“Well, we want you to tell us what's different about yours so we know and we can compare.”

“But what are you comparing if you don't know your criteria?”

I then used Facilitative Questions to help her determine her success criteria. Here’s what she came up with:

1. differentiation from the competition;

2. loyalty and trust created from each interaction;

3. a ‘true’ consultative approach in which the seller helps the buyer understand and solve her own business problems;

4. consistent skills among all sales staff;

5. creation of value through each interaction.

Once we discovered the criteria, it became clear that Buying Facilitation would work for her. But until then, she wouldn’t have known how to discern one program from another since 'sales training' meant something unique to her that I had no way of understanding without making guesses.

SYSTEMS

Let’s digress here to underscore the importance of ‘systems’, which are the elements of the Partner’s company that must be managed before change c

Until now, our communication rules have assumed that when we kindly or persuasively offer others good information that could solve problems and achieve successful results, or coach them toward making a much-needed change, or even just pitch a product they sorely need, we can expect a positive reception. Obviously, if our communication partner (called Partner in this article) has a problem and we’ve got the true solution – and we do! We do! – they should take our advice. But they don’t.

We watch our Partners nod their heads in agreement with our clever suggestions, and promise to do something different, but then quickly return to their old less-successful behaviors.

DISCOVERING THE PROBLEM VS. SUPPLYING THE SOLUTION

When we offer our Partners seemingly obvious solutions and expect them to change, we are failing to take into account their need to make comprehensive systems decisions first. Indeed, our Partners need to recognize and manage all aspects of their presenting problem before they can make sense of our suggestions. But it's not so easy as we think.

Let me make up a silly analogy using an iceberg: we all see the tip; but if an iceberg engineer (I’m obviously making this up) needs to move the iceberg, he can’t until/unless he understands its size, shape, weight, as well as weather conditions, sea conditions, and its course of travel. Until the whole iceberg is measured and a new location is found, the tip ain’t movin’.

There is so much more to influencing choices than we initially recognize.

Of course, our Partner's presenting problem seems obvious to us, especially when we’ve been in business a while and have seen it all so often. But the full ramifications of the problem – all of the elements that it contains, all of the legs it has to-and-from the rest of the Partner’s environment, all of the beliefs and constructs that maintain the problem – are quite hidden.

And until or unless the client understands and resolves all of the elements that created and maintains the problem, she won’t know how to make a change. She might act differently for a bit when she intellectually understands the reasons to adopt new behaviors. But if the complete set of issues aren’t understood, managed, and accounted for, permanent change will not occur.

INFORMATION DOESN’T HELP PEOPLE CHANGE

Too often, sellers of change focus their drive toward change around rational, proven facts, generally accepted knowledge, or unique data – all of which I am labeling ‘information’. While information is necessary, and will be useful at some point later in the decision cycle, there is no way early on for people to know what to do with it. It’s akin to explaining to the iceberg engineer all of the dynamics of the moving crane before he’s sized up the components of the iceberg, the weather, or the sea.

It’s difficult to understand that accurate information is not enough to warrant change: people just end up resisting.

This problem shows up when buyers take too long to purchase. Or when people don’t heed our advice and continue on doing the same-old, same-old, complaining fervently of an unresolved problem. It seems curious for us to see their problem so clearly, and have a viable solution, and then be ignored, while the Partners continue to muddle along with the same problems.

But a note of caution: it’s not our job to understand or fix our Partner’s problems although we’d sure like to. It’s not our job to know what our Partner needs. The Partner must effectively manage all of the elements within their existent system before change can occur. Once they do this, as part of a facilitation process of painstaking discovery you can lead them through, they can develop all the necessary criteria for designing a unique solution; as support folk, we then just supply it. So much easier than us trying to create a solution based on a small segment of data.

I recently got a call from a young woman in a large recruitment company. She wanted to know how I would train 3000 people.

“What criteria are you using to know if they've been successfully trained?”

“We just want a training program. We're talking with several different groups, and want to know what you can do for us.”

“But all programs don't offer the same things, and your sales staff would learn different skills from each program.”

“Well, we want you to tell us what's different about yours so we know and we can compare.”

“But what are you comparing if you don't know your criteria?”

I then used Facilitative Questions to help her determine her success criteria. Here’s what she came up with:

1. differentiation from the competition;

2. loyalty and trust created from each interaction;

3. a ‘true’ consultative approach in which the seller helps the buyer understand and solve her own business problems;

4. consistent skills among all sales staff;

5. creation of value through each interaction.

Once we discovered the criteria, it became clear that Buying Facilitation would work for her. But until then, she wouldn’t have known how to discern one program from another since 'sales training' meant something unique to her that I had no way of understanding without making guesses.

SYSTEMS

Let’s digress here to underscore the importance of ‘systems’, which are the elements of the Partner’s company that must be managed before change c

Let me make up a silly analogy using an iceberg: we all see the tip; but if an iceberg engineer (I’m obviously making this up) needs to move the iceberg, he can’t until/unless he understands its size, shape, weight, as well as weather conditions, sea conditions, and its course of travel. Until the whole iceberg is measured and a new location is found, the tip ain’t movin’.

There is so much more to influencing choices than we initially recognize.

Of course, our Partner's presenting problem seems obvious to us, especially when we’ve been in business a while and have seen it all so often. But the full ramifications of the problem – all of the elements that it contains, all of the legs it has to-and-from the rest of the Partner’s environment, all of the beliefs and constructs that maintain the problem – are quite hidden.

And until or unless the client understands and resolves all of the elements that created and maintains the problem, she won’t know how to make a change. She might act differently for a bit when she intellectually understands the reasons to adopt new behaviors. But if the complete set of issues aren’t understood, managed, and accounted for, permanent change will not occur.

INFORMATION DOESN’T HELP PEOPLE CHANGE

Too often, sellers of change focus their drive toward change around rational, proven facts, generally accepted knowledge, or unique data – all of which I am labeling ‘information’. While information is necessary, and will be useful at some point later in the decision cycle, there is no way early on for people to know what to do with it. It’s akin to explaining to the iceberg engineer all of the dynamics of the moving crane before he’s sized up the components of the iceberg, the weather, or the sea.

It’s difficult to understand that accurate information is not enough to warrant change: people just end up resisting.

This problem shows up when buyers take too long to purchase. Or when people don’t heed our advice and continue on doing the same-old, same-old, complaining fervently of an unresolved problem. It seems curious for us to see their problem so clearly, and have a viable solution, and then be ignored, while the Partners continue to muddle along with the same problems.

But a note of caution: it’s not our job to understand or fix our Partner’s problems although we’d sure like to. It’s not our job to know what our Partner needs. The Partner must effectively manage all of the elements within their existent system before change can occur. Once they do this, as part of a facilitation process of painstaking discovery you can lead them through, they can develop all the necessary criteria for designing a unique solution; as support folk, we then just supply it. So much easier than us trying to create a solution based on a small segment of data.

I recently got a call from a young woman in a large recruitment company. She wanted to know how I would train 3000 people.

“What criteria are you using to know if they've been successfully trained?”

“We just want a training program. We're talking with several different groups, and want to know what you can do for us.”

“But all programs don't offer the same things, and your sales staff would learn different skills from each program.”

“Well, we want you to tell us what's different about yours so we know and we can compare.”

“But what are you comparing if you don't know your criteria?”

I then used Facilitative Questions to help her determine her success criteria. Here’s what she came up with:

1. differentiation from the competition;

2. loyalty and trust created from each interaction;

3. a ‘true’ consultative approach in which the seller helps the buyer understand and solve her own business problems;

4. consistent skills among all sales staff;

5. creation of value through each interaction.

Once we discovered the criteria, it became clear that Buying Facilitation would work for her. But until then, she wouldn’t have known how to discern one program from another since 'sales training' meant something unique to her that I had no way of understanding without making guesses.

SYSTEMS

Let’s digress here to underscore the importance of ‘systems’, which are the elements of the Partner’s company that must be managed before change c

INFORMATION DOESN’T HELP PEOPLE CHANGE

Too often, sellers of change focus their drive toward change around rational, proven facts, generally accepted knowledge, or unique data – all of which I am labeling ‘information’. While information is necessary, and will be useful at some point later in the decision cycle, there is no way early on for people to know what to do with it. It’s akin to explaining to the iceberg engineer all of the dynamics of the moving crane before he’s sized up the components of the iceberg, the weather, or the sea.

It’s difficult to understand that accurate information is not enough to warrant change: people just end up resisting.

This problem shows up when buyers take too long to purchase. Or when people don’t heed our advice and continue on doing the same-old, same-old, complaining fervently of an unresolved problem. It seems curious for us to see their problem so clearly, and have a viable solution, and then be ignored, while the Partners continue to muddle along with the same problems.

But a note of caution: it’s not our job to understand or fix our Partner’s problems although we’d sure like to. It’s not our job to know what our Partner needs. The Partner must effectively manage all of the elements within their existent system before change can occur. Once they do this, as part of a facilitation process of painstaking discovery you can lead them through, they can develop all the necessary criteria for designing a unique solution; as support folk, we then just supply it. So much easier than us trying to create a solution based on a small segment of data.

I recently got a call from a young woman in a large recruitment company. She wanted to know how I would train 3000 people.

“What criteria are you using to know if they've been successfully trained?”

“We just want a training program. We're talking with several different groups, and want to know what you can do for us.”

“But all programs don't offer the same things, and your sales staff would learn different skills from each program.”

“Well, we want you to tell us what's different about yours so we know and we can compare.”

“But what are you comparing if you don't know your criteria?”

I then used Facilitative Questions to help her determine her success criteria. Here’s what she came up with:

1. differentiation from the competition;

2. loyalty and trust created from each interaction;

3. a ‘true’ consultative approach in which the seller helps the buyer understand and solve her own business problems;

4. consistent skills among all sales staff;

5. creation of value through each interaction.

Once we discovered the criteria, it became clear that Buying Facilitation would work for her. But until then, she wouldn’t have known how to discern one program from another since 'sales training' meant something unique to her that I had no way of understanding without making guesses.

SYSTEMS

Let’s digress here to underscore the importance of ‘systems’, which are the elements of the Partner’s company that must be managed before change c

But a note of caution: it’s not our job to understand or fix our Partner’s problems although we’d sure like to. It’s not our job to know what our Partner needs. The Partner must effectively manage all of the elements within their existent system before change can occur. Once they do this, as part of a facilitation process of painstaking discovery you can lead them through, they can develop all the necessary criteria for designing a unique solution; as support folk, we then just supply it. So much easier than us trying to create a solution based on a small segment of data.

I recently got a call from a young woman in a large recruitment company. She wanted to know how I would train 3000 people.

“What criteria are you using to know if they've been successfully trained?”

“We just want a training program. We're talking with several different groups, and want to know what you can do for us.”

“But all programs don't offer the same things, and your sales staff would learn different skills from each program.”

“Well, we want you to tell us what's different about yours so we know and we can compare.”

“But what are you comparing if you don't know your criteria?”

I then used Facilitative Questions to help her determine her success criteria. Here’s what she came up with:

1. differentiation from the competition;

2. loyalty and trust created from each interaction;

3. a ‘true’ consultative approach in which the seller helps the buyer understand and solve her own business problems;

4. consistent skills among all sales staff;

5. creation of value through each interaction.

Once we discovered the criteria, it became clear that Buying Facilitation would work for her. But until then, she wouldn’t have known how to discern one program from another since 'sales training' meant something unique to her that I had no way of understanding without making guesses.

SYSTEMS

Let’s digress here to underscore the importance of ‘systems’, which are the elements of the Partner’s company that must be managed before change c

“Well, we want you to tell us what's different about yours so we know and we can compare.”

“But what are you comparing if you don't know your criteria?”

I then used Facilitative Questions to help her determine her success criteria. Here’s what she came up with:

1. differentiation from the competition;

2. loyalty and trust created from each interaction;

3. a ‘true’ consultative approach in which the seller helps the buyer understand and solve her own business problems;

4. consistent skills among all sales staff;

5. creation of value through each interaction.

Once we discovered the criteria, it became clear that Buying Facilitation would work for her. But until then, she wouldn’t have known how to discern one program from another since 'sales training' meant something unique to her that I had no way of understanding without making guesses.

SYSTEMS

Let’s digress here to underscore the importance of ‘systems’, which are the elements of the Partner’s company that must be managed before change can take place.

People and groups of people possess unique, internal elements, or ‘systems': they operate through certain beliefs; hold religious or personal or company values; collaborate with others (family, partners, vendors, colleagues) with whom they have another set of beliefs and values; work/live with rules, politics, and norms; have hopes and dreams, fears and regrets. In business there are often vendor or multinational relationships that alter the fact pattern. Indeed, all of us have very unique mind-sets, compounded when there are several people within the system, such as families or business colleagues. And these elements - which I'm labeling 'systems' - cause and create the Partner's landscape.

People/teams are generally unaware that their problems are a direct result of the mix of these very idiosyncratic systems issues. It's the system itself, in the precise way it exists, that has created the problem situation. Indeed, whatever is going on actually looks and feels ‘normal' cuz that's the way it's always been. It's only when a significant problem crops up that people look beyond the conscious-comfortable status quo.

As outsiders, there is no way we can address, manage, or alter those unique internal issues. We just see the results of the decisions made: there is no appropriate training program in place; the person is overweight and facing serious illness; the employee comes in late every day; 20 people are working from a server that handles 5 people.

A solution looks obvious to us; even when a needs-analysis is done it often looks like our solution would solve the problem (see newsletter #51 – Needs Analysis: who is it for?). But no matter how smart we are as outsiders, no matter how much we can see, no matter how right we are, we are still only seeing the tip of the iceberg.

THE TWO STAGES OF DECISION MAKING

Let’s start with one of my basic premises:

Information does not teach people how to make a new decision.

Since most of us use information transfer as a way to instigate change, let me offer you my rationale for the above statement: unless our Partners address their internal systems issues before seeking a solution, they face the prospect of upsetting any elements that hold the status quo together. In fact, there might be chaos if change is not managed appropriately.

In our iceberg analogy, that means until the engineer understands what he’s got to move where, understands the depth and mass of the ice, and understands the water factors, he faces possible destruction of the iceberg if he tries to move it with only knowledge of the tip.

So there is an up-front set of decisions that need to get made in order to consider doing something new, and a secondary set of decisions to determine an appropriate solution.

In the first stage of decisioning – the choice to make a new decision by managing all internal variables - there are three distinct, sequential phases that all people and teams go through and which must be resolved (consciously or unconsciously) before a final decision can be made. In fact, each of these phases are carried out (consciously or not) in every decision made, whether it's a simple or a complex decision, or a decision made by an individual, a group, a family, or a company.

1. What’s missing and how did it get missing;

2. How can we fix that with familiar resources;

3. What are the full range of internal variables that need to be recognized and addressed before a new solution can actually be embraced.

1. Where are we? What’s missing? - Recognizing, understanding, and managing the complex issues.

Our Partners must be able to examine the full extent of the elements of the problem and acutely recognize (I mean deeply understand) what’s missing that is creating the problem at hand. Does this sound simple?

How many of us, given all the time in the world to sit down and think, can actually recognize all the elements in play that have gotten us where we are, not to mention what might be missing from our potentially comfortable status quo?

Think of something about yourself that you don’t particularly like: your penchant for procrastinating? Your push to work harder rather than take time with your family? The way you speak to people sometimes or your inability to really listen if you’re distracted? Your forgetfulness?

We all have annoying habits or behaviors that we either try to hide, or wish we could fix. And even when we’ve tried to fix them, they don’t stay fix