and values. The manager should also praise those who escalated collaboratively the conversation for allowing him or her to learn the necessary details of the situation in order to make an intelligent decision. It’s essential that managers never chastise those who escalate collaboratively to them.
Once the issue is resolved, the “case” remains as a precedent that informs the members of the organization how the court (senior managers) is likely to rule (decide) in similar instances. If a manager believes that the issue is being improperly escalated, he or she can refuse to hear it and send it back to the “lower court.”
Escalating collaboration allows managers to preserve cultural integrity because it takes triangulation and end runs out of the equation. By forcing the teammates to communicate respectfully before presenting their evidence and viewpoints to their supervisors, and to describe in detail what their concerns and interests are, management also underscores that strong interpersonal relationships and individual engagement are essential for the health of the organization.
After I thought long and hard about escalating collaboration at my consulting firm, Axialent, I decided that we had to demand it as a cultural norm. I explained to all the employees why this process would be a good way to address any conflict and discussed with them what they thought about it. What, if anything, would they recommend beyond my definitions to be able to commit to the process? At the end of that conversation, all of us agreed to the ground rules, including Skip and Charlie.
Because Skip and Charlie couldn’t come to an agreement, the three of us agreed to meet by videoconference.
“Fred,” Charlie started, “we need your help, because we can’t decide by ourselves what would be the best course of action for the company.”
After asking them to explain the trade-offs in more detail, I asked them what creative ideas they’d explored, even if they hadn’t agreed on them.
“We talked about hiring someone in Buenos Aires but put them on a different schedule,” Skip volunteered. “This person could come into the office at 5 p.m. Buenos Aires time, which is 6 a.m. in Sydney. They could spend an hour with the rest of the operations crew to coordinate things with them, and then stay till 1 a.m., which is 2 p.m. in Sydney. This would give them plenty of time to connect with the Asia Pacific employees and clients.”
“The problem is that we can’t leave the office open till 1 a.m. with a new person,” Charlie added. “And it would be depressing for them to be alone in such a big space. In addition, the part of the city in which we have the office is not the safest at night. I wouldn’t want one of our employees on the street after business hours.”
Before I could speak, Skip took the words out of my mouth. “Wait a second. I don’t really need this person to be physically at the office. They could just as easily work from home. If there are things the person we hire needs from the office, we could have them sent to their house, or maybe they can pick stuff up in the afternoon.”
“Whoever we hire would still full-line report to you, Charlie,” I added, “with a dotted line to Skip, but they’d work from home mostly focused on the needs of Asia Pacific. Would that work for you?”
“It could work,” Charlie said tentatively, “but I don’t have the budget to hire an additional person. Right now the regular crew manages Asia Pacific’s requests during business hours. I don’t have a dedicated person whom I could ask to switch schedules, and I don’t feel like letting go of any of my staff as they are working well serving operations in America and Europe.”
I turned to Skip and asked if he would be willing to fund this employee from his budget. “It would be much cheaper for you to hire someone in Argentinean pesos than in Australian dollars.”
“I would,” Skip replied, “but then I’d want them to be full line to me and dotted line to Charlie. If I fund that hire, I want to be able to assign work according to my priorities.”
Before I could ask, Charlie said, “I can live with that.”
In the end, we hired an Aussie woman who had moved to Buenos Aires after falling in love with an Argentinean. She worked out so well that we implemented a similar system for our European offices. Skip and Charlie ended the conversation on good terms, feeling that their needs had been met through a fair process, mostly led by them. (Indeed, they could have reached all but the last point of agreement—about budgets, over which I had final authority—without me.)
Just as triage rules are all about saving lives and making intelligent decisions in crisis situations, escalating collaboration offers leaders a crucial tool for building a cohesive, respectful, and high-achievement culture. It forces people away from their angry, self-righteous desire to be “right” and to show others they are “wrong.” It answers the question “What is the real goal here?” with “The organizational mission.” It sets a cultural norm of cooperation in the interest of the organizational purpose. It offers managers a way to harness the forces of conflict to propel the organization forward—very much like the tension in a battery can energize a circuit. If, as a leader, you are able to achieve this, your organization will gain a great competitive advantage.