The Fifth Discipline, Prima Donnas, and “Seeing the Same Game”

I am radiocarbon dating myself, but 30 years ago, one of the best-selling management books of all time was released:?Peter Senge’s The Fifth Discipline.

I was clearly in the minority, but to be honest, I was not a big fan of the book.?It seemed impractical to me on multiple levels. As one point of vindication, I don't know any company that advertised or had case studies done on them based on how the Fifth Discipline framework changed their cultures or results.

But one element of the book really stood out for me and that was the section on Mental Models and the importance of suspending them, i.e., holding them up for others to see. From all my doctoral work on cognitive biases, knew that idea was a winner the moment I read it and something OD people, which I was at the time, could immediately leverage.

Sharing mental models is always a useful exercise, but it is especially important where conflicts exist over a course of action. One such area where conflicts often arise is around performance issues with individuals in the organization.

Now all performance issues don’t lead to conflicts about how to handle them. If someone in the organization is not delivering on their objectives, even after getting feedback and coaching, the decision is usually not hard.

On the other hand, a tough choice for many leaders is what to do with high performers whose results come with a lot of, shall we say, collateral damage?

For example, what do you do with a GM who treats her team mordaciously (think of a character like Meryl Streep in the movie The Devil Wears Prada)? Or how about the brilliant engineer with 40 patents who thinks being a team player is a waste of his precious time and is socially inappropriate more often than you care to recall (think of Sheldon on the TV show The Big Bang Theory)?

Folks like these are often referred to as prima donnas and you would be hard-pressed to find an organization that didn’t have at least one that was viewed this way.

Of course you talk to them. You tell them their style is causing problems and work with them to try to take the edges off. You might even hire a coach for her/him.

If no change occurs, what do you do? Do you cut them loose? What if there is some progress but some of the troubling behaviors continue persist?

It goes without saying that these hypothetical situations cannot be answered without all the detail and nuance associated with each. Equally obvious, if everyone sees the situation the same way, the choices may not be easy, but there will be consensus on how to proceed.

What I want to address here is what to do when there are conflicting opinions. Let’s say someone in management is fed up and thinks the fallout can no longer be tolerated, but someone else on the management team is more focused on the upside. Or let’s say HR is tired of dealing with the complaints from everyone around the person in question and says the person needs to go, but management is worried about the short-term fall off in performance as a replacement is sought.

This is where having everyone suspend…hold up…their mental models can facilitate effective, coordinated action.

It starts with sharing views on the benefits and costs. How is everyone valuing and trading these costs and benefits off? Revenue generated and the value of patents in the pipeline might be easy to quantify. How do the parties in conflict about the situation view the costs of the prima donna’s disparaging comments and inappropriate or I'm-above-the-law (norms) behaviors on the rest of the team?

In addition to costs and benefits of the current state, having the parties share their views under an array of future scenarios deepens the understanding of the mental models people are using. Is there any agreement on the “bright red lines”…lines which if crossed would lead to immediate dismissal, no questions asked? How about the reverse, what are the improvement milestones, which if achieved would lead to a softening of positions?

Other scenarios to explore include the possibility that the engineer or GM goes to the competition and also the possibility that the prima donna is allowed to stay and 3-4 people on his/her team leave? What would the implications of these scenarios be and how are they being valued in the various mental models of the stakeholders?

Asking these questions and having each person involved in the decision answer them is a critical step on building consensus around the action steps that best balance the needs of all concerned.

When his quarterback, Phil Simms, used to come off the field after making what Parcells regarded as bad decisions, Parcells would say to Simms, “Are we seeing the same game?” He meant, this is what I see the defense giving you and therefore, what I think you should be doing. But since you are doing something else, are you seeing something I am not seeing?

Not long after The Fifth Discipline came out, I read a book by Bill Parcells, the football coach who lead the NY Giants to two Super Bowl Championships. It was typical of all those books by famous sports coaches capitalizing on their success by writing about “their way.” In other words, it was largely unremarkable.

But one thing stuck with me: When his quarterback, Phil Simms, used to come off the field after making what Parcells regarded as bad decisions, Parcells would say to Simms, “Are we seeing the same game?” He meant, this is what I see the defense giving you and therefore, what I think you should be doing. But since you are doing something else, are you seeing something I am not seeing?

I have always really liked this question and I frequently suggest it to my clients for framing contentious discussions with colleagues and to encourage people to share their mental models.

Parcells could have said, “Why are you such a $%#&*%$ idiot?” and, given his rep, probably often did. But “Are we seeing the same game?” invites others to share what they see, share their conclusions, and share why they are making the choices they are making.

Conflicting views between individuals and teams on the best course of action are prosaic. But the effective resolution of some of those conflicts have huge implications on outcomes, yes, but also in just freeing up energy that the conflicting views are consuming.

Could progress be made and energy freed up if people shared mental models about possible directions for the economy, the competitive landscape, strategic options and positioning, product roadmaps, definitions of success, views on individual performance, etc?

If you're in the business of driving any kind of change, until people are "seeing the same game," you're going to have your work cut out for you getting the necessary alignment to execute effectively.

Dennis Adsit, Ph.D. is President of Adsum Insights, an organizational consulting and executive coaching firm and the creator of The First 100 Days and Beyond , a practical, laser-focused coaching service to help leaders in transition rapidly build trust and momentum in a new job.