[MUSIC] As a frontline leader, you are a part of a web of relationships. Each of your bosses, peers, directs reports and internal and external clients has a different role and responsibility. And consequently, different perspective and expectation. In each decision situation, you have to necessarily balance multiple demands. Yet, unless you're mindful, conflicting goals have the potential to cause frayed tempers, political infighting, and mutual checkmating. Let us take an actual case illustration to explore how we can build effective interpersonal work relationships. In ABC corporation, the interaction between Mark and Raul had reached a hostile stalemate at the end of 15 minutes. It all began when Mark called his colleague, Raul, from the client side to communicate an urgent and critical client need. Raul was the project head responsible for developing the required software. Mark began by stating that he had just completed his morning meeting with a client personnel, and the client had changed two things. First, a specification in the final delivery had to be modified. And second, the delivery date would be a fortnight earlier than the date originally scheduled. Raul was annoyed. The change to specifications would require a couple of new personnel to be reassigned from other teams. And a more stringent delivery date would put additional pressure on his team. He said, how can they change delivery date now? And modification of specifications will cost more money, and will actually increase time. Don't be ridiculous, snapped Mark. You know that the new requirement is no big deal, and you have slack in the system and so you can meet the new timeline. Now Raul was furious. The last time you made such a change, my team members and I worked nonstop all evenings and weekends for one whole month. And at the end, we were told that we had exceeded our budget estimates. Mark raised his voice and said that the two cases were not comparable at all. Raul interrupted to say, hey, Mark, I am busy and don't have all day to speak to you. The short answer to your question is early delivery date is not possible and change of features will cost more money. With that, the communication came to a grinding halt. If we agree that interpersonal relationships are built on a strong foundation of three qualities, mutual expectations of goals and priorities, mutual trust and mutual influence. Then that foundation was really weak in the relationship between Mark and Raul. And this interaction had further weakened the foundation, making it even more difficult for future corporations between these two persons. We will use the framework developed by researchers at the Center for Organizational Learning at MIT to analyze this case illustration. And draw some lessons on building positive, cooperative, and synergistic work relationships. First and foremost, it is important to recognize that the two individuals had different data sources. And so, reached different conclusions and harbored different beliefs. For instance, Mark's perspectives emerged primarily from interactions with client personnel. After hearing the client requirements, he concluded that the company should respond to the client requirements, particularly since there was a huge scope of future business from this client. Given that client responsiveness was a key goal, he believed that the unit should be flexible in its approach. On the other hand, Raul's prospective was based on his interactions with the software team. He realized that his team was stretched at the moment. And changes take time and cost money. To maintain stable terms of reference, he believed that the client-facing personnel should learn not to succumb to client pressures, but to assert the company's viewpoints. In their interpersonal exchange, Raul was operating from a mental model that had concluded that Mark was sacrificing the interests of Raul and his team to look good in front of his bosses. Raul had climbed this ladder of inference by basing it on his memory of Mark's earlier last-minute request that had created trouble for Raul's team. The memory was intensified when Mark described Raul's concern as ridiculous. Raul assumed that Mark was just interested in boosting his sales numbers at the expense of his team. Mark's ladder of inference was completely different. He observed that Raul was just not responsive to the client's genuine requirement. Given his assumption that Raul's team had the necessary capacity and capability to meet the required specifications, he inferred that Raul was just a narrowminded techie who had no idea of how the market operates. Given these starkly different ladders of inference, Mark and Raul had very different interpretations, meanings and conclusions of the same situation. As each one was sure that he was right and the other person was wrong, there was no inquiry into the other's position. For example, no questions were asked. There was absolutely no discussion of, what are the specific client requirements? What are the project features that are required a fortnight earlier? Are there certain aspects that can be delivered in the second phase a little later? What are the software team's constraints? What new skill sets are needed? How can we better match the new client requirements and the team's work pressures? In today's complex organization, people come with divergent backgrounds. As the folklore of five blind men and elephant suggests, we are exposed to different aspects of the reality. Have different interpretations and draw different conclusions. When we operate at the top of our respective ladders, in other words, our conclusions, we talk past each other. What is required is to walk down our metaphorical ladders and become aware of our mental model. We have to ask, who are my colleagues? Who are their stakeholders? What is the information that they are looking at? What are their goals, pressures and working styles? What are their expectations from me? Can I step into their shoes and see the world from their perspective? Can I help them understand my perspective? To sum up, there are certain behaviors that you should hone through conscious practice for important discussions with colleagues. When you present your views, make your own reasoning explicit. What data did you use? How did you reach your inference? Encourage others to explore any gaps in your reasoning and be open to contrary views. When others have different views, ask questions on their data sources and how they reached their conclusions. When you respond to others, develop awareness of and articulate your assumptions and your data sources. Ask questions only if you're generally interested in others' response. If there is a stalemate, ask what data or logic might change their views and what barriers they expect. Research indicates that successful managers spend 70% more time building relationships than their successful counterparts. Successful relationships are built on a foundation of mindfulness in presenting your views and responding to others. [MUSIC]
