Hangman - One Move

I was thinking about how we frame situations in our lives. This situation occurred in a meeting I attended some years ago now. I'm sitting with a guy (we'll call him Bud) in a meeting with other leaders in the organization. It is a multisite business with locations around the country, so meetings frequently involve video- and teleconferences. The main man leading the organization frequently tells people to speak their minds; that he is open to criticism.

At the meeting, the main man lays out a plan citing who would be involved and how things would proceed. Bud was struck by how certain people in the process were placed above others, even though the others were equally as important. He spoke his mind about it; and the other people in the room with him looked at him incredulously. Immediately after Bud finished speaking, he knew that he had gone over the line. A few minutes later he drew a hangman game on his notepad as they looked on. In this special version of the game, one had only one move before his guy was hung. When he showed the others at the table, they shook their heads in agreement and laughed.

Bud's comment would have been okay had he framed it properly. But, he allowed his emotion to influence his framing of the situation. Needless to say, the "main man" was not happy with Bud. The "main man" initially wanted Bud fired. They ironed things out, but it was touchy for a few days.

Bud became the poster child for a new game - "Hangman - one move."

Most organizations have hierarchical structures (represented on org charts) with a boss at the top, the workers on the bottom and some layers of administrators in the middle. Generally, the lower one is on the chart, the less money and power one has. Where one falls on the chart influences how one sees situations. The boss might present some plan for the future and be thinking about how that plan fits the structure of the organization or be looking at the plan relative to its political potential. Those at the bottom of the org chart, however, might be listening to the plan from the perspective of "what does this mean about the work I do?" They might also ask themselves, "how much will this cost me in time and effort?" For the guys at the bottom, the plan symbolizes something about who they are; not just what they make or how much they make. They also usually have little to say about the infringement on their personal lives for little extra benefit.

Looking back at Bud's case, we can see how the main man might have been looking from a structural and political perspective while Bud was looking through the symbolic frame.

Now we have a convergence of three perspectives, or frames: structural, political and symbolic. There are other frames as well, but these will be enough for now. Generally, we are aware that perspectives exist other than our own, but it is interesting how often we fail to use that awareness in the moment. Many times, even when we are aware of other perspectives, we have a tendency to elevate the importance of ours above the others. As we become increasingly invested in our ideas, we begin to lose our objectivity. (The origin of the word "object" means to be thrown from.) The closer we hold our ideas, the more difficult it is to throw them from us. We can't physically get another perspective on something that we hold too closely.

If my job as the boss in the organization is to make sure that the bottom line is protected, and I believe that I can accomplish that by focusing on who does what, when, and where, I distance myself from the capacity to see the "real" and immediate importance of whether Bob down on the line is experiencing "fulfillment" in his job. I become susceptible to framing the situation such that Bob's job is to do his job. If he needs "fulfillment," perhaps he should volunteer at an animal shelter or something. This attitude can, of course, make the boss seem like a thoughtless person. This particular response is very one sided; but it is often a reaction to one sidedness from others.

From the bottom of the org chart, the other side of the situation, the perspective can a little different. One can hear people say, "If the company would consider making my work meaningful, I would put in 110% and the bottom line would be very secure. We would be so far into the black that the concept of being in the red would not be a fading memory." This position can be very alienating to a boss like the one just above. Failure to come together in some type of real dialogue leaves both sides polarized, alienated and increasingly cynical. This happens in relationships, families, neighborhoods etc.

A powerful solution to the framing problem is to sit together in dialogue. Simply, this means to come together to consider the topic without trying to solve anything or convince anyone that your idea is the best, or even good. The first thing to do is try to understand the position of the others. In a dialogue, you are under no obligation to change your position. If, however, you truly participate in the process, you will come away with an expanded perspective on the topic. You can develop the habit of using all of the frames in your daily life.

(By the way, twenty years ago the top guy made about 40 times more than the bottom guy. Now the top guy makes 400 times those at the bottom. This is not directly related to my topic today. I just thought it was interesting. Food for cynicism - a topic coming up.)

Send in the clowns

You won't believe this one. Well, those of you as cynical as I can be might actually expect it. Those of us who live or work in high tech regions are aware of the hours that employees work. This is especially true before big events like new product launches or website launches after significant revisions. Some companies, and not always the big ones, have big celebrations or offer dinner vouchers for employees to take their significant others out for a nice dinner to make up for the personal and family time lost. Regardless of the remedy selected, the signal to the employee is that she or he is valued; and that merely paying for the hours, even with overtime differentials, is not quite enough. Although the reward chosen does not usually come close to rewarding the employee on an equity basis for his or her contribution, it is important for maintaining morale and dispelling cynicism. Consequently, this reward needs to meet at least two criteria: it must be of value to the employee and must be seen as a significant symbol of the employer's gratitude. The balance between value to the employee and the symbolism can fluctuate based on conditions. If a company is in dire straits, the symbolism of even the smallest gift might be enough to offset a low value to the employee - "it's the thought that counts." If, on the other hand, the company is doing well, the symbolic value of the gift seems to be more related to its value to the employee. Sometimes a small token can create cynicism and a sense of not being valued. If the symbolic value of the gift fails to resonate with the employee as commensurate with the amount of sacrifice that was made, the company would probably have been better off giving no gift at all. Many years ago, I had a small custom clothing business. Very early on I decided that I would give my customers their choice of a new neck tie with each new suit they bought from me. I purchased an array of ties and had them on hand. I thought I was doing great with that idea! One day, one of my customers, a CEO of a local company, commented that the quality of my ties did not reflect that quality of my suits. He said that it signaled to him that I didn't know the value of my product or that I didn't really value him as a client. He told me that neither of them was good for business. I may have violated that from time to time since then, but I have never forgotten it. So, back to the unbelievable stimulus for today's thoughts. A friend was telling me about how her company did these thoughtful things on a reqular basis. While at such an event, another employee related that in her last job, everyone had worked 7 days a week for months and the company did nothing. Not only that, one of the company leaders said that they were feeling badly that they hadn't done anything. He said that they were thinking of bringing in a clown. A clown! After months of 80-hour weeks - a clown. What would that symbolize to you? Unless some aspect of clowning was part of your company culture, where is the value? We can use this same process in our personal lives everyday. We have numerous opportunities to give others things of high value or symbolism as part of our relationship with them. The concept of "quality time," is a perfect example. What might you do today? Have a nice day.

Thinking outside the Box

Act 1, scene 1: The boss enters the OD Geek's office.


Boss: "OD, I would like you to start doing a little thinking, 'outside-the-box' as they say."

OD: (With a blank, decerebrate look on his face and slightly nodding his head) "Uh-huh."

Boss: "I'd like your weekly reports to include some of those thoughts."

OD: "Well-l-l, I m-m-might have a couple of questions about this."

Boss: "Okay, OD, write 'em down and get back to me tomorrow."

OD: Ponders pen-in-hand; then begins writing his questions:

- What's wrong with thinking right here; this is a really comfy chair?

- What exactly is 'out there' to think about anyway?

- If I think outside the box, will I need to move my desk and stuff out there?

- Is anybody else doing this besides me?

- Does this involve special clothing or equipment?

- Can I phone a friend?

- If I think of something outside the box, how do I get it back in here?

- Isn't everybody already doing this? Can't we be a little more creative?