I reckon that this is how the agreement process works at Rethink Perfect.
That is, as much as conversation is used
to converge, we seem to get an equal and opposite reaction and diverge also.
A series of converging and diverging views cycled over and over. And what we end up is an agrement or series of agreements in the shape of a double helix.
Everyone’s fingerprint is different by default.
Everyone’s brain is wired differently by default.
No one person can actually think the same as anyone else, by default.
We think differently by default.
“If everyone is thinking alike then someone isn’t thinking”.
George S Patton
It seems to me that there are four decisions that I can make with someone else, with one of them being the weakest. The surprising thing is that I bet you will swear that I am wrong about the one that I have identified as such, but hear me out and you never know, you could be surprised by the results.
The 4 decisions are:
This is based on my previous posts on the Expert Agreement and Apology and Accolades.
So, “Your way” or “My way” is simply activating the expert agreement and the other person agreeing to follow. “The Highway” is when we cannot agree on either Your way or My way and we go our separate ways, amicably. But “Our way” is the consensus/compromise way and leaves both of us responsible or in other words none of us are responsible or accountable for the decision and is usually made by committees.
For me the weakest way to execute ideas is through number 3, Our way, and is fraught with problems but is understandable if one is not aware of the other decisions processes.
Number 1 & 2 are simple enough if we both agree on the expert agreement from the start and don’t use our previous decisions to counter or accuse the other. ie
“You may have come up with that but I came up with this” or “Yeah, but you came up with that and look where it got us or nearly got us”.
For me we can only use the Expert Agreement if we ensure that we are inclusive of each other’s decisions ideas and use the accolades and apologies as part of the process. ie
“Yes you came up with that and I came up with this, great” or “Yes, you may have come up with that but at least it helped us get to this now”.
The effective use of acceptable accolades and apologies should facilitate this whole process.
Anyway, this is something now that me and Steve can try and see if it is valid.
(This is my 400th post over the last 5 years.)
The funny thing about deadlines is that the deadlier they are the more likely you are to fall off.
Deadline from Wikipedia: The term deadline originated from prison camps during war, and referred to a physical line or boundary. Guards would shoot any prisoner who crossed the deadline.
Now days businesses and especially startups use it on themselves in an attempt to get things supposedly done faster. Three out of four venture-backed startups fail, according to research by Shikhar Ghosh, a Harvard Business School lecturer. Ghosh also found that more than 95 percent of startups fall short of their initial projections, from the award winning article The Psychological Price of Entrepreneurship
From the article:
So it should come as little surprise that entrepreneurs experience more anxiety than employees. In the latest Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, 34 percent of entrepreneurs–4 percentage points more than other workers–reported they were worried. And 45 percent of entrepreneurs said they were stressed, 3 percentage points more than other workers.
“But if we don’t have deadlines then we wont get anything done” I hear often from young entrepreneurs. There are other options such as timelines, milestones or benchmarks that are not necessarily so time focused and deadly.
Maybe if wannabee entrepreneurs were not in such a rush and stopped putting so much
pressure on themselves and other members in their team the results from startups would be improved.
The Irony is that by imposing deadlines on ourselves it seems to put us under so much pressure that we want to finish as soon as possible, thus the need to impose even more deadlines, ha!
Disclaimer: I am not qualified to give advice on relationships.
You know, in the mating cycle where the only way we seem to able to know if someone is going to be suited to us, is through our visual senses, and gut feelings, it is comforting for me to have a couple of personal filters that seem to stand the test of time.
Filters that I use not only for selecting a mate but, friend or business partner. Having such simple filters seem to make me feel more relaxed, knowing that I am not missing out on anything at this point if I am still single and gives me the patience to wait.
What filters do I use? Simple.
It never ceases to amaze me to think, while sitting in a diner full of Americans
chatting, talking and having conversations, that this nation of people, with the same conversational skills, put a man on the moon! That is what I call moon talk.
It seems to me that hardest feedback to get from someone is either an apology or an accolade. This could be because generally we have not made an explicit agreement on how these are given and received.
Recently my brother and I have made such an agreement on how these are executed. We call it the Expert Agreement and it goes like this:
After or during a conversation or discussion on an issue, one of us can execute the expert agreement based on their knowledge, research, gut feeling or rules of thumb. This means that they are willing to take on the responsibility for the execution of an idea. ie that if it comes off then they get the accolade or if it fails then they are willing to give an acceptable apology.
At the same time the other person can make a counter expert agreement if they felt strongly about their idea. The main thing is that we have agreed to allow and encourage the idea and therefore encourage each other to step up and ultimately execute the the idea, but at the same time be willing to take the responsibility for such execution of an idea. That is, we don’t have to be responsible or accountable for the idea only the execution of them.
This is so much different, in my view than a consensus or compromise, as it leaves the person executing the idea responsible and accountable for making it happen. In the other two cases, when a decision is made it ultimately is everyone’s responsibility and therefore no one’s.
It seem that every great country is built upon a grand legal system, designed to seek out fairness for all and ultimately bring together a more cohesive society to work well together.
However every startup seems to be built upon a so-called grand market idea, instead. But imagine if more startups were built upon a grand fairness idea. Maybe a few more would still be around.
According to CB Insights Research the biggest cause of failed startups is a faulty market model (no market need), ran out of cash and not the right team, in that order. But maybe
it is not so much about not having the right team but having the right team rules of engagement. Maybe startups would be better off by just having explicit rules of engagement (besides implied rules such as “politeness”, “mutual respect” and “business etiquette”) to help make better market model and financial decisions and agreements?
Once these teams had these agreed to rules of engagement it would then allow them to actually “engage” on a level that could resolve the difficult decisions rather than have team members either acquiesce (blind leading the blind) or tear each other apart, both leading to a non cohesive team, in my view.
Rethink Perfect contains the rules of engagement that we use to engage. Having such preparations, before we start up, (a country, business or personal relationship) makes sense in anyone’s language.
The Expert Agreement, is an agreement that my brother and I use for our business relationship but I think it can also apply to personal relationships.
It goes like this, we want to encourage each other to step up and lead whenever necessary, or at least to inject into the conversation a different or diverse view, especially in areas that we would not normally do so. This effort has enormous benefit to the team environment, taking the pressure off the typical leaders to always be coming up with options. Stepping up does not mean that we automatically accede to them but if they lay out a compelling case and no one else has, and they are willing to take responsibility for the decision then this becomes an option to move forward, if we have time constraints, or just seem to be at logger heads. It is basically a “suck it and see” option or “worth a try”.
This is another option to compromise in which case we all lose to gain. By agreeing to the Expert Agreement, we are agreeing to “compromise” which is not then a compromise but strategic agreement on how we can always move forward, if necessary.
So we then have the standard agreement, compromise and the expert agreement.
I certainly prefer the first and the last options before compromising myself and our team.
*Just a note on compromises and why I think they are so problematic. When two people make a compromise and the result does not turn out as hoped there is no one responsible for the decision as both people made it even if it was suggested by one person in particular, it was a compromise (com promise). The Expert Agreement is exactly the same as a compromise only one person is ultimately responsible, with the other responsible for supporting the agreement.
rethink PERFECT 