June 10, 2024 • 24 mins
Mastering High-Stakes Conversations for Corporate Innovation
In this episode, we dive into the essential techniques for leading high-stakes conversations to secure senior-level commitment to corporate innovation. Our guest, Alexander Pett, an expert in executive team dynamics, discusses the crucial concept of 'productive tension' and how recognizing and addressing disagreement can lead to authentic agreement and commitment. Pett outlines practical strategies for effectively framing issues, maintaining engagement, and navigating political dynamics in boardroom settings. Tune in to learn how to prepare and communicate strategically, ensuring your innovative ideas gain the buy-in they need to succeed.
00:00 Introduction to High-Stakes Conversations
01:31 The Importance of Productive Tension
05:23 Pre-Work and Stakeholder Engagement
07:12 Creating and Maintaining Productive Tension
08:44 Communication Skills and Self-Awareness
18:30 Frameworks for Effective Dialogue
20:55 Final Thoughts and Advice
Corporate Innovation, Senior Team Engagement, Productive Tension, Executive Leadership, Alexander Pett, Aidan McCullen, Corporate Explorer, High Stakes Conversations, Leadership Strategies, Boardroom Dynamics, Effective Communication, Innovation Leadership, Pre-Meeting Preparation, Organizational Change, Executive Buy-In, David Kantor, Group Dynamics, Empathy in Leadership, Political Savvy, Agreement and Advocacy
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Aidan McCullen (00:00):
Welcome to the corporate explorer series brought to you by wazoku.
(00:03):
Wazoku helps large organizationscreate effective sustainable
innovation ecosystems that accelerateefficiency gains and new value growth.
It does this through intelligententerprise software that connects
and harnesses the power of employeessuppliers startups universities
and the unique wazoku crowd ofseven hundred thousand plus.
(00:24):
Global problem solvers, youcan find wazooku at wazooku.
com.
The next subject we're going to coveris leading high stakes conversations,
getting the senior team on board.
And we've an expert in thatAlexander Pett, welcome.
Thanks.
Great to be with you, man.
Great to be with you.
And we're moving along on the book andwe're at, I was telling you before we
(00:47):
came on air about the importance of this.
And I wonder, did this actually become.
So important that it should become beforeeverything else should be even like in
the preface of the book and it like thisis like how to get you on to the pitch
if you're gonna be playing corporateinnovation corporate exploration in the
first place and i thought i'd start with
(01:07):
a quote here that will speak so trulyto our audience they'll hear this and
they're gonna go oh man i wish i didthat cuz that's what i read you said
getting and sustaining a senior levelcommitment innovation is the top.
Of every corporate explorers.
List for critical success the typicalcorporate approach is to have a good
(01:28):
news story to tell positive customerfeedback technical achievements on
the product development roadmap andnew partner signed up however you tell
us the good news story approach is atrap it lowers tension in the senior
team making it harder to talk aboutsubstantive issues resolve challenging
problems and get authentic agreement.
(01:50):
So you think you're making progressand then when you get to real progress
You're totally undermined by somebody.
Maybe you'll tell us what's going on here.
And what do you see in the field?
Alexander Pett (02:01):
Yeah, well, I think the main principle on my mind there
is that if you're going to createagreement, you've got to find the
disagreement in the room first.
But we're so wired to advocate andpush for our thinking to be identified
and understood and agreed with.
That we're often not looking forit or looking for the signs of it.
And that's where this conceptof productive tension comes in.
So I get the privilege of sitting inlots of executive teams and boards.
(02:22):
I'm in there to help developthem and their effectiveness and
help them think about how they'redelivering their strategies.
And so in that process, as I observethem at work, I often see corporate
explorers coming in to pitch their ideas.
recommendation.
They're thinking, they're updategetting buy in and maybe from the
point of early investment evenjust for early experimentation.
(02:45):
And so I see the result of that and I cansee when it's working and when it's not.
And that sense of, do you want tofind the disagreement or are you over
advocating trying to steer people toan agreement is one of the first traps.
Aidan McCullen (02:56):
I understand this.
I've done this.
You've worked so hard toget that idea over the line.
You've worked so hard, you've Alignedpeople behind the scenes you have
this boardroom moment and you wantto sell that idea and you don't want
anybody criticizing it is almostlike it's become your baby so you're
suffering from the ikea effect in a.
plethora of other biases.
(03:17):
And the moment comes for you thatyou say no, you want to introduce the
idea of tension in the first place.
So maybe let's introduce what you do,because I'm jumping straight here.
And we'll do a longer episodein the future, because I'd
love to do more on this.
I think it's so important.
But the whole idea of introducing tension,early productive tension in the team
(03:39):
becomes so important with the people whoultimately the people are going to fund
the idea and make it live in the future.
Yeah, I think the twoinitial thoughts on that.
And the first one is, in my work, Iwould say that it doesn't matter how
competent, capable, experienced, valuesdriven you are how phenomenal your
brain is, if you can't deploy thatcontribution through conversation.
(04:01):
And so it is the deployment tool.
It is the engagement tool.
It's how you actuallycreate and enable change.
So that's step one.
Step two, then, is needing to be consciousof how you create this level of, as
we're calling it, productive tension.
And I'm going to describe thelevels because I think that
the basic level is low tension.
And then people are thinking about,well, who knows anything they're thinking
(04:23):
about the previous meeting, the next onethey're sneaking in some emails into the
executive meeting or something like that.
And then it's obvious when you've gottoo high tension, when there's people
that are doing immediate pushback witha heightened level of frustration or
irritation or impassioned disagreement.
And actually Just either side ofproductive tension, you've got two zones.
(04:44):
One is passive engagement,and one is passive resistance.
And the problem is, they can both looklike productive tension, and they're not.
One is, I'm nodding, smiling, huh, ing.
And I'm not necessarily engaged.
And the other is, I'm doing thesame, uh huh, huh, but actually, I
might be irritated, or starting tothink, no, there's no future in this.
And the critical element that's going topull you out of that is, do you create?
(05:07):
The production tension how youmaintain it and actually how you
close the whole conversation off tobe sure you've really got a level
of authentic engagement in buying
that thing you talked about so thethe nodding the person in the room or
the persons with their body languagesaying everything about the hate your
idea if we go back a step and go.
(05:28):
You have to understand that as acorporate explorer there's going to be
resistance because you could be maybechanging their value or their perceived
value in a company maybe they thinki'm gonna lose my corner office maybe
i'm gonna lose some of my team maybe.
The company is gonna reallocate someof the investment from my department
to this new budding idea so yougonna have all those reasons behind
(05:49):
it as well and i thought about howreally what you should be doing.
Before you encounter that person is maybegoing meeting them beforehand and maybe
you share a bit about that so behind thescenes before this boardroom conversation
ever takes place what type of work shouldyou be doing as a corporate explorer.
Alexander Pett (06:07):
Well you mentioned it earlier in terms of catching up
with individuals preparing them.
Especially working for stakeholders whomight be more resistant to understand
their concerns, but also make a reallycompelling case for as they bring
leadership to the whole organizationthis is something for them to support.
Often I find this dilemma inexecutive teams and in boards,
but particularly executive teams.
(06:28):
This idea of being a wholecompany executive first and then
their functional lead second.
And often that's misplaced ormisbalanced and the over emphasis
is on advocacy and protecting ofsomeone's own function or business area.
So there is something about you'retrying to enroll people into that
role of leadership for the wholeorganization and leadership for
(06:51):
its longer term future as well.
So there is something about even the preconversations can be inviting someone
to take that perspective and to stepup into that higher order, a level of
leadership where they might make choicesthat feel that they are perhaps taking
funding and support from a core partof the business, but for good reason.
So there's a matureelement to that dialogue.
(07:12):
And that one on one work ispretty key for that, I think.
Aidan McCullen (07:15):
Most of us have encountered that person in the room
where we didn't do our homework.
We didn't read your chapter.
And this person has beenquiet the whole time.
You think you're right at your you'reat the finish line of your presentation,
but thinking you're about to getsign off, and then they pipe up.
And then you maybe become defensive.
And the whole thing just tumbles.
That's the moment.
That's the moment.
(07:35):
I we've all been lot lotsof us have been there.
And we regret it.
And it's this pre workthat needs to be done.
So I'm going to show on the screen Thefive steps of how to create tension and
maybe you bring it, bring us through thisfrom framing the issue all the way around.
Alexander Pett (07:51):
Yes, definitely.
Just one thought about your comment then.
Even when you do good pre work you canalways be surprised and what we're not
really dealing with here is the sortof political dynamics as much where.
You're working with highintegrity, but you're also being
quite skillful politically.
And you're very aware of the dynamicsin order to set things up well.
So even when you think you've gotagreement, sometimes you're just
surprised and there's something going onpolitically you weren't quite aware of.
(08:15):
So there's that challenge.
But even in that moment, before I talkabout that, the sort of the methodology,
there's that need when you get thepushback to really be Disciplined in
making yourself curious rather than eitherover advocating or becoming vis-a-vis
defensive and that rather than that.
But this is the reason why.
No.
(08:35):
Tell me more about why you're concerned.
I want to understand that.
And even though it can feel likeyou're giving the detractor airtime
in the executive or the board,it's the most crucial thing.
And what I've really noticed over what 20years of doing this work is that people
are rarely stuck on a memory of not havingbeen agreed with, but people are really
(08:56):
stuck on not having been listened to.
And sometimes from 10 years ago.
So that sense of the listening andthe validation of someone's value
in their comments is a crucial partof enrolling them in that moment.
Aidan McCullen (09:08):
So let's before we go to the framework, I thought about this
because I went this communication.
The all these skills are skills that weshould be taught as children even because
our relationship should be better andeven like you said there it's going back
to it could be something in school itcould be something your parents did and
even like for example if i'm having anargument at home my wife and the kids
(09:30):
around i'll tell the kids when they're andgoing right back to when they're younger.
It's okay for this to happen , a healthyargument is okay as long as you don't lose
it as long as you don't lose it like inthe boardroom, but I think that piece
is so missing from not only a corporateexplorers world, but most business
people's world, most people's world
Alexander Pett (09:51):
I mean, this is a really Fundamental part, I think, of being
effective as a , corporate explorerwhich is there's a sort of higher
level of awareness and personal selfpossession, I think you need as well.
And to make the point my daughter is 12.
Her classmates parentsare both neuroscientists.
And I'd read this research that 10 percentof our perception, as it's through our
eyes, And 90 percent is pre programmed.
(10:14):
I was like, that's pretty challenging.
So I asked them over abarbecue in the summer.
They're probably like,Hey, we're not at work.
Can we just eat?
But they very kindlyengaged in the conversation.
And their reply was, it's morelike 98 percent is pre programmed.
So there's this need togenuinely buy into the fact.
Although I can function very wellon a daily basis, there is a flaw
(10:37):
and I have a set of blind spots andthere's stuff that I just can't see.
And if you go into a meeting likethis with that knowledge embedded
in your gut almost, then there's areadiness and a willingness to think,
what can this person see that Ican't see, that needs consideration?
And if you don't and you dothe opposite and you over
advocate, you'll get defensive.
Okay, now you just put yourself furtherback and you don't look so credible.
(10:58):
The other colleagues in the board meeting,
Aidan McCullen (11:00):
but isn't it seen as a weakness?
That's one of the problems we comefrom this steady state business
environment, the Gordon Gecko typecharacter that has to have all the
answers are seen to have all the answers.
And oftentimes that person inthe room, the boardroom who pipes
up at the end undermines you.
There's a fear driving that, that they'remaybe going to be exposed in some way.
(11:20):
Okay.
I thought about that there's a greatquote of david eagleman brilliant
writer about the brain and hesaid your brain is essentially.
In this dark dark room watching a theaterthrough your eyes of what's going on
through all these tentacles which areall your sensors and emotions to tell
it what's going on and if we understandthat if we just accept that like you
(11:43):
say then you're gonna go look, , wecannot know what's happening out there.
So therefore we need to engage allour people, all the people around us,
our families, our children, as thesesensors for more information around us.
Alexander Pett (11:55):
Yeah, , if you think about the capability, experience
and knowledge of the people you'resitting with in a meeting room.
And seeing that as , a source to tapdraw on the insights and be compelling
enough to get their attention andactually engage them well on the subject,
then that's a pretty important moment.
Aidan McCullen (12:11):
We're going to bring the frame up on the screen now for audience
and I'd love you to take us through it.
Alexander Pett (12:16):
the starting point.
is how do you actuallycreate productive tension?
How do you then maintain it?
How do you close off the conversationsand do you know where you are and
you know what is expected of younext time you're back in that room
with your executive stakeholders.
But even before that point is, well,how are you going to start to get
attention on the issue in a way thatwill create the productive tension
(12:40):
and draw the perspectives of those inthe room right onto the right topic?
So the idea, first of all, is framing.
There's a lovely Scottish saying,an answer framing saves a pound
of time, that I heard years ago.
But the framing, whatare we actually here for?
And there is this critical thingis, what is this conversation for?
Because quite often I've listened topitches, and only partway through do
(13:00):
you realise what they're here for,what they're actually asking for.
And that sense of purpose is so crucialfor getting attention in the office.
So first of all, this is aconversation for what is this a period?
This is the early time of investment?
Is it buy in?
Is it collaboration support needed forearly experimentation, or whatever it is?
Aidan McCullen (13:19):
That'd be nice at any meeting.
Agenda would be nice for most people.
Sorry to interrupt.
Alexander Pett (13:24):
Not at all.
And I think that's the frameto start getting attention.
And that's a brief, it'ssharp, it's to the point.
But what I noticed is that whencorporate explorers get this right,
I see the attention pick up in thePeople draw away from maybe the
phone they've just been doing a bitof texting on and start to engage.
The second one is what is the issueor the opportunity or the actual,
(13:49):
area you want to focus attention on?
And with that comes the stakes.
This is the what if wedo and what if we don't.
Why should the individualsin the room care?
And what's important about this iswe so often talk about why we care,
not enough by why others might care.
And so that sense of pulling up intothe bigger picture of you mentioned
earlier, what would draw the attentionof this group, what would invest
(14:11):
that goes into be invested in theconversation and actually participate
fully, that's pretty significant.
And then you're into the conversation.
And actually what the crucialconnection between this, the name
mistakes, and compared perspectivesis to ask the question, let's find
out what people are thinking here.
Now clearly there might be some particularstructure or process, there might be
some information you're looking at,but you want to test early on, really
(14:35):
early on, what any reflections or anycomments at this point, any, anything
people need to understand more beforewe press into this conversation.
And this idea of early engaging, and youwatch when individuals advocate too much.
The simplest way of describingit is like a triangle.
Think about all the research, analysis,insight, data, information you've
(14:56):
got that's taken you into that room.
And the risk is often that people sharethe wide base of the triangle, and build
up to the point, rather than the otherway around, which is actually what's the
point, and you can dip into the otherpieces of information as you need it.
So you're seeking the differentperspectives in the room, and this
is where you're going to find somesupporters, maybe some detractors, or
people with different points of view.
(15:17):
One of the traps here is you can startto get multiple points flowing in the
conversation, multiple moves, and we'llreference that framework in a moment.
And then suddenly it's prettyhard to actually make sure
the thread is maintained.
So a level of assertivenessis really required.
So actually before we move on tothat point, I'm conscious that
you've got these three differentpoints in the room already.
Let's handle those.
Is that okay?
Yes, that's fine.
(15:37):
Good.
And off you go.
And that sense of assertivenessisn't objectionable.
I, in my experience as execteam's board, just want clarity.
Where are we in our conversation?
And if you don't take responsibility,quite often the chair doesn't necessarily,
and then your credibility is hurt.
So make sure you've got that right flow,and you'll pick off the point, and then
you get the other points coming throughonce the early ones have been attended to.
(16:01):
Then we're looking for the common points.
Where's the alignment?
Where are the concerns?
Can you chunk those up?
Can you sum them up?
And you've got to work out,do they need resolving then?
How are you going to reportback with that information?
But you're giving a clear sense of thelie of the land and testing it as well.
That's what's so crucial.
That sense of involving theboard or the team in the process.
In that moment, and then there'san agreement on what's next.
(16:24):
And so there are four steps.
There's clarity.
What are we here for?
Are we having the same conversation?
We've got the same expectations.
There's recognition.
What level of buy-in, agreement, alignmentor disagreement is there to that topic?
And as you work through that, you'regetting in place to commitment.
to the lead to change.
And the two traps are one, that overadvocacy early two, then jump into
(16:46):
action, rather than really taking enoughtime to make sure you've got that level
of clarity and the recognition in theroom before you move to get agreements.
That's essentially the cycleyou're running through.
And you might find you run throughthat several times in a meeting,
depending on what's required.
Aidan McCullen (17:00):
And probably with different departments as well,
because you're bringing almost thisslide deck Or better than the slide
deck the conversation on tour withyou and you get better every time
you go through that conversation
Alexander Pett (17:13):
that's right and I think that sense of again what the
people in the room need why shouldthey care being a real critical focus
Aidan McCullen (17:19):
one thing I thought very deeply when I read about this was
that I truly believe corporate explorersare neuro diverse they belong somewhere
Similar on a spectrum and they havesimilar traits they have resilience they
have creativity they can sense changesin the environment that others can't
see or sense and it's like a waterbedeffect you get these skills but you don't
(17:44):
get some other skills and some of theskills you're very much missing are the
communication skills or being able to.
Sell your point with empathy for thepeople in the room and i thought that
that's why this is so important andhence probably why you're in business
as long as you are doing this workbecause we all need help in that respect.
Alexander Pett (18:05):
Yeah that's that's the key developmental stage and this is going back
a bit to childhood but call the theory of.
Other minds or theory of mind is sometimesreferred to, which is when you learn,
actually, you're equal to everybody else.
And Aidan, that's not your toy.
That's Alex's.
Give it back to him that kindof thing, which gets embedded.
Okay, we are all in this together.
And there's sometimes I think with peoplewho are really much more extreme in
(18:28):
personality, you're often innovating.
Of being successful because they'reslightly myopic about their own thinking.
And that is a gift to the organization.
But it's helping those individualsin particular just really pull back
from that intense advocacy for theirthinking and recommendations to the
broader conversation they're requiredto actually create and facilitate.
If they can think actually theirjob is to own the conversation in
(18:50):
the room, not just own the outcome,then that's a helpful mindset.
Aidan McCullen (18:53):
Brilliant.
And again, you bring it all the wayback to just basic communication
skills that we don't learn.
And one of the great tools youadvocate for in this chapter and in
your work is David Kantor's work.
I thought we'd share that asanother helpful framework again,
we'll show it on the screen.
And I'd love you to takeour audience through this.
And I just want to say, We're goingto come back at a later stage,
(19:16):
Alexander and I, we're going to doa deeper dive into this because it's
so important to help you succeed.
Alexander Pett (19:22):
Great.
Well, I really like this framework.
What I like about it is we could do 40days back to back of looking at group
dynamic frameworks or models or analysis.
And this is cut so simply through whatare people likely to be doing in the room.
And David Kantor says, there arefour things you can make a move.
Hey, here's my thinking.
Here's my recommendation.
You can oppose actually I don't agree.
(19:42):
I see it differently.
You can follow.
I agree with you, Aidan.
I think that's the right thing.
Actually, what we could do is, thatkind of bringing some energy to it.
And there's bystand.
Bystand doesn't translate brilliantly.
It sounds passive.
But actually, the bystander is lookingat the dynamic and where the flow of
conversation is and commenting on that.
Actually, hold on a minute.
Before we go to action, I hearddifferent views in the room, which
(20:04):
sounded significant to me and ifthey're not answered, I think it's
going to slow us down later.
Does that sound like a fair concern?
And I think there are two others.
There's asking questions andanswering questions as well.
But this work gets the heartof the flow of dialogue.
What is and what isn'thelping make progress.
And there's this lovely techniquewhere you can just assess a dialogue
from each person's name, who's moving,opposing, following, and bystanding.
(20:27):
And you get a sense of thepattern developmentally.
But for the Corporate Explorer, there'sa real need to notice, where are we?
Is there too much followand not enough oppose?
And you think, surelyit can't be this easy.
Well, it probably isn't.
Something isn't being surfaced.
You might be in that passiveengagement or even passive resistance.
And I think as well, that sense of beingwilling to facilitate the dialogue,
(20:50):
looking for the oppose, following up onthe support and just making sure you've
got an appropriate mix you'd expect tohave when looking at an issue that might
be quite challenging to those in the room.
Aidan McCullen (21:00):
When you think about what people who take up innovation
roles buy into in the role, it'slike innovation labs, creation.
You see the role is very very politicalyou have to be this brilliant salesperson
you have to be a facilitator in someways there's a lot more skills there
and i think, that's the great thingabout a book like this and your work
(21:22):
is that you bring it to the fore andshine a light on the need for this.
But one thing keeps coming back to mindand i'm thinking of maybe as a final
thought is again that person in the room.
Who undermines you cause you talk aboutthat and i was brought up old wounds
for me cause it happened a lot forme and then i know good therapist i
(21:44):
don't know if they could do that work.
Even, like you say, you do thiswork, sometimes you're going
to come across those people.
What's your advice for when you do?
Alexander Pett (21:52):
Yeah, I think, a helpful phrase is good
communication lies in the response.
I don't know where I read that, but Ithink it's a really useful challenge.
Because the moment you're notgetting something, typically what
I'm going to do is blame you.
And actually that's a problem because Ihave to take responsibility for what's
the quality of my communication andhow do I own helping you get something.
(22:13):
So I think that's the first step forme, which is I've got to own that and
own how else might I engage with you.
I think the second thing is that, you'rejust inevitably going to hit blocks.
And so the political work, thepre work, the follow up and having
enough advocates in the room, ofcourse, is a key part of doing that.
But the main challenge is thatoutside the room, we're all cool and
(22:34):
calm and we can think very straight.
And I've sat with corporate explorerteams doing their prep work, and they just
have got run through their presentations,really sharp, really clear, really looking
to get a dialogue flowing, and then youwatch them in the moment, a little bit of
pressure, and then it tips usually intoover advocacy, defensiveness, tension
goes too high, and then someone elsehas to intervene to try and change that,
(22:56):
then the credibility of the individualand the project starts to suffer.
So it's that sense of really beingprepared, really know what your real
work is, and that how you handle itcan be as important as your answer,
because the moment you start to lookdefensive, then others might start to
buy in less to your recommendations.
Aidan McCullen (23:13):
And they're looking for that weakness sometimes as well.
Alexander for people who want to find outmore, not only read the chapter in the
book, I'm sure you have much more writingsas well, much more in you as well.
There's so much more in this, I thoughtthat it was hard for you to get it into
the chapter that you had in the book.
Where's the best place to find you?
Alexander Pett (23:30):
Well, you'll see my profile on the change logic website
have my work with change logic.
And then for my river leadershipwork, you'll find me on LinkedIn.
Aidan McCullen (23:39):
Alexander, Pett, thanks for joining us.
A pleasure.\
That episode was brought to you by Wazoku.
Wazoku helps large organizationscreate effective, sustainable
innovation ecosystems that accelerateefficiency gains and new value growth.
It does this through intelligententerprise software that connects
and harnesses the power of employees,suppliers, startups, universities,
(24:02):
and a unique Wazoku crowd of 700,000 plus global problem solvers.
You can find Wazoku.
A B Corp.
on wazooku.
com
Welcome to the corporate explorer series brought to you by wazoku.
(00:03):
Wazoku helps large organizationscreate effective sustainable
innovation ecosystems that accelerateefficiency gains and new value growth.
It does this through intelligententerprise software that connects
and harnesses the power of employeessuppliers startups universities
and the unique wazoku crowd ofseven hundred thousand plus.
(00:24):
Global problem solvers, youcan find wazooku at wazooku.
com.
The next subject we're going to coveris leading high stakes conversations,
getting the senior team on board.
And we've an expert in thatAlexander Pett, welcome.
Thanks.
Great to be with you, man.
Great to be with you.
And we're moving along on the book andwe're at, I was telling you before we
(00:47):
came on air about the importance of this.
And I wonder, did this actually become.
So important that it should become beforeeverything else should be even like in
the preface of the book and it like thisis like how to get you on to the pitch
if you're gonna be playing corporateinnovation corporate exploration in the
first place and i thought i'd start with
(01:07):
a quote here that will speak so trulyto our audience they'll hear this and
they're gonna go oh man i wish i didthat cuz that's what i read you said
getting and sustaining a senior levelcommitment innovation is the top.
Of every corporate explorers.
List for critical success the typicalcorporate approach is to have a good
(01:28):
news story to tell positive customerfeedback technical achievements on
the product development roadmap andnew partner signed up however you tell
us the good news story approach is atrap it lowers tension in the senior
team making it harder to talk aboutsubstantive issues resolve challenging
problems and get authentic agreement.
(01:50):
So you think you're making progressand then when you get to real progress
You're totally undermined by somebody.
Maybe you'll tell us what's going on here.
And what do you see in the field?
Alexander Pett (02:01):
Yeah, well, I think the main principle on my mind there
is that if you're going to createagreement, you've got to find the
disagreement in the room first.
But we're so wired to advocate andpush for our thinking to be identified
and understood and agreed with.
That we're often not looking forit or looking for the signs of it.
And that's where this conceptof productive tension comes in.
So I get the privilege of sitting inlots of executive teams and boards.
(02:22):
I'm in there to help developthem and their effectiveness and
help them think about how they'redelivering their strategies.
And so in that process, as I observethem at work, I often see corporate
explorers coming in to pitch their ideas.
recommendation.
They're thinking, they're updategetting buy in and maybe from the
point of early investment evenjust for early experimentation.
(02:45):
And so I see the result of that and I cansee when it's working and when it's not.
And that sense of, do you want tofind the disagreement or are you over
advocating trying to steer people toan agreement is one of the first traps.
Aidan McCullen (02:56):
I understand this.
I've done this.
You've worked so hard toget that idea over the line.
You've worked so hard, you've Alignedpeople behind the scenes you have
this boardroom moment and you wantto sell that idea and you don't want
anybody criticizing it is almostlike it's become your baby so you're
suffering from the ikea effect in a.
plethora of other biases.
(03:17):
And the moment comes for you thatyou say no, you want to introduce the
idea of tension in the first place.
So maybe let's introduce what you do,because I'm jumping straight here.
And we'll do a longer episodein the future, because I'd
love to do more on this.
I think it's so important.
But the whole idea of introducing tension,early productive tension in the team
(03:39):
becomes so important with the people whoultimately the people are going to fund
the idea and make it live in the future.
Yeah, I think the twoinitial thoughts on that.
And the first one is, in my work, Iwould say that it doesn't matter how
competent, capable, experienced, valuesdriven you are how phenomenal your
brain is, if you can't deploy thatcontribution through conversation.
(04:01):
And so it is the deployment tool.
It is the engagement tool.
It's how you actuallycreate and enable change.
So that's step one.
Step two, then, is needing to be consciousof how you create this level of, as
we're calling it, productive tension.
And I'm going to describe thelevels because I think that
the basic level is low tension.
And then people are thinking about,well, who knows anything they're thinking
(04:23):
about the previous meeting, the next onethey're sneaking in some emails into the
executive meeting or something like that.
And then it's obvious when you've gottoo high tension, when there's people
that are doing immediate pushback witha heightened level of frustration or
irritation or impassioned disagreement.
And actually Just either side ofproductive tension, you've got two zones.
(04:44):
One is passive engagement,and one is passive resistance.
And the problem is, they can both looklike productive tension, and they're not.
One is, I'm nodding, smiling, huh, ing.
And I'm not necessarily engaged.
And the other is, I'm doing thesame, uh huh, huh, but actually, I
might be irritated, or starting tothink, no, there's no future in this.
And the critical element that's going topull you out of that is, do you create?
(05:07):
The production tension how youmaintain it and actually how you
close the whole conversation off tobe sure you've really got a level
of authentic engagement in buying
that thing you talked about so thethe nodding the person in the room or
the persons with their body languagesaying everything about the hate your
idea if we go back a step and go.
(05:28):
You have to understand that as acorporate explorer there's going to be
resistance because you could be maybechanging their value or their perceived
value in a company maybe they thinki'm gonna lose my corner office maybe
i'm gonna lose some of my team maybe.
The company is gonna reallocate someof the investment from my department
to this new budding idea so yougonna have all those reasons behind
(05:49):
it as well and i thought about howreally what you should be doing.
Before you encounter that person is maybegoing meeting them beforehand and maybe
you share a bit about that so behind thescenes before this boardroom conversation
ever takes place what type of work shouldyou be doing as a corporate explorer.
Alexander Pett (06:07):
Well you mentioned it earlier in terms of catching up
with individuals preparing them.
Especially working for stakeholders whomight be more resistant to understand
their concerns, but also make a reallycompelling case for as they bring
leadership to the whole organizationthis is something for them to support.
Often I find this dilemma inexecutive teams and in boards,
but particularly executive teams.
(06:28):
This idea of being a wholecompany executive first and then
their functional lead second.
And often that's misplaced ormisbalanced and the over emphasis
is on advocacy and protecting ofsomeone's own function or business area.
So there is something about you'retrying to enroll people into that
role of leadership for the wholeorganization and leadership for
(06:51):
its longer term future as well.
So there is something about even the preconversations can be inviting someone
to take that perspective and to stepup into that higher order, a level of
leadership where they might make choicesthat feel that they are perhaps taking
funding and support from a core partof the business, but for good reason.
So there's a matureelement to that dialogue.
(07:12):
And that one on one work ispretty key for that, I think.
Aidan McCullen (07:15):
Most of us have encountered that person in the room
where we didn't do our homework.
We didn't read your chapter.
And this person has beenquiet the whole time.
You think you're right at your you'reat the finish line of your presentation,
but thinking you're about to getsign off, and then they pipe up.
And then you maybe become defensive.
And the whole thing just tumbles.
That's the moment.
That's the moment.
(07:35):
I we've all been lot lotsof us have been there.
And we regret it.
And it's this pre workthat needs to be done.
So I'm going to show on the screen Thefive steps of how to create tension and
maybe you bring it, bring us through thisfrom framing the issue all the way around.
Alexander Pett (07:51):
Yes, definitely.
Just one thought about your comment then.
Even when you do good pre work you canalways be surprised and what we're not
really dealing with here is the sortof political dynamics as much where.
You're working with highintegrity, but you're also being
quite skillful politically.
And you're very aware of the dynamicsin order to set things up well.
So even when you think you've gotagreement, sometimes you're just
surprised and there's something going onpolitically you weren't quite aware of.
(08:15):
So there's that challenge.
But even in that moment, before I talkabout that, the sort of the methodology,
there's that need when you get thepushback to really be Disciplined in
making yourself curious rather than eitherover advocating or becoming vis-a-vis
defensive and that rather than that.
But this is the reason why.
No.
(08:35):
Tell me more about why you're concerned.
I want to understand that.
And even though it can feel likeyou're giving the detractor airtime
in the executive or the board,it's the most crucial thing.
And what I've really noticed over what 20years of doing this work is that people
are rarely stuck on a memory of not havingbeen agreed with, but people are really
(08:56):
stuck on not having been listened to.
And sometimes from 10 years ago.
So that sense of the listening andthe validation of someone's value
in their comments is a crucial partof enrolling them in that moment.
Aidan McCullen (09:08):
So let's before we go to the framework, I thought about this
because I went this communication.
The all these skills are skills that weshould be taught as children even because
our relationship should be better andeven like you said there it's going back
to it could be something in school itcould be something your parents did and
even like for example if i'm having anargument at home my wife and the kids
(09:30):
around i'll tell the kids when they're andgoing right back to when they're younger.
It's okay for this to happen , a healthyargument is okay as long as you don't lose
it as long as you don't lose it like inthe boardroom, but I think that piece
is so missing from not only a corporateexplorers world, but most business
people's world, most people's world
Alexander Pett (09:51):
I mean, this is a really Fundamental part, I think, of being
effective as a , corporate explorerwhich is there's a sort of higher
level of awareness and personal selfpossession, I think you need as well.
And to make the point my daughter is 12.
Her classmates parentsare both neuroscientists.
And I'd read this research that 10 percentof our perception, as it's through our
eyes, And 90 percent is pre programmed.
(10:14):
I was like, that's pretty challenging.
So I asked them over abarbecue in the summer.
They're probably like,Hey, we're not at work.
Can we just eat?
But they very kindlyengaged in the conversation.
And their reply was, it's morelike 98 percent is pre programmed.
So there's this need togenuinely buy into the fact.
Although I can function very wellon a daily basis, there is a flaw
(10:37):
and I have a set of blind spots andthere's stuff that I just can't see.
And if you go into a meeting likethis with that knowledge embedded
in your gut almost, then there's areadiness and a willingness to think,
what can this person see that Ican't see, that needs consideration?
And if you don't and you dothe opposite and you over
advocate, you'll get defensive.
Okay, now you just put yourself furtherback and you don't look so credible.
(10:58):
The other colleagues in the board meeting,
Aidan McCullen (11:00):
but isn't it seen as a weakness?
That's one of the problems we comefrom this steady state business
environment, the Gordon Gecko typecharacter that has to have all the
answers are seen to have all the answers.
And oftentimes that person inthe room, the boardroom who pipes
up at the end undermines you.
There's a fear driving that, that they'remaybe going to be exposed in some way.
(11:20):
Okay.
I thought about that there's a greatquote of david eagleman brilliant
writer about the brain and hesaid your brain is essentially.
In this dark dark room watching a theaterthrough your eyes of what's going on
through all these tentacles which areall your sensors and emotions to tell
it what's going on and if we understandthat if we just accept that like you
(11:43):
say then you're gonna go look, , wecannot know what's happening out there.
So therefore we need to engage allour people, all the people around us,
our families, our children, as thesesensors for more information around us.
Alexander Pett (11:55):
Yeah, , if you think about the capability, experience
and knowledge of the people you'resitting with in a meeting room.
And seeing that as , a source to tapdraw on the insights and be compelling
enough to get their attention andactually engage them well on the subject,
then that's a pretty important moment.
Aidan McCullen (12:11):
We're going to bring the frame up on the screen now for audience
and I'd love you to take us through it.
Alexander Pett (12:16):
the starting point.
is how do you actuallycreate productive tension?
How do you then maintain it?
How do you close off the conversationsand do you know where you are and
you know what is expected of younext time you're back in that room
with your executive stakeholders.
But even before that point is, well,how are you going to start to get
attention on the issue in a way thatwill create the productive tension
(12:40):
and draw the perspectives of those inthe room right onto the right topic?
So the idea, first of all, is framing.
There's a lovely Scottish saying,an answer framing saves a pound
of time, that I heard years ago.
But the framing, whatare we actually here for?
And there is this critical thingis, what is this conversation for?
Because quite often I've listened topitches, and only partway through do
(13:00):
you realise what they're here for,what they're actually asking for.
And that sense of purpose is so crucialfor getting attention in the office.
So first of all, this is aconversation for what is this a period?
This is the early time of investment?
Is it buy in?
Is it collaboration support needed forearly experimentation, or whatever it is?
Aidan McCullen (13:19):
That'd be nice at any meeting.
Agenda would be nice for most people.
Sorry to interrupt.
Alexander Pett (13:24):
Not at all.
And I think that's the frameto start getting attention.
And that's a brief, it'ssharp, it's to the point.
But what I noticed is that whencorporate explorers get this right,
I see the attention pick up in thePeople draw away from maybe the
phone they've just been doing a bitof texting on and start to engage.
The second one is what is the issueor the opportunity or the actual,
(13:49):
area you want to focus attention on?
And with that comes the stakes.
This is the what if wedo and what if we don't.
Why should the individualsin the room care?
And what's important about this iswe so often talk about why we care,
not enough by why others might care.
And so that sense of pulling up intothe bigger picture of you mentioned
earlier, what would draw the attentionof this group, what would invest
(14:11):
that goes into be invested in theconversation and actually participate
fully, that's pretty significant.
And then you're into the conversation.
And actually what the crucialconnection between this, the name
mistakes, and compared perspectivesis to ask the question, let's find
out what people are thinking here.
Now clearly there might be some particularstructure or process, there might be
some information you're looking at,but you want to test early on, really
(14:35):
early on, what any reflections or anycomments at this point, any, anything
people need to understand more beforewe press into this conversation.
And this idea of early engaging, and youwatch when individuals advocate too much.
The simplest way of describingit is like a triangle.
Think about all the research, analysis,insight, data, information you've
(14:56):
got that's taken you into that room.
And the risk is often that people sharethe wide base of the triangle, and build
up to the point, rather than the otherway around, which is actually what's the
point, and you can dip into the otherpieces of information as you need it.
So you're seeking the differentperspectives in the room, and this
is where you're going to find somesupporters, maybe some detractors, or
people with different points of view.
(15:17):
One of the traps here is you can startto get multiple points flowing in the
conversation, multiple moves, and we'llreference that framework in a moment.
And then suddenly it's prettyhard to actually make sure
the thread is maintained.
So a level of assertivenessis really required.
So actually before we move on tothat point, I'm conscious that
you've got these three differentpoints in the room already.
Let's handle those.
Is that okay?
Yes, that's fine.
(15:37):
Good.
And off you go.
And that sense of assertivenessisn't objectionable.
I, in my experience as execteam's board, just want clarity.
Where are we in our conversation?
And if you don't take responsibility,quite often the chair doesn't necessarily,
and then your credibility is hurt.
So make sure you've got that right flow,and you'll pick off the point, and then
you get the other points coming throughonce the early ones have been attended to.
(16:01):
Then we're looking for the common points.
Where's the alignment?
Where are the concerns?
Can you chunk those up?
Can you sum them up?
And you've got to work out,do they need resolving then?
How are you going to reportback with that information?
But you're giving a clear sense of thelie of the land and testing it as well.
That's what's so crucial.
That sense of involving theboard or the team in the process.
In that moment, and then there'san agreement on what's next.
(16:24):
And so there are four steps.
There's clarity.
What are we here for?
Are we having the same conversation?
We've got the same expectations.
There's recognition.
What level of buy-in, agreement, alignmentor disagreement is there to that topic?
And as you work through that, you'regetting in place to commitment.
to the lead to change.
And the two traps are one, that overadvocacy early two, then jump into
(16:46):
action, rather than really taking enoughtime to make sure you've got that level
of clarity and the recognition in theroom before you move to get agreements.
That's essentially the cycleyou're running through.
And you might find you run throughthat several times in a meeting,
depending on what's required.
Aidan McCullen (17:00):
And probably with different departments as well,
because you're bringing almost thisslide deck Or better than the slide
deck the conversation on tour withyou and you get better every time
you go through that conversation
Alexander Pett (17:13):
that's right and I think that sense of again what the
people in the room need why shouldthey care being a real critical focus
Aidan McCullen (17:19):
one thing I thought very deeply when I read about this was
that I truly believe corporate explorersare neuro diverse they belong somewhere
Similar on a spectrum and they havesimilar traits they have resilience they
have creativity they can sense changesin the environment that others can't
see or sense and it's like a waterbedeffect you get these skills but you don't
(17:44):
get some other skills and some of theskills you're very much missing are the
communication skills or being able to.
Sell your point with empathy for thepeople in the room and i thought that
that's why this is so important andhence probably why you're in business
as long as you are doing this workbecause we all need help in that respect.
Alexander Pett (18:05):
Yeah that's that's the key developmental stage and this is going back
a bit to childhood but call the theory of.
Other minds or theory of mind is sometimesreferred to, which is when you learn,
actually, you're equal to everybody else.
And Aidan, that's not your toy.
That's Alex's.
Give it back to him that kindof thing, which gets embedded.
Okay, we are all in this together.
And there's sometimes I think with peoplewho are really much more extreme in
(18:28):
personality, you're often innovating.
Of being successful because they'reslightly myopic about their own thinking.
And that is a gift to the organization.
But it's helping those individualsin particular just really pull back
from that intense advocacy for theirthinking and recommendations to the
broader conversation they're requiredto actually create and facilitate.
If they can think actually theirjob is to own the conversation in
(18:50):
the room, not just own the outcome,then that's a helpful mindset.
Aidan McCullen (18:53):
Brilliant.
And again, you bring it all the wayback to just basic communication
skills that we don't learn.
And one of the great tools youadvocate for in this chapter and in
your work is David Kantor's work.
I thought we'd share that asanother helpful framework again,
we'll show it on the screen.
And I'd love you to takeour audience through this.
And I just want to say, We're goingto come back at a later stage,
(19:16):
Alexander and I, we're going to doa deeper dive into this because it's
so important to help you succeed.
Alexander Pett (19:22):
Great.
Well, I really like this framework.
What I like about it is we could do 40days back to back of looking at group
dynamic frameworks or models or analysis.
And this is cut so simply through whatare people likely to be doing in the room.
And David Kantor says, there arefour things you can make a move.
Hey, here's my thinking.
Here's my recommendation.
You can oppose actually I don't agree.
(19:42):
I see it differently.
You can follow.
I agree with you, Aidan.
I think that's the right thing.
Actually, what we could do is, thatkind of bringing some energy to it.
And there's bystand.
Bystand doesn't translate brilliantly.
It sounds passive.
But actually, the bystander is lookingat the dynamic and where the flow of
conversation is and commenting on that.
Actually, hold on a minute.
Before we go to action, I hearddifferent views in the room, which
(20:04):
sounded significant to me and ifthey're not answered, I think it's
going to slow us down later.
Does that sound like a fair concern?
And I think there are two others.
There's asking questions andanswering questions as well.
But this work gets the heartof the flow of dialogue.
What is and what isn'thelping make progress.
And there's this lovely techniquewhere you can just assess a dialogue
from each person's name, who's moving,opposing, following, and bystanding.
(20:27):
And you get a sense of thepattern developmentally.
But for the Corporate Explorer, there'sa real need to notice, where are we?
Is there too much followand not enough oppose?
And you think, surelyit can't be this easy.
Well, it probably isn't.
Something isn't being surfaced.
You might be in that passiveengagement or even passive resistance.
And I think as well, that sense of beingwilling to facilitate the dialogue,
(20:50):
looking for the oppose, following up onthe support and just making sure you've
got an appropriate mix you'd expect tohave when looking at an issue that might
be quite challenging to those in the room.
Aidan McCullen (21:00):
When you think about what people who take up innovation
roles buy into in the role, it'slike innovation labs, creation.
You see the role is very very politicalyou have to be this brilliant salesperson
you have to be a facilitator in someways there's a lot more skills there
and i think, that's the great thingabout a book like this and your work
(21:22):
is that you bring it to the fore andshine a light on the need for this.
But one thing keeps coming back to mindand i'm thinking of maybe as a final
thought is again that person in the room.
Who undermines you cause you talk aboutthat and i was brought up old wounds
for me cause it happened a lot forme and then i know good therapist i
(21:44):
don't know if they could do that work.
Even, like you say, you do thiswork, sometimes you're going
to come across those people.
What's your advice for when you do?
Alexander Pett (21:52):
Yeah, I think, a helpful phrase is good
communication lies in the response.
I don't know where I read that, but Ithink it's a really useful challenge.
Because the moment you're notgetting something, typically what
I'm going to do is blame you.
And actually that's a problem because Ihave to take responsibility for what's
the quality of my communication andhow do I own helping you get something.
(22:13):
So I think that's the first step forme, which is I've got to own that and
own how else might I engage with you.
I think the second thing is that, you'rejust inevitably going to hit blocks.
And so the political work, thepre work, the follow up and having
enough advocates in the room, ofcourse, is a key part of doing that.
But the main challenge is thatoutside the room, we're all cool and
(22:34):
calm and we can think very straight.
And I've sat with corporate explorerteams doing their prep work, and they just
have got run through their presentations,really sharp, really clear, really looking
to get a dialogue flowing, and then youwatch them in the moment, a little bit of
pressure, and then it tips usually intoover advocacy, defensiveness, tension
goes too high, and then someone elsehas to intervene to try and change that,
(22:56):
then the credibility of the individualand the project starts to suffer.
So it's that sense of really beingprepared, really know what your real
work is, and that how you handle itcan be as important as your answer,
because the moment you start to lookdefensive, then others might start to
buy in less to your recommendations.
Aidan McCullen (23:13):
And they're looking for that weakness sometimes as well.
Alexander for people who want to find outmore, not only read the chapter in the
book, I'm sure you have much more writingsas well, much more in you as well.
There's so much more in this, I thoughtthat it was hard for you to get it into
the chapter that you had in the book.
Where's the best place to find you?
Alexander Pett (23:30):
Well, you'll see my profile on the change logic website
have my work with change logic.
And then for my river leadershipwork, you'll find me on LinkedIn.
Aidan McCullen (23:39):
Alexander, Pett, thanks for joining us.
A pleasure.\
That episode was brought to you by Wazoku.
Wazoku helps large organizationscreate effective, sustainable
innovation ecosystems that accelerateefficiency gains and new value growth.
It does this through intelligententerprise software that connects
and harnesses the power of employees,suppliers, startups, universities,
(24:02):
and a unique Wazoku crowd of 700,000 plus global problem solvers.
You can find Wazoku.
A B Corp.
on wazooku.
com
Popular Podcasts
1. Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
2. Stuff You Missed in History Class
Join Holly and Tracy as they bring you the greatest and strangest Stuff You Missed In History Class in this podcast by iHeartRadio.
3. Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.