Condition-based Conversations

Bernie was thinking about opening a small business providing grooming and beauty consultancy services to corporate clients. She went to her good friend Larry, who is a business consultant, for some advice. After she has briefed Larry with the background information, their conversation went like the following:

?

Larry: This sounds like a good business idea. Have you got some clients who express interest in your service?

Bernie: I haven’t got any. Generating interest is one of my first priorities.

Larry: Definitely. How about competition? How do you differentiate from your competitors?

Bernie: My main selling point is highly tailor-made consultancy service. I am very flexible to accommodate…

Larry: Do you think corporate clients really need the tailor-made service? They just want the lowest price possible.

Bernie: Really? I do think they want the customized solution.

Larry: That’s not what I know…

Is there a better way to carry out the conversation that is more objective, less personal, and actually moves towards the problem-solving direction?        

Let’s pause here. This is a typical question-and-answer, a.k.a. Q&A style, conversation in which one party raises a question or doubt, and the other answers or defends. As you can see, the conversation is not very effective. Bernie and Larry were expressing different opinions on the same issue. Without some objective measures, such as some data showing the clients’ preferences, the conversation can easily get heated and personal. Moreover, Bernie and Larry won’t be able to stay objective and discuss other matters of the business. The conversation is going nowhere. Despite its obvious drawbacks, the Q&A style conversation happens every day and everywhere.

?

Is there a better way to carry out the conversation that is more objective, less personal, and actually moves towards the problem-solving direction? Yes, there is. It’s called Condition-based Conversations.

?

Let’s see how Bernie and Larry’s dialogue looks like with Condition-based Conversations.

?

Larry: This sounds like a good business idea. How about we examine the conditions that must be true for your business to take off.

Bernie: Ok, sure.

Larry: Let’s start with your value proposition. What conditions must hold true for your business to thrive?

Bernie: One condition is that I can provide a highly tailor-made consultancy service, which differentiates me from the competitors.

Larry: That’s a good one. How confident are you on that condition?

Bernie: Very confident, without a doubt.

Larry. Great. Any other conditions?

Bernie: On the flip side, the tailor-made service is important to the clients. In other words, the clients must value this service.

Larry: What’s your confident level on that?

Bernie: I am only somewhat confident based on my conversation with some prospects, but I would love to learn more about their needs.

Larry: Okay. How would you further test your condition?

Bernie: I am going to attend a trade show next week and I will meet some of my corporate prospects there. Maybe I can have a chat with them.

Larry: That’s a good one. How else can you do?

Bernie: I think I can…

??

The conversation hasn’t ended but I believe you’ve got the idea. The Condition-based Conversations (CBC) turns the Q&A conversation on its head. Instead of expressing opinions, both parties discuss what conditions must hold true. After generating a list of conditions, they discuss the confidence levels of each condition, and specify how they might test the conditions.

?

The steps of Condition-based Conversations go like this:

?

1. Frame the option to be discussed

2. Generate the conditions that must hold true for the option to be viable

3. Assign a level of confidence to each condition

4. Rank the conditions according to the confidence levels

5. Design and conduct tests

?

?

Step One: Frame the option to be discussed

?

The CBC is option-oriented. Therefore, the first step is to frame the option to be discussed. In Bernie’s case, the option is to open a small business of grooming and beauty consultancy services. If Bernie wants to consider opening an education center instead, she will need another CBC that is completely independent from the grooming one.

?

Once the option is framed, we can go to Step Two.

?

Step Two: Generate the conditions that must hold true for the option to be viable

?

There are many ways to structure the generation of conditions, and some simple frameworks can come in handy.

?

For example, we can use the 3C model (Customers, Competitors, Company) to brainstorm the conditions related to each C. If the option is marketing related, the conventional 4P model (Product, Price, Promotion, Place) can be used. Using a framework is not a must, but it can be a great starting point. The idea is to generate as many as conditions that must hold true as possible.

?

Once you have got a laundry list of conditions, go through them and eliminate all the nice-to-have conditions. The keyword is “must”. The remaining conditions should all be essential – if one of them doesn’t hold true, the option will not be viable.

?

?

Step Three: Assign a level of confidence to each condition

?

Once we have got all the conditions, we can assign confidence levels to each condition. There’s no one right way to scale the levels. You can do it with simple Low, Medium, High, or a 1-10 points scale. The confidence level is a subjective, judgement call. Hence it is likely that different people on the same team have different confidence levels on the same condition. In that case, go with the lowest level.

?

?

Step Four: Rank the conditions according to the confidence levels

?

This step is relatively easy. Rank all the conditions from the lowest level of confidence to the highest.

?

Step Five: Design and conduct tests

?

The last step is to design and conduct tests so that we can examine the validity of each condition. Always start with the condition with the lowest level of confidence. Why? If we test the condition that is least likely to hold true and the result fails, the option is not viable. There’s no need to test any other conditions. If we test the strongest condition instead, it is likely to hold true. We must continue to test other conditions. This step is the most time and resources consuming out of the five steps. To save resources, we should test the weakest condition. If it passes, we then test the second-weakest condition, and so on.

?

If all conditions pass, congratulations! The option is totally viable and likely to succeed. If some conditions didn’t pass or barely pass, we should revise the option based on the feedback gathered during the testing phase. Once the option has been refined, rinse and repeat the process.

?

?

Let’s see another conversation with the Condition-based Conversation. A primary six student Steven wants to make some extra cash for the upcoming summer holiday. He wants to sell custom-print t-shirt with his graduating class photo on it. The target customers are, of course, his classmates. He discusses this idea with his mom.

?

Steven: What do you think of this idea, mom?

Mom: I am glad you are trying new things. Now for your idea to succeed, what conditions must hold true? For example, you are able to find a vendor that produces quality t-shirts at a low cost.

Steven: That’s one condition for sure. Besides, my classmates must be willing to buy it.

Mom: Great. What else?

Steven: Um… the school must allow me to do so, although I don’t think it’s a problem.

Mom: We will find out if it is okay later. Just write that down for now. What else?

Steven: I can’t think of any more.

Mom: How about the use of photo? Do you think your classmates or their parents have concerns of you printing their photos on t-shirt?

Steven: Right, that’s a good one mom.

Mom: Okay, how many conditions have we got?

Steven: We got four conditions.

Mom: How confident are you on each condition? Give it a low, medium, or high.

Steven: Find a quality and low-cost vendor, high. Classmates are willing to pay, medium. School allows me to sell, high. Use of photo rights, low.

Mom: So, the permission to print their photos on t-shirt is the least confident of all.

Steven: Right.

Mom: How would you find out if it is true?

Steven: I can ask each classmate.

Mom: Sure you can, but you don’t know how would their parents react. One thing you can do is to design a photo release form, and ask your classmates’ parents to sign. That way you have something black and white.

Steven: Good idea mom. Can you help me with that?

Mom: Sure I can. How about the willingness to pay? How could you find out if your classmates will buy?

Steven: That’s easy. I can design the t-shirt on my computer, show them the design. If they pre-order the t-shirt I can give them a discount.

Mom: Smart boy! All the best to your first business.

?

As you can see, the Condition-based Conversation is explorative, objective, and actually moves the issue forward on the problem-solving route. The idea of CBC stems from the book Playing To Win – How Strategy Really Works by A.G. Lafley and Roger L. Martin[1]. In the book Lafley and Martin introduced what strategy really is and how to evaluate strategy. The CBC is a simplified version of the “reverse-engineering process” used to evaluate and choose among strategic options. Readers who are interested in this topic are advised to read the book. It’s one of the best business books about strategy.

?

?

To summarize, the Q&A style conversation often produces less than ideal result because it is subjective and often leads to a win-lose battle. The Condition-base Conversation is a better alternative because of at least three benefits:

?

1. It is objective

Conditions, by definitions, are neutral. It’s something we have doubt and yet to be validated. By framing the issues as conditions rather than opinions, we can keep the conversation in an objective manner. Discussing and debating on a condition feels much less personal than that on opinion. We are much less inclined to defend a condition.

?

2. It is explorative and actionable

When we brainstorm the conditions that must hold true, we are actually expanding our thoughts and perspectives. This generative and explorative mental exercise helps us get out of our mental comfort zone and start to think objectively. At the same time, the tests we design for the conditions are, by definition, actionable. By conducting those tests, we are testing the actual viability of the idea in consideration. The conversation itself becomes part of the problem-solving process.

?

3. It generates accountability and buy-in from the team

Imagine you are pitching an idea to your team and you have to win over their skepticism. The Q&A style brings you long, tedious, and heated debate. Even when the decision has been made, most skeptics will remain skeptical, hence taking a hit in team accountability and buy-in. When the discussion is carried out in CBC style instead, the discussion becomes much more collaborative. All team members will take part in the CBC process. Skeptics will have all the chances they need to express their concerns. If their skepticism can pass the tests, their resistance will vanish. The result is a much stronger accountability and team buy-in on the final decision.

?

Try to carry about the Condition-based Conversation with your colleagues, friends or family, you may be surprised by the result.

[1] Lafley, A.G. Martin, Roger L. (2013) Playing To Win – How Strategy Really Works. Harvard Business Review Press.