Habit 4 Part 2

FIVE DIMENSIONS OF WIN/WIN

Think Win/Win is the habit of interpersonal leadership. It involves the exercise of each of the unique human endowments—self-awareness, imagination, conscience, and independent will—in our relationships with others. It involves mutual learning, mutual influence, mutual benefits.

It takes great courage as well as consideration to create these mutual benefits, particularly if we’re interacting with others who are deeply scripted in Win/Lose.

That is why this habit involves principles of interpersonal leadership. Effective interpersonal leadership requires the vision, the proactive initiative and the security, guidance, wisdom, and power that come from principle-centered personal leadership.

The principle of Win/Win is fundamental to success in all our interactions, and it embraces five interdependent dimensions of life. It begins with character and moves toward relationships, out of which flow agreements. It is nurtured in an environment where structure and systems are based on Win/Win. And it involves process; we cannot achieve Win/Win ends with Win/Lose or Lose/Win means.

The following diagram shows how these five dimensions relate to each other.

Now let’s consider each of the five dimensions in turn.

Character

Character is the foundation of Win/Win, and everything else builds on that foundation. There are three character traits essential to the Win/Win paradigm.

INTEGRITY. We’ve already defined integrity as the value we place on ourselves. Habits 1, 2, and 3 help us develop and maintain integrity. As we clearly identify our values and proactively organize and execute around those values on a daily basis, we develop self-awareness and independent will by making and keeping meaningful promises and commitments.

There’s no way to go for a Win in our own lives if we don’t even know, in a deep sense, what constitutes a Win—what is, in fact, harmonious with our innermost values. And if we can’t make and keep commitments to ourselves as well as to others, our commitments become meaningless. We know it; others know it. They sense duplicity and become guarded. There’s no foundation of trust and Win/Win becomes an ineffective superficial technique. Integrity is the cornerstone in the foundation.

MATURITY. Maturity is the balance between courage and consideration. I first learned this definition of maturity in the fall of 1955 from a marvelous professor, Hrand Saxenian, who instructed my Control class at the Harvard Business School. He taught the finest, simplest, most practical, yet profound, definition of emotional maturity I’ve ever come across—“the ability to express one’s own feelings and convictions balanced with consideration for the thoughts and feelings of others.” As a part of his doctoral research, Hrand Saxenian had developed this criterion over years of historical and direct field research. He later wrote up his original research format in its completeness with supportive reasoning and application suggestions in a Harvard Business Review article (January-February 1958). Even though it is complementary and also developmental, Hrand’s use of the word “maturity” is different from its use in the 7 Habits “Maturity Continuum,” which focuses on a growth and development process from dependency through independency to interdependency.

If you examine many of the psychological tests used for hiring, promoting, and training purposes, you will find that they are designed to evaluate this kind of maturity. Whether it’s called the ego strength/empathy balance, the self-confidence/respect for others balance, the concern for people/concern for tasks balance, “I’m okay, you’re okay” in transactional analysis language, or 9.1, 1.9, 5.5, 9.9, in management grid language—the quality sought for is the balance of what I call courage and consideration.

Respect for this quality is deeply ingrained in the theory of human interaction, management, and leadership. It is a deep embodiment of the P/PC balance. While courage may focus on getting the golden egg, consideration deals with the long-term welfare of the other stakeholders. The basic task of leadership is to increase the standard of living and the quality of life for all stakeholders.

Many people think in dichotomies, in either/or terms. They think if you’re nice, you’re not tough. But Win/Win is nice… and tough. It’s twice as tough as Win/Lose. To go for Win/Win, you not only have to be nice, you have to be courageous. You not only have to be empathic, you have to be confident. You not only have to be considerate and sensitive, you have to be brave. To do that, to achieve that balance between courage and consideration, is the essence of real maturity and is fundamental to Win/Win.

If I’m high on courage and low on consideration, how will I think? Win/Lose. I’ll be strong and ego bound. I’ll have the courage of my convictions, but I won’t be very considerate of yours.

To compensate for my lack of internal maturity and emotional strength, I might borrow strength from my position and power, or from my credentials, my seniority, my affiliations.

If I’m high on consideration and low on courage, I’ll think Lose/Win. I’ll be so considerate of your convictions and desires that I won’t have the courage to express and actualize my own.

High courage and consideration are both essential to Win/Win. It is the balance that is the mark of real maturity. If I have it, I can listen, I can empathically understand, but I can also courageously confront.

ABUNDANCE MENTALITY. The third character trait essential to Win/Win is the Abundance Mentality, the paradigm that there is plenty out there for everybody.

Most people are deeply scripted in what I call the Scarcity Mentality. They see life as having only so much, as though there were only one pie out there. And if someone were to get a big piece of the pie, it would mean less for everybody else. The Scarcity Mentality is the zero-sum paradigm of life.

People with a Scarcity Mentality have a very difficult time sharing recognition and credit, power or profit—even with those who help in the production. They also have a very hard time being genuinely happy for the successes of other people—even, and sometimes especially, members of their own family or close friends and associates. It’s almost as if something is being taken from them when someone else receives special recognition or windfall gain or has remarkable success or achievement.

Although they might verbally express happiness for others’ success, inwardly they are eating their hearts out. Their sense of worth comes from being compared, and someone else’s success, to some degree, means their failure. Only so many people can be “A” students; only one person can be “number one.” To “win” simply means to “beat.” Often, people with a Scarcity Mentality harbor secret hopes that others might suffer misfortune—not terrible misfortune, but acceptable misfortune that would keep them “in their place.” They’re always comparing, always competing. They give their energies to possessing things or other people in order to increase their sense of worth.

They want other people to be the way they want them to be. They often want to clone them, and they surround themselves with “yes” people—people who won’t challenge them, people who are weaker than they.

It’s difficult for people with a Scarcity Mentality to be members of a complementary team. They look on differences as signs of insubordination and disloyalty.

The Abundance Mentality, on the other hand, flows out of a deep inner sense of personal worth and security. It is the paradigm that there is plenty out there and enough to spare for everybody. It results in sharing of prestige, of recognition, of profits, of decision making. It opens possibilities, options, alternatives, and creativity.

The Abundance Mentality takes the personal joy, satisfaction, and fulfillment of Habits 1, 2, and 3 and turns it outward, appreciating the uniqueness, the inner direction, the proactive nature of others. It recognizes the unlimited possibilities for positive interactive growth and development, creating new Third Alternatives.

Public Victory does not mean victory over other people. It means success in effective interaction that brings mutually beneficial results to everyone involved. Public Victory means working together, communicating together, making things happen together that even the same people couldn’t make happen by working independently. And Public Victory is an outgrowth of the Abundance Mentality paradigm.

A character rich in integrity, maturity, and the Abundance Mentality has a genuineness that goes far beyond technique, or lack of it, in human interaction.

One thing I have found particularly helpful to Win/Lose people in developing a Win/Win character is to associate with some model or mentor who really thinks Win/Win. When people are deeply scripted in Win/Lose or other philosophies and regularly associate with others who are likewise scripted, they don’t have much opportunity to see and experience the Win/Win philosophy in action. So I recommend reading literature, such as the inspiring biography of Anwar Sadat, In Search of Identity, and seeing movies like Chariots of Fire or plays like Les Misérables that expose you to models of Win/Win.

But remember: If we search deeply enough within ourselves—beyond the scripting, beyond the learned attitudes and behaviors—the real validation of Win/Win, as well as every other correct principle, is in our own lives.

Relationships

From the foundation of character, we build and maintain Win/Win relationships. The trust, the Emotional Bank Account, is the essence of Win/Win. Without trust, the best we can do is compromise; without trust, we lack the credibility for open, mutual learning and communication and real creativity.

But if our Emotional Bank Account is high, credibility is no longer an issue. Enough deposits have been made so that you know and I know that we deeply respect each other. We’re focused on the issues, not on personalities or positions.

Because we trust each other, we’re open. We put our cards on the table. Even though we see things differently, I know that you’re willing to listen with respect while I describe the young woman to you, and you know that I’ll treat your description of the old woman with the same respect. We’re both committed to try to understand each other’s point of view deeply and to work together for the Third Alternative, the synergistic solution, that will be a better answer for both of us.

A relationship where bank accounts are high and both parties are deeply committed to Win/Win is the ideal springboard for tremendous synergy (Habit 6). That relationship neither makes the issues any less real or important, nor eliminates the differences in perspective. But it does eliminate the negative energy normally focused on differences in personality and position and creates a positive, cooperative energy focused on thoroughly understanding the issues and resolving them in a mutually beneficial way.

But what if that kind of relationship isn’t there? What if you have to work out an agreement with someone who hasn’t even heard of Win/Win and is deeply scripted in Win/Lose or some other philosophy?

Dealing with Win/Lose is the real test of Win/Win. Rarely is Win/Win easily achieved in any circumstance. Deep issues and fundamental differences have to be dealt with. But it is much easier when both parties are aware of and committed to it and where there is a high Emotional Bank Account in the relationship.

When you’re dealing with a person who is coming from a paradigm of Win/Lose, the relationship is still the key. The place to focus is on your Circle of Influence. You make deposits into the Emotional Bank Account through genuine courtesy, respect, and appreciation for that person and for the other point of view. You stay longer in the communication process. You listen more, you listen in greater depth. You express yourself with greater courage. You aren’t reactive. You go deeper inside yourself for strength of character to be proactive. You keep hammering it out until the other person begins to realize that you genuinely want the resolution to be a real win for both of you. That very process is a tremendous deposit in the Emotional Bank Account.

And the stronger you are—the more genuine your character, the higher your level of proactivity, the more committed you really are to Win/Win—the more powerful your influence will be with that other person. This is the real test of interpersonal leadership. It goes beyond transactional leadership into transformational leadership, transforming the individuals involved as well as the relationship.

Because Win/Win is a principle people can validate in their own lives, you will be able to bring most people to a realization that they will win more of what they want by going for what you both want. But there will be a few who are so deeply embedded in the Win/Lose mentality that they just won’t think Win/Win. So remember that No Deal is always an option. Or you may occasionally choose to go for the low form of Win/Win—compromise.

It’s important to realize that not all decisions need to be Win/Win, even when the Emotional Bank Account is high. Again, the key is the relationship. If you and I worked together, for example, and you were to come to me and say, “Stephen, I know you won’t like this decision. I don’t have time to explain it to you, let alone get you involved. There’s a good possibility you’ll think it’s wrong. But will you support it?” If you had a positive Emotional Bank Account with me, of course I’d support it. I’d hope you were right and I was wrong. I’d work to make your decision work.

But if the Emotional Bank Account weren’t there, and if I were reactive, I wouldn’t really support it. I might say I would to your face, but behind your back I wouldn’t be very enthusiastic. I wouldn’t make the investment necessary to make it succeed. “It didn’t work,” I’d say. “So what do you want me to do now?” If I were overreactive, I might even torpedo your decision and do what I could to make sure others did too. Or I might become “maliciously obedient” and do exactly and only what you tell me to do, accepting no responsibility for results.

During the five years I lived in Great Britain, I saw that country brought twice to its knees because the train conductors were maliciously obedient in following all the rules and procedures written on paper.

An agreement means very little in letter without the character and relationship base to sustain it in spirit. So we need to approach Win/Win from a genuine desire to invest in the relationships that make it possible.

Agreements

From relationships flow the agreements that give definition and direction to Win/Win. They are sometimes called performance agreements or partnership agreements, shifting the paradigm of productive interaction from vertical to horizontal, from hovering supervision to self-supervision, from positioning to being partners in success.

Win/Win agreements cover a wide scope of interdependent interaction. We discussed one important application when we talked about delegation in the “Green and Clean” story in Habit 3. The same five elements we listed there provide the structure for Win/Win agreements between employers and employees, between independent people working together on projects, between groups of people cooperatively focused on a common objective, between companies and suppliers—between any people who need to interact to accomplish. They create an effective way to clarify and manage expectations between people involved in any interdependent endeavor.

In the Win/Win agreement, the following five elements are made very explicit: Desired results (not methods) identify what is to be done and when.

Guidelines specify the parameters (principles, policies, etc.) within which results are to be accomplished.

Resources identify the human, financial, technical, or organizational support available to help accomplish the results.

Accountability sets up the standards of performance and the time of evaluation.

Consequences specify—good and bad, natural and logical—what does and will happen as a result of the evaluation.

These five elements give Win/Win agreements a life of their own. A clear mutual understanding and agreement up front in these areas creates a standard against which people can measure their own success.

Traditional authoritarian supervision is a Win/Lose paradigm. It’s also the result of an overdrawn Emotional Bank Account. If you don’t have trust or a common vision of desired results, you tend to hover over, check up on, and direct. Trust isn’t there, so you feel as though you have to control people.

But if the trust account is high, what is your method? Get out of their way. As long as you have an up-front Win/Win agreement and they know exactly what is expected, your role is to be a source of help and to receive their accountability reports.

It is much more ennobling to the human spirit to let people judge themselves than to judge them. And in a high trust culture, it’s much more accurate. In many cases people know in their hearts how things are going much better than the records show. Discernment is often far more accurate than either observation or measurement.

Win/Win Management Training

Several years ago, I was indirectly involved in a consulting project with a very large banking institution that had scores of branches. They wanted us to evaluate and improve their management training program, which was supported by an annual budget of $750,000. The program involved selecting college graduates and putting them through twelve two-week assignments in various departments over a six-month period of time so that they could get a general sense of the industry. They spent two weeks in commercial loans, two weeks in industrial loans, two weeks in marketing, two weeks in operations, and so forth. At the end of the six-month period, they were assigned as assistant managers in the various branch banks.

Our assignment was to evaluate the six-month formal training period. As we began, we discovered that the most difficult part of the assignment was to get a clear picture of the desired results. We asked the top executives the key hard question: “What should these people be able to do when they finish the program?” And the answers we got were vague and often contradictory.

The training program dealt with methods, not results; so we suggested that they set up a pilot training program based on a different paradigm called “learner-controlled instruction.” This was a Win/Win agreement that involved identifying specific objectives and criteria that would demonstrate their accomplishment and identifying the guidelines, resources, accountability, and consequences that would result when the objectives were met. The consequences in this case were promotion to assistant manager, where they would receive the on-the-job part of their training, and a significant increase in salary.

We had to really press to get the objectives hammered out. “What is it you want them to understand about accounting? What about marketing? What about real estate loans?” And we went down the list. They finally came up with over one hundred objectives, which we simplified, reduced, and consolidated until we came down to 39 specific behavioral objectives with criteria attached to them.

The trainees were highly motivated by both the opportunity and the increased salary to meet the criteria as soon as possible. There was a big win in it for them, and there was also a big win for the company because they would have assistant branch managers who met results-oriented criteria instead of just showing up for twelve different activity traps.

So we explained the difference between learner-controlled instruction and system-controlled instruction to the trainees. We basically said, “Here are the objectives and the criteria. Here are the resources, including learning from each other. So go to it. As soon as you meet the criteria, you will be promoted to assistant managers.” They were finished in three-and-a-half weeks. Shifting the training paradigm had released unbelievable motivation and creativity.

As with many paradigm shifts, there was resistance. Almost all of the top executives simply wouldn’t believe it. When they were shown the evidence that the criteria had been met, they basically said, “These trainees don’t have the experience. They lack the seasoning necessary to give them the kind of judgment we want them to have as assistant branch managers.” In talking with them later, we found that what many of them were really saying was, “We went through goat week; how come these guys don’t have to?” But of course they couldn’t put it that way. “They lack seasoning” was a much more acceptable expression.

In addition, for obvious reasons (including the $750,000 budget for a six-month program), the personnel department was upset.

So we responded, “Fair enough. Let’s develop some more objectives and attach criteria to them. But let’s stay with the paradigm of learner-controlled instruction.” We hammered out eight more objectives with very tough criteria in order to give the executives the assurance that the people were adequately prepared to be assistant branch managers and continue the on-the-job part of the training program. After participating in some of the sessions where these criteria were developed, several of the executives remarked that if the trainees could meet these tough criteria, they would be better prepared than almost any who had gone through the six-month program.

We had prepared the trainees to expect resistance. We took the additional objectives and criteria back to them and said, “Just as we expected, management wants you to accomplish some additional objectives with even tougher criteria than before. They have assured us this time that if you meet these criteria, they will make you assistant managers.” They went to work in unbelievable ways. They went to the executives in departments such as accounting and basically said, “Sir, I am a member of this new pilot program called learner-controlled instruction, and it is my understanding that you participated in developing the objectives and the criteria.

“I have six criteria to meet in this particular department. I was able to pass three of them off with skills I gained in college; I was able to get another one out of a book; I learned the fifth one from Tom, the fellow you trained last week. I only have one criterion left to meet, and I wonder if you or someone else in the department might be able to spend a few hours with me to show me how.” So they spend half a day in a department instead of two weeks.

These trainees cooperated with each other, brainstormed with each other, and they accomplished the additional objectives in a week and a half. The six-month program was reduced to five weeks, and the results were significantly increased.

This kind of thinking can similarly affect every area of organizational life if people have the courage to explore their paradigms and to concentrate on Win/Win. I am always amazed at the results that happen, both to individuals and to organizations, when responsible, proactive, self-directing individuals are turned loose on a task.