I’ll give a routine, three steps.
Step one: share your point of view.
Step two: explain to people how you came to that point of view.
And then step three: ask them what they think about your point of view.
Okay, so this is a simple routine. It’s anything but easy, right?
So, for example, I was working with a talent acquisition person at a kind of global Farmont. And the executive, you know, wants to hire a friend of his from a previous company where he worked. This talent manager has interviewed this guy he wants to hire, and you know, this talent acquisition person has real expertise in evaluating talent. And he’s super clear that this guy… They need somebody who’s going to be a great collaborator in the role, and this guy’s whole history is all about him. If there’s anybody who would display anti-collaborative behaviors, this is the poster child. In his mind, horrible fit, right?
And so we looked at the conversation that he had with him that didn’t generate the results he wanted with the executive. And he said to us: “I’m holding back because this is his guy, and I don’t want him to attack me, because I’m attacking his guy.”
And then, you know, one of his problems was that he was so convinced he was right—meaning the talent acquisition person—that he automatically saw this conversation as a competition.
Which is the wrong way to see it. “I have to prove to him that I’m right and he’s wrong.” Well, you’re setting yourself up for combat if you think that way. If instead you think: “My job is to help him make a choice that’s his. I’m trying to serve him in his best interest,” it totally changes your whole mindset toward the thing.
And when he started to realize, “I am serving him poorly by depriving him of my insights…”
That there are bad things that are going to happen—and that have happened already—by not having the conversation. So he could justify the avoidance based upon the fear of being attacked, but he saw the cost of avoidance starkly. He was like: “Okay, I’ve got to do something about that. What do I do about that? Because I’m still concerned he’s going to be upset when I express myself.”
So we worked it out. He said: “We practiced it the other day. I think it’s going to go great, because I’ve done this with thousands of people.” And he’s going to say to him something like:
“Listen, I want to make sure you’re in a position to make the very best decision that you can. Obviously, from our prior conversations, you know I’ve got some concerns about this guy. What I want to do is share with you what I learned from the interview, which leads me to have the concerns that I do. Ultimately, whatever you decide to do, I’ve got your back. I just want to make sure you have all the information you need to make a decision that’s right for you—and right for your friend.”
That changes the tone.
And then the three-step routine is:
First of all, I think the likelihood he’s going to succeed in this role is very low, because the role requires collaboration. And the data I’ve gotten from him shows the exact opposite of collaboration.
See? That’s the point of view.
And let me tell you why I say that. Because in the conversation, two data points:
-
When I asked about his accomplishments, he never used the word “we” once. He used the word “I, I, I, I, I,” even though he was part of a team.
-
He was badmouthing the colleagues in his previous role, where he kept saying: “This guy was an idiot.” Literally, in the interview: “This guy’s an idiot, this guy’s an idiot.”
So, in my experience, when somebody calls all of his colleagues an idiot and only compliments himself for the achievements—doesn’t give any credit to others—that’s not a person who’s going to be collaborative. And the role requires collaboration, which means you’re not going to get the performance that you need from this guy. He’s going to wash out in a few months. We’re going to be back here again, trying to rehire somebody, and it’s going to be bad for your guy.
But that’s just my take on it. What’s your reaction to my point of view?
And see, the three-step routine: “Here’s my point of view. Here’s why I say that. What do you think about what I just said?”
That’s all. Here’s my point of view, here’s why I say that, what do you think about it. And now it’s a collaborative conversation. Because I’m putting it out there not as: “You have to agree with me.” I’m putting it out there as: “Let’s talk about it.”
And I’m inviting you to differ with me, because again, I care more about what’s true than about being right.
