The Dangers Of Listening Without Action
- Oct 10
- 10 min read
Article no. 1: “For 364 days out of the year most of the world lives and works in monarchies not democracies, and we don’t know the difference.”
The 6 Decision Points of democracy or monarchy:
For this article I wanted to go back to a comment made several weeks ago about Decision Point No. 1, Listening. Nora brought up a good point about listening without action. Should we still listen, even if we can’t do anything about it? Are there dangers to listening? My thanks to Nora for help with this article. I reached out to hear more about her experiences, and to help make these suggestions more realistic.
Nora’s Question: Listening Without Action
The comment from Nora:
“Continuing to enjoy this series! One thing I've found is that there is no quicker way to lose people's faith and your own credibility than to listen and then do nothing (or be perceived to have done nothing) with the feedback you hear. My own approach is to try to close the loop - if a decision affects others negatively, why was the decision made anyway and what mitigations are being put in place to limit the effect. Would love to hear more about ways to manage the process when a decision has to be made that is not a win-win for everyone, or when you decide not to take the advice that you receive.”
Upon reflecting, I realized that I also use a particular frame when I encounter something that may not happen. Sometimes I’ll establish that frame right away, but it also works when I establish this frame in the middle or at the end of the conversation.
Technique: Defining Your Terms
But let me define my use of the word “frame” first. To say it in one paragraph, the invention of the dictionary had an unintended consequence. It has led us to believe that when we use the same words in the same language, they mean the same things. At the same time, the dictionary provides perfect evidence that there are many meanings to the same words. Many misunderstandings balloon out from conflicting definitions. When I find myself in a misunderstanding, I pause the conversation, define how I’m using terms, and ask the other person(s) how they are defining those same words.
“The invention of the dictionary had an unintended consequence. It has led us to believe that when we use the same words in the same language, they mean the same things.”
Technique: Framing Conversations
I learned the definition of “framing” that I am using here from David Rock. You can find it in his book, “Quiet Leadership”. The purpose is to establish a box for your conversation, to say that right now as we talk, I am bound by certain limits. Sometimes I will even say out loud: “I have limitations that I can’t change, but I can share those limits with you. Then let’s collaborate.”
Frame Definition: “Defining limitations or boundaries for a conversation.”
When we don’t say our limits out loud, they are defined by the imagination of the other person. They cannot know what’s in our brains, so their brain’s “Default Mode Network” goes to work. It’s instantaneous, and they usually don’t know that they’re doing it. Kahneman and Tversky called it “Pattern Matching” in their book “Thinking Fast and Slow”. (I covered it in more detail in the previous article about the “Double Aces” listening technique.)
It’s biology at work, so instead of talking about fault or “accountability”, I find my best course of action is to be up front about limitations through establishing a frame for the conversation. And as I mentioned above, you can establish these frames at any point in the conversation, even at the end.
Clarifying Questions
With frames defined, let me get back to Nora’s question. Following “Double Aces”, I asked some Clarifying and Confirming Questions, after offering some Appreciations and Acknowledgements:
“Can't say it enough: Collaboration and looking for the win-win is challenging. Kudos for focusing on closing the loops! So many times I've seen these queries receive an answer but nobody shares it back with the people who raised the issue. First some clarifying questions, if I may. Sounds like one of a couple patterns I've also had to deal with. 1) Is this a one-off case, or the same feedback from many people that goes unanswered? Is one person giving feedback and it isn't accepted, or is this like when multiple people complain about something, and still nothing is done about it? 2) Is this a case where the feedback was shared with decision makers and not incorporated into the decision, or it was addressed but there were other factors that led to a different decision?”
Nora’s response:
“The scenarios I specifically had in my mind were related to when a single person gives their feedback but it is not incorporated into the final decision (or it appears not to be but was really just overrode by other competing concerns). But the second pattern is relevant and interesting as well.”
My followup conversations with Nora since the article revealed multiple possible scenarios that could all be resolved or improved in the same way, so I’m going to group them together.
We are the manager and an employee is offering feedback that we are empowered to take action on, but we choose not to for whatever reason.
We are the manager, an employee is offering feedback, but we are not empowered to take action.
We are offering feedback to our managers, but they do not take our advice.
In each case, feedback is offered but the desired action is not taken. The challenge is communicating and framing a “no” decision with clarity and respect.
Technique: Fast Problems
All of these scenarios are perfect for Prioritized Problems, but NOT the formal PEP Talk Debate format I covered in Decision Point No. 2. Big formal things like a “Root Cause Analysis” are a waste here. Big and formal requires invites, negotiating schedules, and convincing everyone that it’s worth their time to show up.
These scenarios call for a faster, personalized, informal version that can be used on-the-fly. As Nora and I discussed, we don’t always know when these conversations are going to happen. Someone may grab us in the hall, send us a message by Teams or Slack, or call us.
This faster version has four parts that you can do in any order. For this to work, the other person does not need to know how to use the technique, only you. If you practice this technique, these skills will open up new possibilities for you and the people around you.
I’m testing out a workshop on real-world applications of Prioritized Problems on a new education platform called “Skool”. I would love your feedback on the format and effectiveness of the techniques. If you’re interested, click here to find out more about this free workshop.
Part 1: The Hierarchy Frame
If we are in a Monarchy Thinking culture with a clear hierarchy, people realize and accept that some decisions are outside our shared responsibility. They just forget this fact when emotions are high. So I might say, “I would like to hear your ideas, but I should say up front that I only have control over what happens inside the team. Tell me everything. We’ll fix what we can fix inside the team, and then I’ll take the rest up the hierarchy, but that’s outside both our control.”
Now this may also sound like we’re setting up an “Us Versus Them” or “Employees Versus Leadership” frame. That may happen without the next technique, so let me also say that out loud. That is not my goal. “Leaders are people too.” Democracy Thinking and People-First applies to all people, whether it’s an organization, a community, a state, or a country.
“Leaders are people too. Democracy Thinking and People-First applies to all people.”
Now maybe this frame isn’t needed in Nora’s situation or yours. If so, hold this frame in reserve and use it when needed. If we find that someone is expecting more from us than we can give, that is a good sign that we need to establish a frame, and clarifying our frame at the end of the conversation still works.
Part 2: Separating Problems from Solutions
Most people have heard the phrase, “Don’t bring me problems. Bring me solutions!” The job of a leader in Monarchy Thinking is to be the “Decider”, but you can’t “decide” if you don’t have options. So they ask for options, and pick one. Applying some quick math, this means that at least 50% of design work in Monarchy Thinking organizations is intentionally created with the goal of being thrown away, another source of waste.
This creates competition as described in Decision Point No. 4. So everyone works hard to make their solution the chosen one. With so much disproportionate time spent on options, the details fill our brains. We teach our brains that if our solution is implemented, our problems will go away. So when half of those solutions are discarded, those people feel hopeless or frustrated that their problems will never go away.
When we practice the skill of separating problems from solutions, we open the door to new opportunities for making people’s problems go away. If we can find a new solution for their pain, their emotions will shift as a result. But they will never accept our new solutions, no matter how great they are, if they can’t see their pain as independent from their favorite solution. This is why we must write down their problems separately from their solutions, and we cannot skip this step. Visually seeing their forgotten problems creates a biological starting place for new connections in their brains.
In my experience, this is a critical skill everyone should learn, but happily only one person in a group needs to know it. If you are that person, you will have a power that can make everyone’s lives better at will. I have included a story in the training materials for this technique to give a concrete example of this process in action, but it is too long to recap here. If you’re curious, click here to learn more.
Part 3: Keep Your Own Prioritized Problems List
Every time you have one of these types of conversations, have a place for writing them down that is fast and easy to access. When new problems are identified, add them to your list. Prioritize them according to your own knowledge and experience.
Pull up this list on your phone or computer when someone has a complaint about not being heard. Listen, separate their problems from their solutions, and add their problems to your list. Then talk about where their problems fit in prioritized order. If the decision was yours, or the decision of a leader above you, sometimes this is enough new information for the person. If so, then use part 4 to inspire new hope and ideas in them.
When show this list to another person, you expose them to the core problem behind all other problems. “When we solve problems one at a time, we create new problems, or make other problems worse.” This helps the person feel heard, even if the outcome doesn’t change.
If your list doesn’t explain the decision, and it was your decision, then you might want to rethink why you said “no”, especially if solving their problem doesn’t cause problems for anyone else. Either there is a reason and you just didn’t write it down yet, or your decision may have been wrong.
If it wasn’t your decision, ask them, “Which other problems do you think would get worse if we implemented your solution?” This question is fundamentally different from the usual question, “Why do you think your solution is better?” A problem-based question encourages them to think about the impacts of their choices on others. If they can’t think of any, offer your own educated guesses. Just be sure to frame them as your guesses about the thoughts of others. You could also offer to go ask and see if you can find out why.
Part 4: Collaborate On New Solutions
It’s always about both things. Prioritized Problems without solutions, and solutions without problems are both problematic. The first three parts lay the groundwork, but Part 4 is where you get to inspire new hope.
The first lightbulb moment I present to people is the realization that the rule is: “Don’t make a higher order problem worse when solving a lower problem.” You don’t have to go in order. If you are passionate about a lower problem, you can work on it, just don’t make a higher order problem worse. With this frame people often quickly invent new ways to work on their own problems without causing pain to others, a win-win solution.
The other lightbulb moment I present is asking them how they could solve their own problem while also solving higher-ordered problems in the list. This usually inspires them to design new and better solutions, or to go collect new information about how their solution also solves other problems. Both of these outcomes re-establish them as collaborators with their peers and their leaders.
This often brings us back around to interacting with a Monarchy Thinker as a leader. We already know they like options and see their job as “Decider”. Having gone through these exercises, we are now positioned to offer 2-3 more solutions for their consideration, solutions that all have greater verifiable value to the leader.
TIP: Frame it as a puzzle that we are working on solving together. Instead of inflexible “no” we are exploring new ways towards a possible “yes”. If we are in a building, I will often physically sit on the same side of the table as the person, to visualize that solving everyone’s problems together is a collaborative effort.
Conclusion
People-First Leadership means that the psychology behind how we solve a problem is more important than which solutions we choose. Or I’ll say it another way using one of my favorite quotes, “The ends do not justify the means. The means by which we achieve our ends is the definition of our character.”
“The ends do not justify the means. The means by which we achieve our ends is the definition of our character.”
To practice these skills, join me in this free workshop I’m prototyping for Prioritized Problems on a new education platform called “Skool”. I would love your feedback on the format and effectiveness of the techniques.
If you like where this is going or you're also fascinated with how to build a better future, subscribe, and please share this with others who you think should join the discussion.
Comments