Partnering Intelligence, Second Edition: Creating Value for Your Business by Building Strong Alliances

Partnering2 front

4/3/04

11:07 AM

Page i

PA R T N E R I N G I N T E L L I G E N C E

Partnering2 front

4/3/04

11:07 AM

Page ii

Partnering2 front

4/13/04

3:29 PM

Page iii

PA R T N E R I N G I N T E L L I G E N C E Creating Value for Your Business by Building Strong Alliances 2ND EDITION

Stephen M. Dent

DAVI ES-B L ACK P U B LI SH I NG Palo Alto, California

EB.Partnering2 front

4/13/04

11:33 PM

Page iv

Published by Davies-Black Publishing, a division of CPP, Inc., 3803 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303; 800-624-1765. Special discounts on bulk quantities of Davies-Black books are available to corporations, professional associations, and other organizations. For details, contact the Director of Marketing and Sales at Davies-Black Publishing; 650-691-9123; Fax 650-623-9271. Copyright © 2004 by Stephen M. Dent. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews. Davies-Black and its colophon are registered trademarks of CPP, Inc. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is a trademark or registered trademark of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Trust in the United States and other countries. The Partnership Continuum and Six Partnering Attributes are trademarks of Stephen M. Dent. Author photo: Judy Olausen Visit the Davies-Black Publishing Web site at www.daviesblack.com. 08 07 06 05 04 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Dent, Stephen M. Partnering intelligence : creating value for your business by building strong alliances / Stephen M. Dent. — 2nd ed. p. cm. ISBN 0-89106-181-9 (pbk.) 1. Strategic alliances (Business) 2. Business networks. I. Title. HD69.S8D46 2004 658′.044—dc22 2004005135 SECOND EDITION First printing 2004

Partnering2 front

4/13/04

3:30 PM

Page v

Dedicated to Hugh G. and Marie W. Dent for teaching me the essence of Partnering Intelligence and to Neal R. Holtan for his patience and love while I was writing this book

Partnering2 front

4/3/04

11:07 AM

Page vi

Partnering2 front

4/3/04

11:07 AM

Page vii

CONTENTS

List of Figures, Tables, Assessments, and Exercises ix Foreword xi Preface xiii Acknowledgments xvii R E D I S C O V E R I N G PA R T N E R I N G PART ONE

Transitioning from “Me” to “We”

1 Partnering Intelligence What It Is and Why It’s Important

5

2 Know Thyself What Is Your PQ?

27

3 Analyzing Your Results on the PQ Assessment Using the Attribute Analysis

51

4 Overview of the Partnership Continuum™ A Blueprint for Successful Partnerships

67

D E V E LO P I N G YO U R P Q PART TWO

Enhancing Your Partnering Skills

5 Self-Disclosure and Feedback The Importance of Two-Way Communication

89

6 Win-Win Orientation From Conflict to Synergy

103

7 Ability to Trust Creating Trust in Your Partnership

121

vii

Partnering2 front

viii

4/3/04

11:07 AM

Page viii

CONTENTS

8 Future Orientation Escaping the Trap of the Past

137

9 Comfort with Change Skills for Coping with Transition

151

10 Comfort with Interdependence Learning the Virtues of Interdependence

165

T H E PA R T N E R S H I P C O N T I N U U M PART TH R E E

A Model for Increasing Your PQ

11 Assess Stage What Do You Want?

181

12 Explore Stage Meeting the Right Partner

215

13 Initiate Stage Reaping the Benefits of Partnership

231

14 Commit Stage Formalizing the Commitment

249

15 Coming Full Circle Hallmarks of a Successful Partnership

263

Bibliography

271

Index

275

Partnering2 front

4/13/04

3:32 PM

Page ix

F I G U R E S , TA B L E S , A S S E S S M E N T S , A N D E X E R C I S E S

FIGURES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

The Partnership Continuum Model 24 PQ Profile (Sample) 55 PQ Profile—Joe Average 59 PQ Profile—Internal Team 60 PQ Profile—Two Companies 62 PQ Profile—Big-Name Company 63 The Partnership Continuum Model 68 Impact of Outside Forces 71 Plan–Do–Check–Act Cycle 77 PDCA Time Allocation by Stage 79 Partnering Attributes of the Stages of Relationship Development 84 JoHari Window 93 Problem-Solving and Conflict Resolution Model 112 The Conflict Resolution Process 116 Mental Map Matrix 140 Three Phases of Managing Change 154 Task/Relationship Model 161 Overall PQ Scores 187 Holistic Organization Model 189 Developing a Partnering Culture 195 Organizational Process Model (Sample) 200

TA B L ES

1 2 3 4 5 6

Partnering Business Model 10 Moving from a Past to a Future Orientation Environment 81 Impacts of Past/Future Orientation on Trust 129 Action Plan: Learning How to Ride a Bike 155 Common Fears About Change (and Remedies) 159 Outcomes of the Needs Assessment Matrix (Sample) 209 ix

Partnering2 front

x

4/3/04

11:07 AM

Page x

F I G U R E S , TA B L E S , A S S E S S M E N T S , A N D E X E R C I S E S TA B L ES c o n t ’ d

7 Potential Partner Matrix (Sample) 217 8 Downtown Office Tower Agreement Compliance Chart 247 9 Downtown Office Tower Agreement (Demolition and Removal) Compliance Chart 248 10 Partnership Values and Ethics List (Sample) 253 11 Cultural Assessment Grid (Sample) 253 12 Organizational Structure Matrix (Sample) 255 13 External Impacts on the Partnership (Sample) 256 ASSESSMENTS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Partnering Quotient (PQ) Assessment 29 Attribute Analysis 52 Relationship Feedback 73 Win-Win Orientation 107 Personal Trust 126 Partners’ Trust 130 Past/Future Orientation 146

EXERCISES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Self-Disclosure Checklist 95 Giving and Receiving Feedback Checklist 98 Feedback Observation Checklist 102 Partnership Stressors Checklist 152 My Change Experience 160 Assessing Task/Relationship Balance 163 Comfort with Interdependence Checklist 173 Partnership Readiness Checklist 183 Culture Questionnaire 197 Past/Future Orientation Environment 198 Past/Future Orientation Profile 199 Summary of the Assess Stage 204 Needs Assessment Tool 205 Partner Compatibility Analysis 219 Initial Activity Team Checklist 235 Agreement Between Partners Checklist 242

Partnering2 front

4/3/04

11:07 AM

Page xi

FOREWORD

In 2000, when Bank of America was looking for a new approach to managing human resources administration, we were faced with a choice between two very different paths. One way we could have gone would have been to initiate a traditional vendor relationship—by sending out a request for proposal and picking the company that offered the best services at the lowest price. Putting our faith in teamwork, we would have brought the vendor up to speed on the bank’s core values and management processes and held the vendor accountable for getting the job done. But we quickly realized an important truth about today’s business environment: Teamwork isn’t always enough. The future of business is partnering. Team members share a common goal, but people working in partnership also share a common sense of duty; partners take full responsibility for each other’s success. As a result, the level of commitment is deeper, and the potential for reward is far greater. At Bank of America, we decided to take this other path and enter into a partnership with an HR company called Exult. On a task level, we knew they could do the work. With clients such as International Paper, British Petroleum, and Prudential Financial, Exult is a leader in providing payroll services, benefits administration, and employee recruiting. In a partnership, however, how the work gets done is just xi

Partnering2 front

xii

4/3/04

11:07 AM

Page xii

FOREWORD

as important as what gets done—which is why we brought in Stephen Dent and the Partnering Continuum™ model. Using the principles found in Partnering Intelligence, Stephen trained close to one hundred Bank of America and Exult executives in the art of partnering. It was an eye-opening experience for everyone. Having come from team environments, we quickly discovered we all had a lot to learn when it came to developing partnerships and building strong alliances. We learned how to stretch beyond our usual roles to help our partners, how to make joint decisions, and how to be flexible for the good of the partnership. We learned how to become more comfortable with self-disclosure and feedback, and how to face our failures together and make sure they never happen again. Most important of all, our experience reaffirmed the importance of trust, which is perhaps the most unsung core competency in business today. By enhancing our Partnering Intelligence, the Partnership Continuum helped us break down barriers that often hold companies back from success. Ultimately, Bank of America did more than just sign a ten-year contract with Exult. We moved 850 of our associates over to Exult to better integrate the two companies. This included an accounts payable processing department that we added to get additional leverage out of our partnership. Exult, in turn, moved some of its offices in with Bank of America to facilitate stronger communication. And in the years since, we have expanded our contract to have Exult provide additional HR services. With a vendor relationship everything boils down to execution, but in a partnership it’s about building sustainable processes that lead to continuous improvement. In our relationship with Exult, partnership means considering hard questions at every turn. How do the HR decisions we make benefit our customers and shareholders? How can we tackle administrative tasks in new, cost-effective ways? What can we and Exult do to help each other succeed? Reading and following Partnering Intelligence will help you answer your own tough questions and unlock the partnering capabilities of your organization. It’s not an easy path to take, but once you understand the power of partnerships, you’ll never want to do business the old way again. STEELE ALPHIN, CHIEF PEOPLE OFFICER, BANK OF AMERICA

Partnering2 front

4/3/04

11:07 AM

Page xiii

P R E FAC E

Since the initial release of Partnering Intelligence, we have seen business partnering—both as a management strategy and as an executive competency—grow in importance. Businesses have come to accept that strategic alliances, joint ventures, and partnerships are the wave of the future. Every market segment and economic stratum in the global marketplace is relying increasingly on the partnering strategy to grow and meet ever-expanding customer requirements and shareholder demands. What has become more evident since the first release of the book is the growing awareness of partnering as an executive competency. Having good teamwork isn’t enough in today’s changing business landscape. While teams may focus on achieving common goals, the information- and knowledge-based economy is predicated on a high level of commitment to, and trust between, each other as partners. This is true whether you’re talking about a partnership with suppliers, outsourcers, customers, or a previously competing company (external partnerships), or about your own executive team, managers, and employees (internal partnerships). Commitment and trust are critical for both. From New York to New Delhi and everywhere in between, partnering is an unnatural act in contemporary business culture; the skills required to be a successful partner are counterintuitive to everything xiii

Partnering2 front

xiv

4/3/04

11:07 AM

Page xiv

P R EFACE

we’ve been taught, socialized, and rewarded to do in the business world. In this hypercompetitive environment, time spent building trust and attaining mutual benefits is brief indeed. Yet business leaders yearn to develop, sustain, and profit from long-term relationships that over time contribute to those goals. How can both exist simultaneously in a world in flux? Since the first printing of Partnering Intelligence, thousands of people have followed our partnering process and used our assessments. Bank of America and Exult, Inc., for example, followed our process and won a Partnership of the Year Award in 2001 from Outsourcing Journal. The Partnering Quotient Assessment, as described in Chapter 2, is currently being used in more than a dozen corporate and governmental executive and leadership development programs. It has become a key tool for helping people identify their Partnering Intelligence as well as their strengths and weaknesses among the Six Partnering Attributes™, the benchmarks of a smart partner. In this second edition of Partnering Intelligence, you have access to new information gathered since the first edition and compelling new case studies demonstrating the power of partnering. A reorganization of the material has also made it more readily usable. I have also recently co-authored The Partnering Intelligence Fieldbook with Sandra M. Naiman. The fieldbook is designed to help you better understand the theory of Partnering Intelligence and provides further case studies to demonstrate where this partnering technology has been successful. You may want to get a copy of The Partnering Intelligence Fieldbook as a companion for this text. Included are examples of the assessments, templates, checklists, and other tools you’ll need to implement the partnering methodology. Together, these books form a complete road map for building your own successful alliances. Of the dozens of business strategies employed today, none offers both the potentially rich rewards and the devastating risks of partnership. Yet, while partnerships seem to offer the simplest and most direct path to success, failed partnerships litter the business landscape with broken dreams, financial loss, lost potential, and shattered relationships. Think about your most recent partnership. Perhaps it was

Partnering2 front

4/3/04

11:07 AM

Page xv

P R EFACE

with another organization, another department, or a colleague down the hall. How did it go? Was it good or bad for you? Did you accomplish what you set out to do? What sorts of relationships did you form? What happened to make the partnership succeed or fail? The ability to form partnerships is an important, even critical, skill in today’s business environment. So why do we leave such an important aspect of our life to happenstance? Instead we must develop what I call Partnering Intelligence. Most of us understand the concept of IQ—our intelligence quotient—our innate ability to comprehend language, symbols, and logic as measured by a standardized test. It’s one measure of how successful we will be in complex learning situations. In his best-seller Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ (1997), Daniel Goleman discusses emotional intelligence (EQ)—our ability to delay immediate gratification and use self-control to attain a greater future outcome. Goleman points to fascinating discoveries in brain research to assert that emotional stability may be more important than IQ in predicting a successful life. I have extended this concept with the idea that each of us also has a partnering quotient (PQ)—or Partnering Intelligence. My experience with PQ demonstrates that people with certain attributes are more successful at navigating the complexities of creating successful and healthy partnerships. Using these attributes in conjunction with the Partnership Continuum model—a special process for creating healthy partnerships—increases their potential for success. The Partnership Continuum as outlined in this book is a blueprint for the stages of partnership and relationship development that occur normally and naturally in all partnerships. This model can help you increase your Partnering Intelligence while exponentially improving your chances of creating a successful and mutually beneficial partnership for you and your business. Along the way, you will learn about the Six Partnering Attributes critical to successful partnering and the tools you’ll need to assess and improve your abilities in each of these attributes. You will learn, too, how you can shape the success or failure of the partnering process within your business or organization. What are your partnerships like today? Have you ever been in a situation where you didn’t trust your partner? Have you ever felt your

xv

Partnering2 front

xvi

4/3/04

11:07 AM

Page xvi

P R EFACE

partner wasn’t telling all? Have you resolved a conflict and then felt bad about how it ended? Did you ever want to give someone feedback but couldn’t? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then you’ll want to read further. In the following chapters I address these issues and more—by the time we’re finished, you’ll have learned how to increase your PQ. —Stephen M. Dent

Please note: There are many types of partnerships. This book provides

the reader with insights into the human attributes and dynamics that make individuals successful partners and the Partnership Continuum model, which helps groups of people create successful partnerships. This book does not address the legal aspects of partnerships. If you need help developing the legal aspects of a partnership, contact an attorney who specializes in legal partnerships in the state in which you live.

Partnering2 front

4/3/04

11:07 AM

Page xvii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Completing a book, even the second edition, is a very humbling experience. It is humbling because it points out the fact that the author is only a small part of the total production process. This book could not have been possible without the help of literally thousands of people. I cannot individually thank each person or client who has taken an assessment or attended a seminar. But each one has contributed to our growing body of knowledge that reinforces the basic premise that we are on the correct path. Businesses don’t partner, people do . . . and more and more people are recognizing this fundamental truth. I want to thank Steele Alphin from Bank of America for his contribution to this edition of the book. I also want to thank Alberto V. Diaz, Richard Roca, Mary Lou Cagle, Michael Salvino, Holly Nordquist, Mary Hulbert, Elizabeth Halloran, and the many other clients with whom I’ve had the pleasure of working. I have learned something important from each of you. I want to thank my partners at Partnership Continuum, Inc., for their contributions and support during this process, especially Phyllis Burger, Neal Holtan, Cindy Browne, Nancy Cosgriff, and James H. Krefft. The partnership we have formed has been a source of wisdom, support, encouragement, and love. Special thanks to Timothy R. McClernon, Ph.D., for his work in helping to provide the analysis for the PQ Assessment profiles. xvii

Partnering2 front

4/3/04

11:07 AM

Page xviii

xviii A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S

This book could not have happened without the strong support, vision, and dedication of the people at Davies-Black Publishing including Lee Langhammer Law, Laura Simonds, Jill AndersonWilson, and Mark Chambers—to all of you my deepest and sincerest gratitude.

Partnering2 Part I

4/3/04

11:10 AM

Page 1

PA R T O N E

Rediscovering Partnering Transitioning from “Me” to “We” For as long as humans have populated this planet, we have struggled to survive. Along the way we have learned that prosperity comes from banding together, determining what is in our best mutual interest, and moving forward in partnership. This strategy worked for thousands of years until the industrial age, when something fundamental changed in our society. As the industrial workplace became fragmented, cross-functionalized, and specialized, we began to transition from banding together to looking out for ourselves individually. We forgot the importance of relationships that valued the “we” over the “me” as our work drove us farther and farther apart. Now businesses all over the world are relearning this ancient partnering strategy. As our society and the global economy move from the postindustrial age into the age of information and communication, business leaders are awakening to the fact that they need to partner to survive. Because no one source contains all the information needed to operate in

1

Partnering2 Part I

2

4/3/04

11:10 AM

Page 2

PARTN ER I NG I NTELLIGENCE

today’s supercharged business climate, partnerships have become critical to business success. But because this “Partnering Intelligence” that was kept alive for generations has been lost, these leaders will need to rediscover and develop their partnering skills. Part One describes the concept of Partnering Intelligence—what it is, why it’s important, and how it affects your ability to build successful partnerships. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the Partnership Continuum model, walking you through the components of the model and explaining why creating a smart partnership is a system, not an isolated event. It offers examples of how others have created smart partnerships for their business that their competitors cannot duplicate, thus providing them with a competitive edge. It explores the different types of partnerships and explains what works and what doesn’t. Chapter 2 moves from the model to the individual, offering a selfassessment that will help you determine your Partnering Intelligence. Knowing where you stand is the first step toward increasing your partnering quotient, or PQ. Chapter 3 helps you analyze your Partnering Intelligence based on the Six Partnering Attributes. It provides examples of how it impacts the individual, the team, external partnerships of businesses working together, and the collective PQ of a large corporation—and what it means in terms of the culture of the organization. Chapter 4 provides an in-depth overview of the Partnership Continuum model, framing the use of the Six Partnering Attributes and how they help you to become a smart partner.

Partnering2 Part I

4/3/04

11:10 AM

Page 3

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

Partnering Intelligence is not an innate intelligence—it’s learned. Each of us has the capability to be a smart partner and build smart alliances. Part One will help you get a jump start on your competition and start adding value to your business by increasing your Partnering Intelligence.

3

Partnering2 Part I

4/3/04

11:10 AM

Page 4

Partnering2 ch1

4/3/04

10:14 AM

Page 5

CHAPTER

ONE

Par tnering Intelligence What It Is and Why It’s Important Have you ever thought about the concept of Partnering Intelligence? Most of us don’t spend a whole lot of time analyzing our partnerships, business or otherwise. They just happen. They evolve, and before we know it, they fall into a familiar pattern. They become part of our life’s experience, both good and bad. W H AT I S P A R T N E R I N G I N T E L L I G E N C E ?

Human beings are miraculously complex creatures. Each of us has a different way of viewing the world—a personal way of taking in information, processing it, and making decisions. We use a variety of skills and types of intelligence to help us through the complexities of life. These different types of intelligence confer different advantages to help us succeed. For example, your IQ (intelligence quotient) score on an intelligence test is a measure of your reasoning power, cognitive skills, and ability to verbalize and calculate. The IQ score, a relative measure of mental intelligence, is expressed as a number (quotient) on a scale from low to high. People with high IQ scores generally do well on tasks that require cognitive abilities. But a high IQ score is not the only measure of success. Other kinds of intelligence influence our behavior and contribute to our success in achieving what we want and need in life. In his 5

Partnering2 ch1

6

4/3/04

10:14 AM

Page 6

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

groundbreaking books, Dr. Howard Gardner makes a compelling case for the fact that successful people use a variety of intelligences. In his earlier works, he lists at least seven intelligences: logical-mathematical, linguistic, spatial, intrapersonal, interpersonal, musical, and bodilykinesthetic. Gardner suggests that every human being naturally excels in some of these intelligences while struggling with others. In his most recent works, he goes on to define the potential of existential, spiritual, and creative intelligences, all of which contribute to the success of human development. Emotional quotient (EQ), a term coined by Peter Salovey from Yale University and John Mayer from the University of New Hampshire in the early 1990s, is a measure of how well people solve problems and cope with challenges and adversity. Daniel Goleman, an expert in the field of emotional intelligence, writes about an experiment in which six-year-old children were offered two choices. Each child could choose to have one cookie right now, or two cookies later and no cookie now. Many years later, Goleman correlated other data from these same subjects with their choices in this experiment. His results indicate that the ones who chose to wait for the two cookies— those who were able to defer gratification—were generally more successful in their personal relationships and in their occupations. The idea that different kinds of intelligence influence our decisions is obvious. A person’s judgment and maturity are often more important than the factors measured with an IQ test. People with very high IQ scores but low EQ may have trouble coping with adversity, problem solving, and relationships despite all their mental aptitudes. Social scientists are discovering many other types of intelligence that serve us in different ways. The more we can master these various types of intelligence, the better equipped to succeed in life we will be. Being successful in partnerships is a matter of applying a different kind of intelligence. Our partnering quotient (PQ) is a measure of our Partnering Intelligence—how well we can build relationships and cultivate trust while accomplishing predetermined tasks in an alliance with another person. We all have this ability. We can all learn how to increase it because it is based on behavioral attributes that we can all learn. The Six Partnering Attributes that make up your Partnering Intelligence include

Partnering2 ch1

4/3/04

10:14 AM

Page 7

PARTN ER I NG I NTELLIGENCE

• Self-Disclosure and Feedback • Win-Win Orientation • Ability to Trust • Future Orientation • Comfort with Change • Comfort with Interdependence These attributes are the foundation of building a partnering atmosphere or culture within your organization. How do you increase your Partnering Intelligence? You start by understanding yourself and evaluating your partnering skills. Partnering Intelligence begins with self-awareness—the foundation for a strong partnership—and increases as you can identify and satisfy your partner’s needs. When you pledge to do everything in your power to help your partner succeed, you commit yourself not only to your own success but to the success of the partnership as well. Your enterprise becomes an intelligent partnership when you are united in your dedication to each other’s success even as you maintain separate identities. Once you have evaluated your own partnering skills, you need a process that will show you how to develop your Partnering Intelligence. I call this process the Partnership Continuum™: a deliberate, scientific approach to creating partnerships. This model, used with others within the context of a business or organization, helps individuals or groups of people to move from “no partnership” to “full partnership.” Using a step-by-step approach, the Partnership Continuum provides a framework in which partners can review and plan for the two major components needed for successful partnerships—building the partnership and sustaining the relationship. Utilizing the Plan–Do–Check–Act (PDCA) cycle for continuous improvement ensures that partnerships thrive. While most people and organizations will readily say they have formed relationships, for most of us the development of a truly cooperative partnership, based on mutual trust and benefit, remains an elusive goal. At times even our personal relationships seem difficult. Fully developed partnerships are especially challenging in the business environment.

7

Partnering2 ch1

8

4/3/04

10:14 AM

Page 8

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

W H O N E E D S PA R T N E R S H I P S ?

If partnership is so much work, why not simply go it alone? Census data reflecting current social trends show that many of us are single and are remaining single. Being single can mean being alone and being lonely. Loneliness is what moves people to endure the difficulties of the “dating game” in order to gain the love, companionship, and other benefits that human relationships offer. In today’s society, people who feel lonely and alienated from others can turn to a range of sources for relief: from therapists to advice columnists, from personal ads to clubs of all varieties, along with the myriad other distractions technology affords us. What people are craving is meaningful relationships. The same is true for many businesses. They find themselves in need of other businesses—to expand their resources, to help with financing, to penetrate a new market, to develop or co-market a new product, or to defend their industry. They will go through the pain and risks of “dating” a few prospective partners. And indeed they may find a good fit for what they want—if they know how to go about it. Regardless of the situation, business or personal, in essence this is just normal human behavior. We feel a need and then we use the strategy of collaborating with someone else to help us fulfill it. Virtually all partnerships, personal and business, start out this way. Business happens only when people interact. Lots of companies and their employees misunderstand this business dynamic. At its most basic level, business is a transaction. The buyer needs a seller, a seller needs a buyer; at every level, in every instance, people transact. But too narrow a focus on one part of the business—such as the transaction—leads to imbalances that in turn lead to losses. This is because business is more than a transaction. Business happens not when the transaction occurs, but when people interact. One transaction could never sustain a business for very long. Successful, growing businesses are those that can create partnerships. By this I mean that they have the skill (the intelligence) to complete a task (a transaction) while developing a trustworthy and mutually beneficial relationship. There are those who will tell you that new technologies drive business success. I disagree. Although technology can increase the speed or accuracy of a transaction, your competitors can rapidly

Partnering2 ch1

4/3/04

10:14 AM

Page 9

PARTN ER I NG I NTELLIGENCE

replicate your new proprietary technology. Businesses can buy the technology they need, and the cost is less, and the availability greater, than ever before. All the conventional measures of business health look only at past results. The future prosperity of a business depends on its ability to initiate, sustain, and profit from interdependent relationships. Successful businesses develop relationships. Relationships can become creative partnerships and reflect the values of people working with trust and respect for each other. The outcomes of healthy partnerships among people are innovative products, creative services, and even new technology.

T H E E C O N O M I C T R A N S F O R M AT I O N

Technology has transformed businesses in ways their developers could have never predicted. We’ve increased the speed and accuracy of the transaction, but more fundamentally we’ve changed how people use information and knowledge. Twenty years ago, computers helped collect and correlate information, leaving it up to humans to analyze and apply the knowledge. Today, networks of computers collect, correlate, and analyze information, allowing humans to spend their time creatively applying the information to solve problems and satisfy consumer needs. In fact, the networking of information sources has changed how people work with information, thus changing how knowledge and information organizations need to be led. This change in technology is spurring an information- and knowledge-based economy that operates on principles that are radically different from the postindustrial economic models. This change is rapidly identifying the need for partnering skills. Material resources were the source of wealth in the industrial and postindustrial economies. Today it’s information and knowledge and how they’re applied. Because of the organic nature of information— it begins new and fresh, reaches midlife, and then becomes old and perhaps irrelevant—how we use information is critical, especially with its accelerated and shortened life span. Businesses must have the ability to quickly identify, connect, profit from, and abandon information sources. Having the network to accomplish that is important because sources today are as diverse as all the people on this planet.

9

Partnering2 ch1

10

4/3/04

10:14 AM

Page 10

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

Table 1

Partnering Business Model Industrial Model (old)

Partnering Model (new)

Control means of production

➤

Open means of production

Based on scarcity

➤

Based on abundance

Hierarchical

➤

Networked

Command and control

➤

Collaboration

Linear/sequential

➤

Organic

Win-lose

➤

Win-win

Material

➤

Information

In this environment, leadership must rethink some deeply ingrained notions of how businesses operate. The skills required in the industrial economy are becoming less important as organizations begin to redefine themselves. As information increasingly becomes the currency of wealth, how businesses operate and the cultures they develop will become more critical to their success or failure. Table 1 shows some of the changes that will occur as businesses start to transition themselves into information and knowledge powerhouses. They must begin sharing the source of production with others to reinvigorate products and gain market share. One example is Motorola, which radically shifted its business model to reflect a more partnering type of model. Motorola until recently needed to own its manufacturing assets. Today, it outsources the manufacturing of a key telephone chip, including what would once have been proprietary intellectual property, to refocus on strategically important markets for the future success of its business. Rather than hoarding its proprietary information, Motorola is sharing it with others, making it more valuable and increasing the total market share, a sign of an abundance mentality. Previously, they would not have shared information, making it less valuable. Increasing its network of partners through joint ventures, licensing agreements, and strategic alliances, Motorola has shifted from a hier-

Partnering2 ch1

4/3/04

10:14 AM

Page 11

PARTN ER I NG I NTELLIGENCE

archical style to a network style of management, giving away their technology to what would previously have been perceived as rivals and, in the process, generating more business. In the industrial model, businesses use a linear and sequential approach to business processes. Today, we are seeing a more organic approach as partners bring fresh, innovative ideas to revitalize products and services. Amadigm Corporation, a pharmaceutical company, is changing how medications are administered, moving away from traditional, invasive approaches. This process is a result of an organic process that moved away from the conventional approach to medicine. While competitive marketplaces are still the rule, even fierce competitors are learning that sometimes it’s better to cooperate than compete. No industrial segment is doing more than the airlines. Even before the airlines were forced to deal with the implications of global terrorism and the impact it has had on that segment, they were rapidly moving toward cooperation. The Northwest Airlines–KLM partnership detailed later in the book is as strong and profitable in 2004 as it was in 1999. Material assets, while important, are not the source of wealth in today’s economy. Information and knowledge are the currency of success, and the more they are shared, the more valuable they become. A P A R T N E R I N G C U LT U R E

Most of us want to be part of something beyond ourselves. We yearn to have an ally we can rely on. Socially we need someone who supports us and in turn needs and values our support. For most of us, this is also true in business. We long to participate in a meaningful workplace where we are appreciated for our contributions. The “family spirit” of some companies is a powerful incentive for people to contribute. When market conditions change, businesses that have strong and trusting relationships among all the people who work for the company tend to cope better. Their sense of community helps them marshal resources and focus energy on mutual survival. These types of partnerships stem from what I call a “partnering culture”—a culture based on trust and mutual benefits. These successful internal relationships enable a company to identify, develop, sustain, and profit from external partnerships.

11

Partnering2 ch1

12

4/3/04

10:14 AM

Page 12

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

Businesses are looking for the kinds of partnerships that generate new energy—powered by a confluence of new ideas, knowledge, and intelligences. We see examples of this dynamic every day. Our world is in constant flux, combining and recombining forces. New technologies evolve. When the nineteenth-century invention of the automobile merged with twentieth-century computer technology, the result was better running, more efficient, cleaner, cheaper automobiles. Successful businesses create new products, services, strategies, and processes that satisfy or create new market needs. Innovative companies are constantly updating, expanding, and researching ways to perform in order to stay ahead of their competition and keep their customers satisfied. This process is becoming more and more challenging to handle alone. Advanced communication and computing technologies have afforded us unprecedented access to information. In fact, we receive so much information that we have to rely on other people to help us keep up with it. Because information is available in virtually every corner of the globe today through computer and telecommunication technologies, the world is now our marketplace, our research and development resource, our labor pool, and our source for capital. Companies everywhere are teaming up and multiplying their capacity to do business. Without partnerships, how can we possibly compete tomorrow? E X PA N D I N G R E S O U R C E S

A company that specializes in mass mailings may be able to complete a semiannual direct-mail marketing project for a small business more cheaply than the small business can accomplish the task itself. Does it make sense for the small company to hire mail room personnel, purchase and maintain database information systems, and add the expensive infrastructure needed for such a task if it sends out only two mailings a year? Improved communication technologies have created a proliferation of call centers that span the globe. Callers in North America or Europe can easily be speaking with representatives in India, Africa, or the Caribbean when making reservations or receiving technical support. A software programming problem can be identified on Monday morning by a business in North America, the problem can be sent to

Partnering2 ch1

4/3/04

10:14 AM

Page 13

PARTN ER I NG I NTELLIGENCE

India that evening, and a solution can be ready and waiting in North America on Tuesday morning. As the world grows smaller, the need for partners is more critical than ever before. In many cases, we can’t justify the cost of acquiring, developing, and maintaining the resources required to do it all. Businesses are reaching out to find partners with the expertise they need to provide the products and services their customers want. Consumer research shows that customers will switch to products or services that meet their personal needs, even if they have to pay more. As these needs become more sophisticated, businesses need the flexibility to customize their products and services. They need to be responsive to the customer, to be market driven, to retain their present customers and attract new ones. Many businesses turn to partnering as an essential strategy to help them accomplish their goals. Creating a successful partnership can be hard work, but the payoff can be huge, and returns can come in unexpected ways. We form partnerships to access information or technology possessed by others. Partnerships can reenergize a business by bringing in new ideas and new methods for achieving results. Improved product quality, more efficient production, new avenues for marketing and sales—all may result from strategic partnerships. Partnerships encourage creative innovations for improved product design and quality. When two separate groups merge, they bring with them different perspectives on how to accomplish something. Successful partnerships work with this diversity to produce a hybrid that is, in essence, the best of both. The key to reaping these benefits is creating an environment that stimulates creativity and risk taking— one in which people feel safe trying out new concepts without fear of reprimand or punishment. The outcome is an innovation that neither group could have produced separately. It is a product of the vitality, creativity, diversity, and synergy that partnerships are capable of generating. One partnership that used synergy to beat the competition in the marketplace was a wireless telephone company that partnered with a Baby Bell that provided landline service. The partners decided to combine the best of both services and offer customers features that no one else provided. How did they do this? The landline company knew its customers wanted only one telephone number to keep track of.

13

Partnering2 ch1

14

4/3/04

10:14 AM

Page 14

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

The wireless company knew its customers wanted to take the phone with them wherever they went. So the companies offered the “wireless extension”—an innovation that acted like a home or office phone and that customers could answer in either location. In addition, their telephone handset mimicked a standard telephone that provided an immediate dial tone when activated. This partnership is wiping out the competition in the markets it serves. S AT I S F Y I N G C U S T O M E R S

When organizations that have formed partnerships uniquely meet customer needs, they see their market share increase and their customer satisfaction ratings rise. When Northwest Airlines formed a partnership with KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, international travelers on both sides of the Atlantic were offered an increased number of destinations. Beyond this added value, these travelers benefited from such improvements as shared frequent flyer awards, improved reliability performance, and coordinated scheduling. Passengers saved time making connecting flights and were able to spend more time at either end of the trip—a considerable marketing advantage to Northwest–KLM’s time-conscious business travelers. As a direct result of their partnership, Northwest Airlines increased its pretax profits by $50 million a year and KLM enjoyed a healthy $150 million-a-year pretax profit increase. In December 1997, Northwest Airlines repaid a $39 million loan to the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) in Minnesota more than fifteen years ahead of schedule. The loan was part of a $45 million package Northwest negotiated in 1992 with the State of Minnesota to save it from bankruptcy. REDUCING EXPENSES

Partnerships create unique opportunities to explore new and potentially valuable ways of reducing expenses. According to John Dasburg, president of Northwest Airlines, joint marketing programs generated most of the success in Northwest’s partnership with KLM. A less heralded example of cooperation came from joint purchasing activities. Since early 1994, Northwest and KLM have engaged in sixty-nine

Partnering2 ch1

4/3/04

10:14 AM

Page 15

PARTN ER I NG I NTELLIGENCE

successful joint procurement projects producing total savings of $31 million. These projects, all nonstrategic in scope, reduced Northwest’s expenses by $4.6 million in 1995, and future annual savings are estimated at $15 million to $20 million. Furthermore, both airlines continue to expand cost-saving activities including sharing warehouse space at Schipol Airport in Amsterdam and joint ticketing and checkin counters at various other airports. INCREASING PRODUCTIVITY AND JOB SECURITY

Tapping into everyone’s creative knowledge results in a more viable and competitive organization. Meeting customers’ demands means more profitability, which translates into company growth and employee job security. When partnerships include unions or other employee groups, job productivity improves because of meaningful involvement in quality improvement. Inclusion enables a diverse workforce to contribute creative ideas and stimulates innovative ways of accomplishing tasks. Saturn, the newest car division of General Motors, used this principle when starting up its manufacturing facility in Spring Hill, Tennessee. Partnering with the United Auto Workers (UAW), Saturn redesigned the manufacturing process of the Saturn automobiles. In 1999 Saturn ranked number one in quality for American cars by American consumers. Three components contributed to the Saturn partnership’s success: innovative processes produced better cars; Saturn gained market share and customer loyalty; and the Saturn plant needed more employees. This meant more members for the UAW and more profits for General Motors. I M P R O V I N G R E L AT I O N S H I P S

Partnership helps organizations build better relationships—which benefits the organization internally and externally. As a consultant, I’ve seen even the most broken processes meet customer requirements when internal relationships are good. But when processes are broken and the relationships are poor, woe to the customer, who is bound to suffer as a result of this combination.

15

Partnering2 ch1

16

4/3/04

10:14 AM

Page 16

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

Customer loyalty results from creating relationships with customers. By establishing partnerships internally, organizations increase their skill at developing good relationships. Successful businesses do not create loyal customers solely through price or quality advantages. These features can be quickly replicated by competitors. Customers want relationships. Customers who have a relationship with a business will be forgiving of mistakes where those without a relationship will walk. It costs about thirteen times more money to attract a new customer than to retain an old one. A loyal customer base, therefore, is much more profitable than even a huge potential market. The partnering skills that engender customer loyalty are the same skills that employees practice with each other. Ritz-Carlton Hotels trains its employees to behave as “ladies and gentlemen serving ladies and gentlemen.” As we treat the people we work with, so we treat our customers. The same communication dynamics—including clear, respectful messages between managers and employees—will enhance customer satisfaction. The absence of good relationship skills in a company precludes the possibility of building good customer relations. Organizations, businesses, nonprofits, communities, and even governments are coming to understand that in today’s global world, “going it alone” is tough. Going it alone means an organization needs to provide everything for itself—which is impossible. Even the loner, the solo flier, and the maverick have at least superficial relationships. Businesses just can’t exist without some kind of relationship with others. Like the stereotypical one-night-stand character, some businesses accumulate relationships that are just as shallow, temporary, and meaningless. No matter how beneficial a partnership may be from a financial or transactional perspective, if the relationship isn’t satisfying for the partners, the partnership will ultimately fail. Consider the analogy to personal relationships. Think of the number of people who have lowered their economic standard of living to get out of a bad marriage. People will leave behind the house, the money, the dog, and sometimes even the kids to escape the pain of a dysfunctional relationship. Sometimes even the threat of losing everything is not strong enough to convince partners to endure a marriage on the rocks. Divorce is the less painful alternative.

Partnering2 ch1

4/3/04

10:14 AM

Page 17

PARTN ER I NG I NTELLIGENCE

Fortunately, another choice is available. We can choose to change ourselves. We can commit to changing our attitudes and behavior. We can examine ourselves and work to revitalize the partnership. Easing the pain is one motivation for changing ourselves. Preserving what we’ve built together is an incentive for working hard on relationship issues. Just as a good counselor can help a dysfunctional marriage get back on track, a good business consultant can help fix a business partnership. But first the partners have to acknowledge the importance of the relationship. Then they can discover how to improve it. T W O T Y P E S O F PA R T N E R S H I P S : INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL

The ability to form and sustain both internal and external partnerships is the hallmark of a partnering culture. Each type, of course, involves different players, though they may interact with each other. External partners include people outside the organization such as suppliers, vendors, distributors, and outsourcers. Internal partners reside within the organization, such as those in engineering, design, marketing, IT, or human resources. Internal Partnerships

Organizations that cannot partner internally will have difficulty partnering externally. Creating excellent working relationships within your organization is a hallmark of a smart partner. Internal partnerships—that is, partnering relationships within a company—can exist between • Executive leadership team peers • Executives and managers between organizational functions or departments • Leadership and employees An effective executive team is the core of internal partnerships. Unless executives operate with the Six Partnering Attributes of smart partners, they risk communicating and behaving in ways that undermine their ability to create a partnering culture. Employees watch what leaders do, not say, and then follow their example. Actions trump words every time.

17

Partnering2 ch1

18

4/3/04

10:14 AM

Page 18

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

Across organizations, even in today’s flatter organizational structures, “silos” rule. Breaking down barriers and getting departments and functions to align and work well together are the biggest challenges I see in business today. The lack of trust and the misaligned goals, objectives, reward structures, and priorities create conflict and turmoil that undermine business strategies and leave customers and suppliers wondering what’s happening. Based on the requests we get from clients, this important internal partnership is one of the most neglected in many organizations. Employees are the unsung heroes in the front lines of business. They are your business personified. Without the faces, voices, and brains of these people, your customers’ needs would go unmet, your strategies would go unfulfilled, and your profits would be nonexistent. Yet in many cases we treat employees as though they were commodities to be used and discarded. We manage them like we manage a process and fail to treat them as partners in the enterprise. Harnessing human energy, focusing it, and directing it is the most important task of leadership and the most effective technique to capture their brains and spirit through a sense of partnership. Make them partners in your success and you will be successful. With both cross-functional teams and individual employees, employers must look beyond teamwork and get to partnership. While teams focus on accomplishing tasks, partners must be committed to each other’s success. That difference alone can set your business apart in the marketplace and mean the difference between thriving and surviving. In North America—and indeed in much of the industrialized world—business has been managed through compartmentalizing work by function. While this approach may have created some efficiencies when organizations were self-sufficient, the information age has made this practice obsolete. Businesses are recognizing that it is through cross-functional processes that customers get satisfied. If one function fails to live up to the customer’s expectations, the whole organization looks bad. Ultimately, the entire organization pays the price for less-than-ideal customer service. For example, consider a client of mine: Qwest Wireless. Within the business, two departments—Sales Development and Order Fulfillment—were competing with each other to handle a piece of the process. Sales Development was responsible for ordering customer

Partnering2 ch1

4/3/04

10:14 AM

Page 19

PARTN ER I NG I NTELLIGENCE

equipment based on customer requirements, industry trends, sales forecasts, and the capabilities of manufacturing vendors. Order Fulfillment managed equipment inventory and shipped customer equipment from a warehouse once an order was received. The crux of the conflict was this: Who reordered equipment when inventory was low? While this may seem a simple inventory management issue, it was much more complex because of the product’s nature. Wireless telephone handsets are a rapidly evolving product that is updated three or four times a year. Although the handset design itself may change only periodically, the software that runs the features is updated many times during the same period. Consequently, a new handset today can be rendered obsolete tomorrow by updated software. Order Fulfillment wanted to control inventory reordering. Since they were responsible for inventory cost and managing stock levels, this seemed to make sense. But since Sales Development had the relationship with the vendor; had access to industry trends, consumer tastes, and changes in network features; and understood the impact these factors had on the marketplace, Sales Development wanted to control the ordering process. The situation got so bad that it created animosity between the leaders in the organization. The essence of the situation boiled down to power and control. The power came from the inventory budget: money equals power and control. This is a fairly common dynamic in many organizations, one that can drive some pretty bizarre behavior. When we brought the two groups together, they agreed to form a partnership. First we clarified their goals. Since sales and order fulfillment objectives were closely related—to make a profit and to satisfy the customer—we were able to align them quickly. Once we had a common goal we were able to redesign the equipment-ordering process so that each group was able to get its needs met. After working through their conflict, the team actually streamlined the process while reducing inventory overhead. This occurred over a one-month period. In the end, the leaders of the two departments created a full partnership between the two departments. When companies respond constructively to employees’ needs, they discover the keys to unleashing extraordinary energy, creativity, productivity, and loyalty. When companies partner with employees, productivity soars. Making the case for investing time, energy, and money in human resource development, however, is as tough a chore

19

Partnering2 ch1

20

4/3/04

10:14 AM

Page 20

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

as ever because of the ways we’ve thought about business for the last two hundred years. But as we continue to evolve from the industrial age into the information age, our human resources paradigm will need to change. This new age requires us to think about the intellectual capital humans create and how to cultivate it if we want to succeed in the future. The exponential growth in the sophistication of the technologies we use persuades us that this era is different from, and presumably better than, the industrial age. Yet many of our attitudes about how work should be done to maximize productivity haven’t changed from the days when production workers monotonously repeated the same steps on the assembly line for thirty years. Building great internal partnerships is a critical first step in becoming a partnering powerhouse. Certainly there is terrific potential in this area, but few companies recognize relationships with employees as partnerships. Most take them for granted. But people want meaning and self-fulfillment from their work. They want cordial and respectful relations with the people they meet at work. They want to be part of the enterprise, part of a team, a value to the company. Companies and their employees can have a genuine, active, profitable partnership where everyone gets what they need—but only if they understand the principles of the partnering process and know how to increase their collective Partnering Intelligence.

External Partnerships

External partners can be as varied as there are businesses and can satisfy a number of needs. Some typical external partnerships include • Suppliers, vendors, outsourcers • Distributors • Customers • Franchises • Competitors Suppliers, vendors, and outsourcers are an important source of potential partnerships. The outsourcing relationship between Bank of America and Exult mentioned earlier is an example of how a relationship that was once considered transactional in nature can be

Partnering2 ch1

4/3/04

10:14 AM

Page 21

PARTN ER I NG I NTELLIGENCE

transformed into a strategic relationship when both partners want to build trust and develop mutual benefits. This award-winning partnership shows that a purposeful and strategic approach to creating an alliance can reap benefits for all involved. Companies that partner with their customers gain incredible insights into the marketplace. Relationships with customers can help a business move from a single transaction to life-long business. Understanding customers’ needs positions you to provide end-to-end solutions to your customers’ problems and to keep them from depending on a variety of businesses—and potential competitors—to satisfy their needs. By treating your customers as partners and satisfying their needs, building trust and demonstrating the benefits and value you offer, you’ve created a business’s most prized asset, a loyal customer. Gary Wilson, chairman of Northwest Airlines, speaking to the Press Club in Washington, D.C., described a shift in thought about what constitutes a partnership: “Mergers are out and alliances are in.” He was referring to the proliferation of alliances recently announced by airline companies. While conventional wisdom may once have dictated that airlines compete with one another, in fact they are also some of each other’s most important partners. The nature of the industry allows airlines to compete as well as cooperate in ways that benefit everyone, including the flying public. In the first quarter of 1998 Northwest Airlines (already allied with KLM) declared alliances with Continental Airlines, Air Italia, Air France, and Cathay Pacific. In the same period, Delta allied itself with AeroPeru, and Nippon Airways formed alliances with United Airlines and Lufthansa. Wilson observed: “The airline industry is on a path to the future different from that followed by other industries. It is a path wary of mergers and acquisitions that make glittering projections about synergies and efficiencies. All too often these projections prove overly optimistic and difficult to achieve.” I have worked with all sorts of external partnerships, from auto manufacturers and their suppliers to telephone companies and their unions. I have been involved in multipartner ventures on large construction jobs—partnerships involving building contractors, architects, trade unions, and building owners. All these efforts have one thing in common. They are all trying to achieve a task while developing a healthy and mutually beneficial partnership.

21

Partnering2 ch1

22

4/3/04

10:14 AM

Page 22

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

External partnerships can be extraordinarily rewarding. The Northwest–KLM partnership brought over $50 million worth of additional business to KLM at Schipol Airport alone in 1997. When the largest mall in the United States was built in suburban Minneapolis in 1993, thanks to partnerships it was finished three months ahead of schedule and $25 million under budget. A Minnesotan telephone company and its union were at odds over how to settle the scheduling of vacations. The two organizations sat down together and formed a partnership to figure out how to get the work orders completed during a busy summer season and still allow employees time off to enjoy the warm weather. Their partnership headed off a rash of “sick days” for the company and a huge backlog of grievances for the union. These are examples of the power of forming mutually beneficial partnerships. More and more, people today are finding themselves alienated from each other and lacking in serious relationships—especially in the workplace. They are gravitating to companies where they can meet these needs. Businesses with an orientation to the past are finding themselves increasingly alone, struggling to find loyal employees and fighting for their economic existence. Businesses with partnerships all over town, all over the country, and all over the world threaten those companies that can’t sustain relationships. The good news is that globally companies are changing, workforces are changing, and successful businesses are the ones that have figured out what partnering is all about. These are the companies people want to work for. W H AT D O E S N ’ T W O R K

Some so-called partnerships are more like forced marriages. The organizations find themselves in a situation that requires them to deal with each other even though their relationships may be more adversarial than mutually beneficial. I recently had an opportunity to work with a huge quasi-governmental agency. As one of the largest employers in the world, it had many different unions and professional organizations representing its employees. One area vice president was trying hard to improve the workplace environment. To accomplish this monumental task, he wanted to form a partnership with the unions. Management understood that the best way to get to the root

Partnering2 ch1

4/3/04

10:14 AM

Page 23

PARTN ER I NG I NTELLIGENCE

causes of employee unrest in the workplace was to get the employee unions to help them make improvements. But one of the most powerful unions—the one representing the bulk of this agency’s employees—was so mistrustful of management that it refused to participate. During an exploratory meeting, the union came right out and said it did not believe management would address the problems fairly. Moreover, the union felt there was uneven power between management and employees. Then the union walked out of the discussion. This was both unfortunate and fortunate. It was unfortunate that the union refused to work with management to improve the work environment for its membership. But it was fortunate for management’s oversight committee because it clarified the union’s position regarding their relationship. Since the union was not interested in being a partner, the committee could proceed without fear of being sabotaged by a forced partner. The committee decided to leave the door open: if the union wanted to participate in the future, it could. Forced marriages, although they sometimes appear successful, seldom work. Forced partners can harbor long-term animosity and resentment. I know of one company that merged more than a decade ago in which the employees still refer to each other by their previous company logos: “red tails” and “ducks.” Generally speaking, partnerships are most successful when partners enter the relationship of their own free will.

T H E PA R T N E R S H I P C O N T I N U U M ™ M O D E L

Knowing your partnering quotient and the attributes necessary for managing the partnership is only half of what you need for increasing your Partnering Intelligence. The other half is understanding the process of creating healthy, trusting, and mutually beneficial partnerships. Partnerships don’t just happen. They are designed. The Partnership Continuum model (Figure 1) is the blueprint for creating successful partnerships. This model has been used successfully by thousands of people. It offers you and your partner a tested step-bystep approach to developing your partnership. By following the model, both of you will increase your Partnering Intelligence as you learn how to do the following:

23

Partnering2 ch1

10:14 AM

Page 24

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

Stages of Partnership Development LORE

INI

TIATE

COMMIT

PLA

PLA

N

N

N

N

AC T

PLA

AC T

EXP

PLA

AC T

ASSESS AC T

FUTURE ORIENTATION

PAST ORIENTATION (NO PARTNERSHIP)

STORM

CK

NORM

HE

DO

DO

HE

C

CK

C

FORM

HE

C

C

CK

DO

(FULL PARTNERSHIP) HE

DO

24

4/3/04

PE

CK

RFORM

Stages of Relationship Development

Figure 1 The Partnership Continuum Model

• Discuss the process to use in forming the partnership—thus opening communications and starting to build trust between you • Begin creating a mutual vision • Complete an internal needs assessment • Start identifying each other’s needs • Gain a common understanding of the attributes needed to use the model successfully • Develop common ground as you work through the components and stages of the model The model includes three basic components: • The Stages of Partnership Development • The Stages of Relationship Development • The Plan–Do–Check–Act (PDCA) cycle Note that the PDCA cycle is embedded throughout the model to monitor the implementation of the other components as the partnership and relationship unfold. At either end of the spectrum are the extremes of past and future orientation. Organizations that are mired in past orientation are closed to new ideas, concepts, or approaches in shaping their strategic directions. Those that are future oriented tend to be open to change and innovation. These dynamics impact the culture of the organization and are an important element in determining whether the cultural climate is supportive of alliance development. Although partnerships

Partnering2 ch1

4/3/04

10:14 AM

Page 25

PARTN ER I NG I NTELLIGENCE

in real life flow in either direction, we want to encourage growth for the future. You can think of it in terms of how the human body flourishes in the earth’s atmosphere. The warmth of the sun keeps the body functioning and comfortable; the rich air nourishes it with oxygen. Now imagine for a moment that body being transported to Mars. If left unprotected, how well would it survive? At the moment of arrival, it would be gasping for oxygen, and within minutes the frigid Martian atmosphere would freeze it stiff. Such an environment could not support human life. On earth we are generally not conscious of the atmosphere; we take it for granted as we move about beneath its invisible blanket. But it is there, protecting, supporting, and nurturing our lives. Likewise, the atmosphere we create in our partnerships using the Six Partnering Attributes—Self-Disclosure and Feedback, Win-Win Orientation, Ability to Trust, Future Orientation, Comfort with Change, and Comfort with Interdependence—will determine how well we survive. At the top and bottom of the model are two parallel sets of stages of development: partnership and relationship, defining the natural progressions that people and groups go through as they develop and grow. Yet, these stages are as fluid as they are predictable—while you can predict their occurrence within a period of time, they are easily influenced by outside forces that can cause them to change and even revert to previous stages. The two development components—the Stages of Partnership Development and the Stages of Relationship Development—will help you to understand the way partnerships work best and give you the tools to evaluate your relationships and pinpoint where to make changes. The best blueprint, however, is only as good as the user. For the Partnership Continuum model to be successful, you’ll need the skills to read the blueprint and then implement it. Throughout the rest of Part One I will explain each section of the model and show you how to use it both diagnostically (to see how your partnership is doing) and prescriptively (to show what you can do to improve your partnership). I’ll also go into greater detail about the Six Partnering Attributes that make up your Partnering Intelligence. Along the way you’ll find all the assessments and other tools you’ll need to help you assess and increase your PQ.

25

Partnering2 ch1

26

4/3/04

10:14 AM

Page 26

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

T H E E S S E N C E O F PA R T N E R S H I P S

There is a saying inscribed on a plaque that hangs in my office: “The better I get, the better we get.” For me the sentiment behind those words captures the essence of partnership. Partnership is about helping you get what you want. And the better you know what you want, the better your partners can help you achieve it. All partnerships start with the individual. Before there are two there is one. You need to know what you want from the partnership before you can ask for it. You need to understand the attributes that make partnerships great before you can expect others to be great partners. The first step, which we have covered here in Chapter 1, is to understand the concept of Partnering Intelligence—to be aware that such a thing exists and that it can be increased. In Chapter 2, you’ll take the next step by becoming aware of your own PQ.

Partnering2 ch2

4/3/04

10:27 AM

Page 27

CHAPTER

TWO

Know Thyself What Is Your PQ? How good a partner are you? One way to answer this question is to ask yourself some other questions: How successful are your partnerships? Are you getting everything you expected from them? Have you ever wondered what you could do to improve your partnerships? A S S E S S I N G YO U R P Q

One of the keys to having a good partnership is the ability to be a good partner. While this may sound elementary, it is tougher than it seems. According to Randy McPherson, CEO of CARA Collision, the key is “finding the right partner with the right skills and the right vision.” What are the right skills for being in a partnership? What are the roles and responsibilities of a good partner? These are important questions because all good partnerships start with the individual. If you want a good partnership, then you need to know how to be a good partner. The genesis of every partnership is a need that must be fulfilled. Whether in our personal life or in business, we turn to others when we have a need and must enlist the aid of another to get it satisfied. Therefore, it’s first up to us to understand what it is we need from the partnership. If two businesses come together in a partnership, what 27

Partnering2 ch2

28

4/3/04

10:27 AM

Page 28

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

does each offer the other as a basis for the alliance? For a typical example we can turn to the automobile manufacturing and rental businesses. Automobile manufacturers need customers to buy cars; car rental businesses need a source of inexpensive and reliable automobiles. In an effort to fulfill its needs, Avis partners with General Motors to provide itself with a fleet of cars at a reduced rate. Hertz partners with Ford in a similar manner. Each has a need and each gets it met in the form of a partnership. While this may sound like common business sense, how the partnership actually operates depends on the partnering skills of the people involved in managing it. Although the partnership may appear to be between faceless corporations, it is people who form and manage partnerships. They are the ones who must have the skills and attributes—the Partnering Intelligence—to create a successful business relationship. A high partnering quotient, or PQ, involves certain traits and skills, including • Openly self-disclosing information and giving feedback • Creating trust through actions and words • Creatively resolving conflicts and solving problems • Looking to the future with a clear vision • Welcoming change • Valuing interdependence The following “low PQ” characteristics, however, can doom a partnership to failure: • Withholding information • Having low trust of others • Desiring to win conflicts • Relying on past history for decision making • Maintaining the status quo and resisting change • Valuing independence There is no secret formula to help you succeed in every partnership you engage in. Each partnership is as unique as the people who make it up. Even so, there are certain characteristics that all successful

Partnering2 ch2

4/3/04

10:27 AM

Page 29

KNOW THYSELF

partnerships have in common: the people in the partnership have a keen sense of self; they understand their own strengths and weaknesses; and they know what they want out of the partnership. The PQ Assessment (Assessment 1) can help you determine your relative PQ at a given moment. For unlike your IQ, which changes little during the course of a lifetime, your PQ is a learned intelligence and can change and grow over time. While the PQ Assessment has predictive value—that is, it can identify potential strengths and weaknesses—its primary purpose is to help you increase your self-awareness. It reflects how you rate yourself in the Six Partnering Attributes of Partnering Intelligence. Assessment 1 Partnering Quotient (PQ) Assessment

The PQ Assessment is not a test. There are no right or wrong answers. You cannot pass or fail. It is a self-assessment that poses statements you might not normally think about and asks you to rate each. Instructions

1. Rate each statement by circling one of the numbers to the right (1 = strongly agree; 6 = strongly disagree). The rating you give should be based on your own perception of the statement and should reflect how you would react in a normal situation. The purpose is not to judge yourself, but rather to provide you with insights into how you see yourself. 2. Choose a context before responding. Some people say they behave differently at work than at home or with good friends. If you think your behavior depends on the situation, choose a context (such as your work environment or your home life) and think of that context when responding to all the statements. Do not ponder too long over a statement. It is best to go with your first reaction. If you contemplate too long, you may begin to second-guess yourself. Your initial reaction is usually your normal response. The results are for your eyes only. There is no need to show the results to anyone unless you want to. Be as honest as you can. The more open you are in your responses, the more accurately the PQ Assessment will reflect your true Partnering Intelligence.

29

Partnering2 ch2

30

4/3/04

10:27 AM

Page 30

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

PQ Assessment continued

(1) Strongly Agree

(6) Strongly Disagree Circle One

1. I believe a person’s basic behavior stays the same over time.

1

2

3

4

5

6

2. I like to do familiar tasks.

1

2

3

4

5

6

3. People tell me I’m inclined to be a competitive person.

1

2

3

4

5

6

4. When I’m with other people, I always make sure my needs are met first.

1

2

3

4

5

6

5. In general, I like it when everyone follows the rules.

1

2

3

4

5

6

6. I like to depend on myself to get things done.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7. People need to prove I can trust them.

1

2

3

4

5

6

8. I feel uncomfortable sharing my feelings with others.

1

2

3

4

5

6

9. I believe that actions speak louder than words.

1

2

3

4

5

6

10. I get frustrated being on a team.

1

2

3

4

5

6

11. I tend to make decisions about someone based on what he or she has done before.

1

2

3

4

5

6

12. I feel very anxious when I’m in a new situation.

1

2

3

4

5

6

13. If I don’t win a conflict, I feel upset.

1

2

3

4

5

6

14. When I need to go somewhere, I prefer to depend on myself to get there.

1

2

3

4

5

6

15. I like to have people prove their facts.

1

2

3

4

5

6

16. I believe in keeping my personal life to myself.

1

2

3

4

5

6

Partnering2 ch2

4/3/04

10:27 AM

Page 31

KNOW THYSELF

PQ Assessment continued

(1) Strongly Agree

(6) Strongly Disagree Circle One

17. Past history is a better predictor of events than a future plan.

1

2

3

4

5

6

18. I get very nervous when I meet new people.

1

2

3

4

5

6

19. I prefer to use techniques I’ve used before to accomplish new tasks.

1

2

3

4

5

6

20. I’d rather give in to another’s wishes than argue for my point.

1

2

3

4

5

6

21. I rarely share family information with others.

1

2

3

4

5

6

22. I think it’s important to check up on people to make sure they do what they say they’ll do.

1

2

3

4

5

6

23. I will give up something important to reach a compromise.

1

2

3

4

5

6

24. I get upset when people tell me something about myself I don’t like.

1

2

3

4

5

6

25. I am more interested in actuality than I am in possibilities.

1

2

3

4

5

6

26. I prefer a signed contract to a handshake.

1

2

3

4

5

6

27. I like having my day planned and scheduled and get frustrated when I have to change it.

1

2

3

4

5

6

28. I feel I am more of a private person than one who is outgoing.

1

2

3

4

5

6

29. I would rather be by myself than spend time with other people.

1

2

3

4

5

6

30. In an argument, being right is more important than maintaining the other’s dignity.

1

2

3

4

5

6

31

Partnering2 ch2

32

4/3/04

10:27 AM

Page 32

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

Scoring the Assessment To score the assessment, you’ll need to calculate the number of points you assigned each statement. To do this, look at how you rated each statement and fill out the following worksheet; then add up your total points. The lowest possible score is 30; the highest is 180. Statement

Points

Statement

1

16

2

17

3

18

4

19

5

20

6

21

7

22

8

23

9

24

10

25

11

26

12

27

13

28

14

29

15

30

Subtotal

Subtotal

Points

Total Score

30–80 points: low PQ 81–130 points: medium PQ 131–180 points: high PQ Your rating reflects how you view yourself at this moment in time. Remember: There is no right or wrong, good or bad score. You need to determine for yourself if your score accurately reflects the status of your partnering skills today. Interpreting the Results

The PQ Assessment can help you to determine your strengths and weaknesses in the specific attributes that measure your Partnering

Partnering2 ch2

4/3/04

10:27 AM

Page 33

KNOW THYSELF

Intelligence. Each statement supports a primary attribute—SelfDisclosure and Feedback, Win-Win Orientation, Ability to Trust, Future Orientation, Comfort with Change, or Comfort with Interdependence—and may reflect one or more secondary attributes needed for a high PQ and successful use of the Partnership Continuum model. The PQ Assessment can be used to predict which partnering attributes you may be weak in. For example, if you circled low numbers for the statements regarding Comfort with Change, you may have difficulty with the changes partnerships inevitably create. The assessment can also help you diagnose which attributes you might want to consider strengthening. If trust seems to be an issue in your partnership and you scored low in Ability to Trust, for instance, you might want to explore that attribute. (To learn how to analyze your results on each of the Six Partnering Attributes, see Chapter 3.) Each of the thirty statements reflects one attribute. However, because of the systemic nature of partnering and the Partnering Intelligence needed to accomplish it successfully, no single attribute stands alone. If you have low Ability to Trust, for instance, you may have difficulty creating win-win conflict resolution because you may not believe your partners will uphold their end of the agreement. Now let’s examine the statements one by one.

1. I believe a person’s basic behavior stays the same over time. Attribute: Future Orientation Interpretation: This statement speculates on how you view people and their expected behavior. If you believe that people’s behavior doesn’t change over time, then you probably rely on past history to make decisions about people. This may also reflect your desire to maintain the status quo. You find it more comfortable to judge people as “you have always known them” than to risk changing your view of them and being proved wrong. If you rated this statement low, you may want to • Review how you make decisions about people—complete Assessment 7, “Past/Future Orientation,” in Chapter 8 • Think about your willingness to change your perceptions of people

33

Partnering2 ch2

34

4/3/04

10:27 AM

Page 34

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

2. I like to do familiar tasks. Attribute: Comfort with Change Interpretation: Maintaining the status quo means you like things just as they are and do not welcome change. People who like to do familiar tasks learn how to do something and then enjoy doing it over and over. Change often causes them anxiety and makes them uneasy. In partnerships, we are frequently asked to do something differently. If change makes you uncomfortable, you may find a partnership an anxiety-ridden affair. If you rated this statement low, you may want to • Examine how you manage change in your relationships and tasks • Review the information regarding change, and do Exercise 4, “Partnership Stressors Checklist,” in Chapter 9 3. People tell me I’m inclined to be a competitive person. Attribute: Win-Win Orientation Interpretation: Competitively driven people focus on creating situations where they can win. While sometimes this helps them succeed, it can be a liability when forming a partnership. In partnerships, the focus switches from a competitive win-lose dynamic to a collaborative win-win approach. Competitiveness, by its very nature, sets up win-lose dynamics and impedes the growth of healthy partnerships. Competitive behavior is also an indicator of a high need for independence. The nature of competition means you “go it alone” to win. To get everyone’s needs met, all parties must work together. If you rated this statement low, you may want to • Determine your conflict resolution style (see Chapter 6) • Investigate your willingness to rely on another to get your needs met; complete Exercise 7, “Comfort with Interdependence Checklist,” in Chapter 10 4. When I’m with other people, I always make sure my needs are met first. Attribute: Comfort with Interdependence

Partnering2 ch2

4/3/04

10:27 AM

Page 35

KNOW THYSELF

Interpretation: The statement implies discomfort with feeling dependent on others to get your needs met. Focusing on getting your needs met first makes you less dependent on them. This demonstrates an independent attitude. It may also reveal a lack of trust that others will help you get your needs met. You feel you need to fend for yourself. This statement also reflects a desire to ensure that your personal needs get met in a group setting. Wanting to get your needs met first implies a win-lose conflict resolution style—that is, “I’ll get mine, and we’ll worry about the others later.”

If you rated this statement low, you may want to • Investigate your ability to depend on others to get your needs met • Talk to your partner about the level of trust you have in your partnership; complete Assessment 5, “Personal Trust,” in Chapter 7 • Examine your conflict resolution style (see Chapter 6) 5. In general, I like it when everyone follows the rules. Attribute: Comfort with Change Interpretation: This statement touches on your ability to risk facing the unknown. When people follow the rules, there is a predictability that, for some, creates comfort. Predictability reduces risk. When things are predictable, we can trust that everything will turn out the way it always has in the past. Consequently, this statement suggests a desire to maintain the status quo. When we maintain the status quo, we know the outcome and don’t have to worry about it. In effect, we trust the outcome will meet our needs and expectations. If you rated this statement low, you may want to • Think about your willingness to change; do Exercise 4, “Partnership Stressors Checklist,” in Chapter 9 to identify where you want to develop strategies for change • Examine the level of trust you have in others 6. I like to depend on myself to get things done. Attribute: Comfort with Interdependence

35

Partnering2 ch2

36

4/3/04

10:27 AM

Page 36

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

Interpretation: This statement deals with your level of comfort when depending on someone else. When we’d rather do tasks ourselves, it’s often a sign that we don’t want to depend on someone else to help us. We may fear the job won’t get done or that we’ll be disappointed with the finished product. It’s just plain easier to do it ourselves. It may also indicate that we have a certain way of doing something and don’t wish to deviate from our routine.

If you rated this statement low, you may want to • Examine your comfort level with depending on others; review Exercise 7, “Comfort with Interdependence Checklist,” in Chapter 10 • Reflect on your ability to change how you accomplish a task 7. People need to prove I can trust them. Attribute: Ability to Trust Interpretation: Some people trust freely. Others need to build trust. Some never learn to trust at all. If people need to constantly “prove” themselves to you, then you probably have low trust. This may also mean you make decisions about people based on what they’ve demonstrated to you in the past. If they’ve disappointed you, you’ll continue to have low expectations and trust. If you rated this statement low, you may want to • Think about your ability to trust; focus on Chapter 7 to determine your level of trust with others • Reflect on your decision-making style 8. I feel uncomfortable sharing my feelings with others. Attribute: Self-Disclosure and Feedback Interpretation: The ability to disclose information about oneself creates two important dynamics for successful partnerships. First, it creates a sense of openness between the partners. This enables each partner to communicate important information about his or her needs and provides opportunities to give feedback. Second, self-disclosure is a trustbuilding device that creates a powerful bond, moving the partnership toward its objectives.

Partnering2 ch2

4/3/04

10:27 AM

Page 37

KNOW THYSELF

If you rated this statement low, you may want to • Focus on your ability to reveal information about yourself to others; review the information in Chapter 5 • Do Exercise 1, “Self-Disclosure Checklist,” in Chapter 5 • Examine your ability to trust others with information about yourself 9. I believe that actions speak louder than words. Attribute: Ability to Trust Interpretation: If you don’t believe that someone will do as he or she says, then there is low trust between the parties. By consistently doing what they’ve promised, people build trust. This may also reflect people’s ability to be open about their true intentions. When people say one thing but do another, they may not have felt enough trust to openly disclose their underlying intentions. In other words, the environment of the partnership does not support building trust and creating openness. And, if you can’t take people at their word, then you’re probably basing that decision on an event in the past when you were disappointed. This may indicate that your decision-making style is based on past history. If you rated this statement low, you may want to • Consider what part you play in people’s ability to talk about their true intentions and be open to helping them meet their needs • Look at the reasons you have low trust; complete Assessment 6, “Partners’ Trust,” in Chapter 7 to develop expectations between you and your partner • Review how you make decisions about people 10. I get frustrated being on a team. Attribute: Comfort with Interdependence Interpretation: When people have a strong sense of independence, teamwork is painful for them. They feel dependent on others for achieving their goals and don’t feel in control of the situation. And if these goals are not achieved, they are disappointed and may blame their partners. Often they’d rather work by themselves because then they can trust that the job will get done the way they want.

37

Partnering2 ch2

38

4/3/04

10:27 AM

Page 38

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

If you rated this statement low, you may want to • Examine your need for independence • Determine why you don’t trust others to help you accomplish your goals 11. I tend to make decisions about someone based on what he or she has done before. Attribute: Future Orientation Interpretation: This statement is designed to elicit how you make decisions about your interactions with people. If you make a decision based on a past event, you have a past orientation. If you judge each individual based on the agreements you’ve made and then determine how well that person lives up to the agreements, you have a future orientation. This statement may also reflect your level of comfort with change (“She always does this”) and your ability to trust that people can change and live up to their agreements with you. If you rated this statement low, you may want to • Review how you make decisions about people • Think about your willingness to change your perceptions of others 12. I feel very anxious when I’m in a new situation. Attribute: Comfort with Change Interpretation: This statement speculates on your level of comfort with new situations. People who are uncomfortable in new situations are usually uncomfortable with change. Change takes such people out of their comfort zone and creates anxiety for them. This statement may also reflect a need to maintain the status quo. If you rated this statement low, you may want to • Review your level of comfort with change and think about how you might manage change in a way that produces less anxiety for you • Think about your need to maintain the status quo (your past orientation decision-making style)

Partnering2 ch2

4/3/04

10:27 AM

Page 39

KNOW THYSELF

13. If I don’t win a conflict, I feel upset. Attribute: Win-Win Orientation Interpretation: Competitive people need to win conflicts. When they don’t, they feel bad. But your Partnering Intelligence increases when you’re able to create a win-win resolution within your partnership. This statement may also reflect a past orientation. When competitive people win a conflict, they feel they can control the situation and are not required to build a mutually agreeable plan. If you rated this statement low, you may want to • Review your conflict resolution style and think about how you can move toward more collaborative resolutions • Think about your level of comfort with change • Determine if you have a past orientation decision-making style 14. When I need to go somewhere, I prefer to depend on myself to get there. Attribute: Comfort with Interdependence Interpretation: This statement provides insight into your feelings about depending on other people. There are those of us who must drive ourselves everywhere and those who are willing to share the ride. If you are comfortable depending on others, you are comfortable making arrangements for others to provide you with transportation. But fiercely independent people, regardless of the transportation options available, feel compelled to provide their own mode of transport—one they can “depend” on. This statement also reflects your level of comfort with change, since depending on another may include a change in plans. It also touches on your ability to trust since you must trust that another will do what he or she says when you make such an arrangement. If you rated this statement low, you may want to • Review your level of dependence: Are you so independent that you can’t allow yourself to get a basic need such as transportation met? • Think about your level of comfort with change • Think about your level of trust in others

39

Partnering2 ch2

40

4/3/04

10:27 AM

Page 40

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

15. I like to have people prove their facts. Attribute: Ability to Trust Interpretation: When there is low trust, people demand proof. While this is not inherently a bad thing, if you’re unable to believe someone without examining the facts, this demonstrates an inability to trust. In relationships, people’s feelings and perceptions are their facts. When business partnerships achieve quantum improvements, many decisions are based on intuitive knowledge and feelings. How are you going to prove the facts in these situations? Partnerships need unconditional trust, which frees people up to take risks and move into the creative zone without restrictions. Businesses that have the foresight and courage to develop this kind of trust within their partnerships are the ones that will succeed. This statement may also reflect your comfort with change. If you demand to see the “facts,” you may not be willing to change without extensive reasons for changing. And this may indicate discomfort with change.

If you rated this statement low, you may want to • Examine ways you can improve your ability to trust others. Talk to your partners about what trust means to you and what trust means to them; complete Assessment 6, “Partners’ Trust,” in Chapter 7 • Think about your level of comfort with change

16. I believe in keeping my personal life to myself. Attribute: Self-Disclosure and Feedback Interpretation: We are the same people at work that we are at home. We may alter the facade, but our core values do not change. This statement indicates reluctance to disclose parts of our personal life to others. If we hide a part of ourselves from others, people sense we are not being fully genuine. Humans have a sixth sense for knowing when someone is not sharing information with them. This starts a cycle of mistrust between people: If you don’t share something with me, then I’m not going to share something with you.

Partnering2 ch2

4/3/04

10:27 AM

Page 41

KNOW THYSELF

If you rated this statement low, you may want to • Review your ability to self-disclose; go over the process of selfdisclosure with a close friend or loved one • Think about your willingness to change your perceptions of others 17. Past history is a better predictor of events than a future plan. Attribute: Future Orientation Interpretation: While it’s true that we can learn a lot from history, to make decisions based solely on historic data would be a mistake. People, events, and partnerships change. I use the analogy of driving a car while looking in the rearview mirror. It may be useful to see where you’ve been, but it’s more important to know where you’re going. If you believe that past history is a better predictor than a future plan, you may have a past orientation. You may also feel uncomfortable with change and therefore prefer to maintain the status quo. If you rated this statement low, you may want to • Review how you make decisions about people and events • Think about your willingness to change your perceptions of people and their behavior • Consider your level of comfort with change 18. I get very nervous when I meet new people. Attribute: Comfort with Change Interpretation: While meeting people for the first time can sometimes create mild anxiety for people, if you get very nervous, that may indicate that you have a problem with change. New people bring new and often unexpected challenges. If you are uncomfortable dealing with change, meeting new people may heighten your anxiety. This may be true for you in partnerships as well. If you rated this statement low, you may want to • Think about what makes you uncomfortable about meeting new people • Develop a plan for increasing your level of comfort with change (see Chapter 9)

41

Partnering2 ch2

42

4/3/04

10:27 AM

Page 42

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

19. I prefer to use techniques I’ve used before to accomplish new tasks. Attribute: Future Orientation Interpretation: If you prefer to use the same techniques on each task, you may end up making the same mistakes over and over. This may indicate that you’re comfortable with the status quo and are unwilling to try something new. People with a past orientation rely on the status quo to resolve new issues—and often find themselves repeatedly confronted with the same problems. This may also reflect a low level of comfort with change. The two dynamics often collude to create a reinforcing mechanism that is hard to break.

If you rated this statement low, you may want to • Review how you make decisions about tasks • Think about your level of comfort with change 20. I’d rather give in to another’s wishes than argue for my point. Attribute: Win-Win Orientation Interpretation: When a person is always accommodating others’ wishes, resentment builds up. And when this resentment reaches a critical stage, the accommodator begins to act out the resentment, often resulting in passive-aggressive behavior. That is, the accommodator will act passively toward the person being accommodated and then aggressively work to undermine whatever project they engaged in. This type of sabotage is a sure partnership killer.

If you rated this statement low, you may want to • Review Chapter 6 to determine your conflict resolution style • Consider strategies to move you to win-win solutions 21. I rarely share family information with others. Attribute: Self-Disclosure and Feedback Interpretation: People who tend to keep personal information strictly personal are often uncomfortable with self-disclosure. While we all have boundaries between our personal and business lives, it’s normal to talk about one’s spouse, loved ones, children, and outside activities. People

Partnering2 ch2

4/3/04

10:27 AM

Page 43

KNOW THYSELF

who are so closed that they cannot share family information send a nonverbal message to others. That message is generally perceived as mistrust and a lack of candor. People respond to this message by shutting down communication themselves. Ultimately this will hurt the partnership.

If you rated this statement low, you may want to • Read Chapter 5 and consider how using the JoHari Window might affect your relations in the partnership—the more we disclose, the more we are able to build trust • Review Assessment 5, “Personal Trust,” in Chapter 7. Closely linked with self-disclosure is the ability to trust. If you don’t trust people, you won’t feel comfortable with self-disclosure. 22. I think it’s important to check up on people to make sure they do what they say they’ll do. Attribute: Ability to Trust Interpretation: This statement reflects your ability to trust that your partners will do what they promise. Trust is built incrementally over time—people say they will do something and then they do it. The more often this occurs, the higher the trust level. But when we don’t trust them to do what they say, we feel compelled to check up on them. This statement might also reveal a past orientation. If we’ve had a bitter experience and have low trust, we begin to expect to be let down by everyone. We need to think about how we can begin to expect people to live up to their agreements. If you rated this statement low, you may want to • Sit down with a partner and complete Assessment 6, “Partners’ Trust,” in Chapter 7 • Review the information in Chapter 8 to determine what you might do to move from a past to a future orientation 23. I will give up something important to reach a compromise. Attribute: Win-Win Orientation Interpretation: If you’re willing to give up something that’s important to you, ultimately it will come back to haunt you. Compromise sets up a lose-lose dynamic because in compromising, both parties lose the energy

43

Partnering2 ch2

44

4/3/04

10:27 AM

Page 44

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

to resolve the conflict in a collaborative way that will end it. Rather than giving in to the compromise, partners should try to figure out how to use the energy to create a new solution in which both partners win.

If you rated this statement low, you may want to • Review your conflict resolution style • Review the strategies and outcomes of different conflict resolution styles in Chapter 6 24. I get upset when people tell me something about myself I don’t like. Attribute: Self-Disclosure and Feedback Interpretation: When we hear a comment about ourselves that we don’t like, it often means that it has hit a nerve. We may recognize the trait being described quite well but adamantly deny it. The ability to accept feedback is closely associated with self-disclosure. Remember, feedback reflects as much on the giver as it does on the receiver. Be open to the feedback. And then see if others provide you with similar comments. If you rated this statement low, you may want to • Think about the process of receiving and giving feedback; review Chapter 5 • Do Exercise 2, “Giving and Receiving Feedback Checklist,” and review Exercise 3, “Feedback Observation Checklist,” in Chapter 5 25. I am more interested in actuality than I am in possibilities. Attribute: Future Orientation Interpretation: People who prefer to deal with actuality rather than possibilities may be uncomfortable making decisions based on the unknown. If this is an issue for you, it may reflect a past orientation in your decision-making style; that is, you are more comfortable making decisions and plans based on the past or present than on the future. You may also feel some discomfort with change. Current reality is tangible, and many people have a sense of control over it. Since the future is unknown, and change may be required, possibilities may cause anxiety over what changes they will bring.

Partnering2 ch2

4/13/04

3:45 PM

Page 45

KNOW THYSELF

If you rated this statement low, you may want to • Review how you make decisions about people using a past orientation • Complete Assessment 7, “Past/Future Orientation,” in Chapter 8 • Examine how you manage change in your life; review the information in Chapter 9

26. I prefer a signed contract to a handshake. Attribute: Ability to Trust Interpretation: If you have negotiated your partnership with openness and honesty and used self-disclosure and feedback, by the time the negotiations are completed a handshake should be sufficient to seal the agreement. If you need the security of a signed legal document, this may be an indication that you do not trust your partner. If you need to bring in the lawyers during the early stages of partnership development, you need to think about whether you truly trust this partner.

If you rated this statement low, you may want to • Think about your ability to trust—Why do you need to have a signed contract to feel secure in what you have negotiated? • Focus on Chapter 7 and complete Assessment 6, “Partners’ Trust”

27. I like having my day planned and scheduled and get frustrated when I have to change it. Attribute: Comfort with Change Interpretation: Schedule changes requiring flexibility are the norm for most of us. If schedule changes make you feel frustrated and anxious, you may want to think about why these changes bother you so much. Partnerships are full of uncertainties and change, and if this is difficult for you, you may have a problem being in a partnership.

45

Partnering2 ch2

46

4/3/04

10:27 AM

Page 46

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

If you rated this statement low, you may want to • Review your level of comfort with change and think about how you might manage change in a way that will produce less anxiety for you • Review the information in Chapter 9 28. I feel I am more of a private person than one who is outgoing. Attribute: Self-Disclosure and Feedback Interpretation: If you feel that you are basically a private person, you may be sending signals to partners that you are uncomfortable disclosing information about yourself or your needs. While it may be that you are simply introverted, having the ability to self-disclose to your partner is crucial if you are going to establish trust. Early on you may want to communicate your personal preference or personality style with partners to ensure that there will be no misunderstandings. If you rated this statement low, you may want to • Review the information in Chapter 5 • Review the JoHari Window for insight on your ability to communicate with your partner (see p. 93) • Learn more about yourself by using an instrument such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® personality inventory • Review Chapter 7 on the ability to trust—people sometimes refuse to self-disclose information when they have a low level of trust 29. I would rather be by myself than spend time with other people. Attribute: Comfort with Interdependence Interpretation: People who prefer to spend time by themselves are generally introverted in their personality preference. While this in itself is neither good nor bad, if one becomes too reclusive, it makes it difficult for them to depend on anyone for anything. Even highly introverted people need to interact with others to help get their needs met. If you are uncomfortable being with others, you may be sending your partners mixed and confusing messages. You may also want to think about your

Partnering2 ch2

4/3/04

10:27 AM

Page 47

KNOW THYSELF

ability to trust. Do you avoid being with people because you do not trust them enough to let them get to know you?

If you rated this statement low, you may want to • Explore the reason you prefer to be alone—Are you recharging your personal energy, or is something else going on for you? • Review your ability to trust others; complete Assessment 5, “Personal Trust,” in Chapter 7 30. In an argument, being right is more important than maintaining the other’s dignity. Attribute: Win-Win Orientation Interpretation: If it is so important for you be right in an argument that you would insult another person’s dignity, then you are probably not using a win-win style of conflict resolution. It is important when resolving conflicts to be sure our partners feel that they also have won. Being right is not more important than affording another human being the respect and dignity he or she deserves.

If you rated this statement low, you may want to • Review your conflict resolution style • Read Chapter 6 and review the guidelines for achieving consensus in decision making

S TAT I S T I C S A N D S C O R I N G ON THE PQ ASSESSMENT

Since we began administering the Partnering Quotient (PQ) Assessment, we’ve been asked how it was developed. The Six Partnering Attributes are based on research conducted by a team I headed at USWEST Communications from 1988 to 1992 with more than two thousand middle- and upper-level executives and elected union officials from different geographic and cultural areas needing to partner with each other. The research was expanded to include other executives including nonprofit and community leaders from

47

Partnering2 ch2

48

4/3/04

10:27 AM

Page 48

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

1992 to 1998. The assessment statements were developed by a team and then reviewed by Margaret Molinari, Ph.D., an organizational psychologist at the University of California, Sacramento. The assessment was successfully validated in a psychometric study conducted at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis. W H AT I S T H E A V E R A G E S C O R E ?

In the initial study of six hundred participants conducted in 1998– 1999, the average PQ Assessment score was 90.5. However, in the period 2000–2003 we saw the average score rise to 102.9, with a –1SD (standard deviation) of 88.3 and a +1SD of 117.1. What this means is that someone who scored between 88.3 and 117.1 is “statistically normal” and falls into the same category as approximately 67 percent of the population. On a histogram, the total population creates a bellshaped curve, indicating that within random populations, the assessment will produce consistently normal distribution. It’s clear that as people understand partnering and the skills needed to be successful at it, the average PQ Assessment score will continue to rise. As stated earlier, Partnering Intelligence is a learned intelligence. The data show that people are learning to be better partners, and their collective PQ Assessment scores reflect that fact. If we were to score on a percentile basis without grading on a curve, most of the population would get a D or an F. In a recent study conducted with over two hundred participants, the mean score was in the fiftieth percentile. It’s no wonder most partnerships fail. In general, most of us are very poor partners. The PQ Assessment is not designed to be the last word on your ability to partner. Partnering skills are complex and intertwined within one’s personal experiences and psychological makeup and are situational in nature. However, we have discovered that the higher the trust level in a relationship, the higher the PQ score. Conversely, the lower the trust level, the lower the score. Based on the feedback provided by the thousands of participants who have taken the PQ Assessment, it accurately reflects people’s self-perception of their ability to partner. More important, it frames the context of the discussion and describes what attributes make partnerships successful. It pro-

Partnering2 ch2

4/3/04

10:27 AM

Page 49

KNOW THYSELF

vides valuable insights into individual, team, and organizational strengths and weaknesses based on behavioral descriptions of what makes partnerships thrive. Partnering skills are indeed counterintuitive to most of us. “Looking out for #1” is today’s mantra for society in general. In a partnership, we must shift our mind-set from looking out for ourselves to looking out for our partner and ourselves together. This takes a different set of skills—skills that many of us are uncertain about and uncomfortable using. Therefore, when you read a statement that makes you feel uncomfortable, examine why you feel uncomfortable with the statement rather than dismissing it as invalid. Bottom line, no matter how we interpret the statistics, most of us need to learn how to be better partners. If we are good, we can get better. If our partnering skills are weak, we can improve them. Our Partnering Intelligence is a learned intelligence, which means all of us can become smarter partners. TA K I N G T H E N E X T S T E P

By now you should be starting to get a feel for your Partnering Intelligence. By completing the PQ Assessment (see pp. 29–31), you’ve already taken a big step toward increasing your PQ—you’ve increased your self-awareness by figuring out your relative PQ. Is yours high, medium, or low? Remember: You can learn Partnering Intelligence. And now that you are aware of your PQ, you can begin to improve it.

49

Partnering2 ch2

4/3/04

10:27 AM

Page 50

Partnering2 ch3

4/3/04

10:34 AM

Page 51

CHAPTER

THREE

Analyzing Your Results on the PQ Assessment Using the Attribute Analysis Now that you’ve assessed your partnering quotient (PQ), you’ll want to determine your strengths and weaknesses in terms of forming a partnership. This information can be used as a predictive tool to raise your awareness and prevent you from neglecting trouble spots of the partnership that will cause you problems later on. Or it can be used as a diagnostic tool to help you determine why your partnership isn’t working as well as you had hoped. A S S E S S I N G YO U R ST R E N GT H S AND WEAKNESSES

To help determine how you rank in the Six Partnering Attributes (high, medium, or low) as measured on the PQ Assessment (Assessment 1), use the Attribute Analysis (Assessment 2) to align the thirty statements with the specific attributes they support. By completing the Attribute Analysis and plotting your scores on the PQ Profile (see Figure 2), you will gain new insight into the strengths you bring to a partnership—and also areas of weakness where you may want to take some preventive action.

51

Partnering2 ch3

52

4/3/04

10:34 AM

Page 52

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

Assessment 2 Attribute Analysis Instructions

On the left-hand side of this assessment are the Six Partnering Attributes measured in the PQ Assessment (Assessment 1). Beneath each attribute are the numbers of the statements that support it. 1. Referring to the PQ Assessment on pages 29–31, record your rating for each statement (1–6) to the right of each statement number. 2. Then total the score for each attribute and calculate the average score by dividing the total score by the number of statements: 5. 3. On the right-hand side of the assessment is a scale from 1 to 6; circle the number closest to your average score for each attribute. This will indicate whether you ranked high, medium, or low in that attribute. We begin with an example. Example

Low

Medium

High

Circle One

Future Orientation Statement 1: 4 Statement 11: 1 Statement 17: 3 Statement 19: 4 Statement 25: 2 Total Score: 14 Avg. Score (Total Score ÷ 5) = 2.8

Attribute Analysis

1

2

Low

3

4

5

Medium

6

High

Circle One

Self-Disclosure and Feedback Statement 8: Statement 16: Statement 21: Statement 24: Statement 28: Total Score: Avg. Score (Total Score ÷ 5) =

1

2

3

4

5

6

Partnering2 ch3

4/3/04

10:34 AM

Page 53

A N A LY Z I N G Y O U R R E S U LT S

Attribute Analysis continued

Low

Medium

High

Circle One

Win-Win Orientation Statement 3: Statement 13: Statement 20: Statement 23: Statement 30 Total Score: Avg. Score (Total Score ÷ 5) =

1

2

3

4

5

6

Ability to Trust Statement 7: Statement 9: Statement 15: Statement 22: Statement 26 Total Score: Avg. Score (Total Score ÷ 5) =

1

2

3

4

5

6

Future Orientation Statement 1: Statement 11: Statement 17: Statement 19: Statement 25: Total Score: Avg. Score (Total Score ÷ 5) =

1

2

3

4

5

6

Comfort with Change Statement 2: Statement 5: Statement 12: Statement 18: Statement 27 Total Score: Avg. Score (Total Score ÷ 5) =

1

2

3

4

5

6

Comfort with Interdependence Statement 4: Statement 6: Statement 10: Statement 14: Statement 29 Total Score: Avg. Score (Total Score ÷ 5) =

1

2

3

4

5

6

53

Partnering2 ch3

54

4/3/04

10:34 AM

Page 54

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

Interpreting the Results

Now that you have completed the Attribute Analysis, you’ll want to know what it means. Each of the Six Partnering Attributes contributes to your overall Partnering Intelligence. Most of us are strong in some attributes and weak in others. Since Partnering Intelligence requires you to be capable in all six attributes, you’ll want to know which ones represent your strengths and which your weaknesses. The PQ Profile (see Figure 2) is designed to give you an overall profile of your current level of competence in all six attributes and help you see where you need to improve. Starting with the first attribute, Self-Disclosure and Feedback, note your average score. If your average score is 3.25, for example, plot that point above the “Self-Disclosure and Feedback” heading at the base of the grid. Continue this procedure for each attribute until you’ve completed all six. Once all six attribute scores have been plotted, connect the six points with a line. This is the PQ Profile of your scoring on the Six Partnering Attributes. Note that the vertical axis is divided into three sections—low, medium, and high—representing the frequency with which you use each of the six attributes. By now you may be thinking: “Fine, this is great information. But what does it mean, and how does it contribute to improving my PQ?” Because a partnership is a cohesive, interrelated system, each attribute is an important skill you’ll need in order to succeed in partnering. If you’re lacking in just one skill, the system cannot work properly. Self-Disclosure and Feedback If you scored low in this attribute, you may want to review your level of comfort with disclosing information about yourself. In a partnership, you must be able to express your needs to your partner. An inability to articulate what you need from the partnership will ultimately cause resentment and anger when over time you see your partner getting everything he or she wants while your needs go unmet. The outcome is often passive/aggressive behavior—a sure killer of partnerships. Once this pattern is introduced into the partnership, trust is eroded, win-lose conflict resolution and problem solving predominate, and independent behavior takes over as each partner struggles to salvage what’s left of a dysfunctional partnership.

Partnering2 ch3

4/13/04

3:52 PM

Page 55

A N A LY Z I N G Y O U R R E S U LT S

Medium

High

6

5

4 3.4 3

• 3.25

•

3.0

•

3.1

•

2.9

•

•

2.3

Low

2

1 SelfDisclosure and Feedback

Win-Win Orientation

Ability to Trust

Future Orientation

Comfort Comfort with with Interdependence Change

Figure 2 PQ Profile (Sample)

In a partnership, you must be able to ask for what you need. This is why we spend so much time in the Assess stage of the Partnership Continuum model doing a needs assessment. Once you know what you need, you must feel confident asking for it. Your ability to selfdisclose also sends a coded message to partners about your willingness to share. If everyone is talking about his or her personal life but you never confide anything, what do you think the reaction is going to be? If you scored high in this attribute, you’re probably able to ask for what you need. This ability tends to build trust between people— at least they know where you stand. You’re probably comfortable with interdependence and use a win-win style of conflict resolution and problem solving, since you know your needs will not be left out of the equation. If you scored low in this attribute, you’ll want to pay special attention to Chapter 5. Win-Win Orientation If you scored low in this attribute, you probably use a win-lose style of conflict resolution and problem solving. This is especially true if you are a competitive person. Competitive conflict resolution and problem-solving techniques, by their very nature, are designed to help one side meet its needs. In a partnership, this is destructive behavior.

55

Partnering2 ch3

56

4/3/04

10:34 AM

Page 56

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

If you scored high in this attribute, you are more likely to use a winwin style for conflict resolution and problem solving. People with this style generally have a higher ability to trust and feel more comfortable being interdependent with others. If you scored low in this attribute, you will want to pay special attention to Chapter 6. Ability to Trust If you scored low in this attribute, you tend to have a low ability to trust that people will do what they promise. Certain people do condition us to expect the worst of them. But when we get caught up in that kind of thinking, a series of cascading events can actually set up the expected disappointment. People who have a low ability to trust also tend to have a high need for independence, rely on a past orientation in their decision-making style, and use a win-lose style of conflict resolution and problem solving. If you scored high in this attribute, you generally trust that people will do what they say. In turn you may tend to use a future-oriented decision-making style, be comfortable with interdependence, and be predisposed to using a win-win style of conflict resolution and problem solving. If you scored low in this attribute, you may want to pay special attention to Chapter 7. Future Orientation If you scored low in this attribute, it means that you tend to rely on past events for making decisions about future events. This is a past orientation. If you scored high, you tend to use a planning style and hold people accountable for doing what they say they’ll do. This is a future orientation. If you have a past orientation, that tends to indicate a low level of trust—since you probably don’t trust people to do anything other than what they’ve done in the past. This assumption stifles any hope that things might be different and thus reduces the possibility for change. Having a future orientation is a step toward building trust between you and your partner. If you scored low in this attribute, you should pay special attention to Chapter 8. Comfort with Change If you scored low in this attribute, you’re probably uneasy about change. You like to do things the way they’ve always been done in the past and are uncomfortable with trying new things. You may have a low ability to trust and may rely on a past orientation to make deci-

Partnering2 ch3

4/3/04

10:34 AM

Page 57

A N A LY Z I N G Y O U R R E S U LT S

sions. If you scored high, you probably like change—and may even embrace it. And if you are comfortable with change, you probably also have a future orientation in your decision-making style and a high ability to trust. If you who scored low in this attribute, you will want to pay special attention to Chapter 9. Comfort with Interdependence If you scored low in this attribute, you probably tend to be a highly independent person. While this is a valuable trait in many cases, it can be destructive in a partnership. Have you ever worked on a project and had someone go off on a tangent, leaving the rest of the team lost and bewildered? Genius, of course, often requires independent thinking. But in partnerships, success comes from planning with others and then performing according to plan. If you’re uncomfortable relying on others for your success, you’ll have a difficult time being in partnership with others. People who are highly independent also tend to have a low ability to trust and feel uncomfortable about selfdisclosure, feedback, and change they cannot exclusively control. If you ranked high in this attribute, you probably are comfortable being interdependent and working in partnership. You may also have a high ability to trust and comfort with self-disclosure and feedback. If you scored low on this attribute, you’ll want to pay special attention to Chapter 10. P U T T I N G YO U R P Q P R O F I L E TO W O R K

To help you understand how useful the PQ Assessment and the PQ Profile can be to you and your business, I asked Timothy R. McClernon, Ph.D., of People Architects, Inc., in Minneapolis, to work with me to conduct an analysis of four typical profiles, which we’ve called • “Joe Average”—an individual • “Internal Team”—an internal team of employees • “Two Companies”—two companies working in partnership • “Big-Name Company”—an individual company The purpose of creating a PQ Profile is to help benchmark Partnering Intelligence for you and your team or partners. It serves as

57

Partnering2 ch3

58

4/3/04

10:34 AM

Page 58

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

a starting point for discussion around the Six Partnering Attributes and how you can begin to improve your partnering skills. As shown in Figure 2, along the vertical axis of the PQ Profile is a scale from 1 to 6. A score for any of the six attributes below 2.5 is low; between 2.5 and 4.5 is medium; above 4.5 is high. Based on our study population, which holds true for the general population, a difference of .4 or more between two scores indicates a statistically significant difference in the level of ability in that attribute of Partnering Intelligence. For example, if you score a 3.2 on WinWin Orientation and your partner scores a 3.8, your partner is more likely to use a win-win style of conflict resolution than you are. The larger the gap between points on two or more profiles, the greater the opportunity for conflict. Joe Average

The first of our four typical profiles, Joe Average, the PQ Profile of an individual, is shown in Figure 3. Joe’s partnering quotient—his total score from the assessment—is 97, which is about average (180 is highest; 30 is lowest). This indicates a willingness to partner effectively, provided some of the key issues are addressed during the partnering process. The higher rating on Win-Win Orientation indicates a willingness to move toward mutually rewarding outcomes once trust has been achieved. However, based on his Future Orientation score, Mr. Average begins with a less-trusting, past-focused orientation, so considerable effort should go into building trust both within Joe personally and as a key dimension of the partnership relationship. Given the lower score on Future Orientation, perhaps Joe could start with some self-analysis. An inquiry into his rationale for his inability to trust based on past experiences could reveal ways for him to become more trusting and future-oriented and create the win-win partnerships he would like to experience. On the other hand, Joe also demonstrates some relative strength around teamwork. Clearly he is a strong communicator and freely self-discloses and offers feedback to others. He is fairly comfortable with change and probably adapts reasonably well to it. He looks for win-win solutions, though he must be careful not to confuse compromise with a negotiated win-win outcome. He is also relatively

Partnering2 ch3

4/3/04

10:34 AM

Page 59

A N A LY Z I N G Y O U R R E S U LT S

Medium

High

6

5

4

•

• •

3

•

•

•

Low

2

1 SelfDisclosure and Feedback

Win-Win Orientation

Ability to Trust

Future Orientation

Comfort Comfort with with Interdependence Change

Figure 3 PQ Profile—Joe Average

comfortable in linking his success to others on his team, a strong indication that he will not act independently, creating mistrust with team members. In general, Joe Average has a solid foundation for creating a high Partnering Intelligence. He must think about how raising his Future Orientation may help raise his Ability to Trust. Internal Team

The PQ Profile for an internal team of five members is shown in Figure 4. Note that the team’s average partnering quotient is 89 (180 is highest; 30 is lowest). A review of the scores for this five-member internal team reveals some potentially serious problems. Notice especially the range of individual scores. Jonah has a score of 108, while Chris’s score is 68. This indicates a significant degree of difference of understanding and using the Six Partnering Attributes. Chris’s overall low PQ score coupled with her clear inability to trust indicates that she probably has a number of important issues that have not been resolved or have been resolved in a win-lose manner. Her somewhat higher rating on Self-Disclosure and Feedback

59

Partnering2 ch3

10:34 AM

Page 60

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

Medium

High

6

Jonah Tom Janice Chris Pat

Team average PQ = 89

5

4

3

•• • •

•• • •

2 Low

60

4/3/04

• 1

SelfDisclosure and Feedback

• • •

• ••

••

•

PQ = 108 PQ = 94 PQ = 88 PQ = 68 PQ = 87

• • •• • •

•

• Win-Win Orientation

Ability to Trust

Future Orientation

Comfort Comfort with with Interdependence Change

Figure 4 PQ Profile—Internal Team

may indicate a willingness to discuss the situation and make a determination about whether it makes sense for her to work hard to improve her role in the team or to seek another solution. The other four members of the team seem to break into two groups of two. Pat and Janice have some clear trust issues, which, given their higher Self-Disclosure and Feedback scores, they would probably be willing to share in the right context. It would be interesting to understand better how Tom and Jonah feel about the team not working as well given their high Win-Win Orientation scores and how they might contribute to improving the team’s overall Partnering Intelligence. In terms of Future Orientation, there is the potential for conflict between Chris and Janice. Chris is very traditional in her approach to problem solving and planning for the future, preferring to use past experience as a benchmark for future behavior. Janice meanwhile is more future oriented and would want to explore and try new ways of solving tasks or accomplishing goals. Since Chris’s orientation is based on past experiences, trying new approaches would probably make her uncomfortable and somewhat resistant to setting up opportunity for conflict. However, when it comes to making change, both Chris and Janice are uncomfortable with it. The other three team members are close to each other on Future Orientation and will have

Partnering2 ch3

4/3/04

10:34 AM

Page 61

A N A LY Z I N G Y O U R R E S U LT S

a more balanced approach to dealing with issues and may combine both past experience and innovative ideas to solve problems or plan for future events. On average, Comfort with Change is the lowest of the team’s Six Partnering Attributes. The team must be careful not to allow this deficiency to impede its ability to move forward with new ideas and concepts. Two Companies

PQ Profiles for two separate companies, Company A (PQ = 110) and Company B (PQ = 83.5), are shown in Figure 5. Note that the companies’ average partnering quotient is 96.75 (180 is highest; 30 is lowest). Given the significantly higher partnering quotient of Company A over Company B (26.5 points higher), coupled with their shared inability to trust, the two companies will have to take a number of steps to increase the likelihood of their partnering success. Given that both companies have relatively higher scores on Self-Disclosure and Feedback, they may want to hold a facilitated meeting to discuss issues, concerns, and strategies to address the issues indicated by the disparate scores on the other attributes. The two widest gaps between their profiles are in Win-Win Orientation and Comfort with Interdependence. The two companies may want to start by discussing what each means by “win-win” and “interdependence” so they can then put a plan into place to demonstrate those behaviors to each other, resulting in an increase in their ability to trust each other. By getting a clearer understanding of exactly how Company B feels that it will “lose” as well as how it will “win” in the partnership, the two companies could significantly improve the overall sense of mutual gain for both parties—not just Company A. The gap between their scores on Comfort with Interdependence also needs to be better understood. Company B tends to be more comfortable operating independently. This could cause some potential issues down the road when agreements are made and broken because the people at Company B chose to do it “their way.” This can cause mistrust and create win-lose outcomes in conflict resolution and problem solving.

61

Partnering2 ch3

10:34 AM

Page 62

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

Medium

High

6

Company average PQ = 96.75

Company A Company B

PQ = 110 PQ = 83.5

5

4

•

•

•

•

•

• 3

•

• •

•

Win-Win Orientation

Ability to Trust

Future Orientation

•

•

2 Low

62

4/3/04

1 SelfDisclosure and Feedback

Comfort Comfort with with Interdependence Change

Figure 5 PQ Profile—Two Companies

The two organizations probably differ on a number of cultural values as well as management styles, with Company B being more autocratic and less participatory. The PQ Assessment gives the leaders of both companies insights into how they might address the cultural differences should they agree to partner. For example, they might want to address the reasons why trust is low and take steps to raise it. They should also examine why they tend to look to the past for solutions to new issues and how that is tied to their discomfort with change. All these dynamics can have a profound impact on the organization’s ability to change and adapt to a rapidly evolving and economically volatile environment, leaving them at a disadvantage in the marketplace. Big-Name Company

The PQ Profile for a large, well-known organization, Big-Name Company, is shown in Figure 6. Note that the company’s average partnering quotient is 92 (180 is highest; 30 is lowest). Given the lowerthan-average partnering quotient for this firm, a strategic plan for improving its partnering capability is clearly needed. The result would be a firm with people working toward common goals in a supportive environment. What is it costing this firm to operate below the

Partnering2 ch3

4/3/04

10:34 AM

Page 63

A N A LY Z I N G Y O U R R E S U LT S

Medium

High

6

5

4

•

•

3

•

•

•

•

Low

2

1 SelfDisclosure and Feedback

Win-Win Orientation

Ability to Trust

Future Orientation

Comfort Comfort with with Interdependence Change

Figure 6 PQ Profile—Big-Name Company

norm, especially with a lower-than-average Ability to Trust and lack of a Future Orientation? The plan should begin by considering the issues behind these two lowest scores. How can this firm become more focused on creating a shared vision and shared goals? How can it stop looking back and start looking forward? How can it learn to trust? Given its higher scores in Win-Win Orientation and Self-Disclosure and Feedback, what could it do to leverage and grow these strengths? Executives in this organization must take a hard look at themselves to understand the role they have played in creating the company’s culture. Clearly the trust issues start at the top. They must also think about their own past orientation, which is closely linked to characteristics of their management style and may contain elements of a hierarchical command-and-control structure. In addition, the company must review its hiring and retention practices. Are they selecting candidates who meet a partnering profile? Do they have a compensation structure in place to reward positive partnering behaviors? Are they training people in what it takes to be a good partner? Leadership attitudes, employee selection criteria, and training are the three most important components needed for improving this company’s Partnering Intelligence.

63

Partnering2 ch3

64

4/3/04

10:34 AM

Page 64

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

DEBRIEFING

Now that you’ve completed the PQ Assessment and the Attribute Analysis, you’ll want to spend some time thinking about what this information has yielded and reflect on what it means to you and your company. Following are some questions that may help in your investigation. For the PQ Assessment: • Does the PQ Profile seem to fit with your experience? • Does it reflect how you feel about your business partnerships? • What about your personal partnerships? • If the score seems low, why do you think this is so? For the Attribute Analysis: • Is there anything here that surprises you? • Do your scores reflect what you thought they might? • What does this tell you about yourself? • What insights has this provided regarding your current partnerships? • Do you see your low-scoring attributes as a real problem? If so, what are your next steps? D E V E LO P I N G A N AC T I O N P L A N

One of the first things you’ll want to do after completing the PQ Assessment and the Attribute Analysis is decide if there are areas for improvement. If you scored low in any of the Six Partnering Attributes, try using the exercises in this book to help give you insights into your Partnering Intelligence. (Please note: The Partnering Intelligence Fieldbook contains an extensive array of assessments designed to increase your performance using the Six Partnering Attributes.) Your action plan should address the following questions: • Why do I need to do something? • What do I need to do? • When do I need to get it done by?

Partnering2 ch3

4/3/04

10:34 AM

Page 65

A N A LY Z I N G Y O U R R E S U LT S

• Who needs to be involved? • How will I accomplish it? • Where am I going to do it? While these questions may not all be appropriate to your situation, developing an action plan will improve your partnering quotient. Unlike your IQ, you can increase your PQ.

65

Partnering2 ch3

4/3/04

10:34 AM

Page 66

Partnering2 ch4

4/3/04

10:52 AM

Page 67

CHAPTER

FOUR

Overview of the Par tnership Continuum ™ A Blueprint for Successful Partnerships Partnerships are systems, not simply a collection of parts. You would not expect the human body to function properly if you removed a piece of the “human system”—the heart, for instance—and you cannot expect a partnership to function if it’s deprived of one of its components either. You can’t work solely on a task and ignore the relationship and expect a successful outcome. This is why we need to approach partnerships from a holistic perspective. My approach to forming and maintaining healthy, successful, and mutually beneficial partnerships is based on a defined, well-orchestrated process, one that I call the Partnership Continuum. This chapter presents an overview of the components of the process to help you begin to understand the various relationships between them and the specific influence they impart on the whole process and its outcome. T H E PA R T N E R S H I P C O N T I N U U M ™ M O D E L

The Partnership Continuum model (Figure 7) represents a formula for a successful partnership. We can describe the process developmentally—as in “after this happens, this can happen.” It’s like the process of making an automobile: the design and modeling stages must precede the assembly stage. The Partnership Continuum model 67

Partnering2 ch4

10:52 AM

Page 68

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

Stages of Partnership Development EXP

LORE

INI

TIATE

COMMIT

PLA

PLA

N

N

N

N

AC T

PLA AC T

PLA

AC T

ASSESS AC T

FUTURE ORIENTATION

PAST ORIENTATION (NO PARTNERSHIP)

STORM

FORM

HE

DO

DO

HE

CK

C

CK

C

C

C

HE

DO

(FULL PARTNERSHIP) HE

DO

68

4/3/04

CK

PE

NORM

CK

RFORM

Stages of Relationship Development

Figure 7 The Partnership Continuum Model

guides us through the incremental stages involved in creating successful partnerships. As described earlier, the model has three critical components: • The Stages of Relationship Development • The Stages of Partnership Development • The Plan–Do–Check–Act (PDCA) cycle We’ll walk through each component. We’ll explore the types of behaviors you can expect to see at each stage and describe the activities that need to occur before people can move on to the next stage. Embedded in these stages is the PDCA cycle. We’ll explore how to use the cycle to improve both tasks and relationships. Then we’ll see the crucial distinction between an environment with a past orientation and one with a future orientation. Let’s begin with the Stages of Relationship Development.

S TA G E S O F R E L AT I O N S H I P D E V E L O P M E N T Form

Storm

Norm

Perform

The Stages of Relationship Development describe how healthy, mutually satisfying relationships develop. Some relationships never get to the later stages because they fail to develop properly in an earlier stage. This, of course, emphasizes the importance of following the

Partnering2 ch4

4/3/04

10:52 AM

Page 69

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

proper steps in the earlier stages. Once the partners have spent sufficient time together, the later stages occur more naturally and require less adherence to specific activities because trust between the partners has been established. And this trust permits the partnership to take more risks in accomplishing its goals. As shown in the model, every person and every group move through four stages in the process of attaining a long-lasting relationship based on mutual benefit, trust, and respect. That individuals and groups go through this predictable progression of Form, Storm, Norm, and Perform as they develop relationships was illustrated for me early in my consulting career. I’ve seen this progression occur quickly or last for months, depending on the relations within the group and its need to be together. Form

When a relationship is in the Form stage, the members of the group are generally polite to one another. Most are reserved and allow a group leader or dominant individual to control activities. Others may not reveal much about themselves or disclose their reasons for being involved in the group. They sit back and take a wait-and-see attitude. But the Form stage is optimal for members’ investing time and energy toward clarifying issues, objectives, and dynamics of the relationship and expressing their needs. During this stage of development, they need to address questions about roles, rules, procedures, and the partnership agenda. “What are we doing?” is a question frequently heard in the Form stage, and during this period people need to ask themselves how much they want to invest in the relationship. They need to decide whether they are in or out—and, if they are in, what the price of admission is. Consequently, the Form stage needs a strong leader to give direction and set the tone of the partnership until trust is established and situational leadership can emerge in a natural way. These matters, if not addressed up front, will resurface later and can sabotage the development of trust. Some partners are so eager to “do the deal” that they forget they’re interacting with other people who have their own needs and wants. Impatience at the Form stage is a signal of a potential “one-night stand” relationship.

69

Partnering2 ch4

70

4/3/04

10:52 AM

Page 70

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

Storm

The relationship then moves into the Storm stage. Now some of the initial politeness may begin to give way to more aggressive behavior as people begin to assert themselves and test the limits of the relationship. Conflicts begin to erupt between individuals or between individuals and the leadership, and trust begins to become an issue. Though most people dislike conflict, the Storm stage is a sign of growth in the development of the relationship. The better the relationship created in the Form stage, the easier it is to deal with conflict in the Storm stage. The group establishes boundaries; individuals express their needs; trust starts to develop; and, with luck, the relationship develops. Norm

Members move into the Norm stage when they have identified their own needs and aligned those needs with the goals of the partnership; they are now able to contribute to the overall success of the endeavor. They begin to establish rules for acceptable behavior—both verbal and nonverbal. They start to know what is expected of them. They migrate in a normal and natural way to the roles that are established and defined. They begin to employ collaboration—rather than confrontation or avoidance—to resolve conflict. People feel comfortable with each other and begin to enjoy the personal relationships they’ve established in the partnership. They start to have fun. They experiment and try new and daring activities as they deepen the level of trust they feel with each other and begin to see their personal success tied to the success of the partnership. By the time the relationship reaches the end of the Norm stage, the values and norms of behavior have been integrated into the culture of the partnership. Perform

The relationship then moves into the Perform stage. In this stage, creative energies surface, increase, and flow abundantly as partners generate synergy. Now people perform at highly creative, efficient, and productive levels. The partnership achieves goals that often exceed expectations at the outset.

Partnering2 ch4

4/3/04

10:52 AM

Page 71

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

Outside Forces and Influences

Form

Storm

Norm

Perform

Relationship Development Without interference, the Stages of Relationship Development flow in the direction shown. But when outside forces intervene, a group may revert to a previous stage. When new members are added, for example, the group often reverts to the Form stage. Figure 8 Impact of Outside Forces

R E S P O N D I N G TO C H A N G E S

Partnerships, like most things in life, are not cut and dried. People move back and forth between stages as the dynamics of the relationship change in response to outside forces and influences (see Figure 8). For instance, let’s say a group of people representing different departments in the same organization have joined together in a partnership to address the issue of quality. Currently in the Norm stage of development, they’ve functioned well for months. Then suddenly, the vice president of one department informs the group that the team’s objectives have changed. Some members object that the vice president is manipulating the group to focus efforts on improvements for his department at the expense of others. As conflicts arise about the team’s former objective versus the new objective, the group reverts temporarily to the Storm stage. If the team as a whole can clarify and agree on new objectives, the group will return to the Norm stage. Because members of the group have already established a level of trust among themselves, they should be able to move forward. Ideally, they will feel confident addressing issues and resolving them in an open manner and with group consensus. Rebounding from Norm to Storm and back is inherently easier than the initial evolution from the Storm stage.

71

Partnering2 ch4

72

4/3/04

10:52 AM

Page 72

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

The longer a group has been together and the greater the trust among its members, the faster it will return to the highest stage of development it had achieved before the interference. Groups that return to Norm and Perform levels despite changes and new challenges are invaluable human assets. Because of the time and effort needed to build good partnerships, keeping high-functioning groups together makes sense. U S I N G T H E S TA G E S

Now that you understand the theory behind the Stages of Relationship Development, I want to show you how to use them as a tool for developing partnerships. Although many people cognitively understand the stages, they promptly forget about them in a group setting. Yet this is when they are needed the most. First, it pays to talk about them. With some groups I draw a diagram of the Stages of Relationship Development on a large piece of paper. I start the partnership meetings out by asking: “Where are we in our relationship development?” I then ask everyone to make a mark on the scale to indicate where they think we are. While this may seem elementary, it’s a basic technique for generating discussions that strengthen the partnership and move it to the next level of development. It can be used as a tool to pinpoint problem areas that may be preventing the team from moving ahead with the task. Similarly, at the close of the meeting I ask how the meeting went—from a task perspective and from a relationship perspective. While initially the group members may be reluctant to disclose their feelings about the relationship, most of them become comfortable with the question and even begin to look forward to discussing how the relationship is developing. Another way that I check for relationship development is to hand out the Relationship Feedback Assessment (Assessment 3) at the start of the meeting to open up discussion. I ask each person to fill out the assessment anonymously and then I post the responses on a large sheet of paper. Based on the feedback from the partners, we develop a plan to continue our progress or alter our course to improve what’s wrong. A version of my assessment is presented here as an exercise you may copy and use on your own or with your partners.

Partnering2 ch4

4/3/04

10:52 AM

Page 73

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

Assessment 3 Relationship Feedback Instructions

Read each statement and circle the number or word that comes closest to reflecting your opinion about the relationship between partners. Relationship Feedback Statements

(1) Never

(5) Always Circle One

1. I trust the other partners in this partnership.

1

2

3

4

5

2. I think the other partners trust me.

1

2

3

4

5

3. I am comfortable expressing my ideas in this partnership.

1

2

3

4

5

4. I feel that my needs are being met in this partnership.

1

2

3

4

5

5. I help others in this partnership meet their needs.

1

2

3

4

5

6. I think we are at this stage of relationship development:

Form

Storm

Norm

Perform

Scoring the Assessment

After each person has completed the Relationship Feedback Assessment, on a large sheet of paper draw a linear graph for each statement, following the example on page 74. Then ask each person to come up and mark where he or she perceives the partnership to be in terms of its relationship development. After everyone has responded, calculate the average score for each statement. If the rating is low for a particular statement, ask why and let the group talk about the scoring. If a rating is high, ask what needs to be done to continue to build the relationship development of the partnership.

73

Partnering2 ch4

74

4/3/04

10:52 AM

Page 74

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

Example

Statement 1: I trust the other partners in this partnership. X 1

X X 2

X

X 3

X 4

Never

5 Always

Person Person Person Person Person Person

1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6:

2.5 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.5 1.5

TOTAL: 15.5 ÷ 6 = 2.58 average score

S TA G E S O F P A R T N E R S H I P D E V E L O P M E N T Assess

Explore

Initiate

Commit

We identify our own needs. We find potential partners. We communicate what we want. We act in accordance with our promises and commitments. In the four Stages of Partnership Development we’re creating a new future with our partner. Through the accomplishment of tasks, the deepening of trust, and the practice of direct communication, our partnership grows and develops. In theory, there’s no doubt that the script makes sense. The show should be a hit every time. In practice, however, we’re dealing with people who do things for their own reasons, not according to a script. We need to account for various levels of Partnering Intelligence among the participants, which can change in an instant. Analyzing and understanding the process allows us to manage each stage more intelligently. Each step that we take during the Stages of Partnership Development presents us with an opportunity to accrue trust. And as our trust account grows, we feel more confident about taking risks. Once we

Partnering2 ch4

4/3/04

10:52 AM

Page 75

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

feel secure enough to take chances, the possibilities become boundless. This is when we begin to generate synergy and enter the creative zone. The creative zone is a state of being—a place where we feel totally secure and can let all our synapses spark ideas at once. This is what a company really wants: the creative spark that differentiates it from everyone else. While there may be many different ways of moving partnerships into the creative zone, I know the Partnership Continuum model works. It is structured enough to provide a framework for those who need it and holistic enough to cover the two essential elements of any good partnership: task completion and a trusting relationship. So let’s now take a look at each of the four Stages of Partnership Development. Assess

First, you must be willing to examine your own readiness, willingness, and ability to engage in the process. The first stage, Assess, enables you to figure out exactly what it is you want from a partnership. It helps you become a more intelligent partner. What’s your PQ? Do you know what you expect from a partner? Do you understand your own limitations? Can you make a decision to change your behavior if necessary? Explore

Second, you’ll need to communicate with a prospective partner. Exploring areas of common interest and mutual benefit will help you balance the partnership at the outset. You’ll need to help each other on the team become better partners. Once you’ve identified a potential partner, explained what you need, and helped your potential partner see the benefits to be gained, you can plan a joint project. Initiate

Third, you can seize the opportunities to develop trust by agreeing to initial activities. In the Initiate stage, you can work with your partner one step at a time to test and build your partnership.

75

Partnering2 ch4

76

4/3/04

10:52 AM

Page 76

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

Commit

As you gain more trust by demonstrating you can work together effectively, you enter the fourth stage, Commit. You’ll be able to make more commitments and thereby strengthen your partnership.

T H E P L A N – D O – C H EC K – AC T C YC L E

The success of a partnership depends on what is actually accomplished—not on what was intended or possible. As we define our expectations of each other in terms of a task, we also define the expectations in the relationship. We talk about our relationship in terms of the behavior that is acceptable. We also agree in a collaborative spirit to hold each other accountable. This is where the relationship issues involve our personal styles of handling conflict. If you’re not happy with the way I’m performing a task, what will you do about it? How will we discuss and resolve the issues? Rather than simply hoping the partnership delivers what it’s capable of achieving, I use a structured process that helps me manage the outcomes. This process is called the Plan–Do–Check–Act cycle (Figure 9), also known as the Shewhart cycle or the Deming cycle. Walter A. Shewhart, a statistician at Bell Telephone Laboratories in New York, developed a technique to reduce process variation in tasks that workers performed. He developed this planning cycle to improve the output of his processes and bring them under what he called “statistical” control. Later Dr. W. Edwards Deming referred to the Shewhart cycle as the Plan–Do–Check–Act cycle. Deming introduced it to the Japanese to help rebuild their economy after World War II. This cycle has been a cornerstone of the Japanese economic miracle ever since the 1960s and is still used today. In fact, the Japanese call it the Deming Cycle of Quality. The Plan–Do–Check–Act (PDCA) cycle is as useful in developing relationships as it is in managing statistical control or performing a task. I use this simple tool repeatedly throughout the partnering process. Let’s explore the cycle more closely.

Partnering2 ch4

4/3/04

10:52 AM

Page 77

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

Abandon Plan

Act

Do

Check

Figure 9 Plan–Do–Check–Act Cycle

Step 1: Plan

The first step is to decide what actions we should take to accomplish a task. Breaking down a manufacturing or sales process or a performance proceAct Do dure into its parts is not hard to do. We also need to plan our relationship. We need to single out the Check components of the relationship that we agree are important: the nature of the relationship and how we’ll resolve conflicts, make decisions, and communicate. Like the logical steps in accomplishing a task, these preparations can lead to an open, constructive relationship. Whether we’re working on a task or the relationship, we cannot proceed without a plan. Abandon

Plan

Step 2: Do Abandon Plan

Act

Do

Check

We carry out our plan. We do the activity. We solve problems, make decisions, and communicate just as we had planned.

77

Partnering2 ch4

78

4/3/04

10:52 AM

Page 78

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

Step 3: Check

Did we follow our plan? Did we end up where we thought we would? Did the relationship work out as planned? The phrase “reality check” is popuAct Do lar in business discussions today—we can get so Check wrapped up in activity, in the busyness of working hard, that we forget to stand back and see how we’re doing. In this step, we should primarily observe how well we’ve implemented our plan. What new information do we need to consider in the partnership? Abandon

Plan

Step 4: Act

Our reality check should either reinforce the efficacy of our process or help us understand just where our process has broken down. We can learn Act Do to improve our planning in the first step. We can Check recommit to executing our plan better in the second step. Perhaps we should evaluate more frequently in the third step. What can we improve on? How can we do better? We study the results of our process, draw conclusions, and decide how we will act right now. What’s the best decision we can make at this moment? Abandon

Plan

Abandon

Sometimes the action we should take is simply to abandon the activity. Suppose we discover that we do not play well together. This is the perfect time— Act Do before we have too much invested in the partnerCheck ship—to acknowledge the fact, pick up our toys, and move on. Companies frequently find that their cultures or technologies are not as compatible as they thought they were. Rather than continuing down a path to nowhere, it’s best sometimes to acknowledge the fact and look for a new partner. This is a healthy sign of maturity and growth. Like couples dating, you learn something about your partner and, just as important, you learn something about yourself. You have just increased your Partnering Intelligence. Abandon

Plan

Partnering2 ch4

4/3/04

10:52 AM

Page 79

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M Plan Stage Task 33%

Do Stage Task 67%

Relationship 67%

Relationship 33%

Check & Act Stages Task 50% Relationship 50%

Figure 10 PDCA Time Allocation by Stage

Back to Step 1: Plan

Because of what you’ve learned, you’re now smarter and better able to incorporate this new learning into the next phase of the PDCA cycle. Act Do Now you can reenter the cycle with a new plan, new Check knowledge, and increased potential for success. The PDCA cycle provides a framework within which both task and relationship activities can develop. It is a reminder that whether you’re doing a task or developing a relationship, it’s important to build quality into the process. Estimating how much time to spend on each step of the PDCA cycle can help in planning timelines effectively. I suggest that teams split their time into three periods, as shown in Figure 10. They should spend about one-third of their time planning the activity (about onethird of that on developing the task and two-thirds on the relationship components of the activity). They should spend about one-third of their time doing the activity (about two-thirds on tasks and onethird on relationship development). They should spend the final one-third of their time checking the activity and acting on the results (with their time generally split 50/50 between task and relationship activities). Abandon

Plan

P A S T V E R S U S F U T U R E O R I E N TAT I O N ENVIRONMENT

Over the years I’ve noticed that partnerships inhabit environments characterized by two different orientations: past and future. Both orientations have specific characteristics and related behavior. They also tend to be endemic within the organization—that is, if you find one of them in one part of the organization, you’ll usually find it

79

Partnering2 ch4

80

4/3/04

10:52 AM

Page 80

R EDI SCOVER I NG PARTN ER I NG

throughout the organization. This is especially true if leadership embodies one or the other paradigm. The concept of past versus future orientation is a paradox: it is intangible and yet very real. Organizations, like individuals, view their world through the lens formed by a set of strongly held beliefs, that is, those held by leadership. When they look through that lens, they see what they expect to see. Let me give an example on a personal level to explain the two orientations. Let’s say that every time you invite me to dinner I’m a half-hour late. In time, you come to believe that I’ll always be a half-hour late. You may compensate by making my invitation a half-hour earlier, based on my past behavior. This thinking reflects a past orientation. A future orientation might take a different tack. You invite me to dinner. You say, “Steve, I’d really like to have you show up at 7:30 p.m. and not at 8:00 p.m., because it throws off my timing. Would you mind showing up on time?” Now you’ve switched your paradigm over to a future perspective. If I agree, then you’ll determine my trustworthiness based on my time of arrival. Rather than planning on my past behavior, we will have negotiated future behavior and will monitor it to see if I do what I said I would do. This is a future orientation. A past or future orientation environment is endemic from a systems perspective. In other words, if I have a past orientation, I probably have certain characteristics that reinforce my perspective. Table 2 helps to illustrate the systemic impact of past/future orientation. Note how it is necessary to address several attributes in order to make progress. When you practice win-win conflict resolution or increase your level of self-disclosure, for example, you move toward a future orientation. As you move toward the future orientation, trust begins to build in the partnership. And since establishing trust is a key skill, this in turn increases your Partnering Intelligence. STEP BY STEP

Now that you’ve had an overview of the Partnership Continuum model, are you ready to investigate each step and learn how to apply it? I’ll address each of the Stages of Partnership Development— Assess, Explore, Initiate, and Commit—over the following four chapters. As you engage in each of these stages, you’ll automatically begin to move through the Stages of Relationship Development. At each

Partnering2 ch4

4/3/04

10:52 AM

Page 81

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

Table 2

Moving from a Past to a Future Orientation Environment To move from a past orientation to a future orientation . . .

Increase your intelligence in these attributes:

To move from “Relies on past history for decision making” to “Looks to the future with a clear vision” . . .

• • • •

Comfort with Interdependence Comfort with Change Ability to Trust Self-Disclosure and Feedback

From “Maintains status quo while resisting change” to “Welcomes change” . . .

• • • •

Comfort with Change Ability to Trust Win-Win Orientation Self-Disclosure and Feedback

From “Desires to win conflicts” to “Creatively resolves conflicts” . . .

• • • •

Win-Win Orientation Self-Disclosure and Feedback Comfort with Change Ability to Trust

From “Values independence” to “Values interdependence” . . .

• • • •

Self-Disclosure and Feedback Win-Win Orientation Ability to Trust Future Orientation

From “Has low trust of others” to “Creates trust through actions and words” . . .

• • • •

Comfort with Change Win-Win Orientation Comfort with Interdependence Self-Disclosure and Feedback

From “Keeps information to self ” to “Openly self-discloses information” . . .

• • • • •

Comfort with Change Win-Win Orientation Ability to Trust Self-Disclosure and Feedback Comfort with Interdependence

step along the way, I’ll point out what needs to happen to ensure that the partnership is balanced and identify which Stage of Relationship Development you’re in during each Stage of Partnership Development. For each Stage of Partnership Development, I present two real-world case studies that will describe for you how others have used the Partnership Continuum model so that you can benchmark your progress against theirs.

81

Partnering2 ch4

4/3/04

10:52 AM

Page 82

Partnering2 Part II

4/3/04

11:12 AM

Page 83

PA R T T W 0

Developing Your PQ Enhancing Your Partnering Skills You accomplished a number of things in Part One: • You now understand the concept of PQ—the measure of Partnering Intelligence. • You’ve taken the PQ Assessment (Assessment 1) to help you determine your personal level of Partnering Intelligence. You have assessed your strengths and weaknesses based on the Six Partnering Attributes. • You’ve had an overview of the Partnership Continuum model. Before applying the model, you will want to make sure that you and your team are positioned to be the best partners possible. To prepare yourselves, you’ll want to make sure you understand the behaviors that help partnerships thrive. • You’ve gone through the Stages of Relationship Development, too. First there was the Form stage and people were polite. Then came the Storm stage and partners began to assert their needs. But you 83

Partnering2 Part II

84

4/3/04

11:12 AM

Page 84

PARTN ER I NG I NTELLIGENCE

Form

Storm

Norm

Self-Disclosure and Feedback

Self-Disclosure and Feedback

Self-Disclosure and Feedback

Self-Disclosure and Feedback

Perform

Win-Win Orientation

Win-Win Orientation

Win-Win Orientation

Ability to Trust

Ability to Trust

Ability to Trust

Future Orientation

Future Orientation

Comfort with Change

Comfort with Change Comfort with Interdependence

Figure 11 Partnering Attributes of the Stages of Relationship Development

managed to create win-win solutions and moved to establish rules for partnership behavior in the Norm stage. You went on to achieve the highly creative and productive Perform stage and lived happily ever after, right? To help you and your team accelerate through the Stages of Relationship Development, each attribute has been aligned with a stage where it will be most effective. You’ll note in Figure 11 that attributes build on those from the previous stage. This means that you must consistently maximize the use of each attribute to achieve maximum results. In the Form stage, you come together as an alliance team. To accomplish this, you must have a candid assessment of your business’s strengths and weaknesses from both a task and relationship perspective. What do you do well? Where do you need help? To move through this stage, you must feel comfortable sharing information—both the good and the bad—and listen to what others have to say about your businesses’ strengths and weaknesses. You must disclose your needs and provide feedback on how other people’s needs affect you. Self-Disclosure and Feedback is a foundation skill in building great alliances and one you will use throughout the partnership.

Partnering2 Part II

4/3/04

11:12 AM

Page 85

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

Building on that attribute, in the Storm stage you’ll need your Ability to Trust and Win-Win Orientation to get you through the stormy times this stage presents. Many alliances get stranded in this stage, as win-lose conflict resolution destroys trust and sets up the partnership for failure. As your alliance moves into initiating a task, your team begins to establish norms of behavior. This is the Norm stage. As you think about a new future, your Comfort with Change will be challenged as you begin to plan and do things differently. Keeping future oriented and not making assumptions about what your partners will do is difficult, especially if you have preconceived notions of how they are. This will challenge your Future Orientation and Comfort with Change as you move from the status quo to changing and letting go of control. While change is difficult, failure to do so can diminish trust and the quality of your output. Finally, as you move into the Perform stage, you begin to feel an increase in Comfort with Interdependence with your partners. You must learn to move away from being independent and begin to think as much about your partner’s success as your own. You must begin to consider consequences your decisions have on your partner and learn how to dance a tango in perfect rhythm—not an easy task for people who live in a culture that values its independence. Partnering isn’t easy. In fact, it is probably the hardest work you’ll do. Moving effortlessly through the Stages of Relationship Development happens only in an ideal world with perfect human beings. But human beings aren’t perfect. I confess I’ve made many mistakes in my partnering efforts. But I understand that if I want a good partnership, I need to work to be a

85

Partnering2 Part II

86

4/3/04

11:12 AM

Page 86

PARTN ER I NG I NTELLIGENCE

good partner. Even the best blueprint for partnering—such as the Partnership Continuum model—cannot make up for a low PQ. The model works only as well as the people who are using it. And while using a blueprint is better than just letting your partnership evolve through happenstance, it is the individuals in the partnership who must have the skills to make it work. In the following chapters, we’ll cover in more detail the Six Partnering Attributes—Self-Disclosure and Feedback, Ability to Trust, Win-Win Orientation, Future Orientation, Comfort with Change, and Comfort with Interdependence. Each of these chapters offers you insights and techniques for improving your Partnering Intelligence. Start with the areas in which you need the most improvement and then go back to the ones in which you’re already competent. A little refresher course never hurt anyone. You can start by going back to Chapter 2 and reviewing your PQ Assessment (Assessment 1). Then go right to Chapter 3 and analyze your PQ using the Attribute Analysis (Assessment 2). This tool will point to your strengths and indicate areas for improvement. Once you’re familiar with this material, share it with your partners, your friends, and even your family. It’s important information that can improve the quality of your life. A business that invests in developing the Six Partnering Attributes will start to see exciting outcomes. Because these are second-level change processes—that is, they focus on us as individuals rather than on the world around us—the impact is more immediate and longer lasting. Companies that invest in developing these attributes will experience less internal conflict, more productivity, more creativity, and higher morale than companies

Partnering2 Part II

4/3/04

11:12 AM

Page 87

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

that don’t. As we’ll see in the following chapters, these are the tools that create trust between people and aid in equalizing power. Regardless of our rank, if we can begin to communicate like equals, we can begin to act like equals. Without trust and a sense of balance there can be no productive partnership. Regardless of its desire for strong external relationships, a company that lacks internal PQ will have problems with its partners. Above all, enjoy learning more about yourself as you learn to become a great partner.

87

Partnering2 Part II

4/3/04

11:12 AM

Page 88

Partnering2 ch5

4/3/04

11:58 AM

Page 89

CHAPTER

FIVE

Self-Disclosure and Feedback The Importance of Two-Way Communication When I was invited to help Bank of America and Exult implement their award-winning alliance, they had already negotiated the deal. There was a contract in place, and the terms of agreement were settled. In some ways, it looked to me like a standard “outsourcing” relationship—what I consider a midlevel tactical alliance, since they would integrate some business processes. I was pleasantly surprised to learn otherwise. If fact, while the baby steps they had taken were indeed tactical, the vision was much broader. The bank wanted this to be a hallmark alliance to demonstrate that the bank could be a great partner. As Bank of America’s Steele Alphin explained to me, “The bank is excellent at taking over other businesses. If fact, we’ve grown to be the third largest bank in America through a successful acquisition strategy. However, our corporate strategy is to focus on our core business— providing our customers with financial solutions to their businesses and lives—and not on the ‘human resource business.’” Exult is an expert in the human resource business. Alphin believed that it could provide the bank with higher quality service at a lower cost externally than it could provide internally. Additionally, Steele had a vision beyond the human resource transaction. In the knowledge- and information-based financial 89

Partnering2 ch5

90

4/3/04

11:58 AM

Page 90

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

industry, he wanted the 120,000 associates to be computer savvy. He envisioned his employees having personal control over the menu of benefits the bank offered. He understood that the two concepts were closely connected. Computer-savvy employees could access the bank’s human resource Web-based portal and add or change benefits as their life situations changed. This would reduce the number of calls into a more expensive call center and provide a sense of control to associates while giving them access and practice with computer skills. But the bank also faced a risk. With the bank providing a large infusion of capital into Exult, Steele was concerned the Exult leaders might simply take the money and run, leaving the bank high and dry. Steele told me they could have bought Exult outright, if that’s what they wanted, but it wasn’t. He needed the intelligence, knowledge, and skills embodied by the leaders of Exult, not their technology. He understood a fundamental truth in business today: Human intelligence—the ability to be creative, use information, and devise new strategies—trumps technology. Steele wanted Exult for their brains and he didn’t want them bolting at the close of the deal. This required two things. The first was to communicate to Exult the bank’s needs and the second was to build trust between the two so that they could expand the relationship. Meanwhile, the bank wasn’t the only party in this relationship with concerns. Exult at the time was a small but growing player. They had not yet filed for their IPO, and when they did, they wanted to make sure they were in the best financial position to do so. The longterm contract with the bank helped. But they were also cautious about the relationship. As Michael Salvino, the account vice president, told me, The bank is like an eight-hundred-pound gorilla sitting at the table. They’re big and smart, but we don’t want them coming in and telling us how to run our business. We know there’s a lot at risk for them and they have to trust us that we know what we are doing and are looking out for the well-being of their associates, just as they would. It’s our business, we know what we’re doing, and we don’t want them second-guessing our every decision.

In this case of external partners, each has a fear. When you are in the Form stage of the relationship, you want to think the best of your partner—but there are always lingering concerns. “Will the leaders of Exult dart?” “Will the bank come in and control our every move?”

Partnering2 ch5

4/3/04

11:58 AM

Page 91

SELF-DISCLOSURE AND FEEDBACK

These are reasonable concerns for any partner. Self-Disclosure and Feedback is the attribute to use to start removing those concerns and building trust with your partner. In the Bank of America/Exult example, we brought the two teams of executives to a face-to-face meeting. After some initial preparation apart, the teams were prepared to disclose the concerns they had about each other. Once the issues were on the table, they were able to have frank discussions about the issues and provide the kinds of reassurances that build confidence and trust. The tool they used is SelfDisclosure and Feedback. Following is an example of how this tool can work internally. Robert is a district manager of a nationwide auto parts distributor. He was lamenting to me one day about how he was the last to hear about problems in the stores. “I know the store managers are trying to protect me from the day-to-day problems,” he said, “but if I don’t know what the issues are, how can I resolve them?” Ironically, just the day before, I had seen Robert explode at Allen, the manager of a suburban store, who had failed to set up a promotion display. It was two days before the sales campaign was to be released in the media. Allen tried to explain that the material had not yet arrived. This, he said, was an ongoing problem with Market Communications. But Robert didn’t want to hear excuses. He upbraided the manager for not taking the initiative to find out where the material was. When Allen tried to comment, Robert just walked away. In fact, the manager had checked on the material earlier that morning and had been assured it would be delivered that afternoon in plenty of time. That evening at dinner, I asked Robert about the episode with the store manager. “Robert, you complain that the store managers keep you in the dark, and yet I learned a very important piece of information today about your business. It sounds to me as if the Market Communications department has trouble getting promotion materials to your stores on time.” Robert thought about this for a minute and said: “If our store managers were more on the ball and checked on these things earlier, we wouldn’t have this problem. I know Allen. He always waits until the last minute for everything.” “Wait a minute,” I said. “Let me make sure I understand the issue here. You tell me that your employees keep you in the dark. Then we go

91

Partnering2 ch5

92

4/3/04

11:58 AM

Page 92

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

and meet with a store manager who tells you about a problem he is experiencing and you get mad and blame him for the problem. Do you think there might be a connection here between employees not telling you something and how you reacted to that manager?” “I don’t think so,” Robert stated tentatively. “I see a big connection,” I said. “When you ask for feedback and then jump on the person who provides it, you’re creating a culture in which people don’t want to tell you anything. They feel you’ll just blame them. So they keep the problems to themselves and try to fix them as best they can. And because these events happen in isolation from each other—the Northtown store doesn’t know that Southdale is having the same problem—you can’t attack the root cause and create a synergistic partnership with your store managers. Robert, you’re going to have to create the kind of open communication and feedback that will help you gain the trust of your employees. And with that trust, you can develop partnerships with the store managers to run the business the way you’ve envisioned. But you have to let the managers disclose what the problems are in a safe and open environment. Otherwise, you’ll just create an environment of fear.” Robert and I then explored other ways he could have handled that situation. Finally, Robert said, “I guess I’ve never thought about how I react before. I have a lot to learn about creating partnerships, haven’t I?” E X P R E S S I N G YO U R N E E D S

An important element of Partnering Intelligence is the ability to express one’s needs. In this section I present two tools that can help you increase your skill in this area: the JoHari Window and the SelfDisclosure Checklist. Both tools are easy to use and will give you insight into your ability to self-disclose. The JoHari Window (Figure 12) demonstrates the limits of our self-understanding. The developers of this concept, Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham, each contributed part of his first name to the model— thus the name JoHari. Understanding how others see you and listening to what they have to say about you can confirm—or change—how you view yourself. Each of us has an Arena—an open area where we already share and learn from each other. You may know a lot about your partner because you work in the same office or live in the same house. The more you

Partnering2 ch5

4/3/04

11:58 AM

Page 93

SELF-DISCLOSURE AND FEEDBACK

Things they know about me

Things I don’t know about myself

THE ARENA

THE BLIND SPOT

IN

SI

GH

T

Things they don’t know about me

SELF-DISCLOSURE

FEEDBACK Things I know about myself

THE FACADE

THE UNKNOWN

THE SUBCONSCIOUS

Figure 12 JoHari Window

share, the closer you become. The most productive relationships occur when the arena is large and there’s a balance between receiving feedback and self-disclosing. The arena should be large because it encompasses a large amount of information that is common to both of you. This will increase your opportunity to create synergy. Each of us also has a Blind Spot—hiding weaknesses we can’t see but others can. For instance, you might not realize that a phrase you use in an interview has a negative connotation for some people. If you’re made aware of it, though, you will gladly stop using it. If your partner gives you that information to benefit the relationship, the trust level between you will be enhanced. We also have a Facade—a secret side that only we know about but that we could reveal to others to help them understand us. Disclosing information about your past experience in forming partnerships in an interview might help a firm decide that you are right for them. They’d know that you have a track record and that your proposal works.

93

Partnering2 ch5

94

4/3/04

11:58 AM

Page 94

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

The fourth quadrant of the JoHari Window is called the Unknown—an area neither you nor your partner can know except by sharing information. The more you share, the smaller this area becomes. We also have our Subconscious—an area not known to ourselves or to others—which cannot be brought to the conscious level without extensive personal insights. As the Facade and Blind Spot grow smaller through self-disclosure and providing feedback, the Arena expands. With mutual disclosure, the Unknown area shrinks as well. The goal of positive communication is to expand the Arena by learning more about yourself from others’ perspectives and sharing more information that may be unknown to others. In this way, more information is passed back and forth between you—creating new opportunities for synergy and creativity. The second tool is the Self-Disclosure Checklist (Exercise 1). We typically don’t give much thought to how well we self-disclose information to others. The Self-Disclosure Checklist provides you with an opportunity to reflect on how well you do this vital activity. The more honestly you can answer the questions, the more insights you will have into your ability to self-disclose information about yourself. If you answer yes to three or more of the questions in the checklist, you may want to think about how freely you disclose information about yourself. While it isn’t appropriate to share everything about your life, self-disclosure is essential in a partnership. The greater the self-disclosure, the more information flows and the more trust is established. It’s better to provide too much information about yourself than not enough. GIVING AND RECEIVING FEEDBACK

A client of mine, John, owns a medical supply company that specializes in selling different types of x-ray film in a highly competitive market. John continually gave his sales managers the message that every employee had to give 120 percent on the job. Numerous times he announced, too, that he expected at least a fifty-hour workweek from each of his sales managers. That was what he did himself as a sales manager, and he expected no less from them. One afternoon Rick, a sales manager, came up to me and said he had had enough of John constantly telling him he wasn’t working hard enough. In fact, Rick stated, “I lead the group in sales.” Rick was a young man in his thirties, had two young

Partnering2 ch5

4/3/04

11:58 AM

Page 95

SELF-DISCLOSURE AND FEEDBACK

Exercise 1. Self-Disclosure Checklist Instructions

Choose a focus—work or home. Reflect on the question and answer it yes or no. If you think the answer is “sometimes” or “maybe,” search deeper. How do you feel most of the time? Question

Yes

No

1. Is it difficult for you to talk to other people? 2. Do you find it hard to express controversial ideas to those who may disagree with you? 3. In a conversation, do others talk more than you? 4. Do you refrain from talking about your personal life in business settings? 5. Do you deliberately hide your weaknesses from others? 6. Are you uncomfortable admitting mistakes to others? 7. When you are with others, do you stick to business? 8. Do you easily share your feelings with others?

children, and wanted to spend more time at home with his family. Not only were the long hours difficult for his wife, but he didn’t have time to spend with the children. Even though he liked the work and loved the salary, he was thinking about quitting his job. “John’s family is grown and he’s divorced his wife,” Rick said. “No wonder he’s constantly riding our backs to do more and more. He has nothing else to live for! He needs to get a life!” It was true. John’s personal life was a mess. I had known John for twenty years and had seen him go through a bout with alcohol, leave his family several times, divorce his wife, and alienate himself from his children. “Rick,” I said, “have you confronted John with these complaints?” “No, I haven’t,” he replied. “I’m petrified about how he would take it.” “Well, letting John know how you’re feeling is pretty important,” I noted. “He needs you. You like the work. It seems to me that you’ve got a

95

Partnering2 ch5

96

4/3/04

11:58 AM

Page 96

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

situation in which both can win. Would you consider approaching him about forming a partnership and then discussing what both your needs are in this relationship? John wants to be sure that sales stay high. You want to spend time with your family. Aren’t both things possible?” “Well, I think so,” he replied. Later that week, Rick set up an appointment with John and asked me to join in. Rick started off by saying he was very unhappy with the situation at work and was thinking about leaving. Although his sales were the highest in the district, he was working long hours and missing precious time with his family. His children, he said, were growing up in a fatherless household. Rick did an excellent job of disclosing his situation and feelings to John. Then he gave John some feedback: “John, you’re constantly riding us to put in more hours. You’re extremely demanding, and that makes me nervous. Sometimes I’m even afraid of you. I’m really having a problem with this coming from you on a weekly basis. I feel that you’re unhappy in your personal life. You have divorced your wife, and your children don’t want to see you. I don’t want this to happen to me. Did you ever consider that what you are asking me to do is exactly what put you in the situation you’re in today?” Rick said this in a calm, matter-offact manner. John turned red. He just sat there and stared out the window. I thought he was going to either explode or cry. “I didn’t know you felt this way,” John finally mumbled. “I had no idea I was coming across as so demanding. It’s just that I work hard and some of the managers don’t seem to be pulling their weight. We’ve got to continue to grow our sales or we won’t be getting the bonuses we’ve come to expect. I just never thought about how it might hit you on a personal basis. I’ve always tried to keep my personal life out of my business.” Rick replied: “John, I am a whole person. I cannot keep my personal life out of my business life. What you are asking me to do has an impact on my family and on me personally. I want to continue to work for you, but I can’t do it the way things stand. I propose that you and I form a partnership. I think we should talk about what each of us needs from our partnership in order to be successful.” The discussion soon turned to what these two business associates needed from each other to be successful. About six months later, I ran into Rick at a meeting and asked him how things were going. He said he had formed a partnership with John

Partnering2 ch5

4/3/04

11:58 AM

Page 97

SELF-DISCLOSURE AND FEEDBACK

and a little later was named a vice president of the sales department. John himself later told me that the meeting had been a turning point in his life. No one had ever confronted him about his demanding behavior before, and he had spent many hours reflecting on his life. After Rick took over the sales department, he asked me to help him establish internal partnerships with each of his sales associates. Over the next four years, their sales increased about 300 percent. As John himself had perceived, he had been giving his sales managers the message that they weren’t working hard enough. This message reflected John’s value of hard work and dedication to the job, providing insight into John’s work ethic. Rick recognized that John’s value of long hours was on a collision course with his own value of spending time with his family. Thus John’s message provided Rick with two important pieces of information about John: his perception of what was happening and insight into his values. You may want to think about the following questions the next time you’re in a position to give someone feedback: • Describing the behavior you want to comment on, what did the person do or say? • How did his or her behavior affect you? • How did you feel about what he or she did or said? • How do you want to express the feedback to this person? Answer the questions in Exercise 2 to help you assess your ability to give and receive feedback. GIVING FEEDBACK

The ability to provide feedback within the context of partnership is an important aspect of your Partnering Intelligence. If you can’t provide feedback, resentment begins to fester. As in conflict, a partner’s resentment develops into passive-aggressive behavior that can quickly turn destructive. The best model I’ve seen for giving feedback has five basic steps: 1. You note a person’s behavior. 2. The behavior creates an impression on you—maybe good, maybe bad, but powerful enough for you to take notice.

97

Partnering2 ch5

98

4/3/04

11:58 AM

Page 98

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

Exercise 2. Giving and Receiving Feedback Checklist Instructions

Read each question and answer yes or no. For each one you answered no, you may want to ask yourself, Why not? Question

Yes

No

1. Are you comfortable providing feedback to others? 2. Are you comfortable accepting feedback? 3. When you give feedback, do you offer an example of the behavior? 4. Do you ask people how they feel about what you just said? 5. Do you provide feedback even if it might create conflict? 6. When others hurt your feelings, do you tell them? 7. Do you react calmly and nondefensively when someone gives you feedback? 8. Do you help others understand you by saying what you think and how you feel? 9. Do you let others finish before answering? 10. When a person provides you with feedback, do you try to justify your behavior?

3. Time passes. You evaluate what you want to do about the impact of the behavior. If it’s urgent, you may react immediately: “That was a great comment you made.” Or, “Please stop interrupting me.” Depending on the situation, you may want to give the feedback in a private setting. In general, though, I recommend giving it as soon as possible after the behavior. 4. Give your feedback to the other person. Describe the behavior and tell the person the impact it had. 5. Decide what to do with the person’s reaction. Remember, the feedback is yours. It’s your impression that you’re giving to the receiver. It’s up to the receiver to decide what he or she wants to do with the information.

Partnering2 ch5

4/3/04

11:58 AM

Page 99

SELF-DISCLOSURE AND FEEDBACK

There are two different methods for transmitting feedback: nonverbal and verbal. Nonverbal communication delivers about 80 percent of your message. Nonverbal cues—facial expression, body language, tone of voice, gestures, and so on—carry more weight, in fact, than your words. Most of us trust the nonverbal. We tend to believe what we see, not what we hear. When we decipher nonverbal communication, we tend to focus on three elements: the body, the voice, and our relationship with the speaker. The way you use your body sends a message to the listener. What kind of message would you be sending if you told someone you care about him or her—but with a smirk on your face? If you were talking to someone and jabbed a finger into his or her shoulder, how would he or she receive your message? Eye contact delivers another powerful nonverbal message. In Western society, if we don’t look someone in the eye while talking to him or her, we may be transmitting a message of dishonesty or shame. Yet another nonverbal message is conveyed by the way you position yourself physically in relation to the person. If you’re standing over a seated person, how do you think the person feels? If you are a male seated at the head of the table, what kind of message do you think you are sending to the others at the table? The second kind of feedback, verbal feedback, is what we actually say, either in person or in writing. How we provide verbal feedback may interfere with the message we want to deliver. Here are some tips to help you provide clear, concise, and effective feedback. • Examine the reason why you are providing the feedback. Be sure that your intention is to help the other person, not to hurt him or to get even. • Think about whether the person is ready to hear the feedback. If she is emotional or upset, will she really hear what you’re saying? • Offer the feedback as soon as you see behavior that troubles you. Immediate feedback is the most effective. • Describe the behavior rather than evaluate it. For example: “Debbie, I just saw you roll your eyes when I told you I have a meeting. Don’t you believe me?” is more effective than, “You don’t believe me, do you?”

99

Partnering2 ch5

100

4/3/04

11:58 AM

Page 100

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

• Be specific. Avoid the words always and never. People are complex beings and rarely engage in perfectly consistent behavior. • Ask for permission to give feedback. Information is received more effectively when it’s requested rather than imposed. • Offer the feedback as a suggestion rather than as an imperative. • Be open to receiving feedback yourself. How did you contribute to the situation? What did the feedback say about your own behavior? • Present one piece of feedback at a time. Too much information can overload the person and cause him to reject all of it. • Observe how the feedback is being received. Does the person accept it as genuine? Or is it something she doesn’t believe? • Don’t offer feedback on behavior that people cannot change. If a person stutters, for example, you needn’t offer feedback on it. • When giving feedback to someone, use specific recent examples. This way, the person will remember the incident and be able to relate to it. Try to provide the feedback using “I” statements. For example, “Neal, you just interrupted me while I was speaking; I get the feeling you’re not listening to me.” Your voice and tone transmit messages, too. When someone is screaming at you, what do you think it means? Anger or urgency? It could mean either. When someone whispers, what does that mean? If you’re listening to someone who is constantly saying “ah,” “um,” or “uh,” what do you think?

Monitor Your Expectations

For most of us, consciously or unconsciously, the reason we give feedback is that we expect something from the other person. We want to see a change in behavior or how he or she is accomplishing a task. We must be careful that when we offer others feedback that we monitor our expectations. How others react to our feedback is up to them, not us, except in specific situations. Therefore, before giving feedback, you might want to consider your motives and expectations for providing the feedback:

Partnering2 ch5

4/3/04

11:58 AM

Page 101

SELF-DISCLOSURE AND FEEDBACK

• Do you want the person to change what she’s doing? • Do you want her to continue what she’s doing? • Do you want her to change a behavior? • Do you want her to continue a behavior? • Is this information she needs to know or information you want her to know? If you’re a supervisor at work and you’re unhappy with a person’s work, you might give him feedback on the quality of his output and expect him to change what he’s doing. However, in a partnership, giving feedback to another doesn’t always mean he is willing to change his behavior or actions. Therefore, how you manage your expectations in giving the feedback can impact how the feedback is received. I try to offer feedback using a tone and style that do not condemn or imply an imperative on my part. I try to offer suggestions and ideas in a tentative way, such as, “Have you ever thought of doing it this way? or, “Have you considered this?” Then, I let go of the feedback and allow the person to determine if the feedback is useful to him. If I expect my partner to adopt my feedback without question, I know I’ll be disappointed. RECEIVING FEEDBACK

There is a skill in receiving feedback. Try to view it as a gift—a present someone is giving you. How you receive the feedback will determine the environment you set up for future feedback. Try to receive it with an open mind. Remember that you have a blind spot, too. That blind spot can be made smaller when feedback is accepted, validated, and appropriately acted on. When you receive feedback, just listen to what the other person has to say. Then thank her for the feedback. She has just given you information. You don’t need to act on it right away. Think about it. Ask yourself: Does this feedback fit me or not? Not all feedback is valid. Remember that feedback also reflects on the person providing it. He could be angry with you or the situation and be misdirecting his anger toward you in the form of feedback. Or he could have misinterpreted what occurred and why. Feedback given to you is in your control. You can decide whether or not you want to act on it.

101

Partnering2 ch5

102

4/3/04

11:58 AM

Page 102

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

Exercise 3. Feedback Observation Checklist Instructions

Pass the checklist out at the start of a partner meeting. Ask people to observe when feedback is given and determine whether the person providing the feedback was using the techniques listed. At the end of each meeting, conduct a team process check and review the checklist. Was the feedback . . .

Yes

No

Comments

1. Given with care? 2. Focused on specific behavior? 3. Given immediately? 4. Delivered in an objective and nonjudgmental manner? 5. Given directly to the person meant to receive it? 6. Phrased with “I” statements? 7. Excessive?

Giving helpful feedback is a skill that requires practice. Rarely do we give feedback perfectly the first time. The Feedback Observation Checklist (Exercise 3) helps people open their Arena by providing them with feedback on how they give feedback. Your ability to self-disclose and to give and receive feedback is an important attribute in creating partnership. The more you can master this ability, the more you will increase your Partnering Intelligence.

Partnering2 ch6

4/3/04

12:01 PM

Page 103

CHAPTER

SIX

Win-Win Orientation From Conflict to Synergy In industries the world over, partnerships falter and crumble. Organizations large and small strive to work together and create something more than they can create alone—only to have the relationships disintegrate. Remember Quaker Oats and Snapple? Novell and WordPerfect? AT&T and NCR? The confusing aftermath of shattered partnerships usually leaves organizations and employees in turmoil trying to figure out what’s next for them. In the process, everyone involved wastes valuable time and resources, not to mention the goodwill of customers, stockholders, suppliers, and employees. There are two dynamics I look at when I conduct an analysis of broken partnerships: opportunities for synergy and the styles of conflict resolution. First, I want to know about the synergistic possibilities that suggested the partnership in the first place. Partners come together for a reason. Generally, it’s the hope of achieving just the right combination of product mix, technology, information, or market access that will differentiate them in the marketplace. They want the gold ring. I try to understand the motivation behind the partnership. What was the vision? Why did these partners come together?

103

Partnering2 ch6

104

4/3/04

12:01 PM

Page 104

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

Businesses Want Synergy

It’s not news that technology and information are increasing at an exponential rate. Many businesses are hard pressed to keep up with the breakneck pace of change. At the same time, people’s expectations of products, services, and even relationships are changing. Consumers are more demanding and sophisticated than ever. They want it all. And if they can’t get satisfaction from one source, they’ll go elsewhere. Businesses and the people running them are struggling to figure out how to meet rising expectations at a time when demands seem to outpace the ability to change. Whether in our personal life or in business, most of us eventually turn to partnership to help us achieve our goals. Aren’t two heads better than one? There’s a word that describes the potentially dynamic force created in a partnership: synergy. The best definition of synergy I’ve heard is in the form of a mathematical equation: 1 + 1 > 2. This is the essence of synergy. It is two (or more) people or organizations working together to do more than one of them can do alone—even after summing up their individual achievements. In nature the concept of synergy is embodied in procreation. One person alone cannot create another human being. Two different people together, however, can create something each could never do separately. The result, a new life, is certainly more than the sum of the parts. Moreover, it is created without taking away from the continued success of each contributor. Understanding synergy and its potential is indispensable in the formation of partnerships. Do you know what the synergies are in your partnerships? Try answering the following questions: • What is the synergistic benefit to you in your partnership? • What is the synergistic benefit to your partner? • Have you mutually agreed to help each other achieve these benefits? • How will you measure your achievement? • How do you tell each other if you’re not getting the benefits of the partnership? • What other opportunities are there to partner within the company? With suppliers? With customers?

Partnering2 ch6

4/3/04

12:01 PM

Page 105

W I N - W I N O R I E N TAT I O N

While it’s important to understand the vision behind the partnership and recognize its synergistic opportunities, synergy can be described as an outcome of the second dynamic: conflict resolution. You cannot have synergy unless you know how to manage conflict in a collaborative, win-win manner. HARNESSING THE ENERGY OF CONFLICT

Partnerships enable organizations to achieve their vision, and most of the time they look great on paper. But all too often the cultures clash, conflict reigns, and, in the end, everyone loses. While conflict can appear at any stage of the Partnership Continuum, it is especially common during the Storm Stage of Relationship Development, when conflict erupts and must be resolved. If organizations have a past orientation and view the conflict competitively, then losers and winners are created. This dooms any hope of synergy moving the partnership into the creative zone. However attractive a partner may appear, making the partnership work takes time and effort. Companies do not have many problems becoming partners, but they often run into trouble managing their partnerships. I’ve been on the inside with some of the largest conglomerates in America before, during, and after celebrated mergers and takeovers, and I’ve witnessed both success and bloody dissolution. The human factor is the most powerful variable in the fate of a partnership. How the people who make up these organizations build relationships and accomplish critical tasks invariably determines the outcome of the partnership. When companies merge, it shakes up the systems of both companies, challenging the old, established paradigms and pouring in new information. Sometimes the new reality feels like a deluge, with the water lapping at your chin. To make the transition successfully, you’ll need a high PQ. Did you ever switch to a different school when you were growing up? If you did, you know the anxiety and conflicted feelings people have about developing new partnerships. New partnerships, like new schools, mean new challenges and opportunities, but they also mean conflict. Conflict is a good thing once you learn to harness the energy it creates. Human beings have only so much energy. If we fritter it away

105

Partnering2 ch6

106

4/3/04

12:01 PM

Page 106

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

in unproductive conflicts, there’s less available to solve problems or be creative. But if we’re able to use our energy productively, we can direct it in a way that moves us forward. Conflict presents partners with opportunities to explore the deeply held values they bring to the partnership. It helps them understand each other’s position better and forces them to use their communication and feedback skills. It helps establish trust. Sometimes the biggest challenges, perhaps, are the partnerships we do not initiate. Sometimes we are forced into partnerships because of the work we do and because today’s world is changing so fast. Our bosses, customers, employees, regulators, and even our competitors are changing every day. In the age of instant information, change is the only constant.

U N D E R S TA N D I N G Y O U R C O N F L I C T RESOLUTION STYLE

We all have our own style of managing conflict. Our conflict resolution style is the mechanism that helps us deal with conflict psychologically. Conflict can also influence our behavior in a variety of ways—from rage, anger, and confrontation (fight responses) to denial, avoidance, and retreat (flight responses). We learn these strategies at a very early age—between birth and three or four years old. They become our primary or inherent styles of conflict resolution. The four inherent styles are evader, harmonizer, compromiser, and fighter; each is some form of fight-or-flight response. We create elaborate strategies to cope with conflict in order to maintain control of our situations and get what we want. The challenge is managing conflict in a way that allows each person involved to walk away feeling like a winner. To do this, we must understand the strategies for managing conflict, including the most important strategy, a Win-Win Orientation. Assessing Your Win-Win Orientation

The first step to a Win-Win Orientation is to understand your personal approach to problem solving and conflict resolution. The Win-

Partnering2 ch6

4/3/04

12:01 PM

Page 107

W I N - W I N O R I E N TAT I O N

Win Orientation Assessment (Assessment 4) will help you to determine your current style and provide a basis for increasing your skill at reaching win-win outcomes.

Assessment 4 Win-Win Orientation

The Win-Win Orientation Assessment is not a test with right or wrong answers. It is a way to get an accurate portrayal of your strengths and weaknesses in working toward win-win outcomes. It is designed to help you increase your skill in this important partnering attribute. The Win-Win Orientation Assessment is descriptive, not evaluative. It describes your beliefs, attitudes, and orientation toward achieving winwin outcomes. The instrument itself is not meant to evaluate those beliefs, attitudes, or orientation. Rather, it provides you with a profile that you can use in current or future relationships to enhance your effectiveness. Instructions

1. Use the following scale to score each statement: 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Somewhat Disagree 4 = Somewhat Agree 5 = Agree 6 = Strongly Agree 2. Enter your score in the shaded box to the right of each statement. 3. Pick a context from which to respond to the assessment, either your work life or home life. Think about how you would typically react in the situation described in the statement. Do not contemplate a statement too long. Your initial response is likely to be the most accurate one.

107

Partnering2 ch6

108

4/3/04

12:01 PM

Page 108

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

Assessment 4 Win-Win Orientation continued 1 = Strongly Disagree

2 = Disagree

3 = Somewhat Disagree

4 = Somewhat Agree

1. I don’t give up until the other person agrees with me. 2. I’d rather fix half the problem than make no progress at all. 3. I try to make everyone around me happy. 4. I cooperate with others to help them achieve their goals. 5. When others are having problems, I mind my own business. 6. I move others to the middle ground. 7. I can adjust to any situation and feel good. 8. When I know I’m right about a problem, I work hard to convince others to see it my way. 9. I give in to others to keep the peace. 10. When fixing a problem, it’s important that people get what they want. 11. In problem solving, I will generally “go with the flow” to make things easy. 12. I try to reach consensus on issues between people. 13. I get nervous when confronting problems. 14. Conflict is good because it separates the winners from the losers. 15. I feel good when we’ve reached a compromise. 16. It is important to me to avoid arguments. 17. When there is a problem, I want to fix it my way. 18. Giving in to another’s solution is all right as long as some of my needs are met. 19. It is important to make people comfortable, so I oblige when solving problems. 20. I am uncomfortable when people argue over the issues. Subtotal

5 = Agree

6 = Strongly Agree

A

C

B

D

E

Partnering2 ch6

4/3/04

12:01 PM

Page 109

W I N - W I N O R I E N TAT I O N

Assessment 4 Win-Win Orientation continued 1 = Strongly Disagree

2 = Disagree

3 = Somewhat Disagree

4 = Somewhat Agree

5 = Agree

A

21. When solving a problem, I am not satisfied until everyone involved agrees with the solution. 22. I know what I want and I pursue it. 23. Other people’s feelings are important to me. 24. I will give up something to move ahead. 25. I avoid conflict if I can. 26. When I am responsible for a problem, I want control over how to fix it. 27. I talk about problems and ask for others’ thoughts. 28. I feel best when everyone wins. 29. I believe it’s better to give up something than to lose everything. 30. I feel harmony is more important than meeting my needs. 31. If there is a problem, I tend to look the other way. 32. Even if a problem is important to me, I pride myself on adapting to any solution. 33. I am concerned about what others need. 34. I seek to find a solution even if it means making concessions. 35. I will not talk about an issue if I think it will create a problem. 36. I will push to get my way if I think I am right. 37. I think it is important to give up something if it keeps the peace. 38. When people are arguing over how to solve a problem, I stay out of it. 39. I get upset when I lose on an issue. 40. I think it is important to discuss the issues and identify needs with everyone before solving the problem. Subtotal

B

6 = Strongly Agree

C

D

E

109

Partnering2 ch6

110

4/3/04

12:01 PM

Page 110

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

Scoring the Assessment Subtotal your scores at the bottom of each column on pages 108 and 109 by adding up the numbers in the shaded boxes. Next, combine the subtotals on the score sheet below and transfer the total scores to the Win-Win Orientation Assessment Grid on the following page.

Column A:

Subtotal (page 108) _______ Subtotal (page 109) _______ Total Score

Column B:

_______

Subtotal (page 108) _______ Subtotal (page 109) _______ Total Score

Column C:

_______

Subtotal (page 108) _______ Subtotal (page 109) _______ Total Score

Column D:

_______

Subtotal (page 108) _______ Subtotal (page 109) _______ Total Score

Column E:

_______

Subtotal (page 108) _______ Subtotal (page 109) _______ Total Score

_______

Note: The Win-Win Orientation Assessment was adapted from Stephen M. Dent and Sandra M. Naiman, The Partnering Intelligence Fieldbook (Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing, 2002), chap. 3.

Partnering2 ch6

4/3/04

12:01 PM

Page 111

W I N - W I N O R I E N TAT I O N

Win-Win Orientation Assessment Grid

High

48 44 40 36

Medium

32 28 24 20

Low

16 12 8

(Score)

(Score)

(Score)

(Score)

(Score)

A. Evader

B. Harmonizer

C. Compromiser

D. Fighter

E. Negotiator

Plot your individual scores on the appropriate vertical line. Continue until all five columns have been graphed. Then, connect the points with a line. Interpreting the Results

Note that each column is labeled with an indicator of conflict resolution style, to be discussed in detail on the following pages. For now, simply note your conflict resolution style preferences based on the following scoring key: • High (34–48 points) indicates a strong preference for that style, which is one you probably use frequently • Medium (22–33 points) indicates an occasional preference for that style, which you probably use in a specific type of situation • Low (8–21 points) represents a style that you rarely, if ever, use— one that you probably resort to only under extreme circumstances

111

Partnering2 ch6

12:01 PM

Page 112

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ HIGH

Fighter

My Needs Are Met

112

4/3/04

Negotiator

Compromiser

Harmonizer

Evader

LOW

Your Needs Are Met

HIGH

Figure 13 Problem-Solving and Conflict Resolution Model

It is important that you understand your preferred styles and your partners’ preferred styles in solving problems and resolving conflicts. This awareness provides a base for discussion and sets the stage for moving toward a Win-Win Orientation. CONFLICT STYLE DESCRIPTIONS

It is important to remember that there are neither right nor wrong styles. While we want to move toward the Negotiator style, depending on the conflict situation, each style has its advantages and disadvantages. Figure 13 shows whose needs get met based on the style used. The Evader

Style description: Evaders avoid facing problems. They would rather not be forced into a situation where they feel uncomfortable or under stress. Evaders do not have a high desire to get their needs meet. They would rather sacrifice their own needs than confront issues that may be difficult or stressful to resolve.

Partnering2 ch6

4/3/04

12:01 PM

Page 113

W I N - W I N O R I E N TAT I O N

Key word descriptors: shun, stay away from, refrain from, abstain from, circumvent, ward off, flee from, shrink from, elude, recoil from, let alone, yield to, submit to, be passive Style outcome: lose-lose The Harmonizer

Style description: Harmonizers value peace at any cost, and they are willing to sacrifice their needs and those of others toward that end. They will quickly give in to others the moment they feel that to do otherwise might “cause a problem.” Also, they will help their partners get their needs met at the expense of their own. People often describe harmonizers as “easy to get along with” or “generous and flexible.” Key word descriptors: accommodate, adapt to, adjust to, acclimate to, get used to, oblige, make comfortable, please, gratify, indulge Outcome: lose-win The Compromiser

Style description: Compromisers will assert their needs up to a point. As the obstacles mount, however, they are willing to give up something important to meet partners halfway—and they expect partners to do the same. Rather than work through issues, compromisers look at what each party is willing to give up in order to “meet in the middle.” Key word descriptors: mutual concessions, conciliation, giving up, intermediate position, halfway Outcome: lose-lose The Fighter

Style description: Fighters turn every problem or conflict into a contest that they must win. They assert their needs and intend to meet them at the expense of anyone else involved. For them, the issue is to win.

113

Partnering2 ch6

114

4/3/04

12:01 PM

Page 114

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

Key word descriptors: adversary, antagonist, contestant, battle, fight, rival, contender, combatant, challenger, competitor Outcome: win-lose The Negotiator

Style description: Negotiators approach problems and conflicts by identifying the issues and underlying needs that are important to those involved. They then begin searching for solutions that meet those needs while solving the problem. They continue to seek more information about the problem while keeping the lines of communication open. By continually seeking more information, they discover more options to address the problem until everyone involved feels their needs have been addressed. Key word descriptors: collaborate, disclose, ask for feedback, team up with, work jointly, seek mutual benefits, question, understand Outcome: win-win All partnerships are based on satisfying needs. Conflict resolution and problem solving are also based on satisfying needs. When you stop to analyze what you are doing during group problem solving, it comes down to figuring out the best way to resolve an issue. Everyone has some idea of what they think is the best way to solve the problem. They bring with them their perspective, education, and years of experience and are often convinced they have the best solution. Some, however, harmonize in problem solving, while others move immediately to compromise. Conflict resolution dynamics come into play when people believe they have “a better way” to solve a problem. Take Eric, for example, who always felt his solutions for fixing problems were superior to everyone else’s. He would take the “fighter” approach to problem solving, always trying to prove that his solutions were better. He’d back his recommendations up with data, anecdotal evidence, and other forms of supportive information. After a while people started to avoid asking Eric to join their problem-solving teams. No one else got to contribute to the solution because Eric would turn every potential solution into a game of “prove it to me” or “it won’t work because.…” Have you ever dealt with a problem solver like Eric?

Partnering2 ch6

4/3/04

12:01 PM

Page 115

W I N - W I N O R I E N TAT I O N

Getting to a win-win outcome through negotiation, whether working on a task problem or an interpersonal conflict, is the only way to resolve conflicts that create winners not losers in your partnership. The trouble with the four inherent strategies—evading, harmonizing, compromising, and fighting—is that they don’t permanently resolve conflict. At best, they merely delay the conflict for another day. At worst, they create bitter animosity between people— even family members—that can last a lifetime.

A PROCESS FOR DEALING WITH CONFLICT

Unless a conflict is resolved using a win-win strategy, the aftermath only sets up the conditions for the next conflict. A model based on the work of Alan C. Filley explains how anything but a win-win outcome only sets up the antecedent condition for the next conflict (see Figure 14). Phase 1: Antecedent Condition

A source of conflict exists. Some common sources for problems within partnerships include the following: • Ambiguous jurisdiction. When boundaries are unclear, each party may stray into an area the other feels is reserved for her, causing a territorial dispute. • Conflict of interest. Sometimes one’s interest is in direct conflict with the other’s interest—for instance, both want the same piece of land. • Communication barrier. One is unable to communicate openly with the other. The source could be a language barrier (one speaks English, the other Spanish) or an organizational barrier (one is prevented from talking to the vice president of a company). • Dependence of one party. One is dependent on the other to get his needs fulfilled. These needs can include information, resources, or support. Conflicts may increase if the other person withholds support or determines what it is that the first one needs. The greater the dependence of one partner on the other, the greater the potential for conflict.

115

Partnering2 ch6

116

4/3/04

12:01 PM

Page 116

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

Antecedent condition

Perceived conflict

Felt conflict

Manifest behavior

Conflict resolution

Aftermath

Win-win outcome?

no

yes End conflict

Figure 14 The Conflict Resolution Process Source: Adapted with permission from Alan C. Filley, Interpersonal Conflict Resolution (Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1975).

• Departmentalization within the organization. The greater the number of levels or departments in an organization, the greater the chance parties will be unable to resolve a conflict with the source. This is especially true if the problem exists at lower levels and people at the top make the decisions. When Marketing makes decisions for Production—for example, committing to a certain delivery date—they may miscalculate the costs of inventory or labor, the availability of resources, and other essential factors. • Association of parties. The people most distant from those who make decisions may understand the decision the least well.

Partnering2 ch6

4/3/04

12:01 PM

Page 117

W I N - W I N O R I E N TAT I O N

People outside the loop may fail to appreciate the issues involved in a particular conflict. They may discount the importance of a decision someone else sees as critical. A manager may not disagree with another manager about a decision, for example, but a line employee may. • Need for consensus. Consensus requires all parties to agree on a resolution. When consensus is achieved, conflicts are resolved using a win-win strategy—thus preempting future conflicts. • Behavior regulations. The greater the number of regulations on behavior, the greater the number of potential conflicts. Conflicts result when people make rules for others without consulting them. • Unresolved prior conflicts. Unresolved conflicts will always resurface—even if the new conflict seems to involve a different issue. Phase 2: Perceived/Felt Conflict

Once a conflict is in motion, people perceive something is wrong. Perception and feeling reinforce each other. Perception occurs in our mind and is a cognitive process. Maybe we think we notice a difference in someone’s behavior toward us or in their tone of voice. Perhaps we perceive that a person is starting to avoid us because he or she doesn’t return our telephone calls. This perception generates a feeling that alerts us that we may be in a conflict situation. The reverse can also happen. Sometimes we may feel that something is not quite right and then begin to think we notice changes in a person’s behavior toward us. The gut (our feelings) reinforces what the mind (our perception) is telling us. Once we align our perception and our feelings, we achieve homeostasis—internal balance—and are convinced a conflict is occurring. And once we are convinced conflict exists (whether it does or not), we set in motion a complex set of dynamics. These dynamics manifest through verbal and nonverbal behavior that alerts the other to the conflict. Frequently the other party is already aware of it, having sensed a subtle change in behavior toward him or her. What we do then reinforces the other’s perception of conflict or feeling of conflict.

117

Partnering2 ch6

118

4/3/04

12:01 PM

Page 118

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

I once witnessed a conflict between two employees, Carole and Tom, over how to design a workshop. Carol was the director of a communication company’s organizational effectiveness group. Tom was a course designer. Carole and Tom had a difference of opinion on how to structure a workshop on internal partnerships. Although Carole eventually gave in to Tom’s design, she confided to me she was uncomfortable with the way Tom had set up the breakout groups. She thought the two groups should meet separately, before the joint meeting, to discuss their needs privately. Tom wanted to bring the two groups together on the first day and mutually explore their needs. A day or two after Carole told me about the disagreement, Tom told me his perception. He thought Carole was avoiding him and failing to make eye contact with him when they talked. Several days later, Tom told me he was getting a feeling that Carole was sabotaging the workshop. This feeling was reinforced, he said, when Carole mentioned she didn’t care for the way he had designed the breakout groups. He said he had noticed Carole leaving a meeting with the organization’s vice president (a meeting to which he hadn’t been invited). He’d also heard a rumor that the workshops were to be canceled. When he confronted Carole about his perception, he felt there was a conflict between them. She immediately told Tom he wasn’t listening to her comments on the workshop design. She said she felt ignored. Tom apologized and asked her if they could talk about the design and take another look at the breakout groups. After talking, they agreed to change the design of the workshop. Tom began to see the value of having each partner work independently of the other and then bringing their needs together. The workshop was a huge success, and Carole and Tom won a major award for their design. Ultimately they collaborated on the workshop design instead of fighting over it—and they both came out winners. Phase 3: Manifest Behavior

After you’ve perceived and felt a conflict, it begins to influence your behavior toward others. Carole avoided Tom and wouldn’t look him in the eye. Without consciously choosing a strategy to manage conflict, they probably would have reverted to their primary strategy for coping with conflict. People always revert to some form of fight or flight response during the immediate aftermath of the conflict event.

Partnering2 ch6

4/3/04

12:01 PM

Page 119

W I N - W I N O R I E N TAT I O N

Unless we consciously opt for collaboration, we end up with temporary solutions that are not win-win. Phase 4: Conflict Resolution

Once you’ve acknowledged a conflict, you need to decide how to resolve it. You can allow it to follow its natural course and use your inherent strategy without thinking. Or you can choose to resolve the conflict through collaboration in order to achieve a better and more permanent resolution. Using a collaborative strategy means you invite the other along to resolve the conflict in a way that will create mutual satisfaction. Phase 5: Aftermath

How you choose to resolve the conflict will determine the aftermath. If you’ve chosen any strategy other than collaboration, you have, in effect, set up the situation for the next conflict. And the “winner” of the original conflict is often the party that is blindsided later. Because they “won,” they haven’t a clue how the losers are feeling. Losers don’t forget—they get even; and the cycle continues. But when conflict is resolved using a win-win strategy, there are no losers, and, consequently, the conflict is settled. A collaborative resolution precludes more conflict based on past grievances. CO N F L I C T : T H E DY N A M O F O R SY N E R GY

In the example of Carole and Tom, the conflict created energy, and they used that energy to create something better than they had at the start. They did so by creating a situation in which both of them won. Successful businesses know how to create win-win situations, too, whether they involve employees, departments, suppliers, or their customers. With the rapidly accelerating pace of change, companies that can transform conflicts into win-win situations will have an invaluable competitive edge. And organizations with a high PQ will have this skill.

119

Partnering2 ch6

4/3/04

12:01 PM

Page 120

Partnering2 ch7

4/3/04

10:58 AM

Page 121

CHAPTER

SEVEN

Ability to Trust Creating Trust in Your Partnership Trust, as Steele Alphin stated in the foreword, “is perhaps the most unsung core competency in business today.” And of all the dynamics involved in partnering, I believe it is the single most important. Trust is the product of all that you and your partner do together. It cannot exist without interaction. It isn’t something you can bestow on another; it isn’t a commodity that you can transfer. Trust is created when expectations are satisfied. It is destroyed when partners experience disappointment with one another.

MAKING TRUST POSSIBLE

Three criteria make trust possible: telling the truth, taking the time to develop a relationship and explore each other’s needs and expectations, and being personally accountable for doing what you promise. Telling the Truth

Most of us in business don’t intend to lie to our partners. But we sometimes avoid telling the whole story to be polite or perhaps to hide something unflattering to ourselves. Telling the truth means facing up to reality. Don’t put a spin on matters of importance. Don’t 121

Partnering2 ch7

122

4/3/04

10:58 AM

Page 122

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

exaggerate what you’re willing to do or contribute. The Assess Stage of Partnership Development cannot succeed without this kind of healthy self-view. You need to be strong enough to admit mistakes, acknowledge weaknesses, and ask for help. The more truth you both can share, the more trust you’ll develop. A recent experience illustrates how trust is a keystone in building alliances. I have worked with NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center to help them build a partnering culture. The center’s director, Al Diaz, clearly understands and articulates the importance of partnering to the success of the organization’s mission. In reality, the NASA organization is more like a loose confederation of ten agencies than a single corporation. Each of the agencies has a specific mission in the exploration of space; however, as is the case with most corporations, many of these missions overlap. When Congress appropriates money for a mission, NASA agencies compete—with each other, with other space research facilities, and with the external aerospace industry—for pieces of the work. Sometimes an agency is specifically suited for an assignment; but more often than not, several different agencies could qualify to achieve the project objective. While politics play a role in who ends up with the mission, generally assignments are based on the competency and area of expertise needed to achieve the mission. Congress appropriated funding for a fifteen-year study of space between the earth and the sun. This project included launching probes to study the sun’s ecology along with near-earth satellites monitoring the impact of the sun’s activity on the earth’s environment. The combined activities will help scientists understand the sun’s effects on life on earth. To accomplish this objective, Mr. Diaz wanted to work with Johns Hopkins University’s Applied Physics Laboratory (APL). While geographically close to each other, these two organizations often saw each other as competitors rather than collaborators, vying for many of the same mission projects. Recognizing the finite amount of resources available, Mr. Diaz knew the best way to secure the funding was with a partner and to work collaboratively with others that could benefit the mission. Mr. Richard Roca, the director of APL, also values the

Partnering2 ch7

4/3/04

10:58 AM

Page 123

AB I LIT Y TO TR U ST

importance of collaboration, citing the complexities of space projects and the importance of being able to share resources and information. Historically, since each organization institutionally saw the other as a competitor, it was important that the leaders develop the kind of working relationship that would enable them to work closely on this project. To accomplish this, they met and formed a strategic framework for the partnership. During the period they worked with me, I saw them take concrete steps toward building a trusting relationship. For example, they agreed they would provide tours of each other’s campuses, streamline access for each other’s scientists to enter the other’s facilities, and share their strategic plans. These kinds of steps opened communication pathways between the two organizations and started the process of building trust. While trust is critical in partnerships between external organizations, being able to build trust within organizations is paramount to success. “Open book” management—an innovative style being used at many successful organizations—relies on the free flow of information up and down the corporate hierarchy to encourage creative solutions to problems and generate new ideas for reducing costs and expanding the business. The idea that employees have an equity interest in the company means they have a right to know about every aspect of the business—from financial information to strategic marketing initiatives. At Springfield Remanufacturing, one of the businesses currently using open book management, employees have an equity investment—and this style of operating is consistent with the owners’ interests. If company owners share their profit motive with workers, then they’ll profit, too. Jack Stack, the company founder, believes so strongly in partnering with all workers that he’s instituted bonus plans, contests, and ongoing incentives for everyone’s positive contributions to the company’s bottom line. Sharing what were once “company secrets” with all members of the company, as appropriate, is one way for leadership to tell the truth. Springfield Remanufacturing is dispelling the myth that employees “can’t handle the truth.”

123

Partnering2 ch7

124

4/3/04

10:58 AM

Page 124

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

TA K I N G T H E T I M E T O D E V E L O P A R E L AT I O N S H I P

No matter how many times I say that relationship building takes time, I continue to encounter the client who wants to skip this step and “get on with the task.” I have to reply: “This is the task.” The greater the trust level a partnership has created, the less need there is for maintenance. Relationships that are characterized by high intimacy but require little maintenance are usually long-term relationships. Some people I care about very much I hardly see, maybe once every four or five years. Yet when we are reunited, we carry on as if we’ve never been apart. It doesn’t matter what we’ve done, where we’ve been, or what’s happened in the intervening years. We immediately revert to our old trust level. Trust is the result of the time we spend building it; it can’t be wished on a relationship. Conflict resolution is an excellent exercise for building trust. It is through working out our differences—by helping each other create win-win solutions—that we get to know and respect each other’s needs. We build goodwill by hanging in there and solving interpersonal and task-related problems. Relationships that haven’t experienced conflict haven’t had the opportunity to grow stronger through the investigation of each other’s needs and expectations. They haven’t been given the chance to demonstrate mutual support and follow through on the resolution of a problem. These are human interactions that create mutual benefits and trusting relationships. They are not transactions to be bought and sold on a whim.

B E I N G P E R S O N A L LY A C C O U N TA B L E

The accountability factor in building trust relates to your own actions. You can’t control what someone else does, but you can control what you do. If you’re sensing uneasiness or an awkward feeling

Partnering2 ch7

4/3/04

10:58 AM

Page 125

AB I LIT Y TO TR U ST

with a partner, ask yourself: “What can I do?” You can move along the Partnership Continuum by attending to your own accountability. The law of reciprocity—others tend to give back what they have been given—works in building trusting relationships. One of my friends signs his e-mail with this slogan: “No act of kindness is ever wasted.” In everything we do, intention is important—especially if that intention is “other directed.” Trust is an outcome of our inputs. Even the smallest gesture intended to be giving, respectful, supportive, encouraging, or sympathetic adds value to a relationship. Building trust should be an intentional activity. And since the development of trust is such an essential aspect of successful partnerships, organizations should support its development. This takes planning. When we are intending to enter a partnership, we must engineer our performance so that we’ll do what it takes to increase trust. When we care enough to plan, follow through, evaluate, and redirect our energies if necessary, we’re using our Partnering Intelligence.

BUILDING TRUST

Trust is the key to your ability to move into the creative zone of true synergy. In the creative zone, people and organizations achieve their highest potential. The best partnerships move toward this outcome. If you can honestly say that you and your partner trust one another, then you only need to build on that trust. But suppose you want to develop a partnership with someone in whom you have little trust. You can make it work by understanding how to build trust and then taking the risks necessary to do so. This of course involves discussing the matter with your partner. It takes a two-pronged approach to discuss trust with a partner. First, you need to make a realistic assessment of your own ability to trust. Then you can turn to the trust level of your partner. You can start by assessing yourself first with the Personal Trust Assessment (Assessment 5).

125

Partnering2 ch7

126

4/3/04

10:58 AM

Page 126

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

Assessment 5 Personal Trust Instructions

Rate each statement by circling one of the numbers to the right of it (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Personal Trust Statements

(1) Strongly Disagree

(5) Strongly Agree

Circle One

1. In general, I am a trusting person.

1

2

3

4

5

2. I trust myself to get the job done if that’s what I’ve promised to do.

1

2

3

4

5

3. I feel my trust level with my partner right now is very strong.

1

2

3

4

5

4. I am less concerned about my past dealings with my partner than about what we will do from now on.

1

2

3

4

5

5. I feel confident demanding accountability from my partner.

1

2

3

4

5

Scoring the Assessment

Total the numbers you circled in the assessment to obtain your score. Interpreting the Results

Understanding ourselves enhances our insights into our relationships. If you scored less than fifteen points on the assessment, think about it and talk about it. If your lack of trust involves what your partner did, discuss your concerns with your partner. Return to statement 3 and be specific: In terms of trust, exactly how does your partner’s behavior make you feel? Stick to behavior itself rather than what you think motivated it. Above all, avoid making assumptions about honesty, integrity, or ethical judgment.

Partnering2 ch7

4/3/04

10:58 AM

Page 127

AB I LIT Y TO TR U ST

FIVE KEY INGREDIENTS FOR BUILDING TRUST

Think about building trust as a process—like baking a cake. The better the ingredients (inputs), the better the cake (output). Following are five key ingredients (inputs) that will help you create trust (output) in your partnerships. 1. Be open, honest, and direct. Examine your own level of trust—both in general and specifically toward your partner. Are you a trusting person? If not, can you say that to your partner openly and objectively? Tell him the impact his actions had on you. The more straightforward you are, the more therapeutic it will be for both you and your partner. Though this may be an uncomfortable exercise, it will help take your partnership to a higher trust level. 2. Focus on your behavior. Most people watch our actions much more closely than our words. What do you want to project in your actions? You can engender a trustful response if you follow through on your promises. You can gain your partner’s respect if you are respectful in how you treat her. If you’re issuing a written statement regarding the partnership, for instance, be sure to show it to your partner in advance. Ask your partner to help you write it. Before you speak, ask yourself whether your words will build trust in the partnership or destroy it. You will know the answer. 3. Focus on your feelings. When communicating in the partnership, you need to be aware of what is going on inside you. Are your suspicious feelings the result of what is happening now? Or is outdated information triggering your uneasiness? Is it what the other person is saying or doing that bothers you? Or are you basing your judgments on a negative experience in your past? 4. Talk it out with others. If a topic is emotional for you, talk it out. By talking with others, you can learn about other perspectives that may be more objective than yours. Perhaps a new perspective can help you resolve the issue. Try to find someone who will listen to you without judging and help you focus on

127

Partnering2 ch7

128

4/3/04

10:58 AM

Page 128

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

the real issue rather than the emotion. Once the issue is identified, try using a problem-solving approach directly with the other person. This task has the best chance of resolving most issues and creating win-win solutions. Just a caution: Beware of “triangulating”—that is, using someone else to mediate for you. This leads to miscommunication and merely complicates issues. Never choose an indirect way of confronting—approach the person yourself. By the time the partnership has broken down to the point of seeking thirdparty mediation, the level of trust has dissolved significantly. Mediators are useful when the relationship has to stay together—for instance, the relationship between a union and a company. In partnerships, however, the use of a third-party mediator is the equivalent of divorce court. Asking a friend to help you reach a decision, however, is very different from involving a third party in the partnership. It never hurts to bounce ideas off someone else to check for validity. But don’t ask that person to speak for you. And refrain from criticizing your partner. It can only undermine the partnership. 5. Stop the action. If you’re feeling uncomfortable during a meeting, stop the music and tell your partner how you’re feeling. You can address what’s bothering you, and then you can focus on the task once more. Feeling uncomfortable with how the partnership is proceeding is probably a relationship issue. Discomfort and weak communication skills go hand in hand. Work on better communication and the whole partnership will improve. Remember that a future orientation can foster trust; a past orientation can destroy it. See Table 3 for a broader range of orientation impacts. A S S E S S I N G T R U S T W I T H I N T H E PA R T N E R S H I P

As you begin to think about trust within your partnership itself and to talk about it with your partner, you may want to ask yourself: • What am I currently doing to build or destroy trust in the partnership?

Partnering2 ch7

4/3/04

10:58 AM

Page 129

AB I LIT Y TO TR U ST

Table 3

Impacts of Past/Future Orientation on Trust Past Orientation (–)

Future Orientation (+)

Reliance on past history for decision making removes the possibility for change and destroys trust.

Reliance on mutual vision and strategic planning for decision making increases trust by allowing partners to jointly create the vision and strategy, set goals and objectives, and measure their progress. (Future Orientation)

Independent behavior destroys trust because spontaneous actions occur without communication and feedback between partners, thereby increasing suspicion.

Interdependent behavior increases trust by creating mutual needs. When people work together to satisfy their mutual needs, they generate trust. (Comfort with Interdependence)

Maintaining the status quo reduces trust. Change is a natural consequence of new partnerships; if one of the partners cannot accommodate that change, trust is destroyed.

Seeking creativity and mutual benefits by embracing change creates trust. When people benefit by the outcome, trust is enhanced. When people have the opportunity to participate in the change process, trust increases. (Comfort with Change)

Win-lose conflict resolution and problem solving destroys trust. Partners on the losing end will feel their concerns are not valued in the partnership.

Win-win conflict resolution and problem solving instills trust. Partners see their concerns being acted on in a positive manner. (Win-Win Orientation)

High need for control destroys trust. When people insist on controlling a situation, they do not seek input from others. Partners who are out of the information loop will have low trust.

Low need for control builds trust. With a low need for control, partners ask freely for input. When they are solicited for their ideas and see them put into practice, their trust increases. (Ability to Trust)

Closed systems destroy trust. When people feel others are hiding the truth, the result is mistrust.

Open systems create trust by allowing free access to information. With the necessary data, people can make their own decisions. (Self-Disclosure and Feedback)

129

Partnering2 ch7

130

4/3/04

10:58 AM

Page 130

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

• What did my partner do today to build or destroy trust between us? • Did I have to hide something from my partner today? • How did I communicate trust to my partner? • What can I do to increase the level of trust in our partnership? • What can my partner do? Then you and your partner can use the Partners’ Trust Assessment (Assessment 6) to determine the level of trust. You and your partner should fill out the assessment separately and then discuss your responses.

Assessment 6 Partners’ Trust Instructions

Rate each statement by circling one of the numbers to the right of it (1 = never; 5 = always). Partners’ Trust Statements

Never Sometimes Often Frequently Always Circle One

1. I feel a high level of trust in this partnership.

1

2

3

4

5

2. There is a high level of trust between the members of this partnership.

1

2

3

4

5

3. I believe the partnership helps me meet my needs.

1

2

3

4

5

4. I believe I help my partner meet his or her needs.

1

2

3

4

5

5. It’s easy for me to express my needs to my partner.

1

2

3

4

5

Scoring the Assessment

Total the numbers you circled in the assessment to obtain your score.

Partnering2 ch7

4/3/04

10:58 AM

Page 131

AB I LIT Y TO TR U ST

Interpreting the Results

After both you and your partner have completed the questionnaire, review and discuss your results. Be as open, honest, and direct as you can. The more straightforward you are, the more trust you will build in your partnership. You may want to focus on any statement on which you scored 3 or less. You may want to discuss some questions as a way to debrief the activity. • What surprised you about the responses? • What did you like about the responses? • What did you dislike? • What do you think is the single biggest contributor to trust between partners? • What do you think is the single biggest destroyer of trust? • What have you done recently to build trust in your partnership? • What have you done recently to destroy trust? • If you had one single trust issue to work on, what would it be? • Do you want to create an action plan to improve this situation? T H E T E N C AT E G O R I E S O F T R U S T I N A PA R T N E R S H I P

Trust becomes an integral part of both task and relationship elements in the Partnership Continuum model. Each partner may present you with a different aspect of trust in the relationship. People build or damage trust in two ways: either by doing—or not doing—what they say they’ll do or through supporting or damaging interpersonal relationships. For example, you may trust Chris explicitly to support you at a meeting (relationship), and yet he is always two days late on his status report (task). Meanwhile, Lakeesha is always on time with her status report (task), but she cannot be depended on to support you in the meeting (relationship). The Ten Categories of Trust in a Partnership cover both elements to help you develop your working relationship to understand and diagnose any source of mistrust that might appear.

131

Partnering2 ch7

132

4/3/04

10:58 AM

Page 132

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

C AT E G O R I E S O F T R U S T F O R TA S K E L E M E N T S

While the Ten Categories of Trust can pertain to both task and relationship elements, the following five categories are especially critical to task elements: • Commitment (to keeping agreements) • Competence (in technical skills) • Consistency (in producing results) • Contribution (equitable input) • Collaboration (willingness to cooperate) Commitment

When we work in partnership, it is important that we honor our word and do what we agreed to do. When we do this, we demonstrate in action that we are willing to deliver what we’ve promised. Thus we enable others to feel confident that we will do our part and to concentrate on keeping up their end of the agreement. Failing to do our part undermines the alliance. Rather than working to complete the task, time must be spent to rebuild the trust in the relationship. Over time, the partnership will dissolve because one party or the other will no longer find value in the relationship. Competence

A primary reason partnerships are formed is to help us accomplish a task we do not have the skills to do ourselves. It is important that partners accurately assess their competencies and technical capabilities— both their strengths and weaknesses. When a partner is caught offguard by the other’s failure to deliver what he promised, this has serious repercussions on both the task and relationship elements of the alliance. It undermines the trust in the alliance and, consequently, the relationship. Consistency

Consistency is an important task attribute that contributes to the development of trust. We come to depend on a certain level of pro-

Partnering2 ch7

4/3/04

10:58 AM

Page 133

AB I LIT Y TO TR U ST

duction from our partners and base our expectations on the consistent attainment of that level. When the level begins to waver, we lose confidence in our partners’ ability to deliver, undermining the trust we have in their capability. Consistency is also a relationship issue. We may know, for example, that when bad news is delivered, John always stays calm. However, lately he has “popped his cork” every time he hears of a production snag. We can no longer depend on John’s behavior and tend not to trust him to handle bad news—and perhaps stop bringing it. Contribution

Whether it is capital investment, expertise, or technology or process issues, both partners want to feel that the other is contributing equal value to the alliance. When one partner feels the other is not contributing at the same level he is, conflict may break out when he confronts the other about the lack of contribution, or he may stop contributing to “get even.” Using your Partnering Intelligence is important when addressing the level of contribution. Failure to do this can result in a lack of trust in the partnership. It is important for both partners to understand up front what each partner will contribute during the Explore Stage of Partnership Development. In reality, partners do not usually maintain the same level of contribution. Some partners may contribute in ways that are not recognized and valued by others. These contributions must be discussed in advance and acknowledged by all that they bring value to the alliance—otherwise, resentment and mistrust will surely develop. Collaboration

Collaboration is the ability to create an environment of inclusion through sharing information and working together to achieve a goal with a mutual sense of duty. When we collaborate with each other, we share a responsibility to watch out for each other. When I talk about collaboration, I use a much broader definition than just getting work done, though that is an important component. Collaboration includes the ability to make joint decisions, effective two-way communication, listening, and helping each other get their needs met. It

133

Partnering2 ch7

134

4/3/04

10:58 AM

Page 134

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

also means helping each other achieve relationship goals such as working on building trust or reaching a win-win outcome. When one party tries to collaborate and another party does not, frustration and mistrust often occur.

C AT E G O R I E S O F T R U S T F O R R E L AT I O N S H I P E L E M E N T S

The following five categories are especially critical to relationship elements: • Commitment (to the partnership) • Candor (in communications) • Communication (level and style) • Compassion (for others) • Credibility (in both words and actions) Commitment

Being committed to the partnership is an important relationship element of trust. If I feel committed to helping us achieve our goals and objectives and feel that you are not, then I will not trust your motives or objectives. If I see that you have a high commitment to the partnership, I will have a sense that you are working to achieve our mutual objectives and a high sense of trust in you. When I feel you are committed to the partnership, I trust that you are going to work as hard as I am to ensure that the alliance will succeed. This builds trust in our commitment to the partnership. Candor

Truth is a rather elusive and subjective topic. What is true from one’s perspective may not be true from another’s perspective. I do not hold truth as absolute, but I do know when someone is not being straightforward with me. I would rather have people tell me the hard truth than undermine my trust by making indirect or misleading halftruths. Having an accurate assessment of a person’s knowledge of a situation is a stepping-stone toward building trust.

Partnering2 ch7

4/3/04

10:58 AM

Page 135

AB I LIT Y TO TR U ST

Partnerships work when people have the confidence that what the other is saying is direct, truthful, and above board. While the truth may be subjective, a person’s sincerity in what they believe to be true is not. Jack, for example, runs a very large service company. His building management services are in demand. However, his customers cannot trust him because he avoids direct conversation about issues or problems. In short, he has a problem with candidness. He evades, stumbles, and misrepresents issues, and while he may not out-andout lie, many people doubt his honesty, destroying trust in the relationship. Communication

As we saw in Chapter 5, communication is essential for building trust. The JoHari Window shows how when we self-disclose and offer each other feedback, we increase the level of trust between us. Communication is about sharing information. Some of that information is related to the task. What are we doing, why and how? It’s information our partners need to feel included in the process and to accomplish their tasks. But we must also share information about the relationship: how we are resolving our conflicts, building trust, making decisions, and so forth. Without this type of communication, our relationship may not evolve and develop as we move through the Stages of Relationship Development. Listening is another important communication skill needed to build trust. When we actively listen to our partners, we share complete and accurate information between us. This ensures that no partner feels left out of the communication loop—one of the biggest obstacles to building trust. When we listen to our partners, we gain insights into their needs and what is motivating them to work collaboratively with us. This information enables us to help our partners get their needs met. This is important if we want our partners to feel we are working for them. One final note on communication is that technology has created many platforms for us to communicate with each other. Some of us prefer e-mail while others would rather pick up the phone or have a face-to-face conversation. Be sure to check with your partners and determine their preferred method of communication and try to meet that need as often as you can reasonably do so.

135

Partnering2 ch7

136

4/3/04

10:58 AM

Page 136

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

Compassion

Compassion is the ability to understand and communicate that we recognize each other as fallible human beings. It means that we understand that people make mistakes, sometimes fail, and do not always live up to their potential or to our expectations. Dealing with our strengths and weaknesses as people and doing so with dignity and respect for others are all part of compassion. When we do not judge others and are sensitive to their situations, we build trust with them, opening the door for them to be honest and straightforward with us. Credibility

While candor refers to the accuracy of communication, credibility refers to the intent of the person offering it. A person’s motive for sharing information with you speaks to his credibility. Are his motives self-serving? Is he giving you information to make others look bad? Partners that are not credible limit trust because people must sift through the message to understand the intent. Once partners weaken their credibility, their effectiveness and that of the partnership are severely damaged. Whenever you move from “I” to “we” in a partnership, trust issues emerge. Unless partners can reach a consensus, they’ll find that power plays, egos, conflicting agendas, and other disruptive dynamics can take over even well-intentioned partnerships and spin them into chaos and dysfunction. Trust is absolutely essential for working through these complex human dynamics. Note: For a complete assessment of the Ten Categories of Trust in a partnership, see Dent and Naiman, The Partnering Intelligence Fieldbook, chap. 4.

Partnering2 ch8

4/3/04

11:01 AM

Page 137

CHAPTER

EIGHT

Future Orientation Escaping the Trap of the Past What happens when you open yourself up to future possibilities? This is what the concept of future orientation decision making is all about. Here we explore the ability to recognize—even welcome—the potential, the unexpected, the new. Whether an organization is closed or open to new information is determined by whether it has a past or future orientation. With a past orientation, we communicate and make decisions on the basis of past information and reject or ignore new information. Traits of a past orientation include • Reliance on past history for decision making • Language focused on past events or behavior • Independent relationships • Strong need for control • Need to maintain the status quo • Low trust • Win-lose conflict resolution style Those with a past orientation operate in a closed paradigm—they view the world the way they want it to be. They’re unwilling to challenge their own assumptions and change their beliefs. They make 137

Partnering2 ch8

138

4/3/04

11:01 AM

Page 138

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

decisions based on outdated mental maps. They are speaking and living in the past with old information. Let me illustrate the power of a closed paradigm. I once worked with the director of a regional telephone company to help establish a self-managed group of technicians responsible for telephone service repair in a western state. The managers who reported to the director were initially reluctant to try a self-managed group because they thought their employees were lazy and would take advantage of a selfmanaging environment. But a nine-month trial demonstrated that the self-managed team was more productive and did higher quality work than the traditional work team with a supervisor. In fact, the self-managed team completed a greater number of repair calls and had a lower rate of repeat visits. With these impressive results, I expected the organization to embrace the new method and expand its use. I was wrong. Despite documented evidence of the self-managed team’s success, the managers clung to their old perception. Moreover, their stubbornness proved to be a powerful influence on the director, who dismantled the self-managed team. The data regarding the team’s performance were kept from the rest of the organization simply because the managers refused to update their beliefs or disturb the status quo. They still believed the employees needed supervision or they would not work. When reality contradicted their beliefs, they preferred to suppress the data rather than change their mental maps. M E N TA L M A P S : T H E M A G I C A N D T H E T R A P

To make partnerships work, there must be a shift in orientation from past to future. A past orientation, just like past experience, is helpful to the partnership only to the extent that it can inform us about accomplishing new tasks. When learning something new, you don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. History teaches valuable lessons, and it’s important to remember them. Too often, however, people cling desperately to their experience and fail to move beyond even the Form Stage of Relationship Development. They refuse to give up the old—and yet, they cannot embrace the new. This is because of a very powerful human survival technique known as knowledge transference, or what I call mental maps.

Partnering2 ch8

4/3/04

11:01 AM

Page 139

F U T U R E O R I E N TAT I O N

Here’s how mental maps work. Whenever we engage in a new relationship, the first thing we do is scan our personal data bank—our memory—for what we already know about the other person or group. From our memory we seek out past experiences we’ve had with them or people like them. A mental scan then produces a map that helps us decide how we want to approach this new experience. Thus we base our decision on the recollected memory of what has happened to us in the past. This knowledge transference occurs whenever we transfer an opinion about one type of person or group to another. By using this practical cognitive technique, human beings have learned about life and survived on their own even in new and unfamiliar situations. A primitive example of this knowledge transference is the lesson most of us learned at a very young age about fire. We were told not to touch it because it was hot. Fire hurts! Most of us heeded that advice. Furthermore, if we happened to get burned inadvertently, the accident did something very important for us. It reinforced our knowledge that fire is hot and it will burn and hurt if we touch it. Since we don’t enjoy pain, we created a mental map about fire and avoided touching it. Now, as adults, we make decisions about fire based on our past orientation. Figure 15, the “Mental Map Matrix,” illustrates how we use mental maps. While the human decision-making process includes an incalculable number of variables, this simple model shows how we continue to create new mental maps and reinforce old ones. It starts when something happens to us or we experience a new event (box 1). The first thing we do is instantaneously scan our memory for any similar experiences (box 2). Generally at a subconscious level, we ask, “Have I had an experience like this?” (box 3). In most cases, especially as we get older and have more life experiences behind us, we’ll identify some experience that resembles the current situation. If we do, we then try to remember the outcome: “Was it successful for me?” (box 4). This is an internal value judgment. We make this judgment based on our psychology and personality at that moment in our life. Most likely we judge “success” by whether the outcome got us what we needed. If we judge the previous outcome to have been successful, we’ll duplicate the behavior (box 5) to match our mental map and will

139

Partnering2 ch8

140

4/3/04

11:01 AM

Page 140

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

1

2

New event occurs

Scan memory for like experiences

3

Have I had an experience like this?

7

no

Determine behavior

yes 4 Was the outcome successful?

no

8

9 yes

5

Identify options

Determine behavior

Duplicate the behavior

6 Aftermath reinforces the mental map or creates a new one

Figure 15 Mental Map Matrix

expect a similar outcome. The aftermath of the experience reinforces our mental map (box 6) as the “right” reaction to that experience. If we’ve never had an experience like this before (box 3) we’ll have to determine our behavior for this specific event (box 7). The aftermath of that behavior will then create a new mental map for us (box 6) and store it for future use. If we determine that our last outcome was unsuccessful (box 4), we’ll identify what options we have (box 8), and based on these options we’ll determine a new behavior (box 9). The aftermath of that will then create a new mental map for

Partnering2 ch8

4/3/04

11:01 AM

Page 141

F U T U R E O R I E N TAT I O N

us (box 6) based on the new behavior. The new behavior will be stored in our memory until we need to draw on that experience again. While this process may seem complicated, it works instantaneously in our mind, and we make snap decisions based on our ability to use knowledge transference. In relationships we use a similar dynamic. On a social level, we generalize our knowledge to encompass whole groups of people who may look or act alike, although they may not match our mental map exactly. This is the basis for the concept of stereotyping. Based on our interaction with one or two people who belong to that profession, for example, we may lump all engineers, doctors, or lawyers into the same mental map. Or, because we know how to drive a Ford, we may think we know how to drive a Chevrolet or a Plymouth, too, since driving another car fits our mental map of driving a Ford. Our mental maps don’t always work, however, either with people or with activities. I own a 1952 Studebaker Champion convertible that I drive as much as I can during the brief Minnesota summers. One gloriously warm evening I took some friends out to dinner in the Studebaker. At the restaurant, I asked the valet attendant if he knew how to start the car. What I knew (and suspected he didn’t) was that to start the motor you have to turn on the ignition with the key and then depress the clutch all the way down to engage the starter. The valet was a cocky young man about eighteen years old. Confidently he advised me he had driven all sorts of cars and knew how to start it. “Okay,” I said, and went off to have an enjoyable dinner. Afterward, when I was ready to leave, I gave the ticket to the attendant and waited. I waited long enough for him to fetch my Studebaker from the other side of town. Finally, the young man appeared. “I don’t know what the problem is,” he said. “I keep turning the key, but the car won’t start.” Again I asked him: “Would you like to know how to start the car?” “Sure,” he sheepishly replied. So I explained to him how to start the car, and moments later he drove up to the door, grinning proudly, behind the wheel of my idling automobile. While our mental maps are useful in helping us apply what we already know, they are not so helpful when it comes to learning something new. We may think we know something based on an experience and transfer that knowledge to a new experience—only to discover

141

Partnering2 ch8

142

4/3/04

11:01 AM

Page 142

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

that our mental map is outdated and no longer useful. In a new partnership, we have to be careful how we transfer information based on past history. This is especially challenging, though, since knowledge transference is a common reasoning technique. Here’s the magic of mental maps. A client of mine, the owner of a grocery store chain in the Midwest, wanted to form a partnership with several contractors to rebuild a grocery store in a chic section of town. He needed to keep the store open during the rebuilding process. Much work was done to bring the store managers and contractors together to talk about the customers’ shopping experience during the remodeling. They wanted to figure out how they could partner not only to complete the extensive construction job, but also to keep people coming in during the remodeling. The reconstruction went off without a hitch. Although shopping was more of a challenge during that period, people continued to shop there—and, remarkably, sales dropped only a few percentage points. Considering the amount of work, this was an incredible feat. After the contractors and managers agreed on how they would work together in partnership to complete the job without spoiling the customers’ experience, the managers used the same partnershipbuilding process—the Partnership Continuum—with the store employees. Employees were under particular stress because they were often required to move stock from one side of the store to another and then be able to direct customers to the new location. Since the new location changed almost nightly for more than a month, there was a huge amount of pressure on everyone. Nevertheless, after partnering with the contractors, the store managers were able to transfer the knowledge they learned to the employees. This created a successful situation for everyone: owner, managers, customers, employees, and contractors. The remodeling was successful; customers continued to shop, and the job was completed on time. Now here’s the trap of mental maps: they often include prejudice or bias about something or someone. In an imperfect society, prejudice is part of our programming. You can probably recall a time when you were misunderstood, discounted, or labeled by someone else who had an inaccurate mental map of you. The possibilities of partnership synergy make it worth our while to withhold our prejudices. If we can check ourselves, we have more options. We can avoid the trap and anticipate some magic ahead.

Partnering2 ch8

4/3/04

11:01 AM

Page 143

F U T U R E O R I E N TAT I O N

Most of all, we can look at the glass as being half full, not half empty. We can assume, that is, that others have more to give us than we can supply for ourselves. The good news is this: We can change. We can let go of our old maps and make new ones. This is especially important as we begin to form partnerships. It’s important to be open, to share information, and to dispel the myths that make up many of our mental maps. It increases our Partnering Intelligence. With one of my clients, I encountered the concept of “collective” mental maps. Collective memories exist in organizations and turn into powerful myths that defy logic and cause trouble. These myths can become so powerful that when enlightened management tries to overcome them, they are run out of town. In this case I was working with the product manager of a telephone company who was responsible for introducing a new product—Caller ID—in a western state. Janice believed the best way to introduce the product was to announce the introduction and call for the public’s response. The vice president of the organization didn’t agree. He wanted to introduce the product as quickly and quietly as possible—without controversy. While Janice disagreed with this philosophy, the company’s culture was very powerful. Leadership disliked any publicity. The best strategy for introducing their product, they insisted, was to quietly seek regulatory permission and then advertise through bill inserts. An alliance of battered women’s groups, however, did not want the product introduced at all. It wanted safeguards that would allow a woman to make a call without revealing her number. Then a consumer group that monitors regulated industries discovered what the company was doing—and immediately created a coalition of its constituencies to fight the product’s introduction. Months of wrangling over this issue delayed the debut of Caller ID and cost millions of dollars in marketing, advertising, and training expenses—and many community supporters. Had the company been open about its plans, it would have recognized the issues up front and worked with these groups to minimize the product’s negative impact. But working with old mental maps, the organization wasn’t willing to disclose what it needed to—and was unwilling to risk trusting the advocacy groups to become partners in introducing the product. The telephone company ended up supplying a feature, free of charge, that allows subscribers to block their telephone number from being identified. Instead of a number, the

143

Partnering2 ch8

144

4/3/04

11:01 AM

Page 144

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

product shows “number unavailable.” Although the company had the technology to do this from the beginning, it thought the issue was a minor concern and not worth the slight effort required to implement the blocking feature. Closed behavior is the response of those operating with a past orientation who need to maintain the status quo. The status quo offers a kind of homeostasis within closed minds or closed systems. Change creates an imbalance between what we believe and what we see occurring around us. A common defense mechanism to help us resolve this state of imbalance is the denial mechanism. For most of us, it is easier to deny information than to challenge long-held assumptions based on our history. People operating in a closed system are less trusting and less willing to share decision-making processes. They have a strong need for control. And they refuse to share their future plans lest someone “steal” them. In this age of industrial sabotage and high-level power plays, there might indeed be some justification in such a reaction. But when weighed against the possibilities of an open paradigm or future orientation—the benefits of sharing the wealth and the knowledge—the positives far outweigh any strategic advantage of secrecy. Secrecy seems pointless anyway. Today’s organizations have the ability to replicate what they see a competitor doing almost overnight. The advantages of secrecy, therefore, are minimal. Springfield Remanufacturing might be a perfect example of how an open paradigm works. In 1993, when the company was International Harvester’s engine-rebuilding plant, management decided to close the facility. But the general manager, Jack Stack, knew the business could succeed by creating a partnership with the employees. By passing the hat among the employees and borrowing money from a bank, he had enough to buy the firm. He was able to bring Springfield Remanufacturing back from the dead by using an open management system. In 1995 this company generated $104 million in revenue and at least $2.8 million in net profits. The company has experienced strong growth ever since. Stack listed these positive components: • Employee involvement and ownership • Sharing of rewards and risks

Partnering2 ch8

4/3/04

11:01 AM

Page 145

F U T U R E O R I E N TAT I O N

• Invaluable employee input • A self-managed organization • Increased worker education • A rapidly growing business incubator Contrast the experiences of the open paradigm used by Springfield with the telephone company’s closed paradigm. Organizations that share appropriate information, financial data, and the planning process with their workers and customers are proving to be more efficient and creative organizations with higher quality, higher profits, and higher employee morale. K N OW YO U R S E L F F I R ST

One of the most important aspects of creating successful partnerships is to know yourself first. It’s essential to understand your own weaknesses, biases, and prejudices. Knowing these things does not make you weaker. In fact, it makes you much stronger. Knowing where you are vulnerable enables you to seek out those people who can reinforce and strengthen those areas. Keeping your weaknesses hidden from yourself does not ensure that others won’t spot them immediately and exploit them readily. Knowing yourself also relates to business. An organization must have a realistic assessment of its own culture, its way of viewing the world. Understanding the organization’s strengths and weaknesses is as critical to a business partnership as understanding your personal pluses and minuses is to a personal partnership. R AT I N G Y O U R O R G A N I Z AT I O N ‘ S F U T U R E O R I E N TAT I O N

Some organizations develop patterns of thought that enable partnerships to produce the outcomes desired. Others choose to operate with attitudes that preclude any chance of success. Reflect on your own organization using the Past/Future Orientation Assessment (Assessment 7). What is its orientation: past or future?

145

Partnering2 ch8

146

4/3/04

11:01 AM

Page 146

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

Assessment 7 Past/Future Orientation Instructions

On the scale to the right of each description, place your organization closer to past orientation (1) or future orientation (5) by circling the appropriate number. Begin by reviewing the explanation of descriptions below. Past/Future Orientation Descriptions

(1) Past

(5) Future Circle One

1. Win-Lose vs. Win-Win Style of Conflict Resolution

1

2

3

4

5

2. Individual Performance vs. Teamwork

1

2

3

4

5

3. Stagnation vs. Dynamism

1

2

3

4

5

4. Alienation vs. Collaboration

1

2

3

4

5

5. High Need for Control vs. Empowering Others

1

2

3

4

5

6. Making Decisions Based on Past Experience vs. Negotiating a Plan and Agreeing on Outcomes

1

2

3

4

5

Explanation of Descriptions

1. Win-Lose vs. Win-Win Style of Conflict Resolution. A win-lose conflict resolution style (past orientation) creates losers. Losers are neither happy, self-satisfied, nor proud. They want to get even. A win-win conflict resolution and problem-solving style (future orientation) works toward achieving a mutually agreeable plan. In terms of its conflict resolution style, is your organization closer to a past orientation or a future orientation? 2. Individual Performance vs. Teamwork. A team spirit requires a certain amount of trust between members (future orientation). Without trust and openness, teams cannot perform well. Without appreciable teamwork, an organization won’t achieve potential synergies, nor will it encourage creativity

Partnering2 ch8

4/3/04

11:01 AM

Page 147

F U T U R E O R I E N TAT I O N

and innovation (past orientation). How would you rate your organization’s ability to support the concept of teamwork? 3. Stagnation vs. Dynamism. Stagnation occurs when there is no infusion of new energy into the organization or relationship. In a closed organization with no partnerships (past orientation), change is undesirable and suppressed. Dynamism results from the infusion of new energy and ideas (future orientation), and it is essential if a business is to successfully change with the demands of its customers and markets. How stagnant or dynamic is your organization’s culture? 4. Alienation vs. Collaboration. Organizations that isolate themselves cannot form partnerships with others. There is a lack of trust toward people both inside and outside the organization, which results in alienation (past orientation). Collaboration (future orientation), on the other hand, involves the give and take of information and a degree of self-disclosure, which results in building trust between people. How would you rate your organization on the alienation–collaboration scale? 5. High Need for Control vs. Empowering Others. In order to form a partnership, we need to release some control over events. If an organization is intent on controlling every aspect of the partnership (past orientation), the partnership will fail. Partnerships must be mutually beneficial for each partner; it is up to both partners to make sure they are benefiting. This does not mean domination of the partnership. Rather, it means empowering others so participants can work collaboratively toward a mutually satisfying result (future orientation). How would you rate your organization on this scale? 6. Making Decisions Based on Past Experience vs. Negotiating a Plan and Agreeing on Outcomes. When organizations continue to make decisions based on past experiences, they limit themselves by not being open to new possibilities (past orientation). Companies wanting to form partnerships need to be willing to negotiate expectations and then hold people accountable for doing what they say they’ll do (future orientation). If you continue to hear statements such as “They’ll never do that” or “That’s not possible,” you probably work in an organization that has a past orientation.

147

Partnering2 ch8

148

4/3/04

11:01 AM

Page 148

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

Scoring the Assessment

For each of the six descriptions in Assessment 7, fill in your score in the appropriate box in the chart below. A score of 3 or less indicates a weakness in that attribute. You will want to pay particular attention to your weakest attributes as you work to build your Partnering Intelligence skills. Description

Attribute

1

Win-Win Orientation

2

Ability to Trust

3

Comfort with Change

4

Self-Disclosure and Feedback

5

Comfort with Interdependence

6

Future Orientation

Points

Interpreting the Results

How did your organization rate? The higher the total score, the more you see your organization oriented toward the future. Just as with individual evaluations, the importance of understanding the present reality leads to a decision: Are the people in the organization comfortable where they are? If they are, they won’t see a need for change or make any efforts toward that end. What impact might this choice have on future partnerships? And if people do want to change, how can they go about it? LANGUAGE OF THE FUTURE

The most successful leaders live in the future. While they have also learned from history and acknowledge the current situation, they know that they must offer a compelling vision to help people move forward. Partners must live in the future, too. The whole purpose of establishing an alliance is to learn, grow, and do something different. If we continue to revert to the past, our former mental maps weigh us down. Our language becomes the reinforcing dynamic that spreads our past orientation throughout the culture.

Partnering2 ch8

4/3/04

11:01 AM

Page 149

F U T U R E O R I E N TAT I O N

Try an experiment: On a sheet of paper, write down a list of words that represent the past to you. On another piece of paper, write down words that represent the future. Try to avoid simply inverting the word, such as “old–new” but rather think of fresh words for each of these two orientations. Then, read the lists out loud to yourself or others in the room. What do you notice? Any difference? When we’ve used this exercise in our training sessions, we’ve discovered that the past-oriented words seem dull and humdrum with low energy and are spoken in a monotone voice, while futureoriented words are exciting and full of energy and are spoken with enthusiasm and optimism. The language of the future is full of hope and opportunity, while the language of the past seems tired and lacks hope. “Can’t teach an old dog new tricks.” “He’s always been that way, what did you expect?”“I should have known better than to depend on her!” Do any of those expressions sound familiar? These are the types of past-oriented statements that send powerful messages to our partners about our expectations of them. When you hear yourself reverting back to past messages, you might want to try shifting your language to future-oriented statements such as “Show me how!” “I love learning new things,” “I know it’s a new procedure, how can I help?” or “What do you need from me to help you succeed?” Shifting language from past disappointments to new opportunities is the hallmark of people with a high Partnering Intelligence, and you will be amazed at how infectious it can be as it spreads throughout your organization. Organizations that want to change their orientation need to assess their various relationships, both internal and external. Like other forms of life, they experience pain as a warning that something is wrong. It is the people who work in these organizations that manifest the pain. The symptoms include low morale, unethical behavior, isolation, resistance to change, and a feeling of being ignored. Recognizing this pain is the first step in helping an organization begin the change process. Before an organization that does not value collaboration can transform into one that embraces the partnering process, it must first acknowledge the problem. Through openness and a future orientation an organization can begin to take a realistic look at its culture. By doing this self-analysis,

149

Partnering2 ch8

150

4/3/04

11:01 AM

Page 150

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

it begins the process of healing the wounds caused by a past orientation. The bad news is that the journey toward openness and a more positive paradigm takes time. The good news is that you can start right now. And you don’t have to go through the experience alone. You can use the Partnership Continuum as a guide to increase your Partnering Intelligence and get you to your destination.

Partnering2 ch9

4/3/04

11:03 AM

Page 151

CHAPTER

NINE

Comfor t with Change Skills for Coping with Transition Change is part of our daily lives. Our bodies go through a normal growth and maturity cycle as we change from children to adolescents and then to adults. As our bodies develop, we also mature both mentally and emotionally. Change doesn’t end with our bodies and minds. It is a dynamic that affects our relationships as well. And to add to the complexity, people are changing in different ways and at different rates all the time. As Heraclitus noted, there is nothing permanent except change. With all this change occurring around us, it’s helpful to remember that while you can’t always control change, you can control how you respond to it. The standard progression when dealing with change involves three stages: awareness, transition, and new reality. Whether change occurs gradually or hits like a lightning bolt, when we do become aware of it we may feel overwhelmed, shocked, outraged. If we perceive it to be negative or threatening, we may slip back into old behavior to help cope with it. We ask ourselves, “What’s happening?” or, “Why is this happening to me?” Even if we perceive the change to be positive, we can be anxious. Remember how it felt when you went to that job interview you were so excited about? Once we acknowledge the change, we begin to feel lost—like we are stumbling in the dark. We know the past is changing, but we’re not quite sure what the future looks like. This is the transition stage. 151

Partnering2 ch9

152

4/3/04

11:03 AM

Page 152

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

Exercise 4. Partnership Stressors Checklist Instructions

Ask each member of the team to fill out a copy of this checklist. Think about developing a plan to manage stressors wherever they occur. Stress Point

Yes

No

1. I am uncomfortable giving up control in a partnership. 2. I do not feel I can totally trust my partner. 3. Partnerships feel like too much work. 4. Partnerships create too much conflict. 5. Partnerships never get anything accomplished. 6. Depending on another person creates stress for me. 7. I dislike having to discuss things about myself.

During transition we spend time reflecting on the future, think about what we want, and take action to help move us in that direction. At this point other people help ground us and give us input to gain clarity about our future and the new reality. As the new reality begins to take shape, we feel stronger. We know more about ourselves and what we want. We’re ready to take action and set new goals for ourselves. Partnerships are by nature a source of change, so you’ll want to identify what might cause you stress in a partnership as soon as possible. The checklist in Exercise 4 will help you determine which of the most common stress points in a partnership affect you most. The statements you mark “yes” indicate areas that are likely to cause you some anxiety when it comes to change. If you dislike giving up control when performing a task, for example, you probably feel stress in a partnership when you have to do a task together. The anxiety you feel is the aftermath of the change you’re experiencing. You may try to avoid or even deny the change to prevent the anxiety—this is the normal “fight or flight” response we all experience during periods of stress. If we can’t control the change that’s occurring around us, at least we can recognize the stressors and develop a plan to deal with them.

Partnering2 ch9

4/3/04

11:03 AM

Page 153

COMFORT WITH CHANGE

Knowing your stressors and how you react to change is important in helping you cope with change. When two people or two organizations come together, things are bound to be different. What sorts of stressors will affect your partnership? Some typical examples might include the following: • Team involvement • Increased risk taking • Reduced organizational security • Change of job, type of work, or client • Economic uncertainty and insecurity • Questions of personal integrity • Concerns for family, friends, or co-workers If any of these issues is a stressor for you in forming a partnership, make a list of the objectives you’d like to accomplish for that issue. As you begin to form the partnership, make sure you address these issues with your partner. Develop a plan to ensure that any stressors have a positive outcome.

U N D E R S TA N D I N G C H A N G E

To help deal with partnership stressors, I use a model to explain the dynamic of change (see Figure 16). You can use this model in forming business partnerships as well as in your personal life. The first step is to know where you’re going. You do this by creating a vision of what the change will look like when you’ve arrived. I once asked a marketing manager to think about what would happen if he partnered with the production manager. He responded by saying: “Well, we’d talk to each other regularly, we’d problem-solve issues, and we’d work together to meet production and shipping deadlines.” After thinking about this for a minute, he got very excited and said: “I think I get it! Now all I have to do is put a plan together to accomplish these three items and I’m on my way.” “Close,” I said. Then I mentioned that it would be helpful if he included his production partner in the discussions. “Oh, yeah,” he said, “I forgot about him!” Even the best intentions can go haywire when we forget about our partner.

153

Partnering2 ch9

154

4/3/04

11:03 AM

Page 154

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

Phase 2

Phase 3

Phase 1

Current Situation

Transition State

Future State

Assess current situation

Develop transition state from current situation to future state

Identify future state

Figure 16 Three Phases of Managing Change

As illustrated in the model, the first phase in creating change is determining where you want to end up. You need a vision of the future state. You start to think about what the partnership is going to look like, how you will look in the partnership, what the partnership will do. You begin to think about how the partnership will satisfy your needs and those of your partner. The second phase is assessing your current situation. What is your current capability? To move toward the future state, you must understand what you are currently capable of doing. This requires an internal assessment of your abilities and also your limitations. It’s important to assess the current situation accurately so you can see the gap between your current state and the future state. Once you’ve assessed the current situation and identified the gap between the current situation and the future state, you can begin the third phase, developing a transition plan. This is your plan for closing the gap between today and tomorrow.

MANAGING CHANGE

Now that you understand how the change process works, you need to manage the change you’re creating. To do this, you need an action plan—which can be as simple as the one shown in Table 4. You may be thinking that an action plan based on what, who, when, and where is only common sense, and you are absolutely correct. But don’t minimize the power of creating a basic plan and then sticking to it. The vision starts to become real when you’ve made a plan to achieve it. Whether in your personal life or your business life,

Partnering2 ch9

4/3/04

11:03 AM

Page 155

COMFORT WITH CHANGE

Table 4

Action Plan: Learning How to Ride a Bike What

Who

When

Where

Get a bicycle

Me

Saturday

Midtown Bicycle Shop

Find someone to teach me how to ride it

Neal

Saturday afternoon

High school track

Set aside time to learn to ride it

Me/Neal

Saturday afternoon

Find a place to practice

Me

Find time to practice

Me

High school track After work (Monday, Wednesday, Friday)

High school track

put the plan down in writing—using the simple format shown in Table 4—to establish a framework for when and where things get done. In partnerships, success is achieved when things happen. And things happen most efficiently when you have a plan. Now that you have a plan for dealing with the change, you’ll want to implement it. Building a commitment to the change process is the strategy that works best. You’ve done your homework. You’ve visualized your future state, assessed your current situation, and developed a plan to move from the current situation to the future state. Now it’s time to commit. Following are some of the tactics you can use in building commitment to change in partnerships. • Communicate the vision to your partner (including your needs and expectations) • Ask for your partner’s vision of change (including his or her needs and expectations) • Allow time to discuss and articulate both visions and needs

155

Partnering2 ch9

156

4/3/04

11:03 AM

Page 156

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

• Ensure that all partners participate in developing the details • Leave room for options, choices, and new ideas • Share information to minimize any unwelcome surprises • Take your time in developing the partnership—don’t force an issue • Try out new ideas and concepts before making a commitment • Demonstrate your commitment to the change that is occurring • Avoid creating “winners” and “losers”; be honest—up front and early—about the impacts the change or partnership will have on people • Set standards and goals and continue to communicate and provide feedback on outcomes • Continue to reward people when they focus on the vision R E A C T I N G TO C H A N G E

Most of us would like to think we adapt to change fairly well. In the hustle and bustle of our twenty-first-century professional and personal lives, we are challenged with ever-increasing change. It’s instructive to understand the strategies we use to manage change and its impact on our partnerships. Generally, the way we manage change puts us into one of three categories: • Initiators of change (approximately 20% of the population) • Adaptors to change (approximately 60% of the population) • Resistors of change (approximately 20% of the population) Source: Based on data from clients using the Change Orientation Assessment, as shown in Dent and Naiman, The Partnering Intelligence Fieldbook, 116–120.

Initiators of Change

Initiators of change not only have a high comfort level with change but also seem to be addicted to the adrenaline rush it can create. They create change for the sake of creating change. They are easily bored— routines drive them up the wall—thus they continuously change their environment and situation. Initiators of change provide the kinds of creative energy organizations need to break through the stagnation of the status quo and motivate innovation.

Partnering2 ch9

4/3/04

11:03 AM

Page 157

COMFORT WITH CHANGE

However, initiators often make it difficult to maintain a stable work or home environment. Chaos may rule, and others have to learn to adjust to the constant turmoil the initiators produce. Initiators, for their part, must be sure that their actions are motivational and are not leaving destruction in their wake.

Adaptors to Change

Adaptors to change can be further divided by the rate with which they adapt to change: fast, medium, or slow. Each group uses a slightly different strategy when managing its internal change behavior and requires different sorts of information in order to move toward accepting change. Fast adaptors are not afraid of change and in general view it as a positive. Although they are not “change junkies” like initiators, they tend to quickly analyze the change event and determine how their needs are going to be met. Once they have figured out how they will fit in during and after the change event, they adapt quickly. Fast adaptors tend to be optimistic; they also tend to require higher level information such as vision and mission to assess their future role in the change. Once they accept the change, they move quickly to implementation and can act as change champions within the partnership. Medium adaptors are the largest segment of the population and the key group for management to support during a change event. The change managers must provide as much strategic information to them as possible, as medium adaptors like to know the specific strategies of the change and how those strategies will impact them and their work. They need more information about the change event than fast adaptors and tend to be less resistant to change than slow adaptors. Medium adaptors do not rush to embrace change—they tend to sit on the fence until they see how the change can help them get their needs met. However, once they accept change, they will move to implement it without putting up roadblocks. Slow adaptors want to be sure the change is permanent and necessary before they are willing to adapt to it. They do not believe in change for change’s sake. Slow adaptors often need specific details about the change event to determine how the change will directly impact them and their day-to-day routines. Slow adaptors require

157

Partnering2 ch9

158

4/3/04

11:03 AM

Page 158

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

tactical information specific to their role or work processes to help convince them that the change is for the better and will be permanent. They tend to need consistent motivation. Resistors of Change

Resistors of change refuse to acknowledge the need for change and often feel that change is directed at them personally, often slipping into a state of denial over change events. It is not uncommon for resistors to hold strong sway over a partnership, convincing others that change is harmful to the organization and the “mistake” will be rectified once “those people” understand the errors of their ways. Resistors hold nostalgia and the status quo in high esteem and are effective in trying to convince others to return to the “good old days.” Resistors not only deny the need for change, but may also deny later that any change has actually occurred. No amount of information will help them break through their veil of denial. The only sure strategy to help with resistors is to get them to understand that there is no turning back the clock; that is, the partnership is not going back to “how things were” and that they must either adapt or find other options outside the organization. M A N A G I N G R E S I S TA N C E

It would, of course, be ideal if people embraced change with zest and unquestionable commitment. But rarely have I worked with partners where that has occurred. Usually I encounter resistance even after we’ve set up a plan and created an environment in which change can take root. Understanding why people resist change is a big step toward helping them overcome their fear and anxiety. Table 5 outlines some common fears people have about change and offers some remedies to overcome them. Now that you’ve seen some strategies for understanding and improving your Partnering Intelligence as it relates to change, it’s time to think about how you manage change in your life and your partnerships. To help you in this, complete Exercise 5 on page 160.

Partnering2 ch9

4/3/04

11:03 AM

Page 159

COMFORT WITH CHANGE

Table 5

Common Fears About Change (and Remedies) Fear

Remedy

Loss of control

Encourage participation in planning and implementing the partnership.

Uncertainty about the future

Communicate the vision clearly and show how people will fit into the future. Give them the big picture.

Loss of competence

Ensure that people will have the skills to operate in the new partnership.

Loss of familiarity

Create situations in which people can relate to the past while moving into the future. Make links and allow time for transitions.

Surprises

Allow time for people to adjust to new situations and partners. Be honest and share whatever information you have.

B R I N G I N G B A L A N C E I N TO T H E PA R T N E R S H I P

Just as change is a powerful dynamic in the partnership, the ability to balance the change process between the two critical components of partnership—task and relationship—is essential. No partnership can flourish without this balance. In deference to “getting the job done,” it is the relationship component that is most often ignored. But being accountable for our own productivity is only half of the equation. After all, if achieving our goals only required that we be accountable for our own actions, we wouldn’t need a partner. The other half of the equation is building a trusting relationship with our partner. And this requires us to change not what we might do, but how we do it.

159

Partnering2 ch9

160

4/3/04

11:03 AM

Page 160

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

Exercise 5. My Change Experience Instructions

Recall a change experience that involved a partnership. This partnership— whether personal or business—required you to change how you did something (a task) or how you related to someone (a relationship). Answer the six questions about the change experience; then think about the questions that follow. Change experience:

Question

Answer

1. How did you feel before the change occurred? 2. What events preceded the change? How did you feel about them? 3. What was your main concern while the change was occurring? 4. What was the impact of the change on you? On your partner? 5. How did you feel after going through the change? 6. How did you feel about your partner? How do these questions relate to the change orientation? What issues are related to your change stressors? How can you start to build commitment to change? What issues are related to resistance to change?

Balancing Task and Relationship

When I work with a group that wants to complete a task but spends no time developing a cooperative relationship, I generally find their work product to be merely satisfactory. The product meets minimum standards, but typically the dynamic within teams that spend no time on relationship development is not condusive to innovation or creativity. The job may get completed, but people do not enjoy the experience or each other. Teams that spend all their time on relationship

Partnering2 ch9

4/3/04

11:03 AM

Page 161

COMFORT WITH CHANGE Group 2

Group 1 Task 80%

Task 50% Relationship 50%

Group 3 Task 20% Relationship 80%

Relationship 20%

Figure 17 Task/Relationship Model

development seem to enjoy the process of working together, but also find they have trouble staying on task and finishing the assignment on time. I often find their work to be incomplete. Groups that spend an equal amount of time on tasks and relationships seem to have better outcomes. When a group deliberately moves toward balance, some people who are used to working exclusively on the task or on the relationship may feel awkward. Others in the group can bring them along, however, by acknowledging the importance of both kinds of activities. By balancing time and energy between the two activities, people feel better about what they’ve accomplished together—the group has more pride in what it has produced. The task/relationship model shown in Figure 17 presents three possible group configurations. Group 1 (task 80%, relationship 20%) meets the requirements of the task, although some partners may feel left out. The “doers” in the group take over and do it. Not everyone in the group feels ownership of the outcome, and not everyone feels good about the process used in accomplishing the task. A typical comment from a group member: “At least it’s done.” Group 2 (task 50%, relationship 50%) spends its energy developing practical partnerships within the group. They develop relationships and work on the task. People complete the task on time, with high quality, and in a creative manner. What contributes to the high functioning of this model is the group’s intention to get the job done as a team process. Members respect one another and use everyone’s contributions to create the best outcome. A typical comment: “I enjoyed doing the task, I’m proud to have been part of it, and everyone seemed to get along well.” Group 3 (task 20%, relationship 80%) puts its energy into developing relationships. The “relators” take over and welcome the opportunity to socialize and share information. Although they may not accomplish the entire task in the required time, people feel good

161

Partnering2 ch9

162

4/3/04

11:03 AM

Page 162

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

about what they do accomplish. At least they develop some shortterm relationships. A typical comment: “Even if we didn’t finish, I really feel good about what we did.” Overall the partnership needs to split its time about 50/50 between the task and relationship aspects of development. This ratio will change, however, as the partnership matures and progresses through the Stages of Relationship Development. Depending on which stage they’re at, partners shift their energies back and forth between task and relationship. Eventually they’ll need to work equally in both areas. When a partnership first forms, for example, partners may spend 80 percent of their time on the relationship and only 20 percent on the task. As they develop more trust, they move toward more tasks together. With maturity, the partnership may be spending 80 percent of its energy on tasks and 20 percent on relationship issues. Knowing where you and your partner stand along this continuum— and knowing in which direction it would be most helpful to move— is critical information to help increase your Partnering Intelligence. Exercise 6 will help you to pinpoint where balance may be lacking in your partnership. In the case studies discussed earlier, the partnerships Bank of America/Exult, NASA/GSFC, and JHU/APL all understood the importance of balancing task and relationship. Even before Bank of America and Exult began their tasks, their executives met to discuss and agree on a strategic framework for the partnership. This enabled them to agree to fundamental operating principles even before they began to transfer employees and process transactions. While both parties initially did not understand the value of the time up front, I believe that relationship-building sessions solidified the trust that enabled them to proceed with the task with few back-steps. Special credit must be given to Mary Lou Cagle from Bank of America and Michael Salvino of Exult, Inc., for their insights into the importance of relationship building. Each understood the impact the change their partnership would have on their respective organizations. During the Form Stage of Relationship Development, they spent several hours a week talking about their needs—both personally and organizationally—at various levels. They talked about their vision, mission, and strategic implications. They discussed trust, problem solving, conflict resolution, and decision making. They pro-

Partnering2 ch9

4/3/04

11:03 AM

Page 163

COMFORT WITH CHANGE

Exercise 6. Assessing Task/Relationship Balance Instructions

Answer these three questions yes or no, and then answer the questions about task and relationship that follow in more detail. Question

Yes

No

1. Is input on the task equitable between you and your partner? 2. Is there balance in your relationship with your partner? 3. Have you talked about the imbalance in your partnership? Task

• Are you engaged equally in the task? If not, who is doing more or less? • Is each partner contributing equally to the task in terms of financial support? Time? Energy? • Are both partners able to provide suggestions and input that is valued and used in completing the task? • Does the outcome of the task benefit both partners? If not, why not? Relationship

• What leadership issues exist in the partnership that cause the imbalance? • Does one partner have more control over the relationship? Who? • Why does one partner have more control? • Are you equal partners in decision making? If not, why not? • Do you resolve your conflicts using a win-win style? If not, why not? • Do you solve problems in a way that benefits all partners? If not, why not? Do you notice a trend? Have you been able to isolate where in the task/relationship component there’s a lack of balance? What does this tell you about your partnership?

vided each other with important information on how their internal organizations operated. They coached each other on how to position and express ideas and concepts in a way that they would be accepted in the other’s organization. They kept each other abreast of current or future events that would impact their business or partnership. They collaborated in ways that created success for their alliance and took the relationship aspect of the business as seriously as the operational aspects.

163

Partnering2 ch9

164

4/3/04

11:03 AM

Page 164

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

Using another example, about four years into the Northwest Airlines–KLM partnership, Northwest CEO John Dasburg characterized the relationship as “schizophrenic.” He was referring to different perceptions of how much each partner controlled the partnership (a relationship issue). Although the partnership had been financially rewarding for both airlines (a task issue), the alliance was in trouble. Regardless of the attractive financial outputs, this question of control threatened to create a divorce case. In time, the two airlines discovered the issues preventing them from moving deeper into the relationship. One issue was the number of shares KLM owned in Northwest, which gave KLM a seat on Northwest’s board of directors—Northwest, however, didn’t have a representative on KLM’s board. KLM and Northwest revisited this issue in the interest of improving their partnership. KLM agreed to sell its share in Northwest (while making a significant return on its investment, since the shares had appreciated). In exchange, KLM’s president resigned from Northwest’s board of directors to equalize the power of each partner. As a result, each airline gained more independence—yet a stronger partnership—based on their mutual benefits. Their relationship now creates synergy and is a model of how interdependent entities can create more business for each other.

Partnering2 ch10

4/3/04

10:16 AM

Page 165

CHAPTER

TEN

Comfor t with Interdependence Learning the Virtues of Interdependence Many companies throughout the world have established independent corporate cultures. In the past, independent organizations could succeed simply because the work done and the products produced did not require teamwork. In fact, organizational experts boldly reduced work to its simplest component in the never-ending quest for efficiency. As a result, organizations became more independent and more self-sufficient. When Henry Ford developed his concept of mass production of automobiles, he built many related industries to provide the components for them. To manufacture the steel, he shipped taconite and iron ore to Michigan; to make the fabric for the upholstery, he built mills; to make the windows, he built glass plants. Each worker made or attached a part on the assembly line as the chassis flowed through the system. Today, however, robotic systems have replaced hundreds of thousands of these workers because they do the job better and faster and they don’t need health insurance. Today in the United States, a company using its workforce as Ford did would find it tough to stay afloat. Such labor-intensive processes would be too expensive. And besides, people are generally more educated today and want work that’s more meaningful. What robots can’t do is the creative, team-oriented work that requires sophisticated communication and decision making. Managing creative teams is 165

Partnering2 ch10

166

4/3/04

10:16 AM

Page 166

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

different from managing mechanical processes. Consequently, when the way the workforce operates begins to change, management’s thinking also needs to change. In many organizations, however, workers are constantly asked to change and upgrade their skills—only to be led by people using the same style of management that was in vogue fifty years ago. THE TROUBLE WITH INDEPENDENCE

Management’s job today is to build partnerships within organizations. In an information-based economy, no single group can be the sole purveyor of the “raw material” needed to manufacture the product. In fact, after decades of diversification, many businesses are actively reverting to their core business competencies and outsourcing those portions of their business that are not designed to satisfy their customers needs. In the Bank of America/Exult case, the bank was looking to get out of the human resource transaction business. They looked to Exult to help them manage their 120,000 associates. To be successful at this, the bank needed an entire infrastructure including an 850-person call center, telecommunications network, and Web site to manage the volume. With the transfer of the bank’s HR call center to Exult, which had the infrastructure already in place, the bank could focus its energy on servicing its customers’ financial needs. NASA is very capable of launching probes toward the sun. However, APL at Johns Hopkins has a track record of being able to launch targeted missions more economically than NASA. NASA’s real expertise lies in its ability to manage multiple missions while making sure taxpayers’ monies are being spent wisely. It makes sense that NASA, with its strong management competencies, provides mission oversight while others contribute based on their strengths. In another example, Xcel Energy, the fourth-largest energy company in the United States, with a delivery network in thirteen states, outsources its IT functions to IBM. Why would Xcel Energy duplicate the capabilities of one of the largest information technology companies in the world when they can partner with them, receive their expertise and knowledge, and spend less for the service?

Partnering2 ch10

4/3/04

10:16 AM

Page 167

COMFORT WITH INTERDEPENDENCE

Let me cite one more example. I once worked with two partners who were in the mortgage banking business. In that business there are many players, each with a specialized role. There are closers who close a real estate transaction, lenders who loan the money, mortgage servicers who handle the loan, and mortgage custodians who manage the documents. This case involved mortgage servicers and mortgage custodians. The servicers handle customer calls, accept and apply payments, and pay escrowed taxes and insurance for the mortgagee. The custodians file and store the documents and then, when they’re needed, ship them to appropriate locations—a cumbersome process considering the thousands of real estate transactions that occur every day. The mortgage servicer company I worked with was frustrated with the custodian’s tracking system. Frequently the servicer company would inquire about where the documents were located and the custodian couldn’t tell them. The firm of mortgage custodians felt they had a good process for identifying and retrieving documents and didn’t want to hear complaints from the servicer. Nancy, the custodian CEO, told me, “Those mortgage servicers are never happy, no matter what we do!” In time, however, this servicer got a bad reputation among closers and lenders. It seemed that every time there was a closing and this particular company was involved, documents arrived late—causing late closings, scheduling nightmares, and angry buyers and sellers. Gradually closers and lenders started to avoid this servicer. When I discussed the issue with Bob, the servicer CEO, he said the custodian was trying to drive them out of business. I thought this was a bit paranoid—especially since Nancy, the custodian leader, had told me several times she had tried to improve the situation between the two groups. But, Nancy said, “mortgage servicers just aren’t interested in partnering to fix the process.” At this point a vice president at the mortgage servicer urged me to work on improving their process. The first thing I did was bring the servicer and custodian together to talk about the tracking issue. After several meetings, we agreed to try working together to integrate their two processes. Using the Partnership Continuum model, we started off by assessing and defining our needs. Once both parties agreed that they needed to get the correct document delivered to the correct location in time for the closing, we created a vision for the partnership.

167

Partnering2 ch10

168

4/3/04

10:16 AM

Page 168

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

We then started on the initial activity: to document the two organizations’ processes, set standards, and create a measurement system. After several months, the firm of mortgage servicers was able to improve its on-time delivery to closers by 200 percent. After one year, it had one of the best records in the business. Bob later confided that initially he hadn’t believed we’d improve things. He’d felt that the custodians had spent too much money on their delivery system without consulting customers and that they would never change it. But partnering with the custodian and creating a sense of interdependence proved otherwise. The independent system of doing business no longer works. Today the workplace rallying cry is teamwork. Organizations are becoming interdependent and relying on others to help them accomplish their goals. They’re moving toward more openness and creating organizational cultures that support it. The Partnership Continuum model helps partners assess where they are in this transition. As a partnership develops, it moves from being closed and solitary to being open and interdependent. By building relationships based on trust and by producing mutual benefits, the partnership can be longlasting. I N T E R D E P E N D E N C E : WAV E O F T H E F U T U R E

Interdependence can be defined as two (or more) independent entities working together as partners without losing their separate identities. Interdependent partnerships succeed because each party needs assistance in achieving its goals and each contributes to satisfying the needs of the other partner. Approaching a partnership with the hope of simply buying a needed capability is not only shortsighted and naïve—it can have dire consequences. I once worked with a telecommunications company whose mission included the goal “to maximize our stock portfolio.” The leadership decided this meant they should partner with a financial institution in order to manage their portfolio more efficiently. What they needed was a partner to help them—an investment bank—but what they did was acquire a bank and attempt to run it themselves. The company tried to run the bank the same way it ran its telephone oper-

Partnering2 ch10

4/3/04

10:16 AM

Page 169

COMFORT WITH INTERDEPENDENCE

ations—and the bank’s operations suffered. The leadership could not adjust to the fast pace of decision making required in financial institutions. Interest and currency markets can change almost hourly. The telecommunications firm, used to a slower pace due to regulatory bureaucracy, just couldn’t make decisions fast enough. More important, its mission of maximizing its portfolio was distorted by the idea that it should manage this function itself. After spending millions of dollars purchasing the bank and subsidizing its operations, the company sold it at a loss of many more millions of dollars. Because this was not a true partnership, it failed. Taking over is not partnering; it’s simply a conquest. The structure of the partnership should preserve both partners’ ability to contribute to the other. If your partner loses independence or can’t maintain a separate identity, your partnership ceases to exist. Northwest Airlines and KLM decided what they wanted from each other and used the term alliance to describe their relationship. They structured their partnership as an interdependent relationship—that is, maintaining two separate corporate identities but acting as a single company in the eyes of their customers, allowing them to • Code-share, which gives them the ability to book reservations on each other’s flights using a single reservation system and flight numerics • Share ticket check-in and baggage-loading facilities • Share catering services • Share warehouse capabilities • Purchase materials jointly, reducing cost through volume • Market jointly and cross-sell into each other’s territory This principle of maintaining interdependence is more difficult to envision when the companies working together are in different fields. When a partnership involves two different businesses, each partner’s needs and capacities must be spelled out. McDonald’s founder Ray Kroc was famous for partnering with the suppliers for his growing business. His business was selling fast food to millions of consumers, building restaurants, and investing in real estate. Even though he

169

Partnering2 ch10

170

4/3/04

10:16 AM

Page 170

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

could have bought out the entire operations of many of his suppliers, he didn’t. He wanted to maintain partnerships, believing that people who owned their own business were more productive. He went so far as to insist on paying a fair price to his suppliers rather than squeezing them for bargain-rate concessions, which he could have done. Kroc’s dedication to maintaining interdependence was most evident in his decision not to sell vast exclusive territories for multiple franchises. Despite the attractiveness of huge up-front profits in selling off rights to big syndicates, he believed the owner-operator was the best operator. He knew that hands-on owners would care about the business, not just about the numbers. His policy was to award only one restaurant at a time to an owner-operator. If that one was successful, the franchisee could apply for another. This is how Kroc’s empire grew. Product, service, and operations were so good that McDonald’s never worried about finding people who wanted their own cash machine. McDonald’s has continued to form alliances for marketing purposes—most notably with the Disney Corporation. These two giants have had a global alliance wherein McDonald’s has promoted numerous major film releases for Disney. It is a sponsor of Dinoland at Disney’s Animal Kingdom in Florida and built Ronald’s Fun House at Disney World. Disney employees even sell McDonald’s french fries at Disney World. These two corporations have joint philanthropic ventures, too, including the American Teacher Awards and Young Inventors Awards, and have jointly donated millions of dollars toward the purchase of “Sue,” a Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton, by Chicago’s Field Museum. Clearly the two corporations share common goals—not only in cross-promotion but in catering to similar constituencies. It appears to be a good fit for both. In the early 1990s, I was consulting with a large telecommunications company. I was part of a team that developed a partnership between management and the union to improve the quality of work processes. When I asked the management and union representatives to describe the company’s culture, I heard: “It’s like living in the old Soviet Union.” The number of times I heard that analogy made an impact on me. Since I knew none of these people had lived in the Soviet Union, I asked them to elaborate. They gave me this list:

Partnering2 ch10

4/3/04

10:16 AM

Page 171

COMFORT WITH INTERDEPENDENCE

• Autocratic management style • Dictatorial decision making • No meaningful input from employees • Closed access to information (secretive) • Mistrust among employees • Resistance to change • Motivation based only on self-interest • Favoritism Now contrast that list with the list of positive components of interdependence given to me by Jack Stack, general manager of Springfield Remanufacturing: • Embracing change • Development of trust • Meaningful contributions to decision making by employees • Open management style • Fewer employee problems • Win-win conflict resolution According to Stack, Springfield’s success is based on attributes that are the exact opposite of those listed by the telecommunications company employees. While the telecommunications company is still in business, it’s a regulated monopoly. And, not surprisingly, it is clinging to its monopolistic practices by introducing lawsuits to prevent competition from entering its local service market. Clearly its management realizes the company could never compete in an open market, so they’re investing as much as they can into maintaining their independent status quo. In fact, in 2002–03, this company experienced federal investigations into its management and accounting practices. New leadership was brought in to help restore the confidence of customers, employees, and shareholders. No one at the telecommunications company intended to ignore the ideas of employees. But it’s no mystery what the company really values: control. Adopt a past orientation, maintain the status quo, resist change—and you’ll get a disgruntled workforce, poor productivity, and ultimate loss of control.

171

Partnering2 ch10

172

4/3/04

10:16 AM

Page 172

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

B R E A K I N G T H E O L D PA R A D I G M

Independent organizations that have not developed partnerships have systemic paradigms. If one part of the organization’s culture—especially the leadership—is based on a paradigm of independence, then it’s probable that other parts of the organization are driven by a similar dynamic. Organizational structures tend to replicate themselves. Like families that are influenced by the beliefs of the parents, organizations incorporate the values of their leaders. If the leadership is afraid to establish a partnership based on trust and mutual benefits, other parts of the organization will reflect that fear. Leadership’s values determine the organization’s past or future orientation as well. Within that orientation lies a collection of attitudes and behaviors that reflect the company’s culture. Owners and managers set the company’s policies and establish independent or interdependent systems. If your company has a past orientation, it’s hard to change direction. Even with an awareness of the problems, an intellectual understanding of the need for interdependence, a determination to undertake a fearless self-assessment, and a desire to change, most companies find changing a culture a slow and arduous process.

ASSESSING MANAGEMENT STYLE

The good news is that people can move from independence to interdependence. The first step is making a realistic assessment of the management style practiced in the organization today (see Exercise 7). At work, do you frequently hear, “I don’t care what you think. I’m the boss—so just do it!”? This type of statement, and the thinking and culture behind it, is death to a business and to the possibility of partnerships. Interpreting the Results

Once you’ve completed Exercise 7, tally up the totals in the “Yes” and “No” columns. If you answered with a “no” to more than three questions, you may want to think about the independent paradigm of

Partnering2 ch10

4/3/04

10:16 AM

Page 173

COMFORT WITH INTERDEPENDENCE

Exercise 7. Comfort with Interdependence Checklist Instructions

Review the eight statements listed below. Based on your position in the organization, answer yes or no to each statement. While the most accurate answer might be “maybe,” for the purpose of this exercise what happens most of the time, especially during times when the organization is under stress, should determine your answer. This exercise provides helpful insight into the organization’s comfort with interdependence when distributed to several layers of management and employees. Comfort with Interdependence Statements

Yes

No

1. I feel like a team member in my department. 2. Executives act on my input before decisions

are made. 3. I work with my suppliers to resolve issues that affect both of us. 4. Important financial, strategic, and operational information is regularly provided to me. 5. Executives allow the workers closest to the job to make decisions affecting them. 6. My supervisor encourages me to work closely with other departments in this organization. 7. I am involved in my organization’s strategic or functional planning. 8. When I have a cross-functional problem with other departments in our organization, they are willing to help resolve it.

your organization. When leaders value interdependence, they create an environment that encourages involvement. From the boardroom to the shop floor, the more people are involved, the more interaction occurs. With that interaction comes a sense that “we are all in this together,” and information starts to flow freely. The free exchange of information is fundamental to the success of organizations and a cornerstone of creativity. An organization that creates this kind of

173

Partnering2 ch10

174

4/3/04

10:16 AM

Page 174

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

environment—one that build trust and eliminates fear—moves beyond competition into the zone of creativity and synergy. Now that you’ve assessed where your organization stands in relation to independence and interdependence, here are some simple strategies to help you break out of the independent paradigm. • Walk around the office and talk to employees • Hold a company retreat and ask for an honest assessment of the organization and its culture • Listen to the staff and act on their ideas • Go talk to your customers and ask them what they think of your organization • Establish open communication using a variety of avenues to solicit ideas and collect comments • Tell your employees what they have told you—they’ll know then that you are listening F R O M I N D E P E N D E N C E TO I N T E R D E P E N D E N C E

An important skill in helping organizations move from independence to interdependence is the ability to achieve consensus. It’s important because consensus drives collaboration between partners. The purpose of using a consensus style of decision making is to create winwin scenarios. Consensus decision making means that all parties feel confident about group decisions and are able to communicate, justify, and defend those decisions to their constituencies. People achieve a consensus decision through various means; no single way is gospel. When I work with a group, we discuss consensus. Then we build an agreement of what consensus decision making means for this group. This gives the group an opportunity to build a group norm and practice the concept we’ve just discussed. Here are some steps to use when implementing a consensus decision-making style: • List the mutual goals of the partnership (interest-based needs and wants) • Identify issues that may prevent the partnership from achieving these goals • Establish boundaries for working toward the shared goals

Partnering2 ch10

4/3/04

10:16 AM

Page 175

COMFORT WITH INTERDEPENDENCE

I’ve worked with many organizations to implement what I call interest-based problem solving. One such client was the Waldorf Corporation, headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. This company makes packaging for huge corporate clients, from Land O’Lakes to Legos, from 3M to Hormel. They recycle paper products and work with governments around the globe in wastepaper recycling efforts. Dedicated to forging partnerships with clients the world over, management has also formed partnerships with four unions in an effort to foster win-win relationships. Their interest-based activities have focused on prioritizing and then finding ways to satisfy the interests of each side. The interest-based approach was used with the Dairyland Power Cooperative in Wisconsin in 1995 to negotiate agreements between unions and the company management. In this case the goal was to transform the mission statement originally approved by the labor/management committee in 1992 into a reality. Essentially both sides were bound by an agreement to use “interest-based bargaining/ consensus” guidelines to resolve grievances, make decisions, and find the best solutions. This negotiating framework contained six important points, as described below. 1. Parties will achieve resolution through their joint efforts to discover the best solution. Communication skills are critical. We helped people become better listeners by focusing on a few steps: • Pay close attention to what others are saying. Don’t allow yourself to be distracted by outside influences. Look at your partners when they are talking. Be open to what they’re saying and resist thinking of a retort while they’re talking. After they’ve spoken, mentally count to ten while you consider how you want to respond. Then respond. • Ask clarifying questions. Try not to compete with your partner. Rather, start by asking clarifying questions: “When you said let’s meet for lunch, I thought you meant at twelve noon. Is that right?” By clarifying, you aren’t forcing your partner to be defensive, but are simply requesting more information. • Paraphrase back to the speaker. Using your own words, repeat what you thought you heard the speaker say. Then ask the speaker if he or she feels you understood the point.

175

Partnering2 ch10

176

4/3/04

10:16 AM

Page 176

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

• State only your point of view. Good ideas support themselves. People don’t need to justify their opinions. Resist the temptation to criticize or comment on others’ perspectives. Just allow them to state what they believe without offering anything more. • Don’t discredit the views of others. There’s no need to discredit others’ opinions. Their opinions are as important to them as yours are to you. By discrediting others, you only cause harm and resentment in the relationship. Reasonable people can disagree and still respect each other. • Limit discussion to the issue, not the person. Keep the conversation focused on ideas. Don’t succumb to attacking the speaker personally. The most effective way to resolve differences is to focus on facts, not on what you think the speaker intends. 2. The solution must be acceptable to all parties. When people with diverse points of view agree, the result is especially strong. By valuing differences, creative solutions arise. Different points of view and sources of information help the group expand, clarify, and define the issue in a way no one person can. When we consider diverse opinions, we create synergy within the partnership. 3. Any of the parties may block a potential decision. But the party blocking the decision must search for alternatives with the rest of the group. If an alternative solution is not forthcoming, the blocking party must reevaluate his or her position. Don’t tolerate an irresponsible blocker. A person who blocks group consensus without offering a different perspective is acting in a passive-aggressive manner. The group needs to confront blockers and find out what they need to allow the group to move ahead. If they’re unable to respond, it’s best to table the issue for a period of time to allow them to come up with a different suggestion or rally behind the proposed resolution. 4. Voting, horse trading, and compromise are not part of the process. As tempting as it may seem, do not vote, flip a coin, calculate an average, or use any other tension-reducing technique. Consensus decision making encourages divergent ideas to surface and allows conflicts to be resolved in an open manner. By

Partnering2 ch10

4/3/04

10:16 AM

Page 177

COMFORT WITH INTERDEPENDENCE

using an averaging technique, we prevent the conflict from surfacing. This simply causes the conflict to resurface later—perhaps in a more destructive way. The purpose of consensus is to find win-win outcomes. When you trade support or seek compromise, you’re creating situations in which people may feel they’ve lost something. The idea is to find the best possible solution, not just to manufacture a conclusion. The sheer act of “sticking to it” creates a sense of trust between group members. 5. Look for the best decision based on the available information. Once an issue has surfaced, gather as many facts about it as possible. This allows the group to make a decision based on information rather than emotion. When information is lacking, the imagination takes over. So base your decisions on facts. Everyone should share information with the rest of the group. This is an effective method for building trust and ensuring that the consensus process generates the best decision possible. 6. Both parties should focus on discovering the best decision within the context of the partnership while at the same time satisfying the interests of all major stakeholders. Identify areas where you agree and begin to build consensus from there. It’s much easier to start from where you agree than from where you don’t. Once partners have worked through this process, they not only have achieved their desired outcome, but also have evolved toward a full partnership because they’ve become smarter partners. Although Dairyland obtained a negotiated contract that everyone praised as a breakthrough event, in fact everyone gained much more. The partnership not only created security for the union membership, but also provided new opportunities for expansion and growth for the cooperative. People who believe they’re being treated fairly are more productive. Those who believe their interests are being addressed feel valued and important. They feel part of a team, and they’ll invest their time and energy in helping that team succeed. What fosters such enthusiasm is not a contract-signing ceremony, but the process that produced the desired outcome. It is a powerful dynamic, one too often overlooked by businesses today.

177

Partnering2 ch10

178

4/3/04

10:16 AM

Page 178

DEVELOPING YOUR PQ

Once more, then, here are the ground rules for consensus: • Create an environment that is open and trusting • Develop criteria for deciding when consensus has been achieved • Allow differences to surface • Respect each person’s idea—you don’t have to agree with it • Don’t evaluate ideas until all suggestions are on the table • Evaluate ideas based on merit and information • Create win-win solutions • Discuss ideas until consensus has been achieved; don’t rush the discussion; don’t resort to voting or horse trading

Partnering2 Part III

4/3/04

11:14 AM

Page 179

PA R T T H R E E

The Partnership Continuum A Model for Increasing Your PQ You have now had an opportunity to assess your current PQ and have gained insights into the Six Partnering Attributes you need to be a good partner. Now you are ready to put this knowledge to work. It’s time to make a leap—a leap from the individual to the partnership. For most of us, the first partnerships we encounter in business settings are internal partnerships. Often our success is measured by our ability to work as a member of a team to accomplish a task. For others, however, partnerships are focused on expanding business opportunities and creating strategic alliances with other businesses. In both situations—whether we’re focused on managing an internal team or an external business alliance—the model, the process, and the skills are the same. Regardless of the focus, partnerships are alliances between people. And it is how people interact with each other that determines the success or failure of a partnership.

179

Partnering2 Part III

180

4/3/04

11:14 AM

Page 180

PARTN ER I NG I NTELLIGENCE

Part Three describes how to use the Partnership Continuum model to take the leap: to further increase your Partnering Intelligence, to build a successful partnership, and to manage the partnership properly. The Partnership Continuum model is a thoughtful, organized approach that balances the task and relationship aspects of a partnership. Once you’ve laid the groundwork of improving your personal Partnering Intelligence with the Six Partnering Attributes and understand the dynamics of the model, you can begin to discuss the Partnership Continuum’s disciplined approach for building partnerships with your partners at work—your peers, your bosses, and/or your employees—and with other organizations. The model provides the context and the language for discussing how you want the partnership to develop and gives potential partners a step-by-step guide to success. Partnerships are too important to be allowed to evolve by happenstance. By using the Partnership Continuum model as a blueprint, you will be expanding your Partnering Intelligence beyond yourself—you will be including your partners in the process. By doing this, you will not only increase your own PQ, but will also be helping your partners increase theirs, bringing even greater potential for success to the partnership and to you and your organization.

Partnering2 ch11

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 181

CHAPTER

ELEVEN

Assess Stage What Do You Want? With the exception of the hermit on the top of the most isolated mountain in the world, there is virtually no one who has never formed a partnership. Even the hermit grew up somewhere with someone before trekking off to seek wisdom. For most of us, our family experience made an indelible mark on our ability to partner, whether good or bad. The ability to form good partnerships is closely linked with our ability to have good relationships. If we have poor relationships—if we find it stressful to make and keep good relationships—then partnering will be difficult for us. We need to be adept in the skills that allow us to get our needs met while helping others achieve their needs, too. Yet many of us do not have these skills—or if we do, we forget them when we’re in fearful or stressful situations, when we turn to fight-or-flight strategies to resolve them. Whatever strategy we use to help us cope with our feelings, at some level we know that our “win” is only temporary and the next conflict is just around the corner. This pattern teaches many people that relationships are bad, or difficult at best, and must be avoided at all costs. It doesn’t take a Ph.D. to figure out the next step in this chain of logic: relationships = pain; therefore partnerships = pain.

181

Partnering2 ch11

182

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 182

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

A R E YO U R E A DY ?

So what happens when we can’t fathom the concept of having a partnership? We begin to create a past orientation for ourselves—a series of reinforcing cause-and-effect events. First we refuse to trust relationships because of past experiences. We become afraid of getting hurt. Using old mental maps and remembering the times we were hurt, we end up trapping ourselves: bad relationships become a selffulfilling prophecy, reinforcing the hurt and pain. Consequently we choose to go it alone, which reinforces our desire to be independent. As change becomes more difficult, we spend more energy maintaining the status quo: a comfortable, safe place. We live in a past orientation because there is no trust. There is no trust because we are unwilling to open up to others by self-disclosing. The cycle continues to reinforce the belief. People sense this closedness and move away from us. People are attracted to openness; they shy away from those who are closed. Those who cannot trust choose a win-lose style of conflict resolution because they cannot trust anyone enough to collaborate. And so the cycle continues. For the individual, life without partnerships is a lonely place. For a business, the inability to form partnerships will probably mean a slow and excruciating death in the marketplace as competitors become more adept at adapting to the new reality of interdependence in the twenty-first century. The first thing you need to do to avoid this predicament is to figure out what you want. To begin, fill out the Partnership Readiness Checklist (Exercise 8). This may give you some insight into how ready your organization is to form a partnership. The questions are designed to help you determine whether a partnership is right for your organization. BEGINNING THE ASSESSMENT

If you’ve decided that you want a partnership, you are about to undertake perhaps the most difficult task of the partnering process: assessing your organization to determine its needs. This stage frequently requires the most time. Consistent with the Plan–Do–Check–Act cycle, the time is spent planning for what you want from the partnership and the quality of partnership you desire.

Partnering2 ch11

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 183

A S S E S S STAG E

Exercise 8. Partnership Readiness Checklist Instructions

Answer the questions below together as a team. Discuss the importance of any questions answered no to the success of the partnership. Question

Yes

No

1. Can you satisfy all your business requirements internally or by yourself? 2. Are you satisfied with the way people are interacting within your organization? 3. Have other organizations in your industry formed partnerships? 4. Is your culture receptive to partnering? 5. Is your organizational culture based on a future orientation? 6. Inside your organization, do individuals and departments work together to resolve problems? 7. Do you believe organizational leadership wants to form a partnership?

Interpreting the Results

If you answered no to three or more of these questions, that demonstrates a tendency to be closed and to cling to a past orientation. You may want to reconsider your organization’s readiness to form partnerships. The leadership should seriously think about and discuss the implications of the organizational culture and whether the organization is missing opportunities for growth and profit by being so closed. The discussion should investigate the desirability and potential benefits of creating partnerships with employees, departments, vendors, suppliers, or customers. If you answered yes to five or more of these questions, your organization is ready for an internal assessment as part of the first Stage of Partnership Development: Assess. An internal assessment is a voyage of discovery, not an exercise in passing judgment. It’s a chance to step

183

Partnering2 ch11

184

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 184

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

back and, using a formal approach, take an objective look at the organization. It’s an opportunity to update your mental maps and be objective about what you want. It can be a renewing exercise— reminding you that you’re on the right track. It can also serve as a tool to discover gaps between where you think you are and what the assessment reveals. The realization may shake you up. Whether it confirms you’re on the right track or redirects your energies, you win because you’re smarter. You’ve just increased your PQ. Various occasions trigger assessments. The challenges inherent in new working arrangements, partnerships, mergers, or layoffs often necessitate self-examination. Changes in markets, personnel, and even sales patterns force companies to take a look at where they’ve been, where they are, and where they want to go. C R E AT I N G A N A S S E S S M E N T T E A M

When I work with organizations to create a partnership, I have them assemble an assessment team. The role of this team is to • Determine the purpose of the assessment • Define the scope of the assessment • Bring a balanced perspective • Embody varied skills and perspectives of the organization • Act as the focal point of the effort • Make decisions • Communicate decisions • Develop strategies, tactics, and timelines • Create the implementation plan • Identify and obtain resources An internal assessment can be threatening. Senior managers have nearly begged me not to pursue an internal assessment. One vice president of quality told me she couldn’t support a quality assessment in her business. She asked what other way I could get the information I needed without “upsetting” the employees. Her attitude sent up a red flag that more groundwork would need to be done before the assessment could be helpful to her. An internal assessment is often threat-

Partnering2 ch11

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 185

A S S E S S STAG E

ening to people because their job performance will be examined and their ego is invested in past achievements. As manager of a department, you may feel that you’ve done a pretty good job. Now others are suddenly suggesting new directions, new requirements, and possibly other changes. And they are asking questions and poking around. Even though you think you’ve done a good job, you feel defensive. In an organization with a closed culture or a past orientation, protecting the status quo is the order of the day. You feel threatened by the assessment because you’re not sold on the idea of change—and it’s change that is prompting the assessment. An internal assessment must be a voluntary activity. Unless the owners of the assessment want the information, good or bad, they’ll discount the results. They may ignore any information that’s hard for them to accept. When people are threatened by an assessment, they’ll quibble about the methodology, the timing, or the questions. Discrediting the assessment is a common tactic used by management in organizations with a past orientation. They can’t bear the thought of shaking up the status quo, so they tear up the message and usually shoot the messenger. The patient who refuses to have checkups runs the risk of minor problems becoming unmanageable. The driver who ignores the auto mechanic’s dire diagnosis does so at the risk of breaking down later in heavy traffic—likewise do organizations that refuse to conduct internal assessments. Without leadership’s support from the outset, an assessment is likely to fail in such organizations. A P P R OAC H I N G A N I N T E R N A L A S S E S S M E N T

I approach the internal assessment from a simple perspective: “What can I learn?” and “What’s in it for me?” The purpose of conducting an internal assessment is to help people or organizations focus on the aspects of a partnership that will help them attain their goals. The assessment looks at the past and present in order to understand the strengths, weaknesses, assets, and needs of the organization. It presents the organization with a systematic approach to collecting information from many sources. Inclusion is a guideline that can never steer you wrong. Anyone who might be affected should join in the assessment process, and

185

Partnering2 ch11

186

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 186

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

those most affected should participate from the beginning. If you can’t determine whether someone should be left out of this process, invite him or her in. Not including someone may lead to serious consequences later. A person who’s left out may think the worst: “Are they trying to eliminate me? What’s this all about? Why am I not being included?” Not only do people need to present their own wish lists, but they may well be sources of potential partners for the organization. When I was working as an internal consultant on the organizational effectiveness team with the telephone company, the company’s leaders didn’t like the information we reported. In fact, the president contracted with an outside consulting group to come in and assess our internal consulting group. This outside firm found conducting the assessment a frustrating experience—so frustrating that they cited the company as one of the most difficult clients they’d ever encountered. They went so far as to report that their efforts were “sabotaged” and the reliability of their assessment was compromised due to lack of cooperation. Ultimately they advised against basing any future decisions on their internal assessment. They felt it was a waste of their time and the company’s money. Leadership’s mistake was pitting one group against another instead of having the two teams work together. Had the president encouraged the latter strategy, the internal consultants could have advised the outside consultants about the company culture and the political landscape. At the same time, the outside consultants could have contributed a fresh and objective perspective. Of course in some situations it may not be practical or wise to involve everyone in the internal assessment from the start. One strategy I use is to involve different groups at different stages. You may start with key leadership and then, once you have their commitment, begin to move down the organization. As you assess various areas of the organization, you begin to involve those people in the assessment. As you do, be sure to communicate clearly the purpose and scope of the assessment to alleviate fears. While you may not be able to involve everyone, it’s essential to communicate information about the assessment to people inside the organization. Tell them what you know, what you are doing, and why. Be as honest and open as you can. It’s a great first step in moving along the Partnership Continuum and increasing your Partnering Intelligence.

Partnering2 ch11

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 187

A S S E S S STAG E

Number of Employees

80

74

70

69 Total Employees = 181

60 50 40 30 18

20 10

2

10

7

1

0 30–45

46–60

61–75

76–90

91–105 106–120 121–135 136–150 151–165 166–180

Figure 18 Overall PQ Scores

USING THE PQ ASSESSMENT T O A S S E S S T H E O R G A N I Z AT I O N

One of our recent clients was interested in establishing a “best-inclass” partnering culture. Having an organization with the competency to partner is becoming more critical as we slowly migrate to a true knowledge- and information-based economy. For the internal assessment we conducted one-on-one interviews with a cross section of the organization. We also arranged for approximately two hundred randomly selected employees to take the PQ Assessment online. Figure 18 shows how employees scored in the assessment. You’ll notice that the results show a bell-shaped curve of normalcy, validating that this population would be typical of any other random population taking this assessment. It also shows that this population falls in the average-to-below-average category of Partnering Intelligence. If we graded them on a curve, they would be C–/D+ students. When the organization’s leadership reviewed this data, they understood that if they were to be world-class leaders in partnering, they needed to dramatically improve the skills of their employees. A S S E S S I N G T H E M AT E R I A L A N D E T H E R E A L R E A L M S O F A N O R G A N I Z AT I O N

Once the organization has decided to conduct an internal assessment, leadership must decide what it wants the assessment to focus on. Most organizations look at only one area of the organization: tasks. Some

187

Partnering2 ch11

188

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 188

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

organizations assess employee morale through the use of an employee survey—an example of scanning the organization. But in forming a partnership, both of these areas need attention. I call them the material and ethereal realms of the organization (see Figure 19). I use the term realm to describe the degree to which these spheres interact while still maintaining separate energies and characteristics. Let me use an analogy to show how these realms relate to partnerships. On planet Earth, there are two primary realms of existence: the marine environment and the terrestrial environment. While each realm operates independently of the other, the two interact in significant ways. For example, together they affect the atmosphere, which influences all life in both realms. Weather systems are created as the marine environment heats or cools more slowly than the surrounding landmasses and provides the moisture that evaporates into the air. These systems are then circulated around the globe in a series of geoclimatic patterns that support the life forms that have developed in these environments. It is a system. The different realms of an organization affect the overall atmosphere, too, and thereby affect all other aspects of the organization in the process. Traditional approaches to organizational improvement tend to focus on the material realm of the business. They seek to manage the strategies, processes, products, and services the organization believes will most influence the bottom line. Recently the U.S. Postal Service overhauled its strategies and processes to defend itself in the competitive marketplace. But little attention was paid to the relationships between managers and employees. Managers, employees, and their unions acted as if their business was invulnerable. They were wrong. It is the energy of the people that will ultimately determine its success in the marketplace. How did you feel the last time you were in a post office and an indifferent clerk ignored you? This is not to say a business can have bad strategies and processes delivering unwanted goods and services. Rather, the goods and services will reflect on the organization’s ethereal energies—that is, its vision, values, and ethics, and the culture that results. If you don’t understand these ethereal, less visible, aspects of the business, you may not understand why the visible aspects are not working very well. When forming a partnership, it’s important to understand them all. And in my experience, it’s actually the unseen aspects that have the greatest impact on an organization’s success.

Partnering2 ch11

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 189

A S S E S S STAG E

LEADERSHIP SKILLS Strategic Framework Vision

M A T E R I A L

Values/Ethics

Products/ Services

Mission

Culture

Strategic Direction

E T H E R E A L

Strategies/Processes

MANAGERIAL SKILLS

Figure 19 Holistic Organization Model

When reviewing the Holistic Organizational Model it is important to recognize the skills required in each realm. When leaders are operating in the ethereal realm they must use their relationship skills, such as those described by the Six Partnering Attributes. These are the relationship skills that enable people to connect to each other and the world around them. When leaders are operating in the material realm they must use managerial skills such as problem solving, process management, or project management. Leaders often confuse these two sets of skills and apply management skills instead of leadership skills when working with people. The same is true in partnerships. Partners must be able to identify and apply the correct set of skills, based on whether the issue is about task (managerial skills) or people (relationship skills). THE ETHEREAL REALM: VISION, V A L U E S , E T H I C S , A N D C U LT U R E

In the conceptual phase of the internal assessment, top leadership envisions the purpose, scope, and potential outcomes. Conceptual development must include the interests of those for whom the partnership is being created as well as a spiritual look at the organization. This requires the people involved to look at the organization’s heart and soul as well as its related material aspects.

189

Partnering2 ch11

190

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 190

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

By understanding the heart and soul of the organization, we become grounded with our internal security and have a foundation for our ethical standards. These ethereal qualities are what enable us to harness and connect the organization’s collective human energy to accomplish tasks—like an electronic grid. This energy motivates, focuses, and moves people in one direction or another. Have you ever walked into an office and felt the tension? The ethereal plane manifests itself in the morale of the organization. When morale is high, people show high productivity and creativity and solve problems easily. When morale is low, people struggle. Like the human spirit, ethereal organizational energy exists. Whether or not we are conscious of its influence, it is real and shapes what we do—it gives us a feeling of unity and common purpose. Have you ever seen people rally energy—as when a sports team is winning? We’ve all experienced occasions when team spirit seemed to propel the whole group toward extraordinary performance. On the other hand, maybe you can remember times when your group had low morale and couldn’t perform or lacked the energy to achieve anything noteworthy. This is an important concept to keep in mind when creating partnerships. For the Partnership Continuum to work, you need to balance the energy in the alliance between the two aspects of partnering: tasks and relationships. If you don’t understand the relationship aspects of the organization, you won’t be able to find the necessary balance in partnering. Recently I participated in a strategic planning session for a large credit card company. Management was composed of intelligent people who were also very competitive. I witnessed the group mire itself in a pointless discussion about whether to use the word understand or the word validate in a statement about client relationships. For two hours the group looped back to this discussion again and again. But the issue blocking the group’s progress wasn’t about words at all—a dictionary had clarified their meanings early on. Instead, two powerful individuals vying for control drove the dynamics of the group’s experience. Even at the expense of the group’s time and the outcome of the process, they needed to satisfy their egos. Forcing your ego on others and striving to control people and events are negative ethereal energies that discourage teamwork and

Partnering2 ch11

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 191

A S S E S S STAG E

produce resentment. Ego needs have crumbled empires; they can certainly derail a company’s strategic plan. In partnerships, ego-driven discussions sap people’s energy and disillusion them in ways that keep them from accomplishing tasks. As shown in the Holistic Organizational Model, ethereal energies of the organization—the vision, values, ethics, and culture—determine the quality of its strategies and processes and ultimately of its products and services. The value and the potential of the organization’s business are defined by ethereal energies and manifest themselves in the strategies and processes they produce. An organization’s ethereal energies are evident to the consumers who purchase products and services. Recently an automaker recalled a pickup truck. The recall was to insert a small, inexpensive part that management felt was unnecessary and had elected to leave out of the production process. This part prevented gasoline from slipping back onto a hot manifold and possibly causing a fire. Leaving the part out saved the manufacturer pennies per vehicle. After a series of fires, however, the manufacturer was taken to court. Costly court expenses and victim settlements eventually forced it to install this device. Had the company placed profits over people? Since I learned of this case, I wouldn’t consider buying one of that company’s vehicles. Knowing its values, how could I ever trust it for my safety? In the short run, the bottom-line decision looked good. In the long run, however, the decision reduced the bottom-line profits and cost the company potential business as well. Our attitudes—and consequently our behavior toward others— are influenced by our fundamental psychological mind-set toward abundance or scarcity. If we believe that the market is wide open, for instance, we’ll be more likely to share what we have in order to build on it. This represents a future orientation. But if we believe the market is shrinking, that our share of that market is threatened, we’ll probably dig in to protect what we have and behave more defensively, in a past orientation mind-set. What determines our outlook, for either abundance or scarcity, has more to do with our attitude than with reality. The opportunities for companies to prosper by creating better internal and external partnerships are limited only by their own attitudes toward the future. Companies increase their PQ by adopting an attitude of abundance. This is because they move from a past

191

Partnering2 ch11

192

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 192

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

orientation to a future orientation by looking for possibilities— thereby generating creativity and mutual benefits. Organizations with no mission beyond the pursuit of money, power, or material well-being are shortsighted. These are legitimate goals, but they’re not visionary. They don’t relate to the concept of abundance because they’re too narrow. In short, they don’t satisfy ethereal needs—the basic human needs to belong, to contribute, to share, and to be valued as part of a system. An enterprise that inspires people has to represent more than just the pursuit of profits—especially if not everyone shares in the profits. Partnering is one strategy to connect the ethereal needs of people in the workplace with the tasks of the business. Although more organizations are spreading equity stakes around to more people, often the profits end up with shareholders or are plowed back into the company’s assets. This is not to say that employees can’t invest in the company in other ways. It’s just that too often companies assume that what the owners want will satisfy workers as well. Often it doesn’t. And there goes the balance between task and relationship. Organizations, like teams, operate best when everyone contributes to the organizational goals. When parts merely work together collectively, they focus only on their own domain—on their own success or survival. We might work hard to attain the output expected by others, but only in ways that ensure our individual success. When we look at ourselves as a system, however, we begin to integrate our functions and modify them to support others. Imagine an orchestra showing up to play with no program, no sheet music, and no conductor. No one communicates a vision of the musical outcome. Forty musicians, all virtuosos in their own right, would produce something short of the orchestra’s potential without the organization inspired by the conductor’s vision. Now imagine this same group of musicians guided by the leader, all on the same page of music, all blending their individual performances to produce an outcome. The audience is moved; emotions are stirred; the box office is happy. Vision and Values

Creating and articulating vision and values is a basic leadership role. Some people mistrust the concept of vision and values in orga-

Partnering2 ch11

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 193

A S S E S S STAG E

nizations. Organizational leaders don’t want to waste time creating yet another useless description of the future, and employees grow weary of hearing lofty ideals mouthed by their leaders. Phony visions do nothing but reinforce their cynicism; actions speak louder than words. People watch what others do, not what they say. Organizations must act in accordance with their vision every day—instead of treating the concept as a training exercise that they’ll update every five years. A vision is not a goal. It’s not a statement that points toward a destination. Margaret J. Wheatley expresses this concept eloquently in her 1992 book Leadership and the New Science. She explains how a vision is really a field of energy: Vision—the need for organizational clarity about purpose and direction—is a wonderful candidate for field theory. In linear fashion, we have most often conceived of vision as thinking into the future, creating a destination for the organization. We have believed that the clearer the image of the destination, the more force the future will exert on the present, pulling us into that desired future state. It’s a very strong Newtonian image, much like the old view of gravity. But what if we changed the science and looked at vision as a field? What if we saw a field of vision that needed to permeate organizational space, rather than viewing vision as a linear destination? (53–54)

Permeating the organization means that the vision itself becomes an energy form that influences the human energies that run the business. Statements that only talk about achieving a goal or arriving at a linear point in the future don’t have the power that Wheatley describes. An open, internal-focused statement would read something like this one from an international investment firm: “We are committed to building positive futures, one relationship at a time.” This company understands the value of the ethereal energy inherent in the process of doing business. It acknowledges that good things will result from the way they do business, not just what may appear on a future balance statement. Ethics and Culture

Discussing ethics is awkward because people feel so strongly about them. Ethics aren’t universally shared or even understood, and their

193

Partnering2 ch11

194

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 194

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

application in practice is always an issue. Our difficulty in talking about ethical situations may be due to the fact that no one wants to be labeled “unethical.” Yet every organization should ask itself daily: “Are we an ethical organization?” The question is provocative. Ethics are based on individual behavior. Organizations do not have ethics; the people in the organization have ethics. Leaders show others their ethical standards by what they do, and the other people in the organization most likely rise or sink to their standards. Everyone in the company is affected when a leader makes a policy decision or when an owner decides to commit a company to a certain course. In other words, everyone is affected by the leader’s ethical standards. Looking at your company’s vision is a way to reflect on its ethical standards. Revising, expanding, or changing the company’s vision is a way for the assessment step to launch the partnership. You also need to examine the culture of your organization. Culture reflects “how we do things around here,” that is, nothing more than the formal and informal norms of behavior that develop as people work together. Yet it is the most powerful force within an organization because it is dictated by human energy, and human energy is the only real energy any organization has. Making sure that the human energy is harnessed and focused on business objectives is the most important job of leadership. Regardless of whether the organization is a 150,000-person multinational or a 10-person start-up, leadership sets the tone and style of how people interact with each other. They do this by their actions, not by their words. Employees watch leaders very closely, rarely forgetting what a leader does. They watch who is praised, promoted, and criticized, and then mimic the behaviors that are recognized and rewarded. In today’s fast-paced business environment, leaders rarely take time to ensure that they are setting a good example. In fact, in many organizations, leaders deny that they have any kind of influence over people at all. It’s easier to blame individuals than to acknowledge that cultural forces have a strong influence over individual choices and that those forces emanate from the top. How do leaders go about developing a partnering culture? It is important that they take a thoughtful and purposeful approach and that they are committed to the undertaking. A model is provided in Figure 20.

Partnering2 ch11

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 195

A S S E S S STAG E

1. Gain personal mastery using the Six Partnering Attributes

2. Align organizational structures to support the Six Partnering Attributes

3. Develop teams using the Six Partnering Attributes

Partnering Culture

Figure 20 Developing a Partnering Culture

Gain personal mastery using the Six Partnering Attributes. The first step in building a partnering culture needs to be taken by the executive leadership. They must move beyond intellectually understanding partnering behaviors and begin living partnering behaviors. These behaviors represented by the Six Partnering Attributes—SelfDisclosure and Feedback, Win-Win Orientation, Ability to Trust, Future Orientation, Comfort with Change, and Comfort with Interdependence—build trust and inspire a sense of vision and confidence in others. When used consistently within the organization, they create the atmosphere that allows the partnering culture to thrive. To accomplish this, leaders must start with their executive team. The executive team must commit to behaving in an open and trusting manner using the interpersonal skills of the Six Partnering Attributes. Then they must hold each other accountable for following through. In addition to helping leadership set a good example, the Six Partnering Attributes provide a language for enabling team members to better communicate with each other. Through meaningful dialogue, language is bonded to action, which builds trust, sending positive charges into the organizational atmosphere and energizing the culture. Consequently, when people in a partnering culture talk about working collaboratively and building trust, each member knows what actions he or she must take to meet everyone else’s expectations. Over time, these become behavioral norms that are embedded within the organizational culture itself. Align organizational structures to support the Six Partnering Attributes. The second step in building a partnering culture is making sure that the organization’s infrastructure supports the emerging culture. In terms of compensation, for example, people will do what they are

195

Partnering2 ch11

196

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 196

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

rewarded to do. If you want collaborative behavior, you must balance the reward for both collaborative behavior and individual contribution. If you value trust, you must measure trust and reward it. It’s not difficult, but few organizations have such measurements in place. Develop teams using the Six Partnering Attributes. Once leadership has achieved personal mastery of the Six Partnering Attributes and organizational structures are in place to support the use of these attributes, employees must be trained in the use of the Six Partnering Attributes to accomplish their tasks. This creates a reinforcing network and embeds the language deeper within the organization. Ultimately, language turns into action, as the norm evolves into “how we do things around here.” A questionnaire can provide remarkable insight into the culture—and the people who live in the culture are the best ones to supply the data. When discussing partnerships, I ask the leadership to respond to a questionnaire about the organization’s culture like the one in Exercise 9, which links aspects of the organization’s culture to the Six Partnering Attributes. Exercise 10 offers a simple line graph format for assessing an organization’s past or future orientation environment. The information mined from this simple exercise is very important. Above all, it gives a quick self-assessment of where people see the organization. People from departments, branches, or any other unit can combine their estimates and analyze their group rating. Some may see themselves as being close to the future orientation end of the spectrum; others may see themselves at the opposite end. Assessing each department using a graph like the one in Exercise 11 should help identify prospective areas where readiness for partnering activities is evident—and indicate where more developmental activities are needed before the decision to create a partnership is made. By doing Exercises 9 and 10, you are starting to gather information about where the organization sees itself in terms of past and future orientation. Remember that you are just starting the journey of partnering. Most organizations that are just starting to form partnerships have past orientation environments. Articulating a vision that is consistent with the leadership’s actions and cultural readiness can motivate everyone to participate in its implementation. Goals such as sales targets, revenue growth, and

Partnering2 ch11

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 197

A S S E S S STAG E

Exercise 9. Culture Questionnaire Instructions

The purpose of this exercise is to stimulate discussion between you and your partnering team. As members answer the questions about the organization’s culture, get them to think in terms of the partnering attributes listed to the right of each question. Question

Partnering Attributes

1. How much do you trust the leadership?

• Ability to Trust

2. Do you feel included in organizational decisions?

• Future Orientation • Comfort with Interdependence

3. Are information and data shared with you?

• Self-Disclosure and Feedback • Comfort with Interdependence

4. Do you feel management listens to you?

• Future Orientation • Self-Disclosure and Feedback

5. How open do you feel the organization is with you?

• Future Orientation • Ability to Trust • Self-Disclosure and Feedback

6. How are conflicts resolved in this organization?

• Win-Win Orientation

7. Does this organization take risks?

• Ability to Trust • Future Orientation

8. How does this organization respond to change?

• Comfort with Change • Ability to Trust

market penetration are strategic directions that organizations should address in their mission statements. But without a vision to channel the ethereal energies of each participant, such goals alone are not compelling enough to break through to the creative zone.

197

Partnering2 ch11

198

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 198

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

Exercise 10. Past/Future Orientation Environment Instructions

Think about your organization’s past/future orientation environment based on the characteristics of each orientation listed below. Past Orientation

Future Orientation

Reliance on past history for decision making

Plans for the future; holding people accountable

Independent relationships

Interdependent relationships

High need for control

Low need for control

Scarcity mentality

Abundance mentality

Maintaining status quo

Embracing change

Low trust

High trust

Win-lose conflict resolution

Win-win orientation

Discuss where you as a team would place your organization’s environment on the line graph below. Discuss what impacts that will have on your forming partnerships.

Past

Future

T H E M AT E R I A L R E A L M : S T R AT E G I E S , P R O C E S S E S , PRODUCTS, AND SERVICES

In the early 1900s, American engineer and efficiency expert Frederick W. Taylor experimented with methods of improving work processes, including the use of quantitative measurement, to increase production. The goal was to make these processes more efficient by simplifying the work, thereby reducing labor costs. The presumption was that since the task was simpler, employers could use cheaper, less educated, less skilled workers. What resulted in many organizations was a workforce that functioned not as integrated units benefiting the whole but as separate units focused on their own existence. The engineers ignored what

Partnering2 ch11

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 199

A S S E S S STAG E

Exercise 11. Past/Future Orientation Profile Instructions

Review the lists of past/future orientation characteristics in Exercise 10. On the line graphs below, indicate the orientation of your various team leaders (add others as necessary). Executive team Past

Future Engineering team

Past

Future M arketing team

Past

Future Production team

Past

Future Supervision team

Past

Future Planning team

Past

Future

they couldn’t measure. They could measure the material realm: product quality, levels of service, production and sales activity, and even profit. What they couldn’t measure was the ethereal realm: the vision, values, ethics, and culture. In this case, engineering didn’t guarantee anything but successful engineering. What Taylor did, in effect, was cut workers off from the ethereal qualities of their work by focusing their contribution on the task. This explains why assembly-line workers frequently describe their work as mindless and soulless. Today’s organizations are going to have to unlearn some of Taylor’s lessons since the new economy will have little to do with putting widgets together. Technology is reducing the role of manual labor by automating much of it with robotics. To accomplish the organization’s vision, employees operating in the new economy will need a holistic understanding of the business in partnership with other stakeholders.

199

Partnering2 ch11

200

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 200

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

Vision

Mission

Strategic Direction

Strategic Direction

Strategic Direction

Strategic Direction

Strategies

Strategies

Strategies

Strategies

Work Processes

Work Processes

Work Processes

Work Processes

Products/ Services

Products/ Services

Products/ Services

Products/ Services

Figure 21 Organizational Process Model (Sample)

To assess the gap between where the organization wants to be and what it currently can produce, I use the organizational process model shown in Figure 21. This tool helps me view the organization at the macro level and allows me to see at a glance what the organization is accomplishing from a task perspective. It helps indicate whether the work being done is consistent with the organization’s vision and mission. Moreover, the model identifies any gaps between present processes and future plans. A credit card company I worked with had its genesis in the postwar boom of the 1950s and 1960s, enabling millions of consumers to buy electrical appliances. Although this company had been very successful for decades, competition for market share of appliances increased as the market became saturated. In addition, the spread of other credit resources began to squeeze this company’s profits. Soon the company was expanding into other kinds of businesses including dealer financing, retail space design, inventory financing, and even the financing of capital improvements for dealers. Each area now competed for the resources of the original credit card business, and the company found itself spread too thin. Divisions competed against each other for personnel and budget. And as the top leadership

Partnering2 ch11

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 201

A S S E S S STAG E

increasingly abandoned initiatives that didn’t produce short-term profits, the whole company’s morale spiraled downward. The demise of this company was probably due not to any single factor or even to poor business decisions, but to a lack of focus on vision. At the very least its vision became blurred. Scrambling with temporary solutions failed to address the company’s fundamental issue. As its market changed, it needed to clarify and expand its vision rather than busy itself with diversions. U S I N G A M I S S I O N S TAT E M E N T TO C L A R I F Y T H E V I S I O N

As the vision defines the ethereal qualities of the organization, the mission statement defines the task functions. It states how the vision will be accomplished. Generally the mission statement defines the area of the organization’s expertise and targets a specific industry or population. For example, the Minnesota Council for Preventive Medicine, a nonprofit organization of physicians, has the following mission statement: To promote preventive medicine in Minnesota, our goals include: • To create a network of physicians interested in preventive medicine • To offer expertise in preventive medicine to interested individuals, organizations, learning institutions, and media • To influence public policy toward the prevention of physical and mental illness and injury • To support and promote specific initiatives that seek to prevent illness and injury

This mission statement clearly defines the areas this council intends to influence and the methods it will use. It defines how the organization will achieve its vision. The strategic directions are the broad areas in which the organization will focus its energy. Organizations frequently use pluralistic approaches to achieve success. A company focuses its strategic directions by identifying the various market segments it serves, the groups of consumers it targets, or the industries in which it plans to compete. As another example, a sandwich chain identified three market segments it wished to serve:

201

Partnering2 ch11

202

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 202

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

• Dine-in customers • Take-out customers • Delivery customers After identifying its market segments, it put into place specific strategies and processes to serve each of these consumer groups. Perhaps in the future the sandwich company could offer prepared sandwiches for sale in a grocery store as a fourth growth opportunity. This could present an opportunity to develop a partnership with a grocery store chain. Does this fit into its current strategic directions? At the moment it does not, since the three strategic directions it has identified are focused on other delivery systems. Nevertheless, it could expand its strategic directions to include grocery store customers and significantly increase its potential market. By taking an inventory of strategic directions, an organization can determine what partnerships are appropriate today and look toward expanding its business in the future. Strategies detail what you are going to do to get where you’ve said you want to go. In the example of the sandwich chain, the organization planned to install drive-through windows at all its restaurants to meet the needs of its take-out customers. Strategies relate to meeting customer needs and are implemented by processes developed to carry out the strategy. Work processes are how the strategies will be implemented. They are the actions that fulfill the strategy and meet the specific needs of the customer. The most successful organizations use process management—a business science that documents, measures, analyzes, and improves its processes. The sandwich chain, for instance, has an order-taking process, a sandwich-making process, a dining room– cleaning process, a supply-ordering process, and many other processes that support its strategies for serving its customers. By using structured methodologies such as process management, an organization controls the quality and reliability of its product or service to enhance its success in the marketplace. By now you may be wondering what all this has to do with partnerships. Having the ability to map out your vision, mission statement, strategic directions, and processes will enable you to figure out

Partnering2 ch11

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 203

A S S E S S STAG E

the direction in which you want to move. Understanding your business from this holistic perspective gives a total picture of what’s happening now. Upon reflection, you can start to assemble the pieces for the next future state. Understanding your business and its processes is key to determining your needs. Once these needs have been identified, you’ve increased your Partnering Intelligence.

IDENTIFYING NEEDS

A self-assessment process gives us insights into who we are personally. Organizations that commit to this process must also assess themselves to know their leadership style, express their visions for the future, and devise strategies and processes to realize that future. Here’s where a critical question emerges: To get where we want to go, can we use the resources we already have, or do we need to look for a partner? At this point the organization has to think hard. The decision to go it alone—to forgo the partnership strategy and maximize or expand present resources through other means—may be the wisest alternative. The whole point of the Assess stage has been to secure a firm foundation for future growth. In the process, by using the Partnership Continuum as a guide, we can choose to move toward developing a partnership. Or, just as important, we can decide this is not our best route to the future. The internal assessment is needed to reveal our own interests and what we require in a partnership. Cultural forces influence how well partnerships develop. Each company’s management style, whether autocratic or consensus based, may be a factor. Is the organization’s culture past oriented or future oriented? Is the corporate culture closed or open? Are organizational structures flexible or rigid? Are partners willing to collaborate on all critical issues? Later in the Explore stage, as we shall see, we use this information to select, approach, and create an appropriate partner. But before taking this step, completing Exercises 12 and 13 will put you in a better position to analyze your current situation. You have just increased your Partnering Intelligence. Now you can decide whether partnering is right for you—and if so, what characteristics you will be looking for in a future partner.

203

Partnering2 ch11

204

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 204

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

Exercise 12. Summary of the Assess Stage Instructions

The purpose of this checklist is to be sure that you and your team have not overlooked any steps in preparing and implementing the Assess Stage of Partnership Development. As a team, review each question and place a mark in either the “Yes” or “No” column. Note any item you wish to highlight or comment on; you may also want to note any step the team believes is unnecessary in your situation. Question

1. Have we committed our resources to a comprehensive assessment? 2. Have we included all stakeholders? 3. Have we identified ethereal qualities? 4. Have we agreed on a company vision? 5. Do we have a mission statement? 6. Do we have written strategic goals? 7. Do we know which processes we can use to achieve our goals? 8. Have we identified a gap between where we are and where we want to be? 9. Do we know what needs we expect a partnership to satisfy? 10. Are we ready, willing, and able to be a good partner?

Yes

No

Outcome/Comments

Partnering2 ch11

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 205

A S S E S S STAG E

Exercise 13. Needs Assessment Tool Instructions

The purpose of this exercise to is to provide you and your team guidelines for conducting a complete needs assessment. Since each needs assessment is unique, you will probably want to modify the steps. Include the whole needs assessment team in completing the exercise. An example is provided. Example Step

1. Contract with participants Determine: • Team leadership • Leadership’s expectations of assessment

Step

1. Contract with participants Determine: • Team leadership • Leadership’s expectations of assessment • Focus for assessment: task/relationship/both • Roles and responsibilities • Budget 2. Research Determine: • Methodology (surveys, interviews, focus groups, questionnaires) • Research objectives

Outcome

Suzette—CEO Bob—CFO Mark—Engineering Include all departments. Complete by May 1. Include qualitative and quantitative data. Produce written report.

Outcome

Recommendation

Need to add: Herbert—HR Martha—Marketing

Recommendation

205

Partnering2 ch11

206

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 206

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

Exercise 13. Needs Assessment Tool continued Step

Outcome

Recommendation

3. Data analysis Determine: • Types of data: qualitative/quantitative • Content analysis • Issues/concerns 4. Presentation • Provide leadership with data • Gain leadership’s validation of data • Get feedback on data 5. Interpretation • Ask leadership what the data mean to them • Provide insights into meaning of data • Gain leadership’s agreement on data interpretation 6. Plan for action • Gain leadership’s commitment to move ahead • Prioritize critical areas for action • Develop action plans for areas with high priority • Identify organizational impact • Focus on material/ethereal realms • Continue to use PDCA cycle

A S S E S S S TA G E P L A N – D O – C H E C K – A C T C Y C L E

We have seen the importance of exploring both the ethereal and material realms of the organization. We have witnessed the systemic nature of organizations and how vision, values, ethics, and culture affect the organizational mission, strategies, processes, products, and

Partnering2 ch11

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 207

A S S E S S STAG E

services. We have reviewed the steps and tools for conducting an internal needs assessment. Now it is time to build quality into the process by adhering to the Plan–Do–Check–Act (PDCA) cycle. This is accomplished by listing the tasks that need to occur in the Assess Stage of Partnership Development under each step of the cycle. Below is a sample of what to do in each step. You may want to use this example as is or modify it to meet your particular objectives. Either way, it will help you accomplish the task in less time and with greater efficiency and higher quality.

PLAN

Once you have determined that you are going to conduct the internal assessment, • Select the assessment team • Review the ethereal areas of the organization (vision, values, ethics, culture) • Review the material areas of the organization (mission, strategies, processes, products, services) • Identify the purpose, scope, and potential outcomes of the assessment DO

• Complete the Culture Questionnaire (Exercise 9) • Develop a Past/Future Orientation Profile (Exercise 11) • Develop an Organizational Process Model (see Figure 21) • Complete the Needs Assessment Tool (Exercise 13) • Using the assessment team, determine the areas that must be addressed. For example, if you find you have ethereal issues that are preventing the organization from accomplishing its goals, list them. If there is a material area the organization is lacking, identify what it is you want to accomplish. Try using a matrix approach like the one shown in Table 6. • Have the assessment team complete the Summary of the Assess Stage (Exercise 12)

207

Partnering2 ch11

208

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 208

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

C H EC K

• Did you attain your goals and objectives? • If not, what did you forget? • Review the output with your organization’s leadership • Get leadership’s response to the areas you cite as organizational needs • Are these needs consistent with the tribal wisdom of the organization? • What surprises are there? • What did you expect? • Which questions of the Summary of the Assess Stage (Exercise 12) could you not answer “yes” to? • Do you need to revisit any of these areas for more information? • Did you address the ethereal and material realms of the organization? • Do you have plans to bring both dimensions into alignment with the Partnership Continuum? AC T

At this point you need to go back to the Assess stage and readdress any areas that have not been covered adequately. If you think you have covered the areas to your assessment team’s satisfaction and have pinpointed the needs of the organization, both ethereal and material, then you’re ready to move on to the next Stage of Partnership Development: Explore.

PA R T N E R S H I P C A S E S T U D I E S

I’ve worked with hundreds of organizations to help them form partnerships—both internally and with other organizations. The two case studies I offer here reflect normal behavior and the common reactions I get from the people I work with. These partnerships were successful, but not perfect—which makes them especially valuable as case studies. We see real people in real situations acting and reacting the way we ourselves might. Several questions are worth thinking about while reading through these cases:

Partnering2 ch11

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 209

A S S E S S STAG E

Table 6

Outcomes of the Needs Assessment Matrix (Sample) Issue

Outcome

Recommendation

Past orientation environment

Lack of open communication between management and employees

Establish open communication between all levels in organization

Lack of trust

Build trust by revealing plans and getting consensus

Top-down decision making

Build team decisionmaking structure

Poor communication between Production and Marketing

Marketing and Production do not meet for planning

Have Marketing and Production develop joint strategy for sales initiatives

Off-site telemarketing sales of new Omega product line

Lack of sales capacity to market Omega product nationally

Partner with telemarketing firm to sell Omega nationally

• What can I learn from this case study? • What did these people do to increase their Partnering Intelligence? • What could they have done to improve their partnership? 1 . A N I N T E R N A L PA R T N E R S H I P : A CO N V E N T I O N H OT E L

Eric, the general manager of an eight-hundred-room convention hotel in Minneapolis (part of an international chain), asked me to help solve problems that two departments at the hotel were experiencing with one another. He wanted to know if the two departments couldn’t somehow start to work together and form a partnership to better serve the guests and each other. He invited me to a meeting along with the two heads of the departments, Marty and Jean. Marty was the supervisor of Maintenance and Jean headed Housekeeping.

209

Partnering2 ch11

210

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 210

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

Marty had about forty house maintenance engineers on his staff, and they were responsible for all building maintenance. Their duties varied from changing lightbulbs to fixing the hotel’s heating and cooling systems. Jean managed a staff of about one hundred housekeepers, groomers, and laundry personnel. Marty and Jean were constantly at each other’s throats. More than once they’d had separate meetings with Eric, each complaining about the other. It seems that Housekeeping was constantly complaining about having to redo the room when Maintenance failed to clean up after themselves once they finished repairing something in the room. While this may sound like a minor dispute, it was the source of years of anger between the two departments and these two employees. To make matters worse, Marty and Jean did not like each other personally. Marty complained that Jean was overly sensitive and that her staff was lazy and whined constantly. Jean told me she thought Marty was a bigot and a bully. Marty was immediately dubious about the idea of partnering. He didn’t want to partner with Jean over anything. He said his group was doing just fine, and from what he could tell, Housekeeping was doing a good job, too. Jean said guests often complained that her staff had done a poor job of cleaning the room. She noticed that these were the rooms that had been scheduled for maintenance, and she was constantly sending housekeepers back to rooms where Maintenance had just completed a job. She complained that the maintenance engineers made a mess and never cleaned up after themselves. Marty just smirked. I suggested that we meet individually to talk about the problem. I first met with Marty. I wanted to know several things about Marty’s operation. What was his vision of the maintenance organization in the hotel? He told me he wanted to make sure everything in each room operated properly and was in good repair. “But, you know, with eight hundred guest rooms, three dining rooms, fifteen meeting rooms, two kitchens, a laundry, and a suite of executive offices, it’s impossible not to have something broken.” I told him I could understand his point. When I asked about his relationship with Jean, he said that she was all right “personally” but was overly sensitive to criticism—and that her staff was not always competent and frequently did a poor job and then blamed it on Maintenance. Once I understood the relationship issues, I began to ask about the tasks. I asked how people got assigned jobs, the hours when people were scheduled, and other issues where I thought there might be conflicts. I got an understanding of how they measured their work and noted the performance issues that were important to them. Marty showed me a priority list of items that the maintenance people followed to help them get the job done.

Partnering2 ch11

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 211

A S S E S S STAG E

Then I went to Jean and asked the same questions. Her vision was to have each guest be completely pleased with the cleanliness of the room and to have the room in perfect shape when guests arrived. I asked how she felt about Maintenance. She said that Marty really didn’t care about her or Housekeeping: from his perspective, they were there to fix things and she was there to clean up after them. “That really annoys me,” she said, “because we are not here to clean up after Maintenance. We’re here to ensure the comfort of our guests and make sure their rooms are cleaned. The engineers are supposed to clean up after themselves—and they’ve been told that a hundred times. They just don’t care. And they know if they leave a mess, it reflects on Housekeeping, not them.” I then asked her about the scheduling of the rooms for cleaning and the housekeepers. She provided me with all the details of the tasks. After my discussions with Marty and Jean, I began to understand that they really had more in common than they thought. So I invited them both back to a meeting. At the meeting I showed and explained to them the Partnership Continuum model and asked if they were interested in working through the model together. They both agreed. So I asked each of them to share their personal vision with the other. After they did so, I asked them to come up with a shared vision they could both agree on. Since they had so much in common, it was easy for them to do. The shared vision they agreed on was this: Each guest would have a clean room in which everything worked properly. After we all agreed on the vision, I asked about the two dynamics of the Partnership Continuum. First, I said, let’s talk about the Stages of Relationship Development. Both agreed they hadn’t really gotten along in the past. In reality, they didn’t even know each other very well. I asked them if they met frequently to discuss issues of mutual concern. I wasn’t surprised to hear that they rarely even talked to each other. So I asked them what they could do to improve their relationship. Marty surprised me: “I think it would be helpful if we got to know each other’s operations. Maybe there’s some way we can work together to solve our issues.” Jean immediately responded by suggesting they meet one afternoon the following week to talk about how they each accomplish their tasks. The following week we met again and both Jean and Marty reviewed how they scheduled and accomplished their tasks. One of the first things Jean noticed was that there was no coordination between cleaning the rooms and maintenance work. She asked Marty what time he received his list of guest room maintenance jobs. “First thing in the morning, about 7:30,” he said. The job orders were collected by the chief operator and given to him. He then passed them out to the maintenance engineers. We were well on our way to identifying the needs.

211

Partnering2 ch11

212

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 212

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

2 . A N E X T E R N A L PA R T N E R S H I P : A D OW N TOW N O F F I C E TOW E R

The city is in the midst of a building boom. All over downtown, the landscape is changing as office space gets tighter and towers sprout up on once-empty street-level parking lots. One of the city’s largest, most prestigious contractors has just completed negotiations with a legal firm to build a new office tower. The location was selected, and preliminary architectural design work was completed. With the tight budget and time constraints, how could Robert, the contractor, get the job completed on time and on budget? The legal firm was currently leasing fifteen stories, and their lease was up at the end of the following year. They needed to have their new building finished by then. Once the deal was signed, Robert went to work scoping out the project plan and timeline. Although he had completed many projects in the past, this one was special. The magnitude of the project, the prestigious location, and the scale of the building put additional pressure on him to make sure the project went off without a hitch. Constructing a thirtyseven-story building is a complex task. Coordinating the numerous variables can strain the best project manager’s Partnering Intelligence. But nothing is quite so critical, or as potentially stressful, as the labor issue. Not only is labor one of the biggest expenses, it could be the component most easily mismanaged. Robert remembered one project when an electrical union had walked off the job. Not only did the strike shut down the entire project for over a month, but once it was settled, it took three weeks just to reorganize the project timeline—think of the headache caused by all the building materials arriving with no place to store them. It cost everyone a bundle in lost time, money, and goodwill. Robert called Peter at the city’s Building and Construction Trades Council. Peter is responsible for negotiating partnerships between the local union building trades and building contractors. Having worked with Peter in the past, Robert knew that he and Peter could figure out a way to meet each other’s needs. Robert set up a meeting. In most cases, an organization would conduct a needs assessment to figure out what they needed in a partnership. But in this case, both Robert and Peter knew exactly what they needed from each other. They had partnered before on many successful projects. Robert’s primary concern was to have the building completed on time. Second to this he needed to meet the tight budgetary guidelines given to him by the client. Naturally the budget proposal sent out requests for pricing to many different subcontractors. Since pricing was a concern, he knew he needed something more from Peter than just a time commitment. He needed to be sure the

Partnering2 ch11

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 213

A S S E S S STAG E

bids were competitive. He wanted to use union labor, but the price had to be right. At the meeting, Robert began to express his needs. If he and the unions were to be partners, he needed a no-strike agreement and a commitment to provide the skilled and licensed labor when required— and the bids needed to be competitive with nonunion labor. Peter’s top priority was simple: a union work site with all-union labor. He also needed to be sure that negotiated wages and benefits were paid to the trade members and that management followed union work and safety rules. Based on their discussion, both Robert and Peter determined that they could satisfy each other’s needs. They agreed to explore what it would take to partner on this project.

213

Partnering2 ch11

4/3/04

10:18 AM

Page 214

Partnering2 ch12

4/3/04

10:20 AM

Page 215

CHAPTER

T W E LV E

Explore Stage Meeting the Right Partner You’ve assessed your ability to meet your own needs and have noted a gap between your future goals and present capabilities. You’ve looked at your organization and concluded that partnering with another could help you fill this gap. You’ve judged your capacity to be a good partner by understanding the material and ethereal realms of your organization. You’re ready, willing, and able to be a good partner. You are now in the Explore Stage of Partnership Development. When Northwest Airlines completed its internal assessment, it discovered that it was the strongest competitor from the North American market across the Pacific to the Asian markets. But it also discovered that its flights across the North Atlantic into the European market were far from dominant. It had some flights to Frankfurt and London, but the competition across the Atlantic was stiff. Northwest’s fleet of aircraft was simply not large enough to compete in the number of cities the European market offered. Northwest’s leadership believed that the airline could be a good partner for some other carrier because they had a clear mission and a lot of new, enthusiastic people running the company. Plus, relations between management and unions were steadily improving. Northwest decided to try a “hub and spoke” strategy that had worked well in the North American market—wherein airplanes fly to a central location and then fan out to distant points. After comparing 215

Partnering2 ch12

216

4/3/04

10:20 AM

Page 216

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

profiles of several European airlines, Northwest selected KLM of the Netherlands as a good candidate for its needs. It also saw how it could help KLM expand in two markets: North America and Asia. KLM had an extensive route structure in Europe and a large, modern facility at Schipol Airport in Amsterdam, which is centrally located. On paper at least, the partnership between these two carriers appeared ideal. W H AT T Y P E O F P A R T N E R S H I P D O Y O U W A N T ?

Some partnerships are obvious right from the start. Suppose a company wants to partner with its employees’ union to start a quality improvement process. Or perhaps a company wants to have two or more departments such as Manufacturing, Marketing, or Engineering partner on a product development project. Or a natural alliance between a customer and supplier results from the relationship already in place. Outsourcing relationships are becoming more and more common as businesses refocus on their core business and satisfying their customers’ needs. A less obvious partnership would be in the development of new products, services, or technologies designed to meet future customer needs. New partnerships offer the opportunity to be partners by design. These new partnerships offer more options because the organization is limited only by its imagination. But selecting the right partner can be a daunting experience if key decisions about the purpose of the partnership are not clear from the beginning. A systematic approach to finding a partner works best. Generally my clients have some concept of who they might want for a partner. From our previous example, Bank of America knew they wanted to outsource the transactions in their human resources department. Businesses are familiar with the market, the suppliers, and the vendors. But first they must identify the need. (The Needs Assessment Tool, Exercise 13 on pp. 205–206, is useful in this regard.) Once the need is clearly identified, the assessment team should brainstorm a list of potential partnering candidates to fill it. The next step is to evaluate the potential of each candidate on the list. Building a potential partner matrix for a small computer firm, like the one shown in Table 7, can help organizations visualize how each prospect might satisfy their needs. In the example, the firm’s needs are to develop new products, expand its market, and secure new

Partnering2 ch12

4/3/04

10:20 AM

Page 217

E X P LO R E STAG E

Table 7

Potential Partner Matrix (Sample) Potential Partner

Strategic Need Product Development

IBM

Market Expansion

Distribution

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

SunComp PC Products

✓

Lake

✓

Nokomis

✓

distribution outlets in order to stay competitive. Based on how each prospect might meet the listed strategic needs, the firm would probably want to take a closer look at PC Products and Nokomis as partnering candidates. After identifying these two candidates, it would then need to determine what it can offer to them. W H AT D O Y O U R P A R T N E R S N E E D F R O M Y O U ?

If you’re going to sell your potential partner on the idea of partnering, you need to know what you have to offer. As with any sales transaction, if there’s no need, there’s no sale. People do buy things they don’t need, of course. But what happens after the sale? They return the product. They discount the transaction and never repeat it. The sales relationship is short-lived. If you want a good, strong partnership, it will pay you to bring your potential partners up to speed on the partnering process you are using to partner. You can do this by helping your potential partners identify their needs as well. In the Explore Stage of Partnership Development, your main concern is finding out what a potential partner wants. You already know what you want because you’ve completed the Needs Assessment Tool (Exercise 13). When you first contact a potential partner, make sure you share your information first. This will demonstrate your willingness to be open and direct. Make it clear that you’re looking for an equitable partner. This engenders openness and invites the other party to disclose information.

217

Partnering2 ch12

218

4/3/04

10:20 AM

Page 218

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

If this potential partner expresses an interest in the possibility of working together, ask them to explain what expertise they have, where they’ve been, and where they’d like to go. And make sure that you listen attentively to their answers. The point is to learn what they need and how you might fulfill that need. Stick to possibilities. Don’t ask for specific commitments or plans yet. If they’re still interested in working together after you’ve exchanged some information, explain the Partnership Continuum model. Explain how the model helps people communicate effectively and provides a blueprint for creating mutually beneficial partnerships. With this tool, you can see what information you need to give and get. At the same time, it will help your potential partner communicate more easily. It will put the discussion where it belongs: in the context of partnerships. To help you structure this discussion, ask your potential partner to complete the Partner Compatibility Analysis (Exercise 14) with you. While you’re getting information from your potential partner, you’re also providing information about yourself and where you want to go. Finding the right partner takes time. Don’t be discouraged if a partner you thought would be ideal does not work out. Companies should interview at least three potential partners before selecting one. In a way, it’s a lot like dating. You don’t necessarily marry the first person you go out with. In business, you don’t want to form a partnership with the first potential partner you meet. Someone better suited to your needs may come along at any moment. Capability for Strategic Growth

In the Bank of America/Exult case, the bank knew it wanted to outsource its human resource capabilities and Exult wanted to demonstrate to others that it could manage a business on that scale. But as they explored their partnership, they discovered they might benefit in other ways. For example, Exult manages the payroll for many of its clients. Those payroll services could be managed through Bank of America, providing both seamless service for Exult’s clients and additional business for the bank. In the 1990s I worked with USWEST (now Qwest) Communications in a major effort to create better communications between management and union workers. At the outset, relations were hostile, distrustful, dysfunctional, and in many cases counterproductive.

Partnering2 ch12

4/3/04

10:20 AM

Page 219

E X P LO R E STAG E

Exercise 14. Partner Compatibility Analysis Instructions

Make a copy of this exercise so that you and your potential partner can complete it separately. As you answer each question, try to determine whether you and your partner are compatible on that subject. If there’s any doubt, probe deeper to ascertain whether there’s enough commonality to allow for consensus. After completing the analysis, share your findings and conclusions—either immediately or after consulting with top leadership. You may be able to determine if you are compatible as partners in this meeting.

Question

Compatible? (Yes/No)

Comments/Actions to Take/Conclusions

1. What is your vision? 2. Where do you want to go as a business? 3. What are your values and ethics? 4. What kind of corporate culture do you have? 5. What types of relationships and partnerships do you have? 6. How well have they been working? 7. What are your strategies for achieving your vision? 8. Have you conducted an internal assessment?

Management and the union, however, were seeking to form a mutually supportive partnership. But realizing even tiny steps toward that end seemed next to impossible. Our first task was to identify the “what’s in it for me” part of the assessment process. Our campaign— we dubbed it “Bridging the Gaps”—lasted about two years and shaped some of the material in this book. The key lesson was this: For this proposed partnership between management and the union to work, interdependence would be key. Having one group dominating the other would kill the relationship. Management first had to find out what the union’s needs were. Through months of research—involving questionnaires, interviews,

219

Partnering2 ch12

220

4/3/04

10:20 AM

Page 220

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

focus groups, feedback sessions, and so on—many needs were identified, clarified, and communicated. In the same way, union members learned more about the management side of the business—about dealing with economics, competition, regulation, and shareholders. Discovering what each party needed from the other was enlightening. In another case, Northwest Airlines’ machinists union established a “Farm Out Committee” to review any contracts Northwest contemplated offering to outside companies. Although the union doesn’t insist on doing everything itself, it negotiated with Northwest the option to bid on the business first. The union acknowledged management’s need to procure resources with the best possible quality at the best price. At the same time, Northwest acknowledged the union’s interest in keeping the work in-house. Marv Sandrin, leader of the machinists union, tells about a huge contract for modifying pylons on Northwest’s Boeing 747 passenger jets. Sandrin explains how the union managed to rescue this business from being farmed out to an outfit in Singapore. “Pylons . . . are extremely complicated,” he began. “There were things we needed to do, such as changing some work rules, to bring the costs down.” They did, and they won the contract. Northwest Airlines procured the best-quality work for the best price. The partnership worked because each side understood the needs of the other, and each was willing to take a chance on partnering with the other. In 1996, Randy McPherson entered into a partnership with Dan Gutt to start up a collision repair company. In ninety days they opened seven company-owned locations in the Minneapolis–St. Paul area and one in Milwaukee. By the end of this period, the CARA Company (Collision Auto Repair of America) had an asset value of $12 million. What accounts for such staggering initial success? Each man had found a good partner. Both had worked in another company that franchised body shops around the country. According to McPherson, they had the three factors essential for success: “Finding the right partner with the right skills and the right vision.” Each of them knew that the other’s skills were indispensable in the partnership. They also knew that their personalities seemed to mesh. According to McPherson, “a partnership is a bridge with people working together to get from here to there. But because people change and businesses evolve, a partnership is a temporary arrangement—

Partnering2 ch12

4/3/04

10:20 AM

Page 221

E X P LO R E STAG E

even if it lasts thirty years.” The critical element for these two founders is their vision. “The two most devastating events in a person’s life,” says McPherson, “are divorce and the death of a loved one. An automobile accident comes in third. This is why we’ve devised our company mission not just to fix cars, but to help people put their lives back together.” Their mission statement reads: “Ease the trauma of auto accidents.” I’m not aware of a more succinct message for any company. Their strategic marketing plan flows from this mission. For instance, CARA offers these services for no extra charge: • Vehicle pickup and delivery • Towing to a CARA shop • Assistance in dealing with insurance companies • Detailing after repairs are complete • Furnishing a loan car for up to seven days if insurance doesn’t provide a rental The partners knew what they wanted, assessed their common vision and mission, and agreed on a marketing strategy for expanding their company. As their business changes and evolves, their vision and mission will give them guidance in how they should market, how they should operate, and how they should make decisions. Just as in a strong personal relationship, vows and good intentions do not guarantee faithfulness and longevity. It’s the daily dedication and rededication to the partnership that counts. The Partnership Continuum helps set expectations and facilitates communication between potential partners. As a guide and a blueprint, it’s the best guarantee that an organization will arrive at its predetermined destination.

A G R E E I N G T O P A R T I C I P AT E

Now that you’ve found a partner who is compatible and willing to work with you, there has to be some type of agreement that you are going to do something together. I think of it as kind of an engagement—a trial period during which you can test whether you want to continue with a full partnership. The agreement to participate simply means that the partners will try one activity—one task—together and

221

Partnering2 ch12

222

4/3/04

10:20 AM

Page 222

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

then analyze the outcome of the task–relationship dynamic to see if they want to pursue the partnership. Different organizations approach the agreement to participate in different ways. Whatever the approach, the subject should be addressed in a clear and direct manner. If you’re working with someone who isn’t sure they want to commit, they have no incentive to help you achieve your goals. And you’ll be left wondering why they refuse to commit. Are you being used? Are they just taking your information and planning to walk away? This sort of doubt is a very destructive force in partnerships as it creates mistrust, preventing the partnership from ever attaining the peak of synergy envisioned at the formation of the alliance. Moreover, the mistrust will prevent the partnership from feeling secure enough to move into the creative zone. I once worked for a consulting firm that was trying to partner with a big multinational corporation’s learning and organizational effectiveness center. For more than eight months we tried to finalize a scope of service agreement with this center so that we could provide consultants to teach their material. But time and again they returned this document for new stipulations or addendums. After a while, it became very clear that they weren’t interested in forming a partnership with our firm at all. Their tactic, in fact, was to keep us occupied. They wanted to prevent us from using our quality training because in some ways we were their competition. They managed this by insisting on a clause in our contract stating that all contacts with businesses must be made through them. In retrospect, we realized they wanted us out of the way. After all, we were already very successful in several of their businesses. But they wanted those businesses to use their quality training, not ours. They had no incentive to sign an agreement with us. They did string us along, however, and our firm spent thousands of dollars jumping through hoops for nothing. We should have realized that when they were unwilling to commit, something else was going on—something that had nothing to do with partnering. Now let’s turn to another example. In 2000 I was working with the U.S. Postal Service and its unions in forming a partnership. One of the major unions, the National Association of Letter Carriers, did not want to form a partnership with management to improve the workplace environment. While management was very disturbed by the union’s refusal to get involved, I thought it was a courageous step for

Partnering2 ch12

4/3/04

10:20 AM

Page 223

E X P LO R E STAG E

the union to declare its intention honestly. If the union had stayed on as an uncommitted participant, it would have found every possible way to disrupt the efforts of management. While management left the door open for the union to join the workplace environment task force, they proceeded with their work. Ultimately, I think the union missed an opportunity to serve its members. After all, management was committed—along with the other unions and professional organizations—to improving the workplace environment. But because there was no trust between this union and Postal Service management, the union declined to participate. While agreements to participate can be either informal (verbal) or formal (written), I think it’s generally best to put agreements in writing, especially at the beginning of the partnership—it acts as a ritual to cement the agreement. It also helps convey each organization’s values and ethics. When two parties agree to participate, they are publicly acknowledging the value they place on the partnership. They are telling their employees it is important in their organizational development. Unions and companies frequently write this sort of agreement into their labor contracts. Qwest Communications and Communications Workers of America have established a long tradition of including letters of agreement at the beginning of their contracts to spell out why and how they intend to partner with each other. When writing out the agreement to participate, put in as many details as the partnership wishes to accomplish, including the following: • Reasons why partnering is important to both parties • The scope of the agreement (e.g., quality improvement, marketing, supplier/customer benefit, sales, or distribution) • The duration of the agreement (e.g., one project, one year, until parties mutually agree to quit) • Expected benefits from the partnership (e.g., better product distribution, more access to technology, etc.) I am less optimistic about partners who give only a verbal commitment unless there’s a history of trust between them. Too often partners who are unwilling to commit formally are not ready to be good partners. The agreement to participate indicates that partners have increased their Partnering Intelligence enough to risk the pain

223

Partnering2 ch12

224

4/3/04

10:20 AM

Page 224

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

of failure for the opportunity and benefits only true partnering can provide. The Explore stage is exciting but it can also cause anxiety. It is during this stage that you may encounter your first partnering conflict. You have begun to examine each other’s material and ethereal realms. This means you not only are looking at each other’s material production to determine whether there are complementary synergies, but you’ve started to look at each other’s vision, values, culture, and ethics. While exploring, certain comments or questions may give rise to negative or conflicting feelings. In this early stage, care must be taken to ensure that any conflicts that arise are resolved in a win-win manner. This first encounter with conflict will set the mental maps for what happens in the future. At this stage partners begin defining how the partnership will affect them. Since the idea is still an unknown quantity, many will feel anxious and insecure. This is a good time to begin practicing some of the partnering skills. Think about the Six Partnering Attributes. Examine your personal feelings about the unknown. Explore your vision of the future. Talk about the changes and ask for insights into what will build trust between the partners and help you feel confident about the commitment. E X P L O R E S TA G E P L A N – D O – C H E C K – A C T C Y C L E

You have decided that you are ready to incorporate the strategy of partnering to help you achieve your goals. You understand, having conducted a systemic needs assessment, how the organization’s vision, values, ethics, and culture affect its mission, strategies, processes, products, and services. Now it is time to go exploring for a potential partner. This chapter has presented the steps and tools for identifying and assessing partners. You can build quality into the process by using the Plan–Do–Check–Act (PDCA) cycle of continuous improvement. This is accomplished by listing the tasks that need to occur in the Explore stage under each step of the PDCA cycle. On the following pages are examples of what to do in each step; or you may want to modify them to meet your particular objectives. Either way, they will help you accomplish the task in less time and with greater efficiency and higher quality.

Partnering2 ch12

4/3/04

10:20 AM

Page 225

E X P LO R E STAG E

PLAN

The first step is to determine the type of partnership you want. To close the gaps you identified using the Needs Assessment Tool (Exercise 13), ask yourself the following questions: • Do I have a natural partnership? • Do I need to partner internally before partnering externally? • Do I need technical, distribution, marketing, development, sales, or other expertise? • Do I have a partnership with my employees or their union? Now that you have determined the type of partnership you need in order to close the gap, make sure that you’re clear about the need you want your partnership to fill. Brainstorm a list of potential partners who could fill your need best. Complete a Potential Partner Matrix (like the one in Table 7, p. 217) to help you narrow your list of potential partners. Determine the criteria you’ll use to identify these partners. Once the potential partners have been identified, think about how you want to approach your partner to ask for a commitment. In general, it’s best to come right out and ask for the commitment. If your partner is ready, he or she will already be thinking about the partnership and will be grateful you popped the question. Then determine together how you want to formalize the commitment to participate—develop it together. Here are some items you may want to include: • Scope of the commitment • Duration of the commitment • Activities to be included • Contributions to be made • Governance of the partnership • Management of the partnership • Signatory page DO

Contact your list of potential partners. Ask to set up a meeting with them. Tell them what you are hoping to accomplish. I encourage my clients to be as straightforward as possible. Remember: How you act in the initial meeting will form the mental map your partner will carry for some time to come. Tell the potential partners what you need. Explain how you think you can work together to fill that need. Ask them about

225

Partnering2 ch12

226

4/3/04

10:20 AM

Page 226

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

their needs and discuss whether you are in a position to satisfy them. It could be as basic as: “I’m a manufacturer and need a product to sell; you have a retail business and want products that will draw customers.” It’s not complicated. Getting down to basics helps identify the core needs of each partner and clearly shows how the strategy of partnering can help both parties achieve their goals. After you’ve interviewed all your potential partners, complete the Partner Compatibility Analysis (Exercise 14). What does it tell you? Is there one potential partner who meets more of your requirements than others? Are there no potential partners? Do you need to go out and look for others to interview? Continue to contact and review potential partners until you’ve found one who meets all your criteria. Once you have identified it, you need to ask whether it views the partnership as a mutually beneficial idea. Can it commit to engaging in the initial activity with you? C H EC K

After you have completed the Partner Compatibility Analysis, you are ready to begin the Plan step of the PDCA cycle again. The questions then become: What do you plan for? Do you need to discover more partners? Can you select a partner from the present list? Do you need to go back and interview some of the prospective partners again because some clarifying questions may have been introduced? Once you’ve selected your partner and have agreed to participate in an initial activity, it’s time to do a process observation check with each other. How did your process work? Are you both feeling good about how you formalized the commitment to participate? Did the exercise build trust between you? Did you communicate well with each other? Was each party open and direct? AC T

If you are satisfied with the commitment to participate, you are now ready to move to the next Stage of Partnership Development: Initiate. If you’re not satisfied, you need to plan the next step. Do you want to approach the partner again and address the commitment to participate? Or should you go back to the Explore stage and look for a different partner?

We return to our two examples from Chapter 11.

Partnering2 ch12

4/3/04

10:20 AM

Page 227

E X P LO R E STAG E

Marty and Jean’s Partner Compatibility Analysis

Question

Compatible? Comments/Actions to (Yes/No) Take/Conclusions

1. What is your vision? Outcome: Marty and Jean developed a vision statement.

Yes

2. Where do you want to go as a as a business? Outcome: Both want to be successful in their respective areas.

Yes

3. What are your values and ethics? Outcome: Both agree that they want to provide an excellent guest experience—and the condition of the room contributes to that.

Yes

4. What kind of corporate culture do you have? Outcome: Both support teamwork.

Yes

5. What types of relationships and partnerships do you have? Outcome: They are suspicious of each other. There is low trust and they blame each other for the problem. Marty acknowledges he finds it difficult to work with others. Jean feels that Marty does not respect her.

No

6. How well have they been working? Outcome: Both agree they have had no partnership together in the past.

No

7. What are your strategies for achieving your vision? Outcome: They would like to work together to identify where they can help each other achieve their respective goals.

Yes

8. Have you conducted an internal assessment? Outcome: They have not conducted a formal needs assessment, but they know the extent of the problem and have some ideas on solutions.

Yes

“Each guest would have a clean room in which everything worked properly.”

Marty: Just getting the job done quickly is important. Jean: Making sure everything is completed properly is important.

Marty needs to work on developing the relationship. Jean wants to understand the complexities of Marty’s tasks.

227

Partnering2 ch12

228

4/3/04

10:20 AM

Page 228

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

1 . I N T E R N A L PA R T N E R S H I P : CO N V E N T I O N H OT E L

Marty and Jean knew they needed to work together to make their vision a reality. There was no question of working with outside partners. This was an internal partnership. But they needed to explore their compatibility. So, I asked them to complete a Partner Compatibility Analysis (Exercise 14) as a team-building exercise to help them begin thinking about how their relationship might develop. Marty balked. “Look, I know that I have to work with Jean, and I think we’ve identified the scheduling as one area we can work on. But I don’t want to waste my time with that compatibility thing. Can’t we just move on?” Jean replied: “Let’s just look at it, Marty. It might help.” So look at it we did. After a few minutes they started answering the questions out loud, so I suggested we just informally put down on paper what they were saying. Neither objected, and their compatibility analysis is what we came up with. Marty and Jean noticed they both answered no in areas that concerned their relationships. They vowed this was one area they were going to work on. 2 . E X T E R N A L PA R T N E R S H I P : D OW N TOW N O F F I C E TOW E R

The second meeting was set up a week after all the requests for pricing had been submitted. Each response had its pluses and minuses. While most of the nonunion bids were slightly lower, they had certain negative components. For example, the plumbing contractor could not provide the number of skilled plumbers needed just when the project would most require their skill. The heating and cooling contractor cost pennies less than its union counterpart but had fewer licensed specialists on its payroll. The union contractors came in with bids that met all the special requirements and certifications needed, but they were slightly higher in labor cost. After reviewing the bids, John told Peter he’d like to go with the union contractors if the union would lower its cost by two cents per labor hour. That would make the union contractors’ bids economically competitive with nonunion labor. Peter thought the job would hire enough skilled labor to make the project worthwhile, so he’d ask the locals to tap funds from their Market Recovery Program—a fund union members pay into just for this sort of situation—to apply toward labor costs. But labor could offer things—such as certified skilled workers and the resources to commit to completing the job—the nonunion contractors couldn’t, and John knew this. The following week they met again. Peter had met with the labor council and brought a proposal back to John. “John, the labor costs on this project are very close. We’ll subsidize the labor cost one cent per

Partnering2 ch12

4/3/04

10:20 AM

Page 229

E X P LO R E STAG E

labor hour. But if we do this, we want you to sign a project agreement with us. As you know, in a project agreement we’ll ensure that you have the needed labor and we’ll provide you with a no-strike clause. And in return you’ll agree to make this an all-union work site. Additionally, we’ll help reduce the labor cost to make the job cost-competitive with nonunion contractors. Your client needs to have this job completed on time. Going with a nonunion contractor opens you up to risk in this area. Our record proves that if you sign a project agreement with us, you won’t be held up by labor problems. Will you commit to a project agreement?” John thought about it for a few minutes. While the labor would cost slightly more than he wanted, he knew Peter was right about getting the job completed on time. The trades had the resources needed to complete the job. Some nonunion contractors were excellent, but getting enough people on site was always an issue. John asked Peter: “What would I need to do if I were to commit to using all-union labor on this project?” Peter suggested they review a project partnering agreement that the Building and Construction Council had used on other projects. Then, they could decide what to include in or exclude from their agreement. John liked the idea, so they proceeded. The project partnering agreement that Peter showed him was five pages long and included thirteen articles. Each article addressed a term of the agreement. John took a minute to review each article. Article I: Declaration of Policy

This agreement is entered into for the purpose of ensuring that the work on the project may proceed without strikes, stoppages, slowdowns, or interruptions and that the project is a credit to the civil responsibility of the building industry. It is agreed that harmonious labor–management relations are the result of responsible conduct by the building trades and the contractor’s management personnel. It is our mutual desire to promote these relationships on the project as an expression of responsibility and good faith toward the community and the industry. The other articles are summarized below: Article II: Definitions defined terms in the agreement such as construction work, life of the project, employer, employee, and union in order to clear up any ambiguities. Article III: Scope of Agreement identified the scope of the agreement and affirmed that its term was for the life of the project, that it did not apply to management or professional roles, and that it did not supersede existing collective bargaining agreements.

229

Partnering2 ch12

230

4/3/04

10:20 AM

Page 230

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

stated that the union would not strike the work site and management would not lock out employees in case of a disagreement. Article V: Construction Work Contract Requirements stated that union contractors with collective bargaining agreements would carry out all construction work. Then it further defined the meaning of construction work with terms such as demolition, trucking, and signage. Another paragraph addressed the failure to comply with this article and how that would be resolved. Article VI: Trust Fund Payments discussed how the contractor would pay into the union trust fund to provide benefits for workers. Article VII: Effect of Agreement affirmed that by signing this agreement, both partners agreed to its terms. Article VIII: Union Access to Project ensured that authorized union representatives had access to the project site. Article IX: Management of Project affirmed management’s right to manage the project in accordance with local union agreements. Article X: Pre-Job Conference stated that the union and management would meet before the project commenced to discuss all anticipated work assignments and work out communications and problem-solving techniques. Article XI: Jurisdictional Disputes affirmed that no project work would cease due to jurisdictional disputes between unions and that such disputes would be resolved in accordance with the plan for settlement of jurisdictional disputes in the construction industry guidelines. Article XII: General Clause stated that all terms and conditions not set out in this agreement would be prescribed by the applicable union contract. Article XIII: Successor Clause affirmed the right of any succeeding organization to assume the agreement. Article IV: No Strike, No Lockout

John thought the agreement looked pretty good as it was, but he wanted to take it back to his firm’s legal department and have it verified. Peter agreed and asked John if he thought they had a partnership. John smiled and said: “Barring any unforeseen difficulties, I think this is a go!” They agreed to meet in two days to sign the project partnering agreement.

Partnering2 ch13

4/3/04

10:22 AM

Page 231

CHAPTER

THIRTEEN

Initiate Stage Reaping the Benefits of Partnership On February 8, 1998, National Public Radio carried a feature story about the troubles of Andy Thomas, the final American astronaut aboard the MIR space station. Thomas, from NASA, apparently had not learned to speak Russian very well—a failing that had caused friction with the cosmonauts on board and had been widely reported in Russian newspapers. In a press conference, a testy Russian journalist asked him, “How are you becoming accommodated to the station? Please answer in Russian.” Tensions can build up even among people who have well-defined common missions, exceptionally rigorous training, and common exposure in the most public fishbowl imaginable. Dr. Vadim Gushen, a Russian space psychologist quoted on the radio program, explained that the astronauts do receive twelve to eighteen months of language training at a school in Moscow. They learn all the technical and procedural words and phrases they need to do their job. But he maintains they need much more: “Some astronauts don’t progress beyond operational language, but they should. They are not only working there but also living there. It’s not just a matter of your technical knowledge, but talk about life, about your social side. If you can’t talk about what you’re feeling, you’re severely restricted.” The narrator went on to explain that Shannon Lucid, who spent six months on MIR in 1996, did well because she spent time fitting in with her group. 231

Partnering2 ch13

232

4/3/04

10:22 AM

Page 232

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

Gushen commented: “Her first priority was the social side. Whenever she had to choose, she chose to communicate with the social side.” When we translate this into the context of Partnering Intelligence, it demonstrates in a dramatic way that you can’t focus solely on the task. There has to be a balance between the task and relationship components of the partnership. People with a high PQ understand this balance and are able to increase their proficiency in both areas. Moreover, the personal dynamics of the relationships on board MIR may hold some lessons for future space missions, such as the International Space Station to be built in the next decade. Not only will there be representatives from different nations living together for prolonged periods, but there will also be more diverse mixes of people: male and female, scientists and nonscientists, military and civilian, old and young, and individuals of different races, religions, and socioeconomic backgrounds. According to other social scientists who commented on this story, the intense isolation, lack of personal space, and constant stress of a mission can result in dysfunctional dynamics. Miscommunication, negative social dynamics, and the formation of cliques may threaten a mission’s success. The language issue points to some critical problems we must face in any partnership. Business partnerships face many conflicts and pressures, not the least of which is the issue of blending together entire workforces and cultures. The reporter closed his story with these remarks: “Cliques and language barriers are only symptoms. The real problem is crew members getting to know each other on Earth, before they confront the stresses of space. Team members need to know about your family, friends, interests, and humor. A lack of such knowledge causes a lack of trust.” P R E PA R I N G TO A C T

I see a clear parallel with business partnerships. The time we spend getting to know our partners will pay off in terms of more trust, less friction, and more productivity in the end. In the Initiate Stage of Partnership Development, we can plan to limit pressure by negotiating realistic timelines and defining ahead of time how we’ll measure our success. We can clarify what we want from each other up front and agree on our partnership mission. Like the astronauts, we can be

Partnering2 ch13

4/3/04

10:22 AM

Page 233

I N I T I AT E STAG E

clear about what tasks we need to perform. But we can also commit to developing the relationship with our partner as a prerequisite for success. In the Initiate stage, we start to move away from planning our partnership and toward the activities we created the partnership to accomplish. In other words, now we are ready to start a task. When initiating your partnership, it is important to remember to keep the task and relationship activities balanced. Spending the time up front will result in exponential benefits in the end. In the first trimester of development, you want to spend about two-thirds of your time on relationship development and about one-third on task design. This is also true once you have identified your partner and are initiating an activity. It is important to build the relationship with the partnering team implementing the initial activity. The challenge at this step is to build a strong relationship between the partners while creating a plan for a successful task. Building a partnership always takes longer than people anticipate. Therefore, you need to plan time for relationship development. Conduct team-building exercises focused on the task–relationship dynamics. Make planning the task a part of the team-building activity. You’ll be amazed at how well this technique works. Make sure key leadership is present to kick off the initial activity. When key leadership is visible, the partnering activities are generally more successful. Key leadership being absent sends the nonverbal message “This is not important.” Plan a launch. Invite people in the organizations to witness the kickoff. Write articles in the employee newsletters and provide media releases. Send the message “This is important! You are partnering with another business and you can look for these benefits.” Make sure everyone knows the partnership’s vision and goals and inform them when these change or are updated. Keep this information in the forefront of people’s minds. One sure way to kill a partnership is to be ambiguous about or miscommunicate the vision and goals for the partnership. Gather support for the partnership from the organization’s employees. Keep the employees informed about what’s going on and why it is occurring. Point out how the partnership will benefit the organization. Talk about how it will provide job security by increasing marketing capabilities, opportunities for product distribution, and

233

Partnering2 ch13

234

4/3/04

10:22 AM

Page 234

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

technological innovation. The employees need to support the partnership for it to be successful. Once the partnering team for the initial activity has been selected, it is important to choose an initial project that creates a win-win outcome for all parties and has a good chance of success. An example of such a project is one undertaken by the Public Works and Traffic Division of the District of Columbia. The city government was in a state of chaos. Among the more evident symptoms was its inability to replace damaged and vandalized parking meters within a reasonably quick time frame. The city was losing thousands of dollars a day in revenue since people couldn’t drop coins into the meters. In an excellent example of a public-private partnership, the district formed an alliance with Lockheed Martin IMS to remedy the situation. Lockheed Martin IMS agreed to take over maintaining and replacing city parking meters. In exchange, the city agreed to give Lockheed Martin a percentage of the total revenue collected. Each party won. Parking meter revenue began to increase, and the city’s image began to improve as the public perception of meter care improved. Things looked less run-down and seemed better cared for. Lockheed Martin began to turn a small profit in the deal and was assured of continued city contracts. In addition to building a healthy foundation through developing trustworthy relationships, one of the most important tasks of the partnering team is assessing the level of contribution each partner provides to the overall success of the project. Each member of the alliance has completed an internal assessment identifying its own needs and learned how it can help satisfy its partner’s needs. It is during the initial activity that the whole puzzle comes together. It is at this stage that each member begins to realize how its individual contributions are turned from proposed benefits into tangible assets. This is accomplished by bringing the partnering team together and designing a plan to implement a task. B R I N G I N G TO G E T H E R T H E PA R T N E R I N G T E A M

To begin the initial activity process, assemble the team that will be responsible for implementing the activity. Once the team is together, review the Initial Activity Team Checklist (Exercise 15) for use during

Partnering2 ch13

4/3/04

10:22 AM

Page 235

I N I T I AT E STAG E

Exercise 15. Initial Activity Team Checklist Instructions

Have each member of the partnering team complete the exercise and share responses within the group. If there are significant differences in how team members respond, determine the core issues involved, discuss solutions, and then enter any agreement in the right-hand column. Stages of Relationship Development Partner 1

Have all sides agreed on the partnership? Is everyone here voluntarily? What is our initial activity? Do we agree on a common vision for the initial activity? Have we established our ethical standards? How will we decide leadership issues? How will decisions be made regarding the partnership? What are our norms of behavior during the time we are acting in partnership? What do we expect from each partner in this relationship? What do we need to receive from each partner in this relationship? How will we resolve differences? What is the preferred method of resolving conflicts?

Partner 2

Agreements

235

Partnering2 ch13

236

4/3/04

10:22 AM

Page 236

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

Exercise 15. Initial Activity Team Checklist continued Stages of Partnership Development Partner 1

How will we resolve problems? What is our method of communication between us? Between our sponsors and us? Between the greater organizations and us? What level of information do we agree to share? What information, if any, is off-limits? How will we provide each other feedback? How will we self-disclose information to each other? What does trust look like to us? How will we manage a situation in which mistrust exists? How will we manage change? How will we manage to maintain equality between partners? How will we measure the development of our relationship? How do we move from independence to interdependence? How will we know when to call it quits?

Partner 2

Agreements

Partnering2 ch13

4/3/04

10:22 AM

Page 237

I N I T I AT E STAG E

Exercise 15. Initial Activity Team Checklist continued Stages of Partnership Development Partner 1

What is the initial activity? What is the scope of the activity? Identify the benefits for this activity for each partner. Tangible? Intangible? What are the start and stop points? When will we know the activity is complete? What impacts will the partnership have on each organization’s culture? What strategies are in place to define what we will accomplish? How do these strategies link back to the sponsoring partner’s organizational strategies? What impacts does the partnership have on the sponsoring organization’s annual and long-term strategic plan? What is the time frame for the overall initial activity? What is the timeline for the specific project? What is the time impact on the initial activity team? What impacts does the partnership have on the timing of other strategic issues in the greater organizations?

Partner 2

Agreements

237

Partnering2 ch13

238

4/3/04

10:22 AM

Page 238

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

Exercise 15. Initial Activity Team Checklist continued Stages of Partnership Development Partner 1

What are the processes we will be impacting/ developing? Where are those processes located? Who currently owns those processes? Are those processes capable of accomplishing our objectives? What resources are needed to update or reengineer the existing processes? What level of contribution does each partner provide? Is the contribution direct or indirect? How do we share the rewards? How do we share the risks? How will we benchmark our activities? Who else out there is doing this or something like this? How will we measure the success of the activity? How will we measure return based on contribution? Can the level of contribution be isolated or determined based on percentage of return?

Partner 2

Agreements

Partnering2 ch13

4/3/04

10:22 AM

Page 239

I N I T I AT E STAG E

Exercise 15. Initial Activity Team Checklist continued Stages of Partnership Development Partner 1

What resources are needed to accomplish the project? Who provides what resources and at what level? What skills are required to operate and manage the new activities? Do we have the skill set available or do we need to attain it? What type of training will be required to manage the new processes? How do we trade resources to get the skills needed? How are the joint processes managed once the activity is under way? How will we communicate the impacts of the activity on the greater organizations? Once the activity has started, what plans are in place to close unforeseen gaps? How are innovations developed in the alliance to be handled? How will we maintain a relative balance between the partners? How will we measure the balance?

Partner 2

Agreements

239

Partnering2 ch13

240

4/3/04

10:22 AM

Page 240

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

the team-building and planning session. This session will probably take place over a period of days or even weeks, depending on the scope of the activity. The checklist covers both the Stages of Relationship Development and the Stages of Partnership Development. In the initial meeting it is important to spend time on developing the relationship. Note, however, that people will want to move right to tasks. It is important that they understand that by establishing the relationship issues first, they will save time in the long run. Ultimately, when people go directly to tasks, relationship issues impede task development, causing conflict and frustration. In our Bank of America/Exult case, the task portion of the business was easy. Each team had process integration people paired up to ensure seamless flow of information and data between the two organizations. But it was the time spent up front that enabled them to build trust with each other, helping them endure the tough times. H O W TO U S E T H E I N I T I A L ACTIVITY TEAM CHECKLIST

Once the team is assembled, begin with the “Stages of Relationship Development” section. Ask each partner or team of partners from the same organization to fill out its column separately. Then, after each team has had this opportunity, discuss each partner’s response until you reach an agreement. This takes time. It may move slowly at first, but this is time well invested in the development of what may be a huge portion of your business. Please note: Although this example lists only two partners, if there are more than two you will want to make sure each group involved is provided with input and feedback. Continue until all the items have been resolved. You then have the foundation for developing your project plan. I N I T I AT E S TA G E P L A N – D O – C H E C K – A C T C Y C L E

You think you have found the ideal partner. You want to know if this is the right partner before you invest too much time, money, and other resources in the alliance. You have assembled the partnering team. You are ready to try the initial activity. Review the steps and tools in Chapter 6 for starting the initial activity. You can build qual-

Partnering2 ch13

4/3/04

10:22 AM

Page 241

I N I T I AT E STAG E

ity into the process by using the Plan–Do–Check–Act cycle. This can be accomplished by listing the tasks that need to occur in the Initiate stage below each step of the cycle. On the following pages are examples of what to do in each step. You may want to use these examples as is or modify them to meet your particular objectives. Either way, the process will help you accomplish the task in less time and with greater efficiency and higher quality. PLAN

To accomplish a task successfully, the first thing the partners should do is sit down and plan what it is they are going to do. The Initial Activity Team Checklist (Exercise 15) and the Agreement Between Partners Checklist (Exercise 16) will help them remember key items. I like checklists. Pilots, regardless of the number of hours they have logged on a certain type of aircraft, always complete a preflight checklist before taking off. It’s wise to do the same with any important activity—and the initial activity in a partnership falls into the category of “important activity” for me. After all, you’ve spent time, energy, and money to identify your needs and find a partner. When you use these checklists, you and your partner must work together and talk through the issues to gain consensus. I recommend that you write down your agreements—not to use them as a club should things go wrong, but to clarify issues as the planning proceeds. Sometime during the initial activity or immediately after, set a meeting to discuss with everyone involved how well the partnership is working. The key document you’ll want to review is the Agreement Between Partners Checklist. You’ll also want to address the relationship issues. Use the Partners’ Trust Assessment (p. 130) and/or the Partnership Stressors Checklist (p. 152) to assess the Stages of Relationship Development. Be sure the agenda you send out in advance has been written down or approved by the partners. DO

Complete a project together. Sort of like a first date, planning initial activities with a partner enables you to work together without the pressure of eternal commitment. You and your partner don’t have to prove you are ideal mates. You also avoid jumping into a relationship that presumes you will do more than you want to do. The planning reduces the risk of unrealistic expectations.

241

Partnering2 ch13

242

4/3/04

10:22 AM

Page 242

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

Exercise 16. Agreement Between Partners Checklist Instructions

The purpose of this exercise is to help document the task and relationship agreements you have with your partner. Check off each item as you fulfill the assignment. Document your agreements in a joint meeting. ❑ Define the area of interest where you and your partner are going to create an initial activity (marketing, sales, product development, and so forth). Brainstorm a list of potential activities you can do together. Can you agree on one specific activity to work on together? ❑ Document the start and stop point of the activity. Develop a timeline of the activity. Set the boundaries of the activity (what you won’t try to accomplish). ❑ List the various roles and responsibilities of each partner. ❑ Agree on the decision-making style to be used. ❑ Gain consensus on the strategy for resolving conflict. ❑ Allocate resource contributions and commitments in writing. ❑ Create a set of criteria to evaluate the success or failure of the task objectives. ❑ Create a set of criteria to evaluate the success of the relationship development.

Just by working through the “preflight” checklist, you communicate to your partner that you have certain expectations. When you embark on a planned adventure, you’ve already influenced some of the dynamics of the trip. Spontaneity is replaced by planfulness, which opens the way for communication and sets expectations for both partners. C H EC K

By establishing a trial project with both task and relationship objectives, you have specified the performance you expect from each other. Based on the criteria, rating system, or measurements you established in the first phase with the Agreement Between Partners Checklist, the results of the initial activity should be obvious. If you set a goal of opening ten stores in ninety days, for example, and you’re now looking back after ninety days, you can measure your progress quantitatively. If you set a short-term goal of developing a joint marketing strategy as measured by a written marketing plan you both embrace, you can measure your progress by that evidence. You’ll also want to talk about the Stages of Relationship Development:

Partnering2 ch13

4/3/04

10:22 AM

Page 243

I N I T I AT E STAG E

• What did you and your partner do to move out of the Form stage? • How well did you manage your conflicts during the Storm stage? • What behavioral guidelines did you develop in the Norm stage? • What value-added outcome did you achieve in the Perform stage? Again, you need to strike a balance between task and relationship development every step of the way. You don’t want to start taking each other for granted, especially after your first activity together. This can be hard for many in business—managers do not want to sit around and “waste their time” talking about relationships. But this is a critical investment—you may have thousands or even millions of dollars riding on the success of your partnership. So it’s absolutely essential to discuss the relationship issues with your partner. In evaluating your initial activity, of course, you’ll also want to identify new information you didn’t have before. You’ll want to look at other opportunities and synergies your partnership suggests. You’ll also want to account for problems or breakdowns in the process. You’ll want to use this stage as a learning opportunity, not just a “pass/fail” appraisal. At the end of the meeting you might want to list what I call the “pluses and deltas.” The pluses are things that worked well in the meeting. The deltas are the items you’d like to have changed for the next meeting. If you or your partner are having trouble in any of the Six Partnering Attributes—Future Orientation, Comfort with Change, and the like—you’ll want to review Part Two and the attribute that’s causing you difficulty. There you’ll find skill-building exercises and assessments you can complete to help you increase your Partnering Intelligence in each attribute. AC T

With your new insights and real-world data showing how you performed together, you now have three options. The first option is to abandon the partnership effort. If the initial activity proved too painful, unproductive, stressful, or disappointing, you should have the intelligence to abandon the effort, cut your losses, and look for more promising opportunities. This is not necessarily a tragic event. After all, it’s better to know early on that the partnership will not bear fruit. The second option is for partners to take the information they have, redesign their next activity together, and try it again. You can return to the Plan step of the Plan–Do–Check–Act cycle and devise more activities. Partners who still want to work together can revise goals, adjust responsibilities, or redouble their efforts to accomplish worthwhile goals together.

243

Partnering2 ch13

244

4/3/04

10:22 AM

Page 244

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

In the third option, you can move on to greater investment—that is, more substantial commitment to the partnership. Assuming the initial activities confirmed expectations—that both task and relationship objectives were satisfied—why not move ahead? The next phases of activity should build on the initial successes. The Plan–Do–Check–Act cycle is reiterative: it repeats again and again. You can manage continuous progress by using good planning and good feedback systems. Are you ready to commit to a full partnership? Or do you need to go back and rethink the partnership? The outcome of this meeting will tell you if your partnership is going to work or not. You have accomplished a thoughtful step-by-step approach to creating your partnership. Now you need to decide: Are you and your partner going to continue? Do you need to go back and rethink? Or is this it?

DEBRIEFING THE INITIAL ACTIVITY

After the initial activity is completed, begin to evaluate its outcome. Invite your partner to a debriefing meeting. During this meeting, split your time roughly 50/50 and discuss both the Stages of Partnership Development and the Stages of Relationship Development. Ask the following questions: Stages of Partnership Development • What was the outcome of the first activity? • Did you accomplish what you expected? • Did the plan work as expected? • What did you learn from the activity? • What surprised you about the activity? • Did working in partnership create any breakthroughs? Stages of Relationship Development • Did you find balance in the task/relationship components? • How did you cope with the change created by the initial activity? • Did you build trust? How do you know? • How did you manage your conflict? • Can you give specific examples of conflict that was resolved using a win-win solution?

Partnering2 ch13

4/3/04

10:22 AM

Page 245

I N I T I AT E STAG E

• Did the partners create a sense of interdependence—that is, did you rely on each other for success? • How did you do in self-disclosure? • Did you give your partner feedback? Did you receive feedback? • How did the flow of information work between you? • What type of information did you share? • Did the information sharing create any breakthroughs? • What happened that you didn’t expect? When preparing to implement your plan, it is important to document and measure your agreements. See how that happened in our case studies.

1 . I N T E R N A L PA R T N E R S H I P : CO N V E N T I O N H OT E L

Marty and Jean are committed to working together and have completed a Partner Compatibility Analysis (see p. 227). Since they knew they needed to do this, they didn’t formalize their commitment to participate but simply verbalized their commitment to each other. As a next step, they used the Agreement Between Partners Checklist (Exercise 16) to create the following agreement: 1. We will coordinate the activities between Housekeeping and Maintenance to minimize extra work for both groups and yet attain our vision: Each guest will have a clean room in which everything works properly. We will review schedules. We will establish a process whereby maintenance work will take place before the rooms are cleaned. We will work on building a good relationship between the Maintenance and Housekeeping staff. 2. We will create a timeline for reviewing the scheduling of rooms for maintenance, reviewing the scheduling of rooms for housekeeping, developing a daily list of rooms needing maintenance, and coordinating the maintenance and housekeeping staff rounds. 3. We agree that our role is to coordinate the scheduling of the rooms that require maintenance and act as go-betweens for our staffs.

245

Partnering2 ch13

246

4/3/04

10:22 AM

Page 246

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

4. We agree to use consensus as our decision-making style. 5. We agree to work on handling conflict. When we have an issue between our departments, rather than go to the general manager, we will go to each other and problem-solve using a winwin orientation. 6. We agree that no additional resources are required. 7. We will maintain a weekly report of the number of rooms that were cleaned before maintenance took place to help measure compliance. 8. We will determine how the relationship is working using two criteria: (1) the number of times we meet each week (the more the better) and (2) how many times we have unresolved conflicts that require us to go to the general manager. 9. We will define success as a decline in the number of complaints from customers about rooms that were not properly cleaned because of maintenance work. After thirty days of working at their partnership, Marty and Jean wanted to review the outcome. They held a meeting with me, and the first thing they did was review the Stages of Partnership Development. Then Marty and Jean analyzed the data they had collected. Over the thirty days there had been more than 240 maintenance calls. During that period, all but thirteen of them had been scheduled during normal business hours. Maintenance had been able to schedule all but three of the maintenance jobs before the rooms were cleaned. They thought this was a huge success—especially since no guests complained about the condition of their room after a maintenance call. Then we talked about the Stages of Relationship Development. The criteria Marty and Jean established for determining the health of their relationship were the number of times they met and the number of unresolved conflicts that needed to go to the general manager. Clearly they had increased the number of times they met. They were meeting at least once a day in the morning to talk about the schedules, and sometimes they met more than once a day. They also agreed that all their conflicts had been resolved in a win-win manner. They gave me an example: At one point, a housekeeper and a maintenance person quarreled over who was to be in the room. The housekeeper was upset because it was the last room on her shift and she wanted to pick up her child at daycare. The maintenance man needed to change the air conditioner compressor, a messy job that would take more than an hour. Jean managed to reassign the room to a housekeeper who worked a later schedule. The housekeeper was happy because she could leave; the maintenance man was happy because he could get the job done and then have the room serviced.

Partnering2 ch13

4/3/04

10:22 AM

Page 247

I N I T I AT E STAG E

2 . E X T E R N A L PA R T N E R S H I P : D OW N TOW N O F F I C E TOW E R

Now that the project partnering agreement was signed, John and Peter decided they wanted to monitor it to ensure compliance. In the agreement they had established a prejob conference. They invited all the subcontractors to this meeting and explained how they would measure the success of the agreement. They were interested in knowing if there were any violations of the terms. They were also interested in knowing if there were any subcontractors who consistently violated their agreements. So they created the chart shown in Table 8. John and Peter agreed to review the chart with all the subcontractors twice a year during the course of the three-year project. The first piece of work completed was the demolition and removal of an old abandoned structure. They met after that segment of the project was completed to see how well the subcontractors involved were complying with the agreement (see Table 9). As the chart shows, the demolition and removal segment was not without violation, but the one minor infraction appeared to be due to an oversight rather than intentional. Both Peter and John felt the matter was handled appropriately and decided this was not a violation of their trust. Both thought the project partnering agreement was working well and agreed to continue to monitor the results. John made a comment that seemed to sum up their success so far: “Although we’ve just started the project, we’re already a week ahead of schedule because the demolition and site cleanup went so smoothly.”

Table 8

Downtown Office Tower Agreement Compliance Chart Subcontractor

Twin Town Demolition North Star Trucking Gridiron Works All-State Heating & Cooling Settin Concrete Co. Bright Electrical Contractors Flush Plumbing

Date

Violation

Resolution

247

Partnering2 ch13

248

4/3/04

10:22 AM

Page 248

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

Table 9

Downtown Office Tower Agreement (Demolition and Removal) Compliance Chart Subcontractor

Twin Town Demolition

North Star Trucking

Date

6/14/96

Violation

Nonunion crane operator

None

Resolution

Assigned crane operator was sick; will ensure all replacement operators carry current union cards

Partnering2 ch14

4/3/04

10:23 AM

Page 249

CHAPTER

FOURTEEN

Commit Stage Formalizing the Commitment Everything you’ve done up to this point has been focused on getting you to the full partnership stage. You and your partner have worked hard together, navigating the Stages of Relationship Development to produce trust and mutual benefits. You’ve also engaged in the steps necessary to accomplish a task in order to determine the partnership’s worth. You’ve used the Plan–Do–Check–Act cycle to continuously improve the task and relationship dynamics of your partnership. You’ve seen the partnership move from a past to a future orientation. The final two stages will feel almost anticlimactic. This is a good thing. You’ve worked so hard to increase your Partnering Intelligence that by the time you’re prepared to make a commitment and move to full partnership it will feel like the only logical step. The only thing that stands between you and full partnership is one more task: to conduct a joint strategic planning session in order to solidify your future vision and spell out the plans to get you there. Your partnership is now in the Commit Stage of Partnership Development. You have achieved the trust and communication needed to help you maximize the synergy. You have identified the mutual benefits that the partnership provides. Having managed the changing dynamics of the relationship and its impact on each organization, you are now positioned to perform. 249

Partnering2 ch14

250

4/3/04

10:23 AM

Page 250

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

Reaching the Commit stage is the gold medal of partnering— when “me” becomes “we.” As you link your success to each other’s well-being, you move from independence to interdependence. While this goal is sometimes attained in our personal relations, it is elusive for most business partnerships. This doesn’t mean it can’t happen, but long-term partnerships are rare. Businesses change, marketplace realities evolve, and alliances shift market forces in different directions. Achieving this level of partnership ensures that as long as the partnership provides mutual benefits and trust exists, abundance will flow. The partnership becomes institutionalized when there is formal commitment to it. In our personal lives, people have weddings or other commitment ceremonies to publicly acknowledge their partnerships. Aside from the ritual, which is important, they send a message to the outside world that “we are in this together.” A business example is United Airlines, which ran a series of advertisements featuring their employees, who had just signed an employee ownership contract with management. The message was obvious: Since they were now owner-employees, their customers could expect service as if it were coming from the company leaders—because it was! In an extremely competitive marketplace, this is a powerful message.

M U T U A L S T R AT E G I C P L A N N I N G

Now that you’ve formalized your partnership—and are in a position to capitalize on it—start planning for the future. Strategic planning is the best way for partners to envision what will happen in the next few years. When partners plan together strategically, the synergy created is enormous. And the outcome is something your competitors can’t replicate because it exists only in the context of your partnership. No matter how hard they try, they cannot re-create that unique set of dynamics that is uniquely yours. Some time ago I witnessed an example of this type of partnership synergy. At the time, I was participating in a workshop for a multimember partnership including the National Highway Safety Board, the California Department of Transportation, several automobile manufacturers, and some computer and software designers. They are dedicated to increasing auto safety and using technology to improve

Partnering2 ch14

4/3/04

10:23 AM

Page 251

CO M M I T STAG E

efficiencies. Their vision is to create a system to provide interaction between the automobile and the road to enhance safety and performance. Electronic sensors embedded in the road surface will monitor traffic, surface conditions, and other useful information and relay it to the driver via a computer in the car. This data will be projected via a dashboard monitor or onto the windshield and also signal the optimum speed the car should be traveling under these conditions. Such a system could also indicate alternate routes should there be traffic delays or other obstacles. Sound like Flash Gordon or Star Wars? It isn’t. It is the synergistic result of a partnership. Each of these partners had separate needs that they could not fulfill themselves. Working together, however, they were now at the point of strategically planning how they wanted to develop the highways and cars of the future. The first thing they did was create a vision reflecting the individual aspirations of the partners. Each had a part to contribute to the overall vision. Using the Plan–Do–Check–Act cycle, they then planned what they wanted to do and constructed some prototypes. On several of the projects, they’re checking to see if what they designed and tested is working as predicted. This partnership is well on its way to having its vision become a reality—a vision with the potential of saving thousands of lives while improving automobile efficiency and reducing pollution. Partnerships not only add value to business, but sometimes make dreams come true. Once you commit to partnership, you must invite your partner into the strategic planning process with you. KLM and Northwest Airlines do joint strategic planning for the marketing of the flight schedules. Coca-Cola and McDonald’s launch promotional activities as a result of strategic planning. To get additional value from the partnership, the partners must engage in some strategic thinking and thus planning in order to achieve the outcome they both desire. The Strategic Framework is a format I’ve used to help partners get the greatest value from their partnership. Based on the Holistic Organization Model (see p. 189), it explores both the material and ethereal realms of each business. With this format you can see how these two separate realms complement and support each other as they create the outcome: the product or service they want to deliver. Starting at the top of the model I ask the partners to explain their organization’s vision.

251

Partnering2 ch14

252

4/3/04

10:23 AM

Page 252

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

Starting with the Vision

Two businesses—one a well-known bank and the other an investment firm—were planning to undertake a joint marketing program to expand the bank’s investment opportunities and generate new customers. The bank’s vision statement: To enhance the value of our investors’ portfolios through long-term investing strategies while building trust and confidence by using the most rigorous financial analysis tools and face-to-face research to ensure investment security.

The investment firm’s vision statement: To provide our customers with the highest level of banking products and services with convenience and a safe and friendly attitude.

On the surface, the vision statements are complementary. The question that partners should ask themselves while strategically planning their partnership is this: “Based on these vision statements, what are the commonalities and the differences?” Then they can brainstorm these items and list them on a flipchart for everyone to review. Is there some difference that would prevent the two organizations from creating a joint marketing plan? Next we investigated the organizational values and ethics. Since both firms are financial in nature, I had each group brainstorm its values and ethics and then review them for compatibility (see Table 10). Based on the two organizations’ lists, there seemed to be no serious gaps in their values and ethics, with the exception of community involvement and the investment firm’s apparent lack of interest in it. We then investigated the organizations’ cultural environments. We used a cultural assessment grid (see Table 11) to guide the discussion between the two partners and yield greater insight into the issues that might arise because of differences in culture. Based on this information, the partners decided that before they could launch any joint marketing initiatives, they needed to do some work on their respective cultures. While the investment managers were comfortable with change, for example, the banking managers would have trouble integrating the new investment products and services into their daily work. The group decided to help by providing extensive course offerings to help increase the comfort level with these products.

Partnering2 ch14

4/3/04

10:23 AM

Page 253

CO M M I T STAG E

Table 10

Partnership Values and Ethics List (Sample) Values/Ethics: Partner 1

Values/Ethics: Partner 2

• Integrity • Trust • Client confidentiality • Honesty • Rigorous analysis • Loyalty to client

• Security • Safety • Trust • Client confidentiality • Honesty • Friendliness • Community involvement

Table 11

Cultural Assessment Grid (Sample) Cultural Environment

Partner 1

Partner 2

Organizational morale

High

Leadership: High Employees: Medium

Understanding of mission

High

High

Level of stress

High

Low

Level of acceptable risk

High

Low

Self-disclosure and feedback

Low

Medium

Win-win orientation

Win-win

Competitive

Ability to trust

Medium

Medium

Past/future orientation

Future

Past

Comfort with change

High

Very low

Comfort with interdependence

Highly independent

Interdependent

253

Partnering2 ch14

254

4/3/04

10:23 AM

Page 254

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

Now that the partners understood the ethereal qualities of the two businesses, the next area of discussion concerned the material aspects. First we reviewed the differences that would help or hinder the partnership from an organizational structure perspective. Again I used a grid to help guide the discussion and enable the partners to view their organizations from a holistic perspective (see Table 12). The last piece of information the partners needed to discuss before they could begin a formal strategic planning session was the external impacts on the partnership. Table 13 lists the external issues the partners wanted to explore to ensure that they covered all the potential traps that might derail the partnership—before they spent time, money, and energy creating a strategic plan. T I M E T O S TA R T P L A N N I N G

After completing the steps described above, you are equipped to begin your strategic planning. You’ll also need to use the information you gathered from your internal assessment in Chapter 4. But probably the most valuable information you’ll need at this point is your Organizational Process Model (see p. 200) because this will help you and your partner determine how to integrate the two organization processes to provide the value-added component for which your partnership was created. S H A R I N G I N F O R M AT I O N A N D R E S O U R C E S

As you build trust through your joint efforts in strategic planning, you can begin to share information and resources with each other. I know of a french fry producer who liked the potatoes of a certain farmer in Idaho. Unfortunately, the potato farmer could not produce the number of potatoes required by the producer because he didn’t have enough acreage. So the producer bought a nearby parcel of land for the farmer to use, and over a ten-year contract the land became the farmer’s property. Both sides benefited: the farmer received a fair price for the potatoes he produced on the land; the producer increased his supply of potatoes. Partners who invest in each other’s success both achieve more. Here’s another example of partners investing in each other’s success. I know of a company that paid to have consultants teach

Partnering2 ch14

4/3/04

10:23 AM

Page 255

CO M M I T STAG E

Table 12

Organizational Structure Matrix (Sample) Organizational Structure

Partner 1

Partner 2

Organizational hierarchy

Bureaucratic

Network

Reporting relationships

Direct

Matrixed

Communication patterns

Level conscious

Open

Decision-making strategies

Hierarchical

Customer level

Reward structure

Rigid pay scale

Commission

Marketing initiatives

None

None

Accountability systems

Finger-pointing

Individual

Organizational norms

Conservative Slow decision making Top-down communications

Risk taking Fast—market driven Network

Legal and regulatory issues

Federal and state

Federal

R&D issues

Little

Market trends

Informational technologies

Medium level

High level

strategic planning to their employees’ union. Many members of management were dumbfounded when they heard about this. They wondered why the company would pay to have the union become more organized and stronger through company-provided strategic planning. When the question was asked of the CEO, her answer demonstrated her high PQ: “In the next round of negotiations with the union, I want them to know what their members want so we can get

255

Partnering2 ch14

256

4/3/04

10:23 AM

Page 256

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

Table 13

External Impacts on the Partnership (Sample) External Issue

Partner 1

Partner 2

Board of directors/owners/ stockholders

Publicly traded

Private

Clients/customers

General consumers

Medium- to highlevel investors

Government regulatory agencies/ accrediting organizations

Many

SEC

Suppliers

Many

Few

Unions/employee groups/ professional associations

None

None

Political groups

None

None

Communities

Very active

Not active

Competing organizations

Insurance annunities

Insurance annunities

down to the critical issues that are facing our industry. Neither side wants to drag out these talks. It’s an investment in our management’s time to have the union be strategically prepared for these negotiations.” SHARING SUCCESS

A new dynamic occurs when organizations make the paradigm shift from “me” to “we.” This is when they move from independence to interdependence. When an organization has increased its PQ enough to understand that its success depends on the partnership’s success, it integrates the partnership into the culture. It is now “the way things are done around here.” The more skilled the partnership is in using the Six Partnering Attributes, the better the relationship between members becomes. As we saw in Part Two, these attributes are portable—that is, you can use

Partnering2 ch14

4/3/04

10:23 AM

Page 257

CO M M I T STAG E

them in many different settings. When employees learn to improve their PQ on the job, they’ll use these skills not only between themselves, but also when working with customers and even in their personal lives. Employees show higher morale and cultivate better relationships when they communicate effectively. These elements lead to increased productivity. Since business relies on relationships, customers will continue to support organizations with which they’ve built a good relationship. The organization wins in many ways. A C H I E V I N G F U L L PA R T N E R S H I P

Full partnership is not the end of the road. As we develop more trust with our partners, as we achieve predetermined worthwhile goals, as our desire to benefit personally from the arrangement is sustained, our commitment deepens. Partnerships can revert to earlier stages— back to reassessing needs and redefining what we want from our partners. Just as we reestablish a Norm stage following a return to the Storm stage, we can recommit to a partnership that we have chosen to redirect. In both cases, the establishment of trust sustains the partners through setbacks and potential turmoil. Our commitment to a full partnership, therefore, is not a final destination, but an ongoing process. The relationships are performing, the synergies are generating mutual benefits, and the partnership becomes increasingly well-established. Sustaining its growth is the challenge. At this point we may want to do some strategic planning. This planning can be done within the boundaries of the partnership to create a mutual future, or it can be done in a larger arena. Many companies present organizationwide “future search” conferences where they invite their partners to try to envision what their partnerships will look like five or ten or twenty years down the road. The more mutual the planning, the deeper the relationship. Trust is a catalyst propelling people into the creative zone. When partners have reached full partnership, remarkable things start to happen. Full partnerships between organizations are the equivalent of Olympic gold. Many try, few succeed. But those who do succeed know the work involved and the skill it takes to be the best. While the road is tricky and fraught with peril, the rewards can be rich, as we see below.

257

Partnering2 ch14

258

4/3/04

10:23 AM

Page 258

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

High trust enables creative risk. Only when we trust each other can we risk the quantum leap into the next generation of activity. Regardless of service or products, to move beyond the status quo takes a special talent—and that talent is best tapped into through partnerships. Some of the best breakthough examples come from the American effort to conquer space. The partnerships developed between NASA and private industry are too numerous to list— but they have yielded a lot more than the beverage Tang. From microwave ovens to insulated clothing, our lives have changed dramatically thanks to these partnerships. The creative risk taking was there. And those who formed partnerships with NASA stood to benefit like no other. Open systems increase information and intelligence. The more we share information, the more we learn. Different people can draw different conclusions from the same information, which can be invaluable. You may see data with one interpretation—I with another. We share perceptions and open each other’s eyes to fresh possibilities and new understandings of both the information and each other. Information is the best example of abundance. There’s no limit on the amount and how it can be used. Consequently, the more we have and use, the more beneficial it becomes. Organizations that have established trust and full partnership will benefit from this abundance of information and increased intelligence. Mutual benefits = more for everyone. Again, the theory of abundance becomes reality in this dynamic. The more people benefit from an activity, the more they are willing to engage in it and the more it brings them. It is through partnerships that mutual benefits can be realized, generating wealth for everyone involved. Partnerships provide value that competitors cannot duplicate. Anyone can reproduce a widget. So don’t bet the family fortune on your product or service. Sooner or later, someone will dissect it, figure it out, and make it better. And where will that leave you? What they can never reproduce is the dynamics created through partnerships. Each partnership is unique, made up of unique individuals, and the interactions between these people cannot be replicated. How do you reproduce genius? If scientists could figure out that one, cloning might become the most prevalent form of reproduction. But we haven’t figured it out because it is so complex and is the sum of so

Partnering2 ch14

4/3/04

10:23 AM

Page 259

CO M M I T STAG E

many factors that it can never be duplicated. This is true of partnerships as well. Win-Win Orientation = synergy. Organizations that increase their PQ already know how to create win-win conflict resolution and problem solving. This ability drives fear out of the relationship, lets creativity emerge, and generates the pure gold of partnership: synergy. But synergy is the outcome of a combination of components—the basic skills of Partnering Intelligence. You cannot succeed with just one or two of these components. All must be there or the partnership will not generate the synergy to move into the creative zone and blast itself away from the competition. Organizations have an ongoing mandate to achieve continuous improvement as well as to reshape strategies and processes as missions and values change. All living entities redefine themselves daily by what they do and the environment in which they live. Full partnership is not the end of the cycle, but it does represent the ideal culture for organizations. You must dedicate yourself to making your partnerships as full as they can be every day. If you are accountable for your actions—and are intelligent enough to work with others in partnership—you will achieve your brightest future! You will succeed. C O M M I T S TA G E P L A N – D O – C H E C K – A C T C Y C L E

You’ve initiated an activity. Was it successful? Did you need to go back and refine the plan? Was it a bomb? What measurements and indicators did you establish to measure its success? How did the relationship develop? Were there trust and mutual benefits for all the partners? Are you ready to move to the next step? You want to tap into the synergistic energies this partnership has brought you. Are you ready to incorporate the partnership into your strategic planning process? Review the steps and tools in this chapter. You can build quality into the process by using the Plan–Do–Check–Act cycle of continuous improvement. On the following pages are examples of what to do in each step. You may want to use these example as is or modify them to meet your particular objectives. Either way, the process will help you accomplish the task in less time and with greater efficiency and higher quality.

259

Partnering2 ch14

260

4/3/04

10:23 AM

Page 260

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

PLAN

At this stage in the partnership, you and your partner have already completed an initial activity together. You’ve had an opportunity to evaluate the activity and give each other feedback. You are now ready to determine whether the partnership is right for both of you. Review the items listed here: • Formal commitment to partnership • Mutual strategic planning • Sharing of information and resources • Organizational ownership The first thing is to formalize your commitment. Then you’ll need to decide which items should be addressed as the partnership matures. DO

Conduct a joint partnership meeting to address these issues. Decide how you want to address the strategic planning. In some organizations, the partners do their own strategic planning. In others, they integrate their strategic planning within the organization’s strategic plan. Thus, for example, if “partnering with our employees” is an overall organizational goal, then the employees and managers develop a strategic and tactical plan to accomplish it. If you’re partnering with another organization but only your marketing departments are involved, you might do the strategic planning just between those two departments. A more straightforward type of strategic planning would occur between a manufacturer and its suppliers. They might plan a year in advance for the levels of activity, the timing of the activity, and any design modifications that should be communicated. C H EC K

How well did the meeting go? Did you meet each partner’s expectations? What would you do better next time? Did you list all the “pluses and deltas” to determine what could be done better next time? AC T

Are you in full partnership? If not, where do you go from here? At this point, you are back at the Plan step of the Plan–Do–Check–Act cycle.

Partnering2 ch14

4/3/04

10:23 AM

Page 261

CO M M I T STAG E

Finally, let’s take a look at the results of the partnering activity in our case studies.

1 . I N T E R N A L PA R T N E R S H I P : CO N V E N T I O N H OT E L

Marty and Jean were so pleased with the outcome of their initial activity together that they decided to expand this concept. Beyond making sure that Maintenance and Housekeeping didn’t hinder each other’s work, they brainstormed a list of other activities where they might work together. Some of the ideas they came up with included ways that Maintenance could help the housekeepers move heavy objects, discussions about the installation of low-maintenance bathroom accessories, and helping in the laundry services. Maintenance came up with a method of attaching various housekeeping implements to the housekeeper’s service cart that would require less lifting and reduce back strains. The two departments began to work together so well that Eric, the hotel’s general manager, started a partnership between Sales and Catering. But that is a different story. 2 . E X T E R N A L PA R T N E R S H I P : D OW N TOW N O F F I C E TOW E R

For John and Peter, their partnership continued through the project until the completion of the building. Because of the relationship established between the Building and Construction Trades Council and the contractor, there were no issues that could not be resolved. And since there was a no-strike clause in their agreement, the building was completed ahead of schedule. In fact, the project was finished two months ahead of the promised date and came in several million dollars under budget. The law firm was pleased; the contractor was pleased; and, perhaps surprisingly, the unions were pleased. Although their members finished two months early, they did not lose any work. Why? Because the project partnering agreement has worked so well on construction projects that more and more contractors are insisting on having them in place—and that ensures the continual use of union labor. Members of the union construction and building trades have secure jobs for years to come. Thus everyone won. This partnership not only created value for the organizations, but has created strategic alliances between building contractors and unions to the benefit of all.

261

Partnering2 ch14

4/3/04

10:23 AM

Page 262

Partnering2 ch15

4/3/04

10:25 AM

Page 263

CHAPTER

FIFTEEN

Coming Full Circle Hallmarks of a Successful Partnership A partnership isn’t valuable merely because it has the potential to be valuable. We err if we assume potential is destiny. In fact, most of a partnership’s success is based on our own human efforts—our combined vision, made real by our mutual inputs and nurtured by our human relationships. It’s a process of giving, investing, contributing, and combining what we have to create synergistic results. Over the years we have come to understand why some partnerships flourish and some wither and die on the vine. This final chapter summarizes some of the “shoulds” and “should-nots” of forming an alliance. Let’s start with the should-nots. M O S T C O M M O N R E A S O N S PA R T N E R S H I P S FA I L

• Inappropriate team membership • Failure to address internal/external partnership issues • Inability to create a Win-Win Orientation in building common platforms • Failure of internal departments to support organizational partnership due to self-interest • Lack of internal partnerships, resulting in poor crossfunctional coordination 263

Partnering2 ch15

264

4/3/04

10:25 AM

Page 264

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

• Lack of clear boundaries and scope • Lack of leadership support • Lack of defined mutual benefits and measurement systems to track them • Partnership by evolution rather than design • Failure to build a trusting relationship into the partnership • Failure to develop a partnering culture based on the Six Partnering Attributes • Failure to produce a joint Strategic Framework SIX HALLMARKS OF SUCCESS

The commitment we make to a full partnership is to continue to respect each other and honor the partnership as a special relationship. The evolving partnership has a life of its own and requires all of the same life-sustaining efforts and energies as any other enterprise. The special power of the partnership derives from the fact that it is created by design, sustained by conscious diligence, and flourishes as a result of renewed commitment by the partners. Following are the key components of making a partnership work. • Active support of leaders • Appropriate team membership with equal participation • Common objectives • Clear boundaries and scope • Consensus and openness • Trust and mutual benefits Active Support of Leaders

In organizational partnerships, the partners who initiated the alliance should be responsible to all the stakeholders who must make it work. The leaders who put together a merger of two companies, for instance, should keep selling the benefits of the partnership to their companies. They can do this by cheerleading, by providing financial resources for the transitions required, and by ensuring communica-

Partnering2 ch15

4/3/04

10:25 AM

Page 265

COMING FULL CIRCLE

tion to the rest of the stakeholders. Most of all, leaders can send a supportive message by continuing their personal participation in efforts to ensure the success of the merger. Their participation must be visible so that everyone in the partnership understands that the leaders support the changes they are asking others to make. I once consulted with an organization in which the top executives only paid lip service to the partnership. Although they spent no energy on developing it, they did stage a public relations campaign and received recognition for being innovative. What they didn’t do was show support for and participate in the changes they had instituted. Consequently, the partnership dissolved. Leadership’s enthusiasm must be authentic; otherwise, people will feel exploited and withdraw their support. Appropriate Team Membership with Equal Participation

When partnerships first develop, partners should share power. If one partner dominates the process, the dynamics of the alliance may become unbalanced. And stakeholders—everyone who will be affected by the partnership including production staff, clerical workers, salespeople, accountants, and others—should participate all the way through the process. If the organization is unionized, a representative from the union organization must be included as well. Moreover, the partnership must be voluntary. If a critical person or group chooses not to participate, that should not prevent the partnership from forming. It simply means that some elements have not moved along the Partnership Continuum at the same rate as others. In the case involving the U.S. Postal Service, one of the largest unions refused to partner with management in its effort to improve the workplace environment. But that didn’t stop managers from creating a partnership with others who shared a mutual interest. Like the Postal Service, you may want to keep the door open to potential partners who declined the initial offer. They may still have valuable insight and contribute to the overall success of the partnership. The ability to participate equally often depends on being included in the loop. Equal access to information is necessary to ensure a level playing field between partners. If certain members of the partnership have exclusive access to information, it’s incumbent on them

265

Partnering2 ch15

266

4/3/04

10:25 AM

Page 266

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

to share it. They should make a point of including the other partners by forwarding copies, making memos, or instituting regular reporting regimens. Sharing information starts the process of building trust. If one partner hoards information, it sends a message of control, manipulation, and secrecy. It erodes confidence and destroys trust in the partnership. Another reason for sharing as much information as possible is that the “owner” of the data may get a new understanding of the information by having others look at it. If partners truly share mutual interests, what reason could there be to withhold relevant information from a partner? Common Objectives

A partnership needs to identify the objectives of the relationship. For example, I worked in a manufacturing setting establishing a partnership between a company and its union. Their common objective was to grow the business. But growth required retooling the production line and increasing automation. While the company and union had a single common objective, each also had its own separate objectives. The company wanted to improve the production rate by 25 percent while reducing work defects by 10 percent. The union did not want the company to lay off employees in the process. This group spent a lot of time and effort documenting their objectives and involving all the partners. Because of the documentation, all stakeholders understood the outcomes expected in the partnership. They could all see what was in it for them and the other parties if the alliance achieved its goals. Before I bring parties together and develop a mutual vision of the partnership, I have each group meet separately. In these separate meetings, they create their own vision of what they want from the partnership. Then I bring the parties together to share their individual visions. Inevitably the group begins to identify areas they have in common. That is the start of the mutual vision and the first step for creating common objectives. Clear Boundaries and Scope

The partners need to define boundaries for the partnership, which generally fall into the two dimensions of space and time. Space refers

Partnering2 ch15

4/3/04

10:25 AM

Page 267

COMING FULL CIRCLE

to what we agree to work on together. We may choose to work on one process improvement project, for example, and limit the partnership to that activity for now. Space may be limited to a function—for example, we may agree to work together in the manufacturing or marketing segment of the organization. The other dimension is time. A time limit should be defined for the partnership—say, one year or for the life of a contractual agreement. A formal agreement can be renegotiated when the time limit expires. This helps partners be more realistic about what they can commit to providing. The longer the time limit, the greater the risk that the partnership will not accomplish its objectives as planned. Being accountable now and planning what to do in the immediate future are more valuable to the partnership than making commitments based on fanciful predictions. A group will take as long as a group has. Time is one of the most valuable commodities in organizational life, and scheduling timelines demonstrates respect for people’s time. If there is no urgency, the partnership may run out of steam before it ever gets going. Setting timelines, milestones, or benchmarks keeps both the task issues and the relationship issues on track. The first stages along the Partnership Continuum engage parties in a single activity to determine together the scope of their partnership. They need to decide what they expect from it. How often will they need to work together? Will this be an ongoing relationship or will it be limited to just this project? If they work together in one area of their mutual interest, can they work together in other areas? Limiting the scope of a partnership may be much easier for strangers to accomplish than for familiar entities. In a labor–management situation, for instance, a company may want to partner with its union to improve quality, productivity, or processes—yet it wants to be adversarial when it comes to negotiating benefits and wages. These two contrary positions may be difficult to understand. A true partnership needs to focus on mutual interests, but it doesn’t have to encompass all the interests of both parties. Even in a labor–management dispute over compensation, the two sides can succeed in forging a partnership based on common objectives to resolve their dilemma.

267

Partnering2 ch15

268

4/3/04

10:25 AM

Page 268

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

After the partners have determined the scope of the partnership, they must communicate quickly and often to make sure both sides understand the limits of the partnership. My friend Larry works for an airline that recently offered its employees stock in the airline in exchange for pay cuts. The company broadcast its offer through the media—emphasizing the opportunity for employees to own the airline, just as management does with its stock ownership program. But Larry discovered he did not have the same benefits and privileges the managers had; while managers fly for free, the union employees pay a nominal fee for their passes. Larry resents the fact that while he takes stock instead of dollars, just like management, he doesn’t enjoy the same treatment. The managers’ free seats undermine the credibility of the public relations campaign aimed at building employee morale. Had the airline been more precise with its employees and stated that it regarded the stock option as a different form of paycheck, perhaps my friend wouldn’t feel so resentful. The airline overstated the scope of the partnership and inflated employees’ expectations. A similar proposal may backfire in the future. The next time the labor contract is up for negotiation, employees may hold out for the money. Consensus and Openness

A partnership based on trust and mutual benefit must have open communication between partners. Openness allows people to say what is in their heart. This type of communication, while difficult for some, must be incorporated at every stage—especially at the Storm stage. Progress comes from working through conflicts. And in order to resolve conflicts, people need to work collaboratively. The purpose of using a consensus style of decision making is to create win-win scenarios. By using some basic guidelines for consensus decision making, people embrace the technique because it ultimately enlists the enthusiasm of the whole team. Trust and Mutual Benefits

The subtitle of Harvey Mackay’s book Swim with the Sharks Without Being Eaten Alive (1996) offers this advice: “Do what you love, love what you do, and deliver more than you promise.” There’s no better way to develop a trusting partnership than to do more than the min-

Partnering2 ch15

4/3/04

10:25 AM

Page 269

COMING FULL CIRCLE

imum your partner expects. Trust isn’t automatic; it has to be earned. Trust levels are relative and can increase or decrease depending on what the partners do or don’t do to build trust. If doing what you promise to do builds trust over time, exceeding your promises multiplies the impact of your actions. We should try to exceed—rather than merely meet—the requirements of our promises. “Exceeding expectations” sounds like you expend full effort and enthusiastically complete the task, whereas “meeting requirements” sounds like you grudgingly perform the minimum. A law of physics states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Exceeding performance expectations triggers a reciprocal reaction. How do you feel about doing your part when your partner has already given 110 percent? A classic example of this happened to a client of mine: an appliance manufacturing company. The sales and production departments worked together to ensure that stock was delivered on time to cover sales promotions. Things were going well, customers were buying appliances through the promotions, and back orders almost ceased to exist. Yet, while sales managers were making record bonuses, production managers were not seeing any change in their bonuses. When the partnership met, this gap was brought to the attention of the Sales and Production vice presidents. They were told that production managers and supervisors were starting to get angry that salespeople were making huge bonuses while they did all the hard work. The two partners decided to split the promotion sales bonuses evenly between Production and Sales to deal with the inequality and provide mutual benefits to both partners. As a result, the partnership between Production and Sales worked so well that after a two-year period, both groups got record high bonuses. The partnership moved from resolving a logistics issue to making design improvements based on customer feedback that Sales passed along to Manufacturing. The partnership worked so well, in fact, that the vice president of Sales told me one day: “I can’t even remember what it was like when we were not working together in partnership.” A SIMPLE FORMULA

You have the potential to be a great partner and to create successful, long-lasting, trustworthy, and mutually beneficial partnerships. The

269

Partnering2 ch15

270

4/3/04

10:25 AM

Page 270

TH E PARTN ER SH I P CONTI N U U M

formula is simple. Again and again I have emphasized the importance of understanding yourself first. It all begins with you. You need to know what you want. You need to select a partner who can help you close the gap between what you can currently do and where you want to be. You need to follow a partnering process: the Partnership Continuum. You need to be sure to keep the task and relationship dynamics in balance. You need to practice the Six Partnering Attributes. And you need to improve continuously by using the Plan–Do–Check–Act cycle. Follow the outline I have used in this book. It works. Don’t deviate from it and don’t take shortcuts. Relationships take time to build; trust takes time to build; it takes time to communicate. But once you have laid the foundation, partnerships will create endless value for your business and help build the smart alliances you need to successfully compete in the future.

Partnering2 Bibliography

4/3/04

10:06 AM

Page 271

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bardwick, J. Danger in the Comfort Zone. New York: AMACOM, 1991. Bartlett, C., and S. Ghoshal. Managing Across Borders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1998. Beckhard, R., and W. Pritchard. Changing the Essence: The Art of Creating and Leading Fundamental Change in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991. Bolton, R. People Skills. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1979. Bracey, H., J. Rosenblum, A. Sanford, and R. Trueblood. Managing from the Heart. New York: Delacorte Press, 1990. Branden, N. Self-Esteem at Work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998. Burley-Allen, M. Listening: The Forgotten Skill. New York: Wiley, 1995. Cappelli, P. The New Deal at Work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1999. Celente, G. Trends 2000. New York: Warner Books, 1997. Charan, R., and N. Tichy. Every Business Is a Growth Business. New York: Times Books, 1998. Cohen, W. The Stuff of Heroes. Atlanta, GA: Longstreet, 1998. Cohen-Rosenthal, E., and C. Burton. Mutual Gains: A Guide to Union-Management Cooperation. New York: Praeger, 1987. Conner, D. Managing at the Speed of Change. New York: Villard, 1992. Covey, S. Principle-Centered Leadership. New York: Summit Books, 1991. 271

Partnering2 Bibliography

272

4/3/04

10:06 AM

Page 272

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Crum, T. The Magic of Conflict. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987. Csikszentmihalyi, M. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: HarperPerennial, 1990. Dana, D. Talk It Out. Amherst, MA: Human Resource Development Press, 1990. Dent, S., and S. Naiman. The Partnering Intelligence Fieldbook. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing, 2002. Filley, A. Interpersonal Conflict Resolution. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1975. Francis, D., and D. Young. Improving Work Groups. San Diego, CA: San Diego University Associates Press, 1979. Goldhaber, G. Organizational Communication. 4th ed. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown, 1986. Gordon, T. Leader Effectiveness Training. New York: Bantam Books, 1980. Greider, W. One World, Ready or Not. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998. Heenan, D., and W. Bennis. Co-Leaders: The Power of Great Partnerships. New York: Wiley, 1999. Hillman, J. The Soul’s Code: In Search of Character and Calling. New York: Random House, 1996. Horton, T., and P. Reid. Beyond the Trust Gap: Forging a New Partnership Between Managers and Their Employees. Homewood, IL: Business One Irwin, 1991. Jandt, F. Win-Win Negotiating: Turning Conflict into Agreement. New York: Wiley, 1985. Katzenbach, J. The Work of Teams. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1998. Kelly, K. New Rules for the New Economy. New York: Viking Books, 1998. Koch, R. The 80/20 Principle. New York: Currency Doubleday, 1998. Kohn, A. No Contest: The Case Against Competition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1986. Kotter, J. Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1996. Lau, J., and M. Jelinek. Behavior in Organizations: An Experiential Approach. Homewood, IL: Irwin, 1984.

Partnering2 Bibliography

4/3/04

10:06 AM

Page 273

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mackay, H. Swim with the Sharks Without Being Eaten Alive: Outsell, Outmanage, Outmotivate, and Outnegotiate Your Competition. New York: Ballantine Books, 1996. Mackay, H. Dig Your Well Before You’re Thirsty. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Miller, S. E., E. Nunnally, and D. Wackman. Talking Together. Minneapolis: Interpersonal Communications Programs, 1979. Nadler, D. Feedback and Organizational Development: Using DataBased Methods. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1977. Orsburn, J., L. Moran, E. Musselwhite, and J. Zenger. Self-Directed Work Teams: The New American Challenge. Homewood, IL: Business One Irwin, 1990. Renesch, J., and B. Defoore, eds. The New Bottom Line: Bringing Heart and Soul to Business. San Francisco: NewLeaders Press, 1996. Robbins, H. Turf Wars: Moving from Competition to Collaboration. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1989. Schaef, A., and D. Fassel. The Addictive Organization. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1988. Senge, P. The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday Currency, 1990. Shea, G. Building Trust in the Workplace. New York: AMA Management Briefing, 1984. Sherman, A. The Complete Guide to Running and Growing Your Business. New York: Times Books, 1997. Stanat, R. Global Gold: Panning for Profits in Foreign Markets. New York: AMACOM, 1998. Stewart, D. The Power of People Skills. New York: Wiley, 1986. Thomas, K. W., and R. H. Kilmann. Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. Palo Alto, CA: Xicom, 1974. Weisbord, M. Productive Workplaces: Organizing and Managing for Dignity, Meaning, and Community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990. Weisbord, M. Discovering Common Grounds. San Francisco: BerrettKoehler, 1992. Wheatley, M. Leadership and the New Science: Learning About Organizations from an Orderly Universe. San Francisco: BerrettKoehler, 1992. Woodward, H., and S. Buchholz. Aftershock: Helping People Through Corporate Change. New York: Wiley, 1987.

273

Partnering2 Bibliography

4/3/04

10:06 AM

Page 274

Partnering2 Index

4/3/04

11:08 AM

Page 275

INDEX

Ability to Trust attribute: assessments for, 125–126, 130–131; characteristics of, 56; score interpretation, 56; in Storm Stage of Relationship Development, 85; trust building and, 129. See also trust; trust building accountability, 124–125 action plan, for change, 154–155 adaptors to change, 156–158 Agreement Between Partners checklist, 242 agreement to participate, 221–224 airline industry: Northwest Airlines–KLM partnership, 11, 14–15, 21–22, 164, 169, 215–216, 220, 251; partnerships in, 11, 14 alienation, 147 Alphin, Steele, 89–90, 121 anxiety: about change, 152; in Explore Stage of Partnership Development, 224 Arena (JoHari Window), 92–93 Assess Stage of Partnership Development: assessment team, 184–185; case studies of, 209–213; description of, 75, 181–182; internal assessments, 184–186; needs assessment, 203, 205–206, 209; organization assessments, 182–184; Plan–Do–Check–Act cycle for, 206–208; summary of, 204

assessment(s): culture, 252–253; future orientation, 145–148; internal, 184–186; management, 172–174; needs, 203, 205–206, 209, 217; of organization. See organization assessment; past orientation, 145–148; PQ. See PQ Assessment; relationships, 149; trust, 125–126, 128, 130–131; Win-Win Orientation, 106–112 assessment team, 184–185 Attribute Analysis: Ability to Trust attribute, 56; action plan after, 64–65; Comfort with Change attribute, 56–57; Comfort with Interdependence attribute, 57; debriefing, 64; description of, 51; Future Orientation attribute, 56; instructions for, 52–53; results of, 54–57; Self-Disclosure and Feedback attribute, 54–55; Win-Win Orientation attribute, 55–56 Bank of America, 89–90, 166, 216, 218 behavior: and change reactions, 156–158; conflict effects on, 118–119; ethics based on, 194; regulations on, 117; trust building and, 127 Big-Name Company PQ Profile, 62–63

275

Partnering2 Index

276

4/3/04

11:08 AM

Page 276

INDEX

Blind Spot (JoHari Window), 93 boundaries, 266–268 building of trust. See trust building business: economic transformation in, 9–11; ethereal realm of. See ethereal realm; expanding of resources through partnering, 12–14; information and knowledge sharing by, 10–11; material realm of, 188, 198–201; partnering model for, 10, 12; success in, 8–9; synergy in, 104–105; technology effects on, 8–11; transactional nature of, 8. See also organization(s) Cagle, Mary Lou, 162 candor, 134–136 case studies: Assess Stage of Partnership Development, 209–213; Commit Stage of Partnership Development, 261; Explore Stage of Partnership Development, 215–216, 228–230; Initiate Stage of Partnership Development, 245–248; partnering, xi; partnership, 208–213, 220–221 change: action plan for, 154–155; adaptors to, 156–158; anxiety about, 152; awareness of, 151; commitment to, 17, 155–156; creating, 154; dealing with, 151; initiators of, 156–157; managing, 154–156, 160; obstacles to, 159; in partnerships, 152, 155–156, 160; phases of, 154; reacting to, 156–158; resistance to, 158–159; resistors of, 156, 158; stages of, 151; Stages of Relationship Development affected by, 71–72; transition stage of, 151–152; understanding, 153–154. See also Comfort with Change attribute checklists: Agreement Between Partners, 242; Assess Stage, 204; Comfort with Interdependence, 173; feedback, 98, 102; Initial Activity Team, 235–239, 244–245; Partnership Readiness, 182–183; partnership stressors, 152; self-disclosure, 94–95 closed behavior, 144

collaboration, 133–134, 147 collective memories, 143 Comfort with Change attribute: characteristics of, 56, 151–153; checklist for, 152; in Norm Stage of Relationship Development, 85; score interpretation, 56–57; trust building and, 129, 159. See also change Comfort with Interdependence attribute: characteristics of, 57, 165–166; checklist for, 173; interdependence. See interdependence; in Perform Stage of Relationship Development, 84–85; score interpretation, 57; trust building and, 129 Commit Stage of Partnership Development: case studies of, 261; description of, 75–76, 249–250; partnership in, 250; Plan–Do–Check–Act cycle for, 259–261; strategic planning. See strategic planning commitment: to change, 155–156; trustbuilding role of, 132 communication: barriers to, 116; nonverbal, 99; technology’s contributions to, 135; trust building using, 135, 268; verbal, 99 compassion, 136 competence, 132 Compromiser style of conflict resolution, 113 conflict: aftermath of, 119; antecedent condition for, 116–117; behavior influenced by, 118–119; dynamics of, 117; energy created by, 105–106, 119; example of, 117–118; feeling of, 117–118; perceiving of, 117–118; sources of, 116–117; in Storm Stage of Relationship Development, 70, 105; synergy and, 105, 119 conflict resolution: competitive, 55; Compromiser style of, 113; description of, 119; Evader style of, 112–113; Fighter style of, 113–114; Harmonizer style of, 113; model for, 115–119; Negotiator style of, 114; in Norm Stage of Relationship Development,

Partnering2 Index

4/3/04

11:08 AM

Page 277

INDEX

70; problem solving and, 114; schematic diagram of, 115; styles of, 106–115; trust building by, 124; win-lose style of, 146; Win-Win Orientation. See Win-Win Orientation attribute; win-win style of, 146 consensus decision making, 174–176, 178, 268 consistency, 132–133 contribution, 133 creative zone, 75 creativity, 258 credibility, 136 culture: assessment of, 252–253; building of, 195–197; definition of, 194; partnering, 195–197; questionnaire for assessing, 196–197 customers: demands of, 104; loyalty of, 16, 21; relationships with, 15–16, 21; satisfaction of, 14, 16 Dasburg, John, 14, 164 decision making: consensus, 174–176, 178, 268; future-oriented, 147; intelligence influences on, 6; past-oriented, 38, 41, 147 Delta Airlines, 21 Diaz, Al, 122 Disney Corporation, 170 dynamism, 147 emotional quotient, 6 employee(s): importance of, 18; Partnering Attribute training of, 196; partnerships among, 18, 233–234 employee surveys, 188 empowerment, 147 ethereal realm: characteristics of, 189–192; ethics, 193–194; values, 192–193; vision, 192–193 ethics, 193–194, 253 Evader style of conflict resolution, 112–113 exceeding expectations, 269 executive team, 17 expenses, 14–15

Explore Stage of Partnership Development: anxiety during, 224; case study of, 215–216, 228–230; contribution’s role in, 133; description of, 75, 215; partners. See partner(s); partnership types, 216–217; Plan–Do–Check–Act cycle for, 224–226 expressing of needs, 92–94 external partnerships: case study of, 228–230, 247–248, 261; description of, 20–22 Exult, Inc., 89–91, 166, 218 Facade (JoHari Window), 93 feedback: expectations for, 100–101; giving of, 94–101; nonverbal, 99; observation checklist for, 102; receiving of, 94–97, 101–102; resentment and, 97; tips for, 99–100; validity of, 101; verbal, 99 feelings, 127 Fighter style of conflict resolution, 113–114 forced partnerships, 22–23 Ford, Henry, 165 Form Stage of Relationship Development: description of, 69; partnering attributes of, 84 future orientation: assessment of, 145–148; characteristics of, 56, 79–80, 137–138; decision making based on, 147; environment of, 79–80, 198; language of, 148–150; mental maps, 138–145; organizations with, 24–25; past orientation vs., 81, 137–138; profile of, 199; trust-building effects, 129 Future Orientation attribute, characteristics of, 56; in Norm Stage of Relationship Development, 85; score interpretation, 56 Gardner, Howard, 6 Goleman, Daniel, 6 Gushen, Vadim, 231 Gutt, Dan, 220 Harmonizer style of conflict resolution, 113

277

Partnering2 Index

278

4/3/04

11:08 AM

Page 278

INDEX

Holistic Organizational Model, 189, 191, 251 honesty, 127 inclusion, 185–186 independence: disadvantages of, 166–168; systemic paradigms and, 172; transition to interdependence, 174–178 information: access to, 265–266; sharing of, 10–11, 254–256, 258, 266 Ingham, Harry, 92 Initial Activity Team Checklist, 235–239, 244–245 Initiate Stage of Partnership Development: case studies of, 245–248; description of, 75, 231–232; partnering team. See partnering team; Plan–Do–Check–Act cycle for, 240–244 initiators of change, 156–157 intelligence: decision making influenced by, 6; measures of, 5; types of, 6 intelligence quotient. See IQ interdependence: company examples of, 169–171; definition of, 168; independence transition to, 174–178 interest-based problem solving, 175 internal assessments, 184–186 internal partnerships: case study of, 228, 245–246, 261; description of, 17–20 Internal Team PQ Profile, 59–61 IQ, 5 job security, 15 Joe Average PQ Profile, 58–59 JoHari Window, 92–93 knowledge sharing, 10–11 Kroc, Ray, 169–170 leadership: active support of, 264–265; description of, 172; relationship development role of, 233; Six Partnering Attributes benefit for, 195 letters of agreement, 223 listening, 135, 175–176 loneliness, 8 Lucid, Shannon, 231–232 Luft, Joseph, 92

Mackay, Harvey, 268 management: assessing style of, 172–174; “open book,” 123 material realm, 188, 198–201 Mayer, John, 6 McClernon, Timothy R., 57 McDonald’s, 169–170 McPherson, Randy, 27, 220–221 mediation, 128 mental maps, 138–145 MIR station, 231–232 mission statement, 201–203 Motorola, 10–11 NASA, 122–123, 166, 258 needs: assessment of, 203, 205–206, 209, 217; expressing, 92–94; identifying, 203, 205; of partner, 217–221 negotiation: conflict resolution through, 115; framework for, 175–177 Negotiator style of conflict resolution, 114 nonverbal communication, 99 Norm Stage of Relationship Development: description of, 70, 84; partnering attributes of, 84–85 Northwest Airlines–KLM partnership, 11, 14–15, 21–22, 164, 169, 215–216, 220, 251 objectives, 266 “open book” management, 123 openness, 182, 258, 268 organization(s): assessment of. See organization assessment; barriers in, 18; compartmentalizing of work in, 18; continuous improvement in, 259; departmentalization in, 116; external partnerships in, 20–22; future-oriented, 24–25; goals of, 192; Holistic Organizational Model, 189, 191, 251; infrastructure of, 195–196; internal assessment of, 184–186; internal partnerships in, 17–20; mission of, 192; morale of, 189; past-oriented, 24; process management used by, 202; self-assessment by, 149–150; structure matrix for, 255. See also business

Partnering2 Index

4/3/04

11:08 AM

Page 279

INDEX

organization assessment: employee surveys, 188; focus of, 187–188; internal, 184–186; PQ Assessment used for, 187; resistance to, 185; team for, 184–185 organizational process model, 200 orientation. See future orientation; past orientation; Win-Win Orientation attribute outsourcers, 20 outsourcing relationships, 216 participation: agreement about, 221–224; equal, 265–266 partner(s): Agreement Between Partners checklist for, 242; agreement to participate, 221–224; compatibility analysis, 218–219, 227; finding, 216–217; getting to know, 232–234; interviewing, 218; matrix for identifying, 217; meeting, 260; needs of, 217–221; participation of, 221–224, 265–266; Plan–Do–Check–Act cycle for finding, 225–226; strategic growth capabilities of, 218–221 partnering: benefits of, xi; business model of, 10; case study of, xi; culture of, 11–12, 195–197; examples of, 12–14; expanding of resources through, 12–14; skills in, 48–49 Partnering Attributes: benefits of, 86; description of, 6–7, 25; employee training in, 196; organizational structures aligned with, 195–196; personal mastery gained using, 195; PQ Assessment for evaluating strengths and weaknesses in, 29–47; for Stages of Relationship Development, 84–86. See also specific attribute Partnering Intelligence: definition of, 5–7; increasing, 7; partnering attributes of, 6–7; Partnership Continuum model effects on, 23–24 partnering quotient. See PQ partnering team: Agreement Between Partners checklist for, 242; assembling of, 234–240; development of, 233–234; Initial Activity Team checklist for,

235–239, 244–245; Stages of Partnership Development, 236–240, 244; Stages of Relationship Development, 235, 240, 244–245; tasks of, 234 partnership(s): balance in, 159–164; boundaries for, 266–268; candor’s role in, 134–136; case studies of, 208–213, 220–221; change in, 152, 155–156; characteristics of, 28–29; commitment to, 134; conflicts in, 232; creative innovations accomplished by, 13; cultural forces that affect, 203; customer benefits of, 14–16; designing of, 23; ego effects, 191; employee, 18, 233–234; essence of, 26; expense reductions through, 14–15; external. See external partnerships; external impacts on, 256; failure of, 103, 263–264; forced, 22–23; formula for, 269–270; full, 257–259; goals achieved through, 13; internal. See internal partnerships; job security benefits of, 15; leadership support for, 264–265; need for, 8–9, 27; new, 216; objectives of, 266; ongoing nature of, 257; openness in, 268; past orientation benefits for, 138; Plan–Do–Check–Act cycle for, 225; productivity increases through, 15; readiness assessment, 182–183; reasons for having, 8–9, 27, 103; recommitment of, 257; relationship improvements through, 15–17, 181; scope of, 267–268; self-knowledge benefits for, 145; space dimensions for, 266–267; stressors checklist for, 152; success of, 256–257, 264–269; synergy in, 104–105, 251; task/ relationship balance in, 160–164; time dimensions for, 266–267; trust in 123, 128, 130–136; types of, 216–217; values, 192–193, 252–253; voluntary nature of, 265. See also relationship(s) Partnership Continuum model: components of, 68; description of, 7, 23–25, 67–68, 179–180; Plan–Do–Check–Act cycle. See Plan–Do–Check–Act cycle; schematic diagram of, 68; Stages of Partnership Development. See Stages

279

Partnering2 Index

280

4/3/04

11:08 AM

Page 280

INDEX

Partnership Continuum model cont’d of Partnership Development; Stages of Relationship Development. See Stages of Relationship Development; step-by-step approach, 80–81 past orientation: assessment of, 145–148; characteristics of, 56, 79–80; creation of, 182; decision making based on, 147; environment of, 79–80, 198; future orientation vs., 81, 137–138; partnership benefits of, 138; profile of, 199; traits of, 137; trust-building effects, 129 PDCA cycle. See Plan–Do–Check–Act cycle Perform Stage of Relationship Development: description of, 70, 84; partnering attributes of, 84–85 personal accountability, 124–125 personal mastery, 195 Personal Trust Assessment, 125–126 Plan–Do–Check–Act cycle: Assess Stage, 206–208; Commit Stage, 259–261; description of, 7, 24, 76; development of, 76; Explore Stage, 224–226; Initiate Stage, 240–244; schematic diagram of, 77; stage-based time allocation, 79; steps involved in, 77–79 PQ: assessment of, 27–29; definition of, 6; description of, 27; growth of, 29; “high,” 28; increasing, 191–192; “low,” 28; skills and traits involved in, 28 PQ Assessment: action plan after, 64–65; Attribute Analysis. See Attribute Analysis; average score on, 48; debriefing, 64; description of, 29; development of, 47–48; organization assessments using, 187; purpose of, 33; questions analyzed, 32–47; results of, 32–47; scoring of, 32, 48–49; statistics on, 47–48; test, 29–31 PQ Profile: Big-Name Company, 62–63; creation of, 57–58; Internal Team, 59–61; Joe Average, 58–59; sample, 55; Two Companies, 61–62 prejudices, 142–143 problem solving: conflict resolution and, 114; interest-based, 175

process management, 202 productivity, 15 psychological mind-set, 191 Qwest Wireless, 18–19, 218–219, 223 relationship(s): assessment of, 149; building of, 124; consistency’s role in, 133; contribution’s role in, 133; with customers, 15–16, 21; development of, 233; maintenance of, 124; objectives of, 266; outsourcing, 216; partnership effects on, 15–17, 181; stages of development. See Stages of Relationship Development; trust categories for, 134–136. See also partnership(s) Relationship Feedback Assessment, 72–74 resentment, 97 resistance: to change, 158–159; to internal assessment of organization, 185 resistors of change, 156, 158 resources: expansion of, 12–14; sharing of, 254–256 Roca, Richard, 122–123 Salovey, Peter, 6 Salvino, Michael, 90, 162 Sandrin, Marv, 220 Saturn, 15 scope of partnership, 267–268 self-awareness, 7 Self-Disclosure and Feedback attribute: characteristics of, 54–55; checklists for, 94–95, 98, 102; company example of, 89–91; example of, 91–92; in Form Stage of Relationship Development, 84; giving feedback, 94–101; receiving feedback, 94–97, 101–102; score interpretation, 54–55; trust building and, 129. See also feedback self-understanding, 92 sharing: of information, 10–11, 254–256, 258, 266; of knowledge, 10–11; of success, 256–257 Shewhart, Walter A., 76 Shewhart cycle. See Plan–Do–Check–Act cycle

Partnering2 Index

4/13/04

3:56 PM

Page 281

INDEX

Six Partnering Attributes. See Partnering Attributes. See also specific attribute space, 266–267 Springfield Remanufacturing, 123, 144–145 Stack, Jack, 123, 144, 171 Stages of Partnership Development: Assess Stage. See Assess Stage of Partnership Development; Commit Stage. See Commit Stage of Partnership Development; description of, 74–75; Explore Stage. See Explore Stage of Partnership Development; Initiate Stage. See Initiate Stage of Partnership Development; partnership team, 236–240, 244 Stages of Relationship Development: changes that affect, 71–72; description of, 68–69, 83–84; Form stage, 69, 83; influences on, 71; Norm stage, 70, 84; partnership attributes for, 84–86; partnership building by using, 72–74; partnership team, 235, 240, 244–245; Perform stage, 70, 84; Storm stage, 70, 83–84, 105 stagnation, 147 Storm Stage of Relationship Development: conflict during, 105; description of, 70, 83–85; partnering attributes of, 85 strategic growth capabilities, 218–221 strategic planning: beginning of, 254; description of, 250–254; information sharing, 254–256; resource sharing, 254–256; trust building through, 254 stressors, 152–153 Subconscious (JoHari Window), 94 success: description of, 8–9; formula for, 269–270; hallmarks of, 264–269; sharing of, 256–257 suppliers, 20 synergy: conflict effects on, 105, 119; description of, 104–105; strategic planning benefits for, 250; trust building and, 125; Win-Win Orientation and, 259 task/relationship balance, 160–164, 232–233

Taylor, Frederick W., 198–199 team, partnering: Agreement Between Partners checklist for, 242; assembling of, 234–240; development of, 233–234; Initial Activity Team checklist for, 235–239, 244–245; Stages of Partnership Development, 236–240, 244; Stages of Relationship Development, 235, 240, 244–245; tasks of, 234 teamwork, individual performance vs., 146–147 technology: business transformation secondary to, 9–11; communication improvements through, 135; labor changes caused by, 199 time, 266–267 triangulating, 128 trust: categories of, 131–136; creative risk and, 258; criteria for, 121–125; earning of, 269; future orientation effects on, 129; partnership, 131–136; past orientation effects on, 129; for relationship elements, 134–136; for task elements, 132–134; truth telling and, 121–123 trust assessment: partnership, 128, 130–131; personal, 125–126 trust building: accountability factor in, 124–125; behavior influences on, 127; collaboration’s role in, 133–134; commitment’s role in, 132; communication’s role in, 135, 268; compassion and, 136; conflict resolution for, 124; consistency’s role in, 132–133; contribution’s role in, 133; credibility and, 136; information sharing and, 266; ingredients for, 127–128; listening and, 135; Stages of Partnership Development for, 74–75; strategic planning for, 254; synergy and, 125 truth telling, 121–123 Two Companies PQ Profile, 61–62 Unknown (JoHari Window), 94 U.S. Postal Service, 222–223 values, 192–193, 252–253 vendors, 20

281

Partnering2 Index

282

4/3/04

11:08 AM

Page 282

INDEX

verbal communication, 99 vision: creation of, 252; description of, 192–193, 196–197; mission statement for clarifying, 201–203; understanding of, 233 vision statement, 252 Wheatley, Margaret J., 193 Wilson, Gary, 21

Win-Win Orientation attribute,e assessment of, 106–112; score interpretation, 55–56; in Storm Stage of Relationship Development, 85; synergy created by, 259; trust building and, 129 work processes, 202 Xcel Energy, 166

Partnering2 Index

4/3/04

11:08 AM

Page 283

Partnering2 Index

4/3/04

11:08 AM

Page 284