No! Not Happening! Not with You!
So why does a stakeholder in an organization say, "No!" to you?
Organizationally, this can happen for any of the following three reasons. (In your personal life, there is a possible fourth, as well.)
1. They reject the premise. The stakeholder does not accept or believe the problem or issue you raise as context for your ask.
This is simple. The person you are addressing either doesn't see the problem as a problem, doesn't prioritize it as significant and worthy of investing time and money, or completely disagrees with your assessment. It could be political, operational, or some other reason... but your ask just doesn't land as important. In other words, you didn't make the case defining the issue, why it's an issue, how the issue affects the person or organization, and how solving it would be a benefit.
2. They reject the solution. The stakeholder accepts the premise, but not the solution proposed.
In this case, the stakeholder totally gets it! The problem is significant. But, when you make your actual ask-- propose your solution, the stakeholder doesn't believe it will indeed resolve the problem. The stakeholder thinks another approach might be more effective. In this case, the stakeholder may engage you to come up with another idea or may even bypass you entirely for other options.
3. They reject you. The stakeholder accepts both the premise and the solution but doesn't trust you-- or doesn't like you-- to execute.
You made a good case and even came up with a good approach to resolve the problem. But, for whatever reasons, she has no faith in your capability or capacity to execute the solution. She doesn't believe in you. Or she just doesn't like you. In your personal relationships, the above can still all be true, but there is an additional possibility.
4. Logistically, addressing the problem is literally impossible. Most organizations can find the necessary resources if they believe in the need strongly enough. But not so most individuals. So, sometimes the stakeholder, or friend, may agree with the problem, accept the solution is a good idea, trust and like you to help--but has no money or time or resources to actually make it work.
The bottom line is the more you can go into a pitch or presentation where you share a problem, knowing these potential reasons for a rejection, the more you can mitigate them in advance. Try and identify possible reasons why the stakeholder may reject the premise, reject the solution, or reject you. Interpersonally, identify ways to overcome logistical limitations when needed.
Prepare! Manage the risks before they become problems.
Probability Ratios. Oh My!
If I say you have a 99% chance no one will ever break into your house and harm you, you probably won’t think twice about it. Right? 99% is pretty darn close to perfect.
But, if I say there is a 1 in 100 chance you will die a horrible and violent death from a home invasion, you most likely start locking your doors. 1 in 100 sounds more ominous, as does the phrasing, violent death!
The probabilities described above are the same, however. But how those numbers are presented and understood can lead to a completely different set of reactions.
Your goal should be to mitigate those misunderstandings.
Numbers-- particularly probabilities--can be tricky.
The day before the 2016 US presidential election, Trump was given a 10 percent chance of winning. Many concluded that Clinton was a shoe-in. (I know there were polling problems, but this is about the analysis interpretation, and not the data input.) Ten percent means that if we were to live in 10 simultaneous realities, Trump would win in one of those 10 realities. For us, it happened to be ours.
It’s like taking 10 numbers on pieces of paper, putting them in a hat & pulling out the number four. It’ll likely happen once if you do the activity 10 times. Unlikely, but possible. He always had a small chance to win and a good chance to lose!
Why does a better understanding of probability matter?
Because when we understand the likelihood something will happen, we can make better, educated decisions how to prepare for that possibility. Knowing enables better risk management. Knowing also enables us to take more acceptable risks. BUT- doing so also requires us to know the bad can still happen.
What is the likelihood participants will attend my workshop?
What is the probability of bad weather causing my flight to be delayed?
In business, understanding probability is a key input when making decisions. Sales forecasts are just probabilities. So are demand curves. But garbage in yields garbage out. So, understanding what you have in front of you increases the effectiveness of your prediction/ forecast.
This requires you to properly understand how others present their ratios, and for you to understand how to best present your own-- which means understanding what you have in the first place. It requires you to have:
1️. A basic (and you don't need more than that) understanding of how probability works (Here is an overview of probability https://lnkd.in/eX6fHs9t).
2️. A basic understanding about sampling (the qualities and size of the data) and the methods used (how the data were gathered).
3️. A bit on how the data were analyzed.
This will help you to ensure you don't get manipulated by the presentation of the probability. But understand it more as it is.
Oh--And I always lock the door.
Predicting Leadership
Can we predict who will be an effective, leader? Can you look at a person and with great confidence state whether she will rise to the occasion and lead when asked?
Lots of leadership development providers make that claim. Me, too--when I am particularly hungry. But, do the data support the claims?
Well, this is tricky. It requires several things in place for a prediction to reliably be judged as accurate.
1. The definition of leadership and its associated leader behaviors need be clearly identified to measure a delta between the current state of the proposed leader and later, after she has actually led something.
2️. The criteria embedded in that leadership definition need to be distinct and not associated with other factors. In other words, it is hard to claim behaviors are leader behaviors if those same behaviors also indicate other practices, like management or interpersonal effectiveness. They must be unique enough to demonstrate leadership and not something else.
3️.Once a person is said to be leading, they have to actually lead something. One reason political leaders are easier to identify is they lead against events over a finite period of time... like war, pandemics, and so forth. So we can evaluate how they did against something happening. Leaders in business and other contexts do the same thing, but it is often harder to separate events so readily. Of course, this in itself can be an illusion, as well. US Presidents often have very little impact over the economy, but get crazy credit for it one way or the other.
4️. Which brings us to a more systems view. Leaders are rarely, if ever, successful or failures in a vacuum. Other people, other events, bad luck, etc. all play into the eventual outcome. A highly effective leader on paper may fail due to factors beyond control. Or a really bad leader may succeed despite himself.
The bottom line is it is hard to predict who will be successful at leading because it is hard to agree on what it is we are evaluating, the other factors impacting the evaluation, and even exactly what we are measuring. Mark Spivey referred to alignment and resilience as "emerging properties." I really like this description when we discuss leadership, too. (Thanks, Mark.) How we think of, how we measure, and of course, how we apply leadership is an emerging, fluid concept based on context, historical perspective, and other factors. It is impossible to predict who will and who won't lead effectively.
That doesn't mean we don't try or try to improve how we develop leadership. But it means we should stop doing stuff we know doesn't work. Dr. Nigel Paine and others thought leaders are talking about leadership as less individualistic and more as a system. I love this!
The next time anyone promises to turn your folks into great leaders be skeptical, ask for proof, and challenge their methodologies.