52 weeks, 52 words: Week 44 - Steadiness

This week was an interesting one to say the least. Based on past election nights, we all anticipated receiving the declarative news about the candidates at some point in the wee hours, expecting a victory and/or concession speech, and a fanfare of balloons, confetti, and cliched rock and roll music. That didn’t happen…at least not on the traditional timetable. But, then, nothing of 2020 has committed to form. But, as the ballots and returns trickled in county by county, over days instead of hours, the sentiment of patience and steadiness in our emotion and reason became as prudent as the deliberateness we all sought from the last remaining states to count every vote.

Steadiness certainly applies to the regularity of the flow of information, like a dripping faucet, bringing water inching along in painstaking rhythm. It is also, though, in a measured approach to our sensibilities. I am typically one of the first to get swept up in jubilation at good news, and, being an eternal optimist, I try to keep from getting too low with unfortunate circumstances and bad news.

There is another Managing Director at Havas who has emblazoned a dry erase board in his office with two big quotes, “Careers are built on Shit Shows” and another that says, “Good news travels fast, bad news travels faster.”

Because both of these are true, in my opinion, an important third consideration should be added: Learn to respond rather than react.

That consideration lies at the very heart of the steadiness; we must cull in our sensibilities and our approach to managing ourselves and the particulars of our client engagements.

Reactions spur from emotion and contain a natural kinetic energy, a sort of exuberance that pours out in an uncontrolled and spontaneous fashion. Responses, on the other hand, tempers the emotional outburst and takes the situation in, deciding the best course of action based on entrenched values and keen analysis of details/facts.

The key is to find a steady outlook that, even in the face of those inevitable shit shows, you can muster the necessary perspective to remain even keeled and steady in your communications (easier said than done, and even easier said than repeatedly done).

Consider this exemplar from a client – two actually – at the end of this past week:

It's pretty crazy that they would both send such a similar reply to our SOW submissions.

A reaction would be to immediately turn tail and offer to slash our price to a point that they would find acceptable, without (or worse, perhaps with) appreciation for the likelihood of the project going over budget and negating any hope for an addendum. Or, a reaction might be to huff and stammer, forcing a confrontation and challenging words from either side that could be injurious to the relationship.

A response would, by contrast, more likely begin with introspection:

1.   Did I misunderstand the project scope or make inaccurate assumptions?

2.   Did I ask the right questions in order to properly estimate the work?

3.   Is the client comparing our estimate to an incorrect analog?

4.   Is the client appreciative of the intricacies or idiosyncrasies of the project?

5.   What might be driving them to the conclusion?

The first part of forming a response is seeking information – even asking for more time before responding. It may also require rejecting the premise of the disagreement altogether. But reacting first limits our options whereas responding, in its deliberateness extends an opportunity for reasoned perspective. It allows a moment to consider all sides and, what I often refer to as the QBQ, or the question behind the question.

Often, the QBQ can’t be sussed out when you are reacting. In fact, it’s often after the fact when emotions have settled and when we reflect back on that hyper-charged moment to find the clarity to consider and understand the QBQ.

Responding means observing with intensity and awareness. It means not jumping to conclusions, seeing the situation from every angle and accepting that your first response may not be the only one or even the best one. The more you listen to yourself, the easier it will become to pinpoint conditioned reactions. As the feelings occur, you can create new responses and let the faulty reactions fade away.

The paradox of choosing to be responsive is that it requires of us to be both present and aware of the future. We need to both be cognizant of the effect of our actions, whichever we choose to take, and we need to know what actions are best in the situation. When we react, we are reacting out of fear and attempting to survive in the moment 

The second part, then, in forming a response is carefully using that information in a strategic way. In client conversations that means either asking the questions you didn’t ask in the first place (like those above) or asking the questions that will help to reveal the QBQ. Beyond that, the steady response is that response which confidently asserts a point of view and explains the rationale for your perspective.

Within the two client challenges I referenced above, the steady and controlled response offered an opportunity to remind both of the potential for cost over-runs and the necessity for addenda based on the recent history of other projects going over budget after they whittled down past estimates which was part of our calculus in suggesting the budget that we had; and it offered me an opportunity to point out the inherent challenge in scoping work on a project basis that inhibits broader economies of scale and an ability to amortize work by our team across projects.

The goal isn’t to deny your emotions, but to balance those immediate emotional responses with thoughts and facts to fill in the blanks. This is the essence of responding – choosing steadiness and a choice that carefully evaluates the consequences, digs past the QBQ, and, in short, defends without being defensive.

In other words, response (versus reaction) doesn’t mean you will be slow, just thoughtful. And, in that steadiness, the pivot to responding puts us at a strategic advantage. It may not always yield the results you desire. Responding rather than reacting is not a jedi mind trick. No, all it will do is ensure that you maintain an authenticity and integrity to your personal brand regardless of the outcome. It helps you to present the best version of yourself and gives you the best opportunity for walking out of any situation with your head held high and no regrets.

It remains to be seen if in my responses to the two clients mentioned above I was successful in rationalizing our thought process. But I do know that we made common ground in both by instances because of a steadiness in my response - not too high, not too low and ideally suited to the realities of our client assignments.

So, what’s your reaction to this piece? Better yet, what’s your response?

?