“This other group is supposed to work with my group, not against us! We’re all in the same company but you’d think we were desperate competitors. I’ve tried being nice, I’ve tried talking with their boss, and the situation is more tense than ever. Do they resent me or my group? Have I failed to explain why I want us to work together?”
Mike (not his real name) had been referred to me by another manager. Mike is a rising star in his organization, and simply had not run into this kind of opposition before now. He’s sharp on the technical issues and always brings data to conversations. He is highly analytical by default. The other group is in a different building a short distance away, and they rarely see one another in person.
After listening to Mike’s more detailed explanation of the current situation and some previous interactions between these groups, I outlined my diagnosis:
This is not a data problem. Data alone is insufficient to persuade people to change. A change in behaviors must have internal narrative support. Both groups have powerful identity and stories where they are the hero. Each story is at least partially true but they are not aligned. Each group also has strong causation stories: this happened because of that.
There could be personal resentments at work, lingering from past events and how things were interpreted – but they are not currently in a relationship mode where that can be explored. Take the positive view of their intentions now, and sort out grievances later.
I gave Mike some recommended practices for the next 3 weeks, including:
— Write out the identity story for his group, and bullet points about how they see themselves as a hero in the story.
— Use his imagination to do the same for the other group. Write this in a positive form, not a negative or opposition form. It’s ok to say “We do this so that X bad thing doesn’t happen” – that’s a positive hero statement.
— Talk with (not at, with) the other group leader and share what you think is their identity and hero story. Let them adjust and correct it. No judgments. Professional conversation in the context of “We all want what’s best for the organization.”
(What else would suggest to Mike? Let us know in the comments!)
Mike did what I recommended, despite his misgivings. He told me a few weeks later that this approach had reduced a felt “barrier” in their conversation, and something he had unintentionally done long ago surfaced. He was able to apologize and feels like the groups might find a better path forward.
If you’d like me to help you succeed in your ability to work effectively with other groups like I was able to help Mike, let’s talk. I’ve got an offer for you!