Let's suppose that you have responsibility for Product Marketing, an important function in your organization. To meet your objectives, you depend on infrastructure, services, and resources that other organizations in your company have promised to supply. For the most part, they do keep their promises, and for the most part, you do meet your objectives. But something has gone seriously wrong this week.
To support the announcement of a new product, you had arranged for your team to offer a virtual "meet the architect" session for customers of existing products. At this session the product architecture team will present its vision for the next three years. To help customers plan for the near future, customers will be able to provide feedback and wish lists, and ask questions about your company's near-term plans. The goal is to build and tighten the company's relationship with its customer base. You expect over 100 customer organizations to be in attendance in real time, and about that many to attend the re-runs.
However, the Network Group just announced a network upgrade for the morning of the virtual meeting. You're concerned that making such a fundamental change so close to the virtual meeting is risky. If anything goes wrong, there might not be enough time to fix it before the virtual meeting. A major embarrassment could result.
What can you do?
The general structure of situations like these has four components: S, C, AS, and AC. First, there is an internal service component of the organization. In the scenario above, that component is the Network Group. Call this component S for service. Second, there is an internal customer component dependent on S. In the scenario above, that component is the Product Marketing group. Call this component C for customer. The third and fourth components of the situation are the respective conflicting agendas of the internal service component (S) and the internal customer component (C). Call these two agendas AS and AC.
Often in these situations, a heated exchange between the respective leads of S and C — LS and LC — develops. Upon learning of the risks to C's agenda, LC initiates an inquiry that contains questions such as these:
- Why were we in C not notified of the S agenda (AS) much earlier?
- Why was C not included in the scheduling discussions relative to AS?
- Who approved this action?
- What assurances do we have that AS will not cause disruptions?
- If disruptions do occur, what resources are available to restore the affected capabilities?
- Is LS aware that implementing AS presents significant risks, that customer satisfaction is imperiled and that significant loss of market share could result?
And so on. Worse, these questions are often asked in a "public" form or in email.
As germane The most important tip for
addressing urgent service
disruptions: don't use emailas these questions might be, approaches that involve asking such questions in advance of — or in the midst of — the AS deployment are unlikely to be constructive. The principal risk of these approaches is that the people in the S organization might feel that they are being attacked politically. If they do feel attacked, they might become defensive, and quite reasonably become uncooperative. They might even try to limit the information they provide to anyone outside the S organization. That information embargo is what prevents constructive resolution of the situation.
So what can C do? Here are some more constructive possibilities:
- Build alliances with other customers
- If other customers are affected by this incident, or if other customers have been affected by similar past incidents, forming an alliance with them can help in three ways. First, together, the members of the alliance can make a clear case to the enterprise that S's approach to service is affecting enterprise effectiveness. Second, because several C organizations are similarly affected, the issue isn't personal between LC and LS. And third, information about how AS affected the other customers can help clarify what S needs to do differently to avoid future problems.
- Seek a delay of AS
- Delaying the changes S has in mind is possibly the simplest solution to the immediate problem. In the scenario above, the timing of AS is the central issue. Rescheduling AS for a later date can resolve the conflict between AS and AC and give the enterprise time to solve the larger problem of S's approach to customer service.
- Log details pertaining to the incident and how its consequences unfold
- The details of this incident will be valuable to anyone trying to improve the process by which S determines how to effect its agenda. Details are also necessary for making a case to the enterprise that S's process needs improvement.
- Gather historical data about similar past incidents
- Historical data might not help much in resolving the current problem. But it can be invaluable in detecting patterns in S's approach to customer service. For example, if S has repeatedly given only short notice of service disruptions or changes, having hard data as to the timing of those notices can be useful in making a case for change.
- Inquire about a retrospective
- Professionally facilitated retrospectives — also known as "after-action reviews" — provide a formal, safe means of initiating organizational learning [Kerth 2001]. They are much more likely to produce constructive change than trying to conduct a "during-action review" in email, without professional facilitation. Instead of proposing a retrospective, consider presuming that one will be held, and asking "When is the retrospective on this activity?" That question alone might alter behavior, as people begin to realize that their actions in this incident might be reviewed.
- Make cognizant senior managers aware of what might be about to happen
- Senior managers who are responsible for the organizations involved in the incident might be accountable for the effects of the incident on enterprise performance. If these managers are accountable, they will likely be eager to learn about possible deleterious effects of this incident. Make a business case for immediate intervention. Use numbers. The numbers need not be in units of currency — market share, labor hours, months of delay, and similar units can be just as effective.
- Seek information about similar moves of other S's
- Gather information about similar disruptive incidents due to agenda conflicts between customer organizations and other service units. Is there an enterprise pattern? If you can find a pattern, you can further reduce the chances of your issue being interpreted as the result of a personal conflict between LS and LC. And you can make a significant contribution to improving enterprise effectiveness.
Three principles guide any customer action in response to these unanticipated risks of service disruption. First, trying to address the root cause of the problem during the incident is unlikely to succeed. Second, seeking punitive interventions so as to "teach them a lesson" is likely to exacerbate the problem. And most important, email is not your friend. Email might be useful for arranging meetings, but it's counter-effective for problem solving when people are stressed. In-person face-to-face communication is best, phone is next, and brief voicemail a distant third. Top Next Issue
Are your projects always (or almost always) late and over budget? Are your project teams plagued by turnover, burnout, and high defect rates? Turn your culture around. Read 52 Tips for Leaders of Project-Oriented Organizations, filled with tips and techniques for organizational leaders. Order Now!
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Conflict Management:
- Managing Pressure: Communications and Expectations
- Pressed repeatedly for "status" reports, you might guess that they don't want status —
they want progress. Things can get so nutty that responding to the status requests gets in the way of
doing the job. How does this happen and what can you do about it? Here's Part I of a little catalog
of tactics and strategies for dealing with pressure.
- Stalking the Elephant in the Room: II
- When everyone is thinking something that no one dares discuss, we say that there is "an elephant
in the room." Free-ranging elephants are expensive and dangerous to both the organization and its
people. Here's Part II of a catalog of indicators that elephants are about.
- Indicators of Lock-In: II
- When a group of decision makers "locks in" on a choice, they can persist in that course even
when others have concluded that the choice is folly. Here's Part II of a set of indicators of lock-in.
- Impasses in Group Decision-Making: I
- Groups sometimes find that although they cannot agree on the issue at hand in its entirety, they can
agree on some parts of it. Yet, they remain stuck, unable to reach a narrow agreement before moving
on to the more thorny areas. Why does this happen?
- Compulsive Talkers at Work: Addiction
- Incessant, unending talking about things that the listener doesn't care about, already knows about,
or can do nothing about is an irritating behavior that harms both talker and listener. What can we do
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming July 8: Multi-Expert Consensus
- Some working groups consist of experts from many fields. When they must reach a decision by consensus, members have several options. Defining those options in advance can help the group reach a decision with all its relationships intact. Available here and by RSS on July 8.
- And on July 15: Disjoint Concept Vocabularies
- In disputes or in problem solving sessions, when we can't seem to come to agreement, we often attribute the difficulty to miscommunication, histories of disagreements, hidden agendas, or "personality clashes." Sometimes the cause is much simpler. Sometimes the concept vocabularies of the parties don't overlap. Available here and by RSS on July 15.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.
- Bullet Points: Mastery or Madness?
Decision-makers in modern organizations commonly demand briefings in the form of bullet points or a series of series of bullet points. But this form of presentation has limited value for complex decisions. We need something more. We actually need to think. Briefers who combine the bullet-point format with a variety of persuasion techniques can mislead decision-makers, guiding them into making poor decisions. Read more about this program.