If you think you need help, go help someone.
Get the person to explain what they see as the downsides of the change. Group these downsides into two categories: transition costs (the short-term costs of moving from one process to another) and permanent costs (the long-term inadequacies of the new process).
There is a norm that friends spend time together.
There is a norm that friends exchange favors and requests, in a way that evens out over the long run. Friends who ask too much undermine the friendship.
Emotions are like a rollercoaster. Once you’re on board, riding your rage, it’s hard to get off. It’s a whole lot easier if you can find a way to avoid getting on in the first place.
When you’re trying to influence people who need motivation, but not information, don’t offer more information. Instead, use questions to create a safe environment where they can explore motivations they already have.
Having a specific goal for “speaking up” will smoke out two kinds of people: People who don’t want to have to speak up and people who don’t want others to speak up to them.
Formal leaders include anyone with supervisory responsibilities; informal leaders include opinion leaders, employees who may not have any formal authority, but have the trust and respect of their peers.
Explain the source and relevance of the facts you employ. The facts establish common ground and are the foundation of your credibility.
Remember that structure drives behavior
Content: If the problem is a single incident, then address the content. The content includes the facts about what you expected and what you observed. Pattern: If your chief concern is with the pattern of behaviors, then address the pattern. The pattern is that the person has made a commitment or promise, and has failed to live up to it. Relationship: If your chief concern involves trust or respect, then address the relationship. The relationship may need to change.
Top performers seek out the problems that have the greatest strategic importance...
Paradoxically, the times when we are least likely to speak up are also the times when speaking up will make the biggest difference.
As a leader, it’s important to explain to your employees what their role is. Often, you want the employees’ input or recommendation, but you will decide. They need to know that asking for their ideas doesn’t give them veto power.
Top performers are networkers. But their networks aren’t just a collection of business cards and friends. These promotable people use their expertise and time to develop a reputation for being helpful. They become widely known and respected by others because they help others solve their problems.
It sounds as if you may be encountering some ambiguity over these decision rights, or the person might be feeling unheard. My own approach is to begin by getting as many facts on the table as possible—by exploring the benefits and the costs—and to explain how the decision rights will work. After the decision has been made, I reiterate the pluses and minuses I’ve heard from them—in part to prove I was listening. I explain the decision, and give it my support. Then I ask them to help me make the decision a success. Once the decision has been made, I want their commitment rather than more questioning.
Too many people count on others to speak up for them. They are too timid to speak up for themselves. The people who do speak up fall into two camps: those especially skilled at crucial conversations and those who aren’t. Those especially skilled folks know how to speak up in ways that are frank, honest, and respectful. Those who are especially unskilled are honest, but offensive, and may not even realize how negative they actually are.
It turns out this small dissent can provide powerful permission to the silent concerns of others...The quiet, polite expression of doubt can turn the rest of the group from zombies into thinkers.
When humans feel threatened, we go into survival mode. We focus on the short-term and on our own security.
Verbal persuasion is the least effective way to convince others. Personal experience is the gold standard for changing hearts and minds.
They thought they could move their people into a new building without moving their old culture. It was a colossal failure.
Negativity trumps positivity because humans are designed to be risk averse.
Humans are hard-wired for self-protection. As a result, we are always on the lookout for bad news—and we’re naturally suspicious of good news. This makes us quick to read bad intent in others’ actions. So, when leaders talk the talk about collaboration and empowerment, we tend to hold back and watch their actions for evidence of their true intent.
Clarify Decision Rights. How will the decision about the change be made? Does it require a consensus where anyone could veto it? Is it your decision to make? Or does someone else “own the decision”
Humans are hard-wired for self-protection. As a result, we are always on the lookout for bad news—and we’re naturally suspicious of good news.
If explaining exactly what you are doing and why makes the action less effective, then it is manipulative.
Silence isn’t golden, it’s permission.
It's easy to fall into the trap of telling people what they ought to do. Before we know it, we're giving sermons and lectures to people who haven't asked for our advice. Consider using the communication tool called Motivational Interviewing. The goal of this tool is to help other people explore the pluses and minuses of their choices—instead of telling them what you think they should do.
The turnover numbers within your group may always be higher than ideal. However, there is a worse problem than actual turnover: It’s what we call “spiritual turnover." Spiritual turnover happens when people stop being engaged, involved, motivated, or psychologically present at work. Their bodies may keep walking the halls, but their souls have left the building. These organizational zombies are far more costly than actual physical turnover.
The main point I want to make is that it takes personal experience, not lectures, sermons, or training, to change people’s perspective.
The mistake many problem-solvers make is to focus on content, the simple and safe route, when their true concern involves the pattern or relationship. They address a problem, but it’s not the problem they really care about.
Two interactions commonly perceived as threats: whenever we think someone is standing between us and our goals, and whenever we think we’re being disrespected or devalued.
Addressing the content means you focus on the facts in the person’s statement. Focusing on content is usually the simplest and safest way to respond because you aren’t drawing any conclusions beyond what the person has just said.
I’m asked whether speaking up is an absolute virtue, whether people should always speak up, even when they think it might hurt them or their families...My answer is no. Instead, I suggest that people weigh the risks of speaking up against the risks of not speaking up.
People pay attention to negative information because it violates the organization’s public relations bias. Most organizations and most leaders try to sugarcoat problems, hiding them from employees. The result is that employees are hungry for the truth—especially for the less-flattering truths they believe are being withheld from them. This means they pay special attention, and seriously consider, the negative information they hear—even when it comes from less-than-trustworthy sources.