...
Address emotions and feelings first
Don’t feel afraid to name emotions.
Much of the tensions and arguments that folks have around what seem like they should be dry technical conversations are often because of the emotions people have. Are people feeling heard? Do they feel anxiety? All of these emotions need to be seen and acknowledged so that we can regulate ourselves before we can have a problem solving conversation.
If people are emotionally unregulated coming into a problem conversation it won’t be possible to make any active progress. The first problem to solve will be to find a solution to help people regulate themselves. This goes for everybody - if I come into a conversation angry then it’s going to be difficult to think clearly and problem solve. See empathy as a tool for regulation.
As humans we are seldom as clear as we think what the problems are.
Find the highest frame.
Begin with trying to find the highest level way of stating the problem. It’s almost always an emotional driver at the highest level. For instance a conversation might start on what seems like a technical topic can be restarted in a higher frame:
“We need to implement LDAP across all our systems” becomes
“We need a way to implement single sign on for our systems” becomes
“We need make sure we have secure access control to our systems” becomes
“We need to keep the company safe.”
“I need to keep myself safe and those that depend on me by keeping the company safe.”
It’s all about getting really clear on what the problems are which means a working on clarifying the problems.
Why do we need to keep the company secure?
What would be negative consequences of our accounting system being compromised?
How would we recover if the source code to the licensing system was leaked?
Are there any other systems you are aware of that have large risks associated with them?
Distinguish solutions from problems.
A solution is a specific way to solve a problem.
It’s a common human tendency (myself included) to get strongly focused on one aspect of a problem and only see one solution for it and therefore want to advocate for that solution - rather than being open to see more perspectives on the problem, share information and often learn about better ways to solve the problem.
There are no bad ideas.
This is really important to make it an open collaborative process and make sure people feel safe and comfortable sharing their thoughts.
Solution ideas should be written down for instance as a solution for solving “How does Johnny get his needs met” might be “Dad buys everything Johnny wants!”. This is a potential idea. Hold off discussing the pros and cons of ideas till later in the conversation.
Then discuss the pros and cons of different solutions.
“Dad buys everything Johnny wants!” is good in some ways - Johnny gets all his immediate material needs met but what are some of problems with this?
Johnny might not learn to think about what is really important - and therefore have trouble later on knowing how to meet his needs when Dad is no longer able to afford all of Johnny’s needs.
Often discussing solutions can be a better way to clarify the problem - what problem are we really solving here? (go back to step 1)
Often different solutions can be combined into better solutions.
Like switch on two factor authentication for Xero and Gmail becomes only use gmail authentication but require two factor authentication be switched on by default for all users.
Finally try and spot patterns and find consensus.
Have we gotten a good handle on what the real problem(s) are?
Do we all see it?
What do we do first?
...