10 Leadership and Management Lessons from John, Paul, George, and Ringo

Unexpected "Bonus Features" from Peter Jackson's The Beatles: Get Back Documentary

Attention: This contains spoilers to The Beatles: Get Back documentary appearing on Disney+

Four hundred sixty eight minutes went by quickly but some reviewers said the run time for Peter Jackson's The Beatles: Get Back was excessive. I wanted more.

This massive three-part "documentary about a documentary," as Jackson put it, envelopes you in the lives and interactions of John, Paul, George, and Ringo during the development of a TV show/film/album/concert in January 1969. It's chaotic, dramatic, eye opening, and inspiring. This crescendo of activity during a tight, self-imposed deadline gives me some fresh insights into the business, personal dynamics, and (unintentional) teachings of the one of the greatest rock and roll bands in the 20th century:

1. Vision, Goals, and Objectives. The initial goal of the project was amorphous. No one really knew what they wanted to accomplish and where they wanted to accomplish it. All they had was a deadline. The lack of direction was exacerbated by the death of their manager, Brian Epstein, often referred to as the "fifth Beatle." Paul tried to pick up the mantle of boss and it was clear that his style generated some resentment with the other "lads." But Paul had perceptive and in a brief period was able to evolve from dictatorial boss to engaged leader. It wasn't perfect but it was easy to see less autocracy and more conversation, more give-and-take. Eventually, Paul successfully gained agreement on what would and would not be acceptable project parameters.

2. Process and Time Management. I mentioned the deadline. Real deadlines are supposed to be hard and fast. As disagreements and confusion to what the end product(s) would be, however, timing slipped. Paul made numerous attempts to corral the attention, creativity, and energy of the band. He tried to emphasize the importance of discipline and the need to string all the individual gems they were creating into a coherent story. But with a combination of mixed messaging and confidence, he noted that "The best bit of us, always has been and always will be, is when we're backs-against-the-wall."

3. Humor. I didn't appreciate how much of a goofball John was until I saw this mini-series. To be fair, they all had their bouts of silliness. Their deep knowledge of rock history and musical versatility really came through during those playful scenes. I found it distracting at times but, thinking deeper, it was absolutely essential to their maintaining a bond and creative process. We all need relief valves; we all need some fun; we need moments to break things up in order to remain fresh.

4. Repetition and Drilling. For all the goofing around (see Humor above), these guys were pros. The Beatles knew they had a product to produce, fans to please, money to make, and increasing musical competition. One way to keep their edge was to perform flawlessly and to exteriorize the musical visions swirling around in their heads. While they discussed developing a set of 14 songs, they pursued quality over quantity - partly because they were diverted by some serious disagreements and blew past their deadlines - and ended up performing less than half of the songs they planned. (The good news is that - many of you know - the other material did get more fully developed later on.)

5. Risk Taking. The group hadn't performed for an audience for a few years by the time 1969 rolled around. Their compositions became more complicated, more physically isolating, and more reliant on technology gimmicks. The new project forced them back into close contact and to develop a playlist where it was all on them, live - no fancy effects, no back-up band. They felt exposed; it felt risky. But they agreed to take it on, which meant the need to iterate and test everything multiple times in order to gain assurance it would all work in a real-world scenario.

6. Compassion. One of the most dramatic moments occurred when George, feeling ignored and bullied, decided to call it quits. John and Paul acknowledged they hadn't adequately addressed "the festering wound" inflicted on George and, together with Ringo - I love that they call him Rich - set up two interventions to patch things up. They knew things went too far and had to acknowledge their part in what could be referred to as the Beatles break-up, Take One. Through the ups and downs, the creative differences, the sometimes heavy-handedness, and now the break up, we feel the camaraderie, the compassion. After all, their lives were entwined for years and one senses genuine affection they shared.

7. Giving and Receiving Feedback. Paul changed after that episode. He was much more careful about the way he delivered feedback. And he at least gave lip service to receiving it, too. But everyone joined in; they all gave each other notes and suggestions. Ringo, being the most placid, the most eager to stay out of the fray, was the most receptive. I'm speculating but the rediscovered collegiately, enhanced communication, and mutual respect might have been helped by a decrease or pause in drug use  --  a diversion caused by their newfound purpose and increasingly rigid schedule.

8. Seeking and Accepting Help. While they wanted to maintain a fresh, live performance, the group realized they needed some help - a fifth hand to round out some of their new creations. In came fresh-faced Billy Preston, whom The Beatles met during their days performing in Hamburg. (Preston was backing up Little Richard at that time.) Starting with some friendly jamming, John pushed to give him a seat at the table for the rest of the project. Paul worried initially that working with four was hard enough. Now, you can't imagine the song Get Back (or others) without his keyboard riffs.

9. Outside Life. Some of the most touching and humanizing moments came when family members and loved ones spent time in the studio. Yoko was a constant presence, practically joined at John's hip. (When a complaint surfaced about her, Paul voiced an immediate defense saying, essentially, that they were in love and it wasn't their place to judge.) But the biggest surprise was seven year-old Heather, Linda Eastman's daughter. One could see the stabilizing influence they both had on Paul. He was joyous, attentive and, as you probably know, ended up adopting Heather when he married Linda. It can't be work all the time. We need outside interests and outside support to make us whole.

10. Teamwork. While there is a clear need for individual thought, creativity is no one's personal domain. Yes, The Beatles had different strengths and this docuseries put that into plain relief. You need reality checks, pressure tests, and a group capable of refining and sharpening concepts. Baseball Hall of Famer Casey Stengel had it right when he said, "Getting good players is one thing. The harder part is getting them to play together." The Beatles saw the consequence of that - the risk of wasting efforts, raising conflicts, and alienating and demoralizing your most precious resources.

Go ahead and name a great leader or a great teacher and you'll always find flaws. The Beatles, one of the greatest, most creative musical groups in modern history are no different. "There's no goodies in it, there's no baddies," Jackson said. "There's no villains, there's no heroes. It's just a human story." Not just, Mr. Jackson. The resonance with the listening public, the impact of the lads from Liverpool will live on for a long time.

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

Nice or Kind: What’s the Best Choice?

“It’s nice to be nice to the nice.” That’s what the Frank Burns character said during an awkward social encounter in a 1974 episode of M*A*S*H. Even though a hypocritical, less than competent TV doctor delivered the line nearly 50 years ago, it still makes sense. Right?

According to The Hazards of a “Nice” Company Culture by Timothy R. Clark, “niceness hides dysfunction.” The author says, “What’s touted as niceness is often nothing more than the veneer of civility.” He sees this as a danger to organizations because “in a nice culture, there’s pressure to go along to get along,” which “can lead to chronic indecisiveness.”

Yes, sugarcoating a message can make it incomprehensible. And feeding staff a steady diet of feedback sandwiches – criticism surrounded by praise – can obliterate the message, not just kill the taste of bad news. 

We’ve all seen it at some point; people want to be liked and will do almost anything to avoid conflict. I’ve written about this before – we shouldn’t seek conflict but we need the courage to address it. Clark makes the case that niceness squashes “intellectual honesty, candid feedback, and tough questions.” And if we don’t address issues in a timely manner, we create a classic boiling over situation where “people wait until a problem becomes too big to ignore.” 

The need to modify our behavior – not matter how you characterize it – has never been bigger. We’re in a world of never-ending political fights and rants by the billions on social media; it’s a non-stop, global food fight. Meanness – provocation and threats emanating from all parts and levels of society – is a real threat to order and safety. But if Clark thinks niceness carries its own hazards, where do we turn? 

While some might call it semantic hair-splitting, the answer could be “kindness.” If being nice is conflict avoidance, then kindness is the ability to “channel and manage the tension.” It’s being frank and forthright while being respectful and courteous. In isolation, niceness misses the chance to ensure accountability. Kindness doesn’t have to be tough love, though. Compassion and humanity – not being self-serving and expedient – are part of the delineation between the two constructs. 

I usually find mutual exclusivity to be an irrational choice. But let’s consider that it’s nicer to be kind.

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

You Don’t Get It… and Don’t Know It

Like it or not, we don’t “get” a lot of things. Most importantly, we don’t get ourselves. 

The Harvard Business Review recently re-posted an article by Tasha Eurich where five years of research showed “95% of people think they’re self-aware, [while] only 10 to 15% actually are.” It’s a consequential finding, despite all that’s been written on cognitive dissonance and self-awareness. Think about how many and how deeply personal and professional relationships are affected by our lack of personal insight. 

A survey I conducted a few years ago on self-perceptions of meanness and niceness showed “respondents felt others are much meaner than they perceived themselves to be.” Twice as many people thought they were never mean versus those who said they were sometimes mean. In the workplace, “un-self-aware colleagues aren’t just frustrating; they can cut a team’s chances of success in half,” Eurich wrote. These individuals can spur “increased stress, decreased motivation, and a greater likelihood of leaving one’s job.” 

This is big. Unchecked, it’s life and career changing. 

It calls for intervention and the resolve to make it happen. No one likes conflict but it’s a necessary step. In Toxic Team Treatment I wrote, “Few go looking for a confrontation but it’s a critical part of working in teams, and supervising and leading others. Having the courage to take some action is not the same as “making waves.” Making waves connotes stirring up trouble and creating new problems. This is about airing and addressing the issues by asking questions, and seeking clarifications while showing respect for different views.” 

But productive dialogue requires mutual trust. “For someone to truly be open to critical feedback… they must fundamentally believe that we have their best interests at heart. When trust is present, the other person will feel more comfortable being vulnerable, a prerequisite to accept one’s unaware behavior,” Eurich said. 

If there’s a trusting relationship, go for it. If you don’t have it, find someone who does. Speed matters, just as it does in most situations though Eurich suggested, “If possible, wait until your colleague expresses feelings of frustration or dissatisfaction that (unbeknownst to them) are being caused by their unawareness.” 

Still, don’t allow an issue to become a crisis. Act. Follow up. And be empathic – understand that it’s not only about embracing the challenge to help yourself and others; others must be willing – or persuaded – to embrace the feedback.

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me @pauloestreicher.

Find the Courage to Ask and Receive

The Surprising Power of Questions, a recent article in the Harvard Business Review, is great but not surprising. It’s well accepted that asking questions “spurs learning and the exchange of ideas, it fuels innovation and performance improvement, it builds rapport and trust among team members. And it can mitigate business risk by uncovering unforeseen pitfalls and hazards.”

So, if asking questions is so important and productive why aren’t people more inquisitive? Why don’t more leaders create a culture of questions?

The HBR authors share some answers including egocentricity, apathy, overconfidence and not understanding the value of good questions.  But the most important reason, from my internal and external consulting experiences, is fear: Fear of the answer; fear of being wrong; fear of looking foolish; fear of having wasted time and money, fear of having to spend time and money, and fear of losing power.

It’s not only learning to embrace the question that’s important, it’s learning to embrace the answer.

Yes, we need the courage to ask, to have the inquisitiveness to learn more, and to take the initiative to interact with our stakeholders. But we need the courage and ability to put the organizational needs above our own; we need to identify the anxieties and work our way through with an “eye on the prize.” Nelson Mandela said, “I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear.”

Fear has come into play when I’ve been asked to help fix a problem concerning corporate or brand reputation. The expectation is the delivery of a new public relations program, story placements, or an advertising campaign. It’s the “stuff” of communications and marketing that is wanted. Unfortunately, there is often less of an interest in first determining the issues – asking and answering the questions – underpinning the problem. Leaders must not be intimidated by what research might uncover.

Future leaders must also learn to question; it’s an essential element in a mentoring relationship. Good mentors know this, even in legend. When the future King Arthur asked, “Would you mind if I asked you a question?” Merlyn answered, “It is what I am for.”

In the workplace, we need to be open to Q&A from those above, below and beside us. But seeking questions and answers is also of personal importance. There’s no way to fix or foster a relationship unless one is open to an exchange, and hearing and acting on the information.

I’ll end it here with some questions: Was this helpful? How do we move this forward? How have you found success in this arena? What other articles, resources on this subject have you found valuable? When have you encouraged others to seek questions and answers? I welcome your answers.

Between posts, I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

The 6 As: A New Model for Apologies

This was written with my former student, Heena Chavda, and appeared in the Spring 2015 issue of The Strategist.

Great amounts of time and effort are spent carefully crafting speeches, message points and press releases yet many stumble and bumble their way through an apology. Sometimes the outcome of a poorly conceived and executed apology creates more negative attention than the original offense. 

The apology by Bob Eckert, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer of Mattel, Inc., during their lead-paint toy recall in 2007, convinced 84% of those polled by HCD Research to trust Mattel to take the actions necessary to ensure product safety. However, an apology offered does not make it an apology made. British Petroleum CEO Tony Hayward undermined his apology during the Gulf oil spill crisis in 2010 by adding the now famous lines, “There’s no one who wants this over more than I do. I'd like my life back”.

Apology Models

Three Elements. The University of Michigan developed a model to combat the “defend and deny” practice common among medical practitioners. Patients are: “Approached, Acknowledged, and Engaged”. “The system's annual attorneys fees have since dropped from $3 million to $1 million, and malpractice lawsuits and notices of intent to sue have fallen from 262 filed in 2001 to about 130 per year” in a 2004 report.

Four Elements. In Aaron Lazare offers four elements in his book “On Apology”: the acknowledgement of the offense, expression of remorse, offering an explanation, and making reparations.

Five Elements. Moses Maimonides, the 12th century Jewish scholar and philosopher, describes five steps in his Hilchot Teshuva – The Rules of Repentance. First is recognizing what was done wrong and second is showing regret. The third step is the act of making a verbal declaration. Fourth is a vow not to repeat the mistake and fifth is a demonstration by the transgressor that he has learned from his mistake. John Kador in his book, “Effective Apology: Mending Fences, Building Bridges, and Restoring Trust,” also says recognition, remorse, and restitution constitute an effective apology but adds responsibility and repetition to round out his “5R” framework.

Gaps

Place. The choice of where to deliver an apology should be deliberate. Some times, though, immediacy will play a role and selections will be limited. Comedian Michael Richards appeared on the Late Night Show with David Letterman after a video of him using racist language at a comedy club went viral in 2006. At the behest of fellow cast-member and friend Jerry Seinfeld, Richards appeared via satellite on Letterman to explain what happened and offer his regrets for his actions. On a show typically known for its comedy content, Richards was quite somber and appeared visibly shaken during the interview. However, the mixed message of a serious apology on a program known for laughs was questionable. Indeed, the audience could be heard chuckling, unsure if his appearance was serious or part of a comedy routine.

Time. The question of when to apologize is one that continues to draw debate – too soon may seem reflexive and too late may appear to be an afterthought. Tiger Woods was criticized for waiting three months before apologizing for his infidelity. In those months, the public, media and sponsors had an opportunity to make their own judgments. When he made a highly staged apology, his words of regret were over-shadowed by his justification of having an addiction to sex.

One of the most delayed apologies in recent time came from the German drug firm Gruenenthal, makers of thalidomide. Decades after the morning sickness drug was pulled from shelves in the 1960s when it was linked to numerous birth defects, CEO Harald Stock apologized during a memorial speech commemorating a statue dedicated to the victims in 2012. The suspicion and anger caused by the long delay was compounded by the claim that it was the result of the company’s own grief: "We ask for forgiveness that for nearly 50 years we didn't find a way of reaching out to you from human being to human being. We ask that you regard our long silence as a sign of the shock that your fate caused in us." This was taken as an absurd and insulting attempt at rationalizing an egregious decision.

Other notable examples of delayed responses include the 359-year gap between the arrest and imprisonment of Galileo Galilei ordered by the Roman Catholic Church and the 1992 apology by Pope John Paul II. In 2000, the same Pope offered a sweeping apology and sought forgiveness for centuries of atrocities of violence, persecution and mistakes committed against Jews, women, native peoples and heretics.

Authenticity. While it may be important and necessary to seek the counsel of public relations professionals to ensure an apology is crafted appropriately, it can leave the recipient – and the public – wondering if it was genuine. The derogatory comments made by San Francisco 49ers cornerback Chris Culliver about gay players in professional football sparked such a question. In a radio interview on the Artie Lange Show in 2013 he said, “I don't do the gay guys man. No, we don't got no gay people on the team, they gotta get up out of here if they do. Can't be with that sweet stuff.”

Chris Culliver issued a statement the next day: “The derogatory comments I made yesterday were a reflection of thoughts in my head, but they are not how I feel. It has taken me seeing them in print to realize that they are hurtful and ugly. Those discriminating feelings are truly not in my heart. Further, I apologize to those who I have hurt and offended, and I pledge to learn and grow from this experience.” The quick response and Cullilver’s apology showed regret. The language and grammar used in the interview, however, was much different than the apology statement. By not placing the apology in the client’s voice, public relations professionals risk stripping the effort of its intended benefit by removing all elements of authenticity. 

Issues of time, place and authenticity all converged in 2013 around Paula Deen’s apology for her use of a racial epithet. A video apology “statement” was posted, only to be removed hours later. Though she said, “inappropriate, hurtful language is totally, totally unacceptable,” Deen actually spent more time asking for forgiveness.

A second apology video was posted but it didn’t start with any expression of remorse to her fans, patrons, business partners or the community; her words were directed to Matt Lauer for standing him up on the TODAY show. She explained her pain “has been tremendous.” Deen then went on to blame “the press” for an untrue portrayal of her and her family. A third video apology also targeted Lauer. She said, “I was physically in no shape to come in and talk with you. The last 48 hours have been very, very hard.” Five days later, Deen made her appearance on the TODAY show. She said, “I was overwhelmed. I was in a state of shock… There have been some very, very hurtful lies about me.” Before the interview, two companies announced they were cutting ties. After the show aired, the list grew to include The Food Network, Smithfield Foods, Walmart, Target, Caesars Entertainment, QVC, Novo Nordisk, Sears, Kmart, J. C. Penney and Random House.

A New Model: The 6 As

Building on the works using three, four and five elements, a new framework is proposed. The six elements – the 6 As – are:

1. Acknowledging something has happened. If there’s no acceptance of responsibility, there’s no foundation on which to build a future relationship.

2. Having an Authentic expression of regret. When an apology demonstrates an authentic expression of remorse, it is heartfelt, it is real, and it is something to which the audience can feel and connect. 

3. Using Appropriate tone and language. The mood, tenor and words must fit both the person apologizing and the audience for which the apology is intended.

4. Choosing an Acceptable venue. Location determine who and how many will receive the message, and will help set the tone of the apology.

5. Acting in the right timeframe. A delay or hesitation could result in mounting suspicion and a missed opportunity to correct the situation. 

6. Announcing next steps. Demonstrating how the offense won’t be repeated can be vital in rebuilding trust and reputation.

Research and Implications

We conducted a non-randomized online survey (using Qualtrics) of 205 adults to assess the relative weights of the 6 As by using a constant sum scale. Each respondent had to assign a value for each of the six elements, adding up to 100 total points.

Though this was an initial test, the average values fell neatly into multiples of the lowest average score obtained, which was Acceptable Venue (see Table). Thus, Appropriate Tone, Acting in the Right Timeframe and Announcing Next Steps were weighted as x 2, and Acknowledging Something Has Happened and Authentic Expression were weighted as x 3. With these weights and elements, we have a workable equation to measure the effectiveness of apologies.

Apology Element and Rank	Average Value (does not sum to 100 because of rounding)	Weighting Factor
1. Authentic expression of remorse	23.6	3
2. Adequate acknowledgement that something happened	21.4	3
3. Announcement of potential resolution or remedy	16.7	2
4. Acting in the right time frame	15.8	2
5. Appropriate tone and language	15.3	2
6. Acceptable venue for apology	7.4	1

With greater exposure and access to communication outlets, there’s greater pressure to apologize. It’s a volume issue with perhaps a dash of political correctness and a decline in civility thrown in to the mix. As the numbers continue to grow, practitioners will be confronted more often with the need to develop apology or develop an apology for a bad apology. It’s important that apologies are researched and developed with the same care as any other internal or external communication messages; they must be thoughtfully crafted, and be authentic, timely, and delivered appropriately in order for recipients to receive them in the way they were intended. And though Venue was ranked last, this aspect may take on greater relevance as we witness more apologies being made on social media platforms.

From a practical standpoint, the 6 A rubric may equip communication practitioners with a new tool to assist organizations and individuals in the mitigation or recovery from reputation-killing words or deeds. At a minimum, adding a sixth dimension to the evaluation of apologies creates a new checklist for practitioners. The maximal value, however, might be realized through its use in testing apologies in advance of their delivery or in “post-mortem” analyses of communication efforts.

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

New Bedside Manners

Tell Me – Not the Internet – How You Feel
I haven’t conducted a formal survey but I’d be willing to pull some money out from under my mattress and bet that two of the most often-used words these days in the worlds of business and politics are transparency and accountability. There’s been little choice, if you think about it. The collision between out-of-control companies and politicians with public outrage and instant communication tools has sparked unprecedented demands for truth and openness.

The push to expand transparency and accountability has given rise to numerous rating sites on the internet – everything from food to teachers to virtually any product. This long list includes about 40 web sites where one can rate their healthcare provider.

In an AP story last week, “Docs seek gag orders to stop patients' reviews,” Lindsey Tanner reported how some physicians are coping with anonymous, negative patient commentaries on sites like RateMDs.com. Intrigued, I went to the web site and saw that over 185,000 “doctors” were rated, but this includes acupuncturists, chiropractors, podiatrists, psychologists and dentists. I clicked on the most reviewed doctors and found that the top four are ob/gyns and number five is a cosmetic/plastic surgeon. (Number six, I must note, is the fictitious Dr. Gregory House.)

It’s not a big surprise that women, the most influential healthcare decision makers in the family unit, are the most vocal. Randomly scrolling through, I found some posts to be reverential and others to be scathing. These comments are a one-way street, however. The doctor’s name is used but not the patient’s and, because of rules protecting patient confidentiality, there’s no way for the doctor to respond.

Here’s where a company called Medical Justice comes in. For a fee, they offer physicians a service that monitors the internet for patient comments and a contract (“mutual privacy agreements”) for their patients to sign where they “agree not to post about their doctor on the Web without the doctor's permission.” In addressing First Amendment rights, the site states that “Patients are free to discuss their care with other doctors, family, friends, licensing boards, attorneys, and any number of institutions. Mutual privacy agreements do not create a choice between healthcare and one's right to free speech (as some have erroneously claimed).”

So, on one hand we have sites that allow unfettered forums for blasting (or praising) health care providers. On the other hand, we have an effort to limit where patients can express their views. Here are a few thoughts:

Health care providers need to accept the reality of our information society. Telling someone they can’t do something is a sure-fire way to promote the opposite of what is intended.

Entering into a contractual arrangement with a patient over issues of speech may raise questions about the doctor’s motives, potentially damage the relationship and erect a barrier that decreases communication.

If women are using this medium most frequently, then some special attention needs to be paid to their concerns and communication preferences. There should be an office environment where concerns can be aired before they hit the internet. And, if face-to-face commentary is uncomfortable, perhaps an anonymous mail-in survey should be made available.

While both sides have legitimate positions, I think we require a third hand. What’s needed is a forum where patients can post justifiable comments, where those who read them can have some assurance that no axes are being grinded. Health care providers need assurance that inaccurate, reputation-killing commentary is kept off the web, where it’s so difficult to excise.

Patient advocates and organized medicine should collaborate on setting standards and policies – a code – for responsible, ethical rating sites. Both patients and their doctors need to get on the same side of the fence on this issue. When it comes to your health and wellness, I can’t think of an issue where it’s more important for all the parties to act as a team.

Go Team!

Enhancing Cohesion and Success
We work and, thus, communicate in team settings a good deal of the time. Sometimes you can choose with whom to work, sometimes you can’t. And some people would just like to be left to work alone.

I was interacting recently with five teams of randomly assigned, similarly experienced people all working on comparable tasks. Most were in the same city but in remote locations and did not normally work together. After observing some struggles, I asked each of them (about 30 people) for some feedback on how their teams were functioning and what they were doing to improve their performance. Three common themes emerged:

Some people wouldn’t do the work; they wanted a free ride.

A dictator took over the team; before we knew it, this person was delegating.

Some people would do the work if assigned but they simply would not communicate.

I think you will agree that this example isn’t particularly unusual. Some people are passive, some are aggressive and some are passive-aggressive. Baseball Hall of Famer Casey Stengel had it right when he said, “Getting good players is one thing. The harder part is getting them to play together.”

I responded to the concerns voiced by the teams with some questions: Why was it so hard to push aside individual agendas and adopt a team agenda? Did you define upfront how the team would operate? Did you discuss and agree on roles and responsibilities? Did anyone suggest a schedule or timeline? Did you discuss and agree on the best way for the group to communicate – email, IM, phone? If more than one person wanted to lead, did you consider rotating the position? Was a leader even necessary? Was time ever set aside to review and assess team performance?

After some “oh yeahs” and “we should have done thats,” we discussed the importance of finding common ground, setting expectations and keeping focus on mutual goals. Then, I made a few more queries: Why weren’t these problems ever aired? Did you try to engage the individual in question? Did anyone confront the issue?

The responses were on the order of, “I wanted to speak up about a problem person but wanted to avoid confrontation – I didn’t want to make things worse.” When I asked if there were things that held them back I heard, “Well, I was hoping someone else on the team would step up.”

We know it’s hard for most people to articulate their feelings, especially around sensitive issues. Few people go looking for a confrontation but it’s a critical part of working in teams, supervising others and being a strategic communications advisor. But it’s up to you, not someone else. And it’s not “making waves.” Making waves connotes stirring up trouble and creating new problems. This is about airing and addressing the issues by asking questions, and seeking clarifications while showing respect for different views.

We routinely seek to understand stakeholder issues and concerns when developing a message strategy or a communication plan. We need to have the same mindset when working with colleagues. Also, it helps to have at least occasional face-to-face contact. As I wrote in the December 9th post, “Face-to-face allows us to observe all the nuances and evaluate the visual cues. With these additional inputs, we’re able to assemble a more accurate picture of the particular circumstance.” And, as James Surowiecki notes in The Wisdom of Teams, “A successful face-to-face group is more than just collectively intelligent. It makes everyone work harder, think smarter, and reach better conclusions than they would have on their own.”