Recently, I ran across an interesting blog, by Robert I. Sutton, called “The Conversation”.  Sutton blogs about skills that managers need to master for top performance as a leader.  His post of 27 August 2010 is titled “If You’re the Boss, Start Killing More Good Ideas.”  You can read the post by clicking here. 

Sutton offers great advice for New Product Development (NPD) programs, as well as “bosses,” to kill a few good ideas along with the “bad” ones.

Obviously, we can all agree that culling “bad” ideas will enhance and enrich the New Product Portfolio.  With a healthy idea pipeline, the number of “good” ideas will still outweigh the available resources.  Best Practice firms studied by the Product Development and Management Association (PDMA) demonstrate one successful new product commercialized for every four ideas generated vs. one per nine ideas in the rest of companies (Reference: Barczak, et al., JPIM 2009, 26:3-23).  Over-simplifying the situation, if just one employee is assigned to work on just one idea through Stage 1 (Opportunity Identification), a firm can save over $230,000 by eliminating these five so-called “good” ideas.  (Assumptions:  one development engineer costs the average company $300,000 per year all-in and one idea takes eight weeks to progress to Gate 1.)

Portfolio Management (PM) is the preferred tool for real-time planning and ranking of NPD projects.  PM is a first and foremost a decision-making tool to help managers prioritize ideas for New Product Development and for driving success at commercialization.  No matter how large or how small your firm, you can use PM to evaluate new products via financial metrics and non-financial scorecards (preferred) to ensure alignment with key innovation strategy elements.  Ensuring that ideas align with strategy will force both “bad” ideas and the marginally “good” ideas to be killed, thus improving the overall value and efficiency of the NPD portfolio.

So, as Sutton details in his blog, good bosses, and might we add good team leaders and good NPD project teams, should start killing some of the good ideas, too.

At a recent ASTD (American Society of Training and Development) meeting in Houston, I had the privilege to hear Mattison Grey speak on the differences of Receptivity and Resistance in dealing with others.  A great topic, fitting in perfectly with our series of blogs on Conflict Management!

After years of conditioning, humankind, at least in the U.S., has become resistant to suggestions.  Mattison explained that a study had been conducted where people took longer to back out of a parking spot when they knew someone was waiting than when no one was waiting.  At the core was Resistance to performing even a desired behavior (leaving the parking spot) when an external party “suggested” the action.

Okay, I have to admit that I am wholly disappointed in humanity if we no longer have the kindness to hurry and back out of the parking spot if someone is waiting.  But, once I got over my shock at this kind of behavior, I listened closely to Mattison’s message to try and understand how it applies to New Product Development (NPD) Teams.

New Product Development processes require a series of small decisions in the early stages, ramping up to incurring significant resource costs as the project enters the technical development stages.  Even with stringent gate criteria and excellent portfolio management in place, some projects fall into the dreaded “political” arena.  How do researchers, marketers, and engineers convince management that the project needs to be completed in a politically charged atmosphere?

First, Mattison would tell us to use Receptive techniques, like Influence and Cooperation.  On the other side of the coin, Resistive techniques, like Persuasion and Competition, will not advance the project, regardless of the expected profitability or market share.  And when the battle is small, but the war is looming, Mattison recommends “yielding” and giving in to the position of “power”.

One of the easiest techniques demonstrated at the ASTD meeting was the verbal difference between “but” and “yes, and”.  Try it now as you sit at your desk reading this blog. 

·         “I need to be working on the paper that Boss wants, but I’ve got 10 emails that need responses.”

·         “I need to be working on the paper that Boss wants.  Yes, and I’ve got 10 emails that need responses, so I’ll prioritize the emails and leave some till later.”

Pay close attention to your own body language as you read these.  Did you lean back in your chair and your heart rate increase in the first instance (but)?  Reading the second statement (yes and), were you able to let out your breath because there’s a plan?

This simple change of language can make our NPD teams more effective and help us to manage conflict.  In another post, we’ll discuss the numerous advantages of using “yes, and” vs. “but” for brainstorming and idea generation.

In the meantime, please spend the week thinking about whether your language indicates you are a “but” or a “yes”-man.  Try to eliminate the word “but” from your vocabulary for a day and substitute “yes, and”.  I’m positive you’ll see a huge difference in the Receptiveness of your colleagues!

 

P.S.  Please, please back out of the parking spot quickly and nicely!

This week we look at the last of five conflict management behavior modes.  Remember that not all conflict is bad – conflict brings debate and helps to solve problems when handled from a viewpoint understanding other’s roles in the confrontation.

The accommodator has strong relationship-building skills and is sensitive to others’ emotional states, body language and verbal skills ⁽¹⁾.  She often uses the phrase, “With my pleasure,” and will forego her own concerns in order to satisfy the concerns of others.  The Accommodating style is characterized by low assertiveness and high cooperativeness on the Thomas-Kilman (TKI) matrix.

Individuals with a high predisposition to accommodating derive satisfaction from solving other people’s problems and excel at negotiations with teams.  By foregoing her desires for others, the accommodator is selfless and demonstrates an ability to yield in conflicts.  She does very well at “obeying orders” and she doesn’t mind taking a “back seat” to the more competitive personalities on the team.  Such traits are useful in relationship-based sales and marketing roles.

When she knows she is wrong, relying upon the accommodating style of conflict management can quickly diffuse the confrontation.  Other times that the accommodating style is preferred are situations requiring significant harmony and alignment, as well as for issues of low importance.  The accommodator is known for her reasonableness, creating good will, and keeping the “peace”.

Past research has shown that accommodating styles will create efficiencies on the team because decisions will be made quickly ⁽²⁾.

Someone who predominantly uses the accommodating style in conflict management may place more value on the relationship aspect of a negotiation than the situation may warrant ⁽¹⁾.  He may lose sight of the overall issue and never get her own concerns addressed.  Also, if all information and alternatives are not considered, the decision quality of the team may suffer.  The accommodator’s ideas may be considered and her influence on the end product will be limited.  A leader operating from a dominant accommodating TKI mode may encounter her team acting in anarchy.

When not using the accommodating mode, a person may be using the competing style to manage a confrontation.  Underuse of the accommodation can lead to a lack of rapport on the team as well as reduced morale.  The low accommodator is viewed as stubborn and she will have a tendency to hold out for the “right” answer to a problem.

By learning about the perceived weaknesses in overuse of the accommodating style, an individual can help the team move forward with her excellent relationship-building skills.  When he gains a better understanding of positive and negative confrontations, he will be better able to allow conflicts of opinion to be voiced regarding the project schedule and elevate his influence within the team.

1. Bargaining Styles and Negotiation: The Thomas-Kilman Conflict Mode Instrument in Negotiation Training. Shell, G. Richard. April 2001, Negotiation Journal, pp. 155-174.

2. Getting It Together: Temporal Coordination and Conflict Management in Global Virtual Teams. Montoya-Weiss, Mitzi M., Massey, Anne P. and Song, Michael. 6, December 2001, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, pp. 1251-1262.

This week we continue our in-depth examination of conflict management styles, looking at the avoiding behavior.  In previous posts, we have defined conflict and investigated the uses, overuses, and underuse of the competing, collaborating, and compromising behaviors.  All of these were medium to high on the assertiveness scale in the Thomas-Kilman (TKI) model.  The remaining two behaviors are low in assertiveness.

" src="file:///C:\Users\Teresa\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.jpg">Young employees may be struggling to find their voices among the more experienced members of the team.  Characterized by both low assertiveness and low cooperativeness, they frequently use the TKI Avoiding style as their predominant method to address conflict on the project team.

An avoiding behavior stalls or ignores issues.  The avoider fails to satisfy either her own concerns or the concerns of the other person.  Avoidance behavior is manifested by non-participation and/or by non-response ⁽¹⁾. 

Perhaps due to their inexperience within a company or group, the avoider chooses to sidestep and withdraw from the emotional confrontation.  Other classic behaviors of avoiders are an ability to leave debates unresolved, an assumption that there will be time enough to complete the task, and the awareness that the situation needs to “cool down.”  Avoidance can be viewed as apolitical in office environments, since individuals with the TKI behavior style fail to take a stand.  Avoiders are often viewed as having tact and diplomacy.  Organizations with extreme hierarchies tend to favor the avoiding style ⁽²⁾.

In addition to removing emotion from the situation, individuals who rely predominantly upon the TKI avoiding mode are able to reduce tensions in group situations.  Often when he or she is in a position of low power, the avoider will allow others to take control.  When the confrontation is dangerous or is of low importance, the avoiding mode of behavior is often the best way to manage a highly charged conflict.  The avoider may suggest, “Let’s write that down and come back to it tomorrow,” allowing tensions to diffuse.

When the avoider overuses the technique of avoiding confrontation, an individual can be a bottleneck in the flow of important information.  Decisions are made by default since there may be a lack of input data.  The avoider thrives in a risk-adverse climate, but when fast-moving, innovative decisions are required, he or she can hold back the team.

A low use of the avoiding behavior will result in over-assertive, hard-nosed negotiations with the potential to lead to hostility.  Labor management relations and litigation situations are assisted by those who rarely use the TKI avoiding mode of conflict management ⁽²⁾.  Resulting in a lack of prioritization and delegation, the low use of avoiding may result in work overload for other team members.

After further training in the TKI modes of conflict management, the avoider’s natural tendency to want to get along with others at all costs can be tempered by holding to important positions strongly.  He or she should then be able to provide critical evaluation of the obstacles to solve the problem at hand.

1. Getting It Together: Temporal Coordination and Conflict Management in Global Virtual Teams. Montoya-Weiss, Mitzi M., Massey, Anne P. and Song, Michael. 6, December 2001, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, pp. 1251-1262.

2. Bargaining Styles and Negotiation: The Thomas-Kilman Conflict Mode Instrument in Negotiation Training. Shell, G. Richard. April 2001, Negotiation Journal, pp. 155-174.

 Continuing our look at the five Thomas-Kilman Conflict Management Behavior types, this week we look at the typical style, limitations and overuse/underuse of the Compromising mode.  In previous weeks, we’ve defined conflict, conflict management, and the competing and collaborating modes.

Compromising is defined as finding the middle ground or foregoing some of one’s concerns in order to have others met.  It is moderate in both assertiveness and in cooperativeness.  A classic quality of a predominant TKI mode of compromising is the suggestion to splitting the difference in order to resolve differences.  Like collaboration, the objective of compromising is to find a mutually acceptable solution that satisfies all parties in an expedient fashion.  The distinction between collaboration and compromise behaviors is the level of concern exhibited and the degree to which the solution is integrative (collaborative) versus intermediate (compromising) ⁽¹⁾.

Again, as with collaboration, compromising behaviors tend to increase team performance as team members more quickly align on goals and task completion, higher focus on the objectives, and increased participation by all team members.

When time is short, or when the stakes are small, negotiations using the compromising style can lead the parties to a mutually agreeable, intermediate solution.  Possessing strong compromising skills and understanding the value of the debate makes the compromiser an ideal negotiator, though sometimes other team members may think he gives concessions too easily.

However, the compromising mode of dealing with conflict can lead to an acceptable solution when there are significant time constraints or when the solution is expected to be temporary. 

Certainly, offering concessions too easily or too early in negotiations can be the bane of an individual using the TKI mode of compromising predominantly in conflict situations.  If every discussion item is “up for negotiation”, the team may lose sight of the “big picture” and of their long term goals.  Also, the individual who relies heavily upon a compromising style may not discriminate between unequal alternatives. 

Some individuals refuse to give any ground at all, leading to unnecessary confrontations and frequent power struggles.  Those that are weak in using the compromising mode of conflict management may see an “issue” in everything, that is where the discussion is centered on money or convenience, the weak compromiser sees an issue of principle. 

Learning to apply an intermediate solution providing both assertiveness and cooperativeness to the situation will benefit all the team members.  For the compromiser, in particular, learning more about the other TKI conflict management modes will help her to listen carefully to the information rather than jumping to a premature “middle ground” solution.

1. Getting It Together: Temporal Coordination and Conflict Management in Global Virtual Teams. Montoya-Weiss, Mitzi M., Massey, Anne P. and Song, Michael. 6, December 2001, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, pp. 1251-1262.