WEBVTT
00:00:00.098 --> 00:00:07.729
Picture it.
00:00:07.729 --> 00:00:09.230
You're in the middle of a project.
00:00:09.230 --> 00:00:13.676
Timelines are tight, meetings are steady, and things seem to be moving forward.
00:00:13.676 --> 00:00:18.804
And then bam, a stakeholder throws up an objection that catches everyone off guard.
00:00:18.804 --> 00:00:21.108
It's not exactly a deal breaker.
00:00:21.108 --> 00:00:21.989
Not yet.
00:00:21.989 --> 00:00:30.051
But it slows things down, creates tension, and if left unchecked, can quietly stall momentum.
00:00:30.051 --> 00:00:35.759
John Pritchard has seen that same moment more times than he can count.
00:00:35.759 --> 00:00:46.253
But where others see conflict, John sees an opportunity to pause, dig deeper, and navigate disagreement with clarity and empathy.
00:00:46.253 --> 00:00:55.993
A while back, he shared a five-step approach to non-confrontational mediation designed specifically for situations like this.
00:00:55.993 --> 00:01:02.627
It's practical, people-centered, and built for the real-world messiness of project work.
00:01:02.627 --> 00:01:05.533
Today, we're revisiting that framework.
00:01:05.533 --> 00:01:12.819
John's here to break it down and share the insight he's gained from guiding teams through friction without losing focus.
00:01:12.819 --> 00:01:20.290
This is Frontline Insights, the podcast where we explore the real world intricacies of business transformation.
00:01:20.290 --> 00:01:22.313
I'm your host, Kenneth Folk.
00:01:22.313 --> 00:01:23.355
Let's jump in.
00:01:23.355 --> 00:01:26.721
Mr.
00:01:26.721 --> 00:01:30.066
John Pritchett, aka JP.
00:01:30.066 --> 00:01:31.567
I can call you JP, right?
00:01:32.149 --> 00:01:32.629
Absolutely.
00:01:33.474 --> 00:01:35.215
Well, welcome to the podcast, JP.
00:01:35.215 --> 00:01:36.418
We're so excited to have you.
00:01:37.099 --> 00:01:39.182
I am excited to be here and record this.
00:01:40.302 --> 00:01:40.543
Nice.
00:01:40.543 --> 00:01:43.987
So you have worked across a lot of programs.
00:01:43.987 --> 00:01:49.394
What kinds of everyday disagreements or misalignments tend to show up most often?
00:01:50.777 --> 00:02:02.734
Oh, gosh, I think most often disagreements over the length of the project are going to be about responsibilities, the right solution to a problem, who does what and when, what tool to use.
00:02:02.734 --> 00:02:07.962
Every week is full of some item that you have to resolve to keep things running smoothly.
00:02:09.306 --> 00:02:12.371
So JP, I'd love to dig into something that you touched on.
00:02:12.371 --> 00:02:15.816
You mentioned those small disagreements that can pop up early on.
00:02:15.816 --> 00:02:23.770
Can you walk us through how if no one steps in, those little things can actually start to snowball into real blockers for the project?
00:02:24.705 --> 00:02:25.806
Oh, yeah, absolutely.
00:02:25.806 --> 00:02:34.900
I mean, a recent one right now is who does something or who the point of contact is for a certain department or technology or solution.
00:02:34.900 --> 00:02:44.352
A lot of the times when you don't get a crisp handoff or you have a task that nobody really wants to do, people like to live in ambiguity, right?
00:02:44.352 --> 00:02:54.225
And that will be an ambiguous task right up until it's due if you don't jump in and figure that out right away so that can be successful.
00:02:54.786 --> 00:02:55.230
Yeah.
00:02:55.230 --> 00:02:55.949
Yeah.
00:02:55.949 --> 00:03:07.580
So just to make sure I've got the gist of your approach that you mentioned in the article, you laid out a five-step method for handling disagreements on projects in a way that's really calm and constructive.
00:03:07.580 --> 00:03:13.586
So it starts with you as the project lead, kind of stepping back and pleading ignorance, so to speak.
00:03:13.586 --> 00:03:19.651
Not in a passive way, but kind of as a way to open up the dialogue and show genuine curiosity.
00:03:19.651 --> 00:03:33.246
And then from there, it's about digging into the facts, getting really specific about what And then you work with the stakeholders to frame a clear problem statement, something everybody can agree on.
00:03:33.246 --> 00:03:41.716
And then I think after that, you ask them to weigh in with potential solutions, really putting the ownership back on them in a collaborative way.
00:03:41.716 --> 00:03:51.429
And then your final step was about bringing it all back together, reviewing the options and either landing on a path forward or escalating if needed.
00:03:51.429 --> 00:03:52.849
Did I get that right?
00:03:52.849 --> 00:03:55.493
Anything you'd add or emphasize differently?
00:03:55.969 --> 00:04:06.924
Gosh, you could talk about this all day, but I think the really important part is being the first one to step back and clarify the exact problem.
00:04:06.924 --> 00:04:12.229
And sometimes it means pleading ignorance and sometimes it means being ready to be wrong.
00:04:12.229 --> 00:04:21.182
But I think from starting from that standpoint and not jumping right into solutioning until everyone's aligned to what the problem is, I think that opens a door.
00:04:21.182 --> 00:04:28.875
to really get down to the root issue and also make people feel comfortable contributing their expertise.
00:04:29.276 --> 00:04:31.060
Give me an example of what that sounds like.
00:04:31.060 --> 00:04:31.620
Sure.
00:04:32.281 --> 00:04:39.576
Sometimes I'll say, you know, you're the expert here, so walk me through the detail of this issue.
00:04:39.576 --> 00:04:50.130
And other times, if there is already a disagreement about something when I come here, I start by saying, okay, well, do we agree on what needs to be done at least?
00:04:50.130 --> 00:04:51.714
Or is that in disagreement too?
00:04:51.714 --> 00:04:59.154
So again, it involves stepping back to get back to the very beginning of the issue, right?
00:04:59.154 --> 00:05:01.961
You can't start in the middle and be sure that you solve the problem.
00:05:03.329 --> 00:05:15.088
JP has this way of digging past surface-level stuff to find the real issue, and not in a gotcha way, but in a way that actually helps people to move forward.
00:05:15.088 --> 00:05:23.821
What he shares next about unmasking the issue is super practical and honestly, kind of a shift in mindset.
00:05:23.821 --> 00:05:26.850
Right, right.
00:05:26.850 --> 00:05:29.774
It's not necessarily about forcing agreement.
00:05:29.774 --> 00:05:31.637
It's more about creating clarity.
00:05:31.637 --> 00:05:36.081
And this is what sets the stage for what you call unmasking the issue.
00:05:37.103 --> 00:05:37.964
Yeah, yeah.
00:05:37.964 --> 00:05:47.096
Unmasking the issue is about not just qualifying what type of issue it is, but making sure that you're solving the right problem.
00:05:47.096 --> 00:05:52.382
When you solve the wrong problem, you can walk away with something that feels right.
00:05:52.382 --> 00:06:02.004
like you got to the end, but a lot of the times there's an underlying disagreement or you walk away without even solving the underlying problem.
00:06:02.004 --> 00:06:09.934
So without unmasking the true issue, you run the risk of a false sense of confidence that will definitely bite you later.
00:06:10.454 --> 00:06:10.875
Oh, I bet.
00:06:10.875 --> 00:06:23.011
So JP, something that you said that really stuck with me is that most of the so-called bad actors on a project aren't actually trying to sabotage anything.
00:06:23.011 --> 00:06:24.353
They're just not aligned.
00:06:24.353 --> 00:06:28.738
Or maybe they're not being totally upfront about their real priorities, right?
00:06:28.738 --> 00:06:36.569
And I love that your approach isn't about calling them out, but more about unmasking what's really going on underneath.
00:06:36.569 --> 00:06:39.653
So can you talk a little bit about that?
00:06:39.653 --> 00:06:45.242
How do you spot that kind of misalignment and what it looks like to handle it constructively?
00:06:46.721 --> 00:06:47.041
Sure.
00:06:47.041 --> 00:06:53.951
I mean, most people who just don't want to do something aren't usually going to come out and say, I don't want to do something because I'd rather not, right?
00:06:53.951 --> 00:06:56.896
Sometimes they will, and that's refreshing.
00:06:56.896 --> 00:07:06.290
But most of the time, there are a flurry of plausible issues that are brought up that have nothing to do with what's actually going on, right?
00:07:06.290 --> 00:07:09.012
Nobody thinks of themselves as a bad actor.
00:07:09.012 --> 00:07:10.593
No one's the villain in their script.
00:07:10.593 --> 00:07:15.117
So I'm asking the issue is, you know, you're not punishing them for having an opinion.
00:07:15.117 --> 00:07:17.901
You're trying to surface the reality.
00:07:17.901 --> 00:07:26.970
And so by collecting the facts about the matter, I mean, that'll get you close, but that doesn't always give you everything.
00:07:26.970 --> 00:07:32.716
So you really need to invite people to reveal the deeper reason that they're holding back.
00:07:32.716 --> 00:07:36.663
If somebody doesn't want to do something, It's not a moral judgment.
00:07:36.663 --> 00:07:41.932
Maybe they think that it's going to be too much work for them or it's going to affect their performance review.
00:07:41.932 --> 00:07:45.838
Maybe they think it properly is with somebody else's department.
00:07:45.838 --> 00:07:51.146
And what's crucial is you don't ask them to justify what they want, right?
00:07:51.146 --> 00:07:53.509
You're asking them to share their concerns.
00:07:53.509 --> 00:08:00.661
And you might have to come back and ask them to justify depending on what their concerns are.
00:08:00.661 --> 00:08:06.499
But you're never going to get their true answer if you come at them like a ton of bricks.
00:08:07.220 --> 00:08:07.560
Got it.
00:08:07.560 --> 00:08:08.761
That makes sense.
00:08:08.761 --> 00:08:11.144
Anything else you wanted to add to that?
00:08:11.504 --> 00:08:14.966
Motivations are always valid, and they deserve to be acknowledged.
00:08:14.966 --> 00:08:17.610
And those are also part of the facts.
00:08:17.610 --> 00:08:19.451
So facts just aren't a business problem.
00:08:19.451 --> 00:08:23.274
Sometimes they're motivation, alignment, and concerns.
00:08:23.274 --> 00:08:30.161
And they're risks as well as facts, but they deserve to be acknowledged and taken down.
00:08:30.466 --> 00:08:31.226
Absolutely.
00:08:31.226 --> 00:08:34.309
You know, I think that's one part of it that often gets skipped.
00:08:34.309 --> 00:08:41.918
So I love that you mentioned that motivations are also valid and part of the quote-unquote facts, right?
00:08:41.918 --> 00:08:47.024
Everyone has that right to have their opinions and have their motivations validated.
00:08:47.024 --> 00:08:53.070
So how do you stay professional when the facts aren't clean and emotions are all over the place?
00:08:53.070 --> 00:08:55.852
Because I know sometimes these projects get really emotional.
00:08:56.793 --> 00:08:57.174
They can.
00:08:57.174 --> 00:08:58.635
I mean, it's people's livelihoods.
00:08:58.635 --> 00:08:59.937
We're in there for...
00:08:59.937 --> 00:09:04.606
you know, six months, a year, two years, and that's their career.
00:09:04.606 --> 00:09:10.197
So acknowledging where people are when they have a disagreement is really important.
00:09:10.197 --> 00:09:20.298
And then you've been getting the facts to get enough clarity to decide, you know, who's going to get their way or escalate something if something isn't happening.
00:09:22.433 --> 00:09:25.817
I feel like you're gonna say something about governance model now.
00:09:26.758 --> 00:09:28.320
Yeah, the governance model's key.
00:09:28.320 --> 00:09:37.448
So the purpose of mediating and gathering these facts is that either people are gonna have to agree or someone's going to have to decide.
00:09:37.448 --> 00:09:53.792
And that's why having a good governance model in place is if someone's gonna pick a winner and a loser, somebody doesn't want to do it or they're worried about something and it still has to be that way, Ultimately, that's not you as a consultant that's going to convince them.
00:09:53.792 --> 00:09:57.697
It has to go into their project governance and become part of their job.
00:09:57.697 --> 00:10:00.423
So you always have to be ready to take it there.
00:10:01.043 --> 00:10:01.323
Got it.
00:10:01.323 --> 00:10:01.884
Thank you.
00:10:01.884 --> 00:10:07.114
So let's talk about another thing that you mentioned that I think a lot of folks will relate to.
00:10:07.114 --> 00:10:16.349
And it's the idea that the people with real concerns are often the ones staying quiet, while the louder voices are usually just pushing their own agenda.
00:10:16.349 --> 00:10:17.951
And that really resonates.
00:10:17.951 --> 00:10:30.572
So can you share more about why that happens and how a project leader can create space for those quieter, but probably more thoughtful perspectives and bring them to the surface?
00:10:31.833 --> 00:10:38.205
Yeah, I mean, not everyone who's loud is a bad actor, but most bad actors just happen to be loud.
00:10:38.205 --> 00:10:39.746
And so
00:10:39.787 --> 00:10:40.769
when
00:10:40.808 --> 00:10:40.928
you
00:10:41.009 --> 00:10:41.470
listen...
00:10:42.049 --> 00:10:42.931
To be fair, right?
00:10:42.931 --> 00:10:53.307
And so what that means is that if you only listen to those loudest voices, I'm sure you're going to get a bunch of people who are really confident, but you generally aren't going to get a lot of expertise.
00:10:53.307 --> 00:10:57.192
Project work means nuance, and nuance is quiet.
00:10:57.192 --> 00:10:58.413
Nuance is never loud.
00:10:58.413 --> 00:11:04.703
So you have to listen for the people who are your stakeholders, but they're holding back, not the one dominating.
00:11:04.703 --> 00:11:05.825
And if somebody's quiet...
00:11:05.825 --> 00:11:09.886
But their job is deeply involved with your project, right?
00:11:09.886 --> 00:11:13.932
If you're doing a supply chain project and your planner is really, really quiet, right?
00:11:13.932 --> 00:11:16.134
Or your logistics person is really, really quiet.
00:11:16.134 --> 00:11:20.299
You have to pull them in because it's not just about facts.
00:11:20.299 --> 00:11:24.065
It's about establishing trust with all of your stakeholders.
00:11:24.065 --> 00:11:33.778
And if there's a detail that they are holding back for whatever reason, that needs to land with equal weight to the loud people.
00:11:33.778 --> 00:11:39.033
It can't just be the volume of ideas.
00:11:39.033 --> 00:11:40.956
It has to be the quality of ideas.
00:11:40.956 --> 00:11:45.903
And that complexity and that nuance, like I said, is often quiet.
00:11:45.903 --> 00:11:56.258
And by giving it the full value that some of your bigger ideas have, you can identify where all those risks live because the devil is in the details.
00:11:56.258 --> 00:12:01.405
And those details, again, require some digging, right?
00:12:01.405 --> 00:12:13.466
to get out of people, especially people who are experts, because expertise is often quiet because it is full of doubt and ignorance is often loud because it doesn't have any doubt.
00:12:15.248 --> 00:12:16.229
Very philosophical.
00:12:16.229 --> 00:12:16.269
I
00:12:17.551 --> 00:12:18.172
don't know about that.
00:12:19.052 --> 00:12:28.625
So we've talked about structure and facts, but one of the things that we may not have said expressly is the role of curiosity.
00:12:28.625 --> 00:12:34.851
So you're not just managing the process, you're asking, why does this person see it that way?
00:12:34.851 --> 00:12:36.534
Tell me a little bit more about that.
00:12:37.216 --> 00:12:39.721
Well, first and foremost, curiosity disarms people.
00:12:39.721 --> 00:12:44.669
Most folks kind of go into a battle mode.
00:12:44.669 --> 00:13:17.374
when they're going into a disagreement or even when they're just showing up for their project work that relates to their job they are there to defend turf they are there to protect their teammates they are there to protect their kpis and their bonus and their paycheck and all that stuff that goes with it so uh curiosity invites them to leave their guard down and also it leads yourself to be ready to be wrong right um when you're asking questions you are by the nature of the conversation, you are learning.
00:13:17.374 --> 00:13:21.438
And sometimes you learn stuff that is a problem.
00:13:21.438 --> 00:13:24.101
Sometimes you learn stuff that makes you feel better about the project.
00:13:24.101 --> 00:13:28.988
But it is always helping you surface the truth without judgment, right?
00:13:28.988 --> 00:13:32.251
There will be time for judgment later once you get the ideas.
00:13:32.251 --> 00:13:35.475
Like I said, either we're going to agree or someone's going to decide.
00:13:35.475 --> 00:13:42.224
But you really need to steel yourself to not judge at the point of collection.
00:13:42.224 --> 00:13:59.559
And so I think that being open to learning and questioning rather than telling especially in the beginning and midpoints of the project uh that's strategic right it's not just hand-holding it is it is actually being strategic about how you spend your time
00:14:00.601 --> 00:14:10.254
yeah i love that always learning right just open to being wrong that because you know that's possible so
00:14:10.333 --> 00:14:17.455
there's probably it's all the time right The people you're working with have the expertise, not you.
00:14:17.455 --> 00:14:19.278
And you got to remember that.
00:14:19.879 --> 00:14:20.399
Absolutely.
00:14:20.399 --> 00:14:28.673
So there's probably someone who's in the middle of a disagreement right now on a project and staying quiet because they don't want to stir things up.
00:14:28.673 --> 00:14:30.976
What would you say to that person?
00:14:31.918 --> 00:14:32.379
Oh, gosh.
00:14:32.379 --> 00:14:36.186
If you care about the outcome, you've got to speak up.
00:14:36.186 --> 00:14:43.369
You really have to own the escalation of your issues and Because other people won't do it for you.
00:14:43.369 --> 00:14:49.498
You're not going to always have, you know, a blue skies guy or someone else who is making sure every voice is heard at the table.
00:14:49.498 --> 00:14:54.846
And you can't wait for someone just to call on you and ask you for your two cents.
00:14:54.846 --> 00:14:56.908
So get your voice out there.
00:14:56.908 --> 00:14:58.110
Use facts.
00:14:58.110 --> 00:14:59.513
Stay respectful.
00:14:59.513 --> 00:15:06.062
But be direct because quiet doesn't solve tension.
00:15:06.062 --> 00:15:07.745
It just it just delays the fallout.
00:15:07.745 --> 00:15:13.244
There will be an impact for you being quiet and it will probably be a lot later than you wanted it to be.
00:15:14.405 --> 00:15:15.267
Yeah.
00:15:15.267 --> 00:15:17.809
These are all my new JP quotable quotes.
00:15:17.809 --> 00:15:19.673
Quiet doesn't solve tension.
00:15:19.673 --> 00:15:21.315
It just delays the fallout.
00:15:21.315 --> 00:15:21.796
I love it.
00:15:21.796 --> 00:15:30.166
JP, this has been just a really insightful and relatable discussion.
00:15:30.166 --> 00:15:35.714
So thank you so much for bringing all of this clarity and real world experience to the table.
00:15:35.714 --> 00:15:40.663
If our Frontline Insights listeners could take one thing away from today, what would it be?
00:15:40.663 --> 00:15:40.724
Oh,
00:15:41.706 --> 00:15:42.046
gosh.
00:15:42.046 --> 00:15:45.571
Don't avoid tension.
00:15:45.571 --> 00:15:48.995
Don't overreact to it either and blow it up in a thing.
00:15:48.995 --> 00:15:50.477
But get in there.
00:15:50.477 --> 00:15:51.239
Stay curious.
00:15:51.239 --> 00:15:53.061
Be structured in your approach.
00:15:53.061 --> 00:15:57.547
And when in doubt, just get all the facts before you make a decision.
00:15:58.327 --> 00:15:58.729
Awesome.
00:15:58.729 --> 00:16:03.034
Thanks again for taking the time to join us on the podcast today.
00:16:03.034 --> 00:16:05.158
It's always a pleasure talking to you, JP.
00:16:05.474 --> 00:16:05.895
This is
00:16:05.916 --> 00:16:06.157
fun.
00:16:06.157 --> 00:16:10.494
And that wraps up another episode of Frontline Insights.
00:16:10.494 --> 00:16:15.432
Until next time, keep listening between the lines and leading with clarity.
00:00:00.098 --> 00:00:07.729
Picture it.
00:00:07.729 --> 00:00:09.230
You're in the middle of a project.
00:00:09.230 --> 00:00:13.676
Timelines are tight, meetings are steady, and things seem to be moving forward.
00:00:13.676 --> 00:00:18.804
And then bam, a stakeholder throws up an objection that catches everyone off guard.
00:00:18.804 --> 00:00:21.108
It's not exactly a deal breaker.
00:00:21.108 --> 00:00:21.989
Not yet.
00:00:21.989 --> 00:00:30.051
But it slows things down, creates tension, and if left unchecked, can quietly stall momentum.
00:00:30.051 --> 00:00:35.759
John Pritchard has seen that same moment more times than he can count.
00:00:35.759 --> 00:00:46.253
But where others see conflict, John sees an opportunity to pause, dig deeper, and navigate disagreement with clarity and empathy.
00:00:46.253 --> 00:00:55.993
A while back, he shared a five-step approach to non-confrontational mediation designed specifically for situations like this.
00:00:55.993 --> 00:01:02.627
It's practical, people-centered, and built for the real-world messiness of project work.
00:01:02.627 --> 00:01:05.533
Today, we're revisiting that framework.
00:01:05.533 --> 00:01:12.819
John's here to break it down and share the insight he's gained from guiding teams through friction without losing focus.
00:01:12.819 --> 00:01:20.290
This is Frontline Insights, the podcast where we explore the real world intricacies of business transformation.
00:01:20.290 --> 00:01:22.313
I'm your host, Kenneth Folk.
00:01:22.313 --> 00:01:23.355
Let's jump in.
00:01:23.355 --> 00:01:26.721
Mr.
00:01:26.721 --> 00:01:30.066
John Pritchett, aka JP.
00:01:30.066 --> 00:01:31.567
I can call you JP, right?
00:01:32.149 --> 00:01:32.629
Absolutely.
00:01:33.474 --> 00:01:35.215
Well, welcome to the podcast, JP.
00:01:35.215 --> 00:01:36.418
We're so excited to have you.
00:01:37.099 --> 00:01:39.182
I am excited to be here and record this.
00:01:40.302 --> 00:01:40.543
Nice.
00:01:40.543 --> 00:01:43.987
So you have worked across a lot of programs.
00:01:43.987 --> 00:01:49.394
What kinds of everyday disagreements or misalignments tend to show up most often?
00:01:50.777 --> 00:02:02.734
Oh, gosh, I think most often disagreements over the length of the project are going to be about responsibilities, the right solution to a problem, who does what and when, what tool to use.
00:02:02.734 --> 00:02:07.962
Every week is full of some item that you have to resolve to keep things running smoothly.
00:02:09.306 --> 00:02:12.371
So JP, I'd love to dig into something that you touched on.
00:02:12.371 --> 00:02:15.816
You mentioned those small disagreements that can pop up early on.
00:02:15.816 --> 00:02:23.770
Can you walk us through how if no one steps in, those little things can actually start to snowball into real blockers for the project?
00:02:24.705 --> 00:02:25.806
Oh, yeah, absolutely.
00:02:25.806 --> 00:02:34.900
I mean, a recent one right now is who does something or who the point of contact is for a certain department or technology or solution.
00:02:34.900 --> 00:02:44.352
A lot of the times when you don't get a crisp handoff or you have a task that nobody really wants to do, people like to live in ambiguity, right?
00:02:44.352 --> 00:02:54.225
And that will be an ambiguous task right up until it's due if you don't jump in and figure that out right away so that can be successful.
00:02:54.786 --> 00:02:55.230
Yeah.
00:02:55.230 --> 00:02:55.949
Yeah.
00:02:55.949 --> 00:03:07.580
So just to make sure I've got the gist of your approach that you mentioned in the article, you laid out a five-step method for handling disagreements on projects in a way that's really calm and constructive.
00:03:07.580 --> 00:03:13.586
So it starts with you as the project lead, kind of stepping back and pleading ignorance, so to speak.
00:03:13.586 --> 00:03:19.651
Not in a passive way, but kind of as a way to open up the dialogue and show genuine curiosity.
00:03:19.651 --> 00:03:33.246
And then from there, it's about digging into the facts, getting really specific about what And then you work with the stakeholders to frame a clear problem statement, something everybody can agree on.
00:03:33.246 --> 00:03:41.716
And then I think after that, you ask them to weigh in with potential solutions, really putting the ownership back on them in a collaborative way.
00:03:41.716 --> 00:03:51.429
And then your final step was about bringing it all back together, reviewing the options and either landing on a path forward or escalating if needed.
00:03:51.429 --> 00:03:52.849
Did I get that right?
00:03:52.849 --> 00:03:55.493
Anything you'd add or emphasize differently?
00:03:55.969 --> 00:04:06.924
Gosh, you could talk about this all day, but I think the really important part is being the first one to step back and clarify the exact problem.
00:04:06.924 --> 00:04:12.229
And sometimes it means pleading ignorance and sometimes it means being ready to be wrong.
00:04:12.229 --> 00:04:21.182
But I think from starting from that standpoint and not jumping right into solutioning until everyone's aligned to what the problem is, I think that opens a door.
00:04:21.182 --> 00:04:28.875
to really get down to the root issue and also make people feel comfortable contributing their expertise.
00:04:29.276 --> 00:04:31.060
Give me an example of what that sounds like.
00:04:31.060 --> 00:04:31.620
Sure.
00:04:32.281 --> 00:04:39.576
Sometimes I'll say, you know, you're the expert here, so walk me through the detail of this issue.
00:04:39.576 --> 00:04:50.130
And other times, if there is already a disagreement about something when I come here, I start by saying, okay, well, do we agree on what needs to be done at least?
00:04:50.130 --> 00:04:51.714
Or is that in disagreement too?
00:04:51.714 --> 00:04:59.154
So again, it involves stepping back to get back to the very beginning of the issue, right?
00:04:59.154 --> 00:05:01.961
You can't start in the middle and be sure that you solve the problem.
00:05:03.329 --> 00:05:15.088
JP has this way of digging past surface-level stuff to find the real issue, and not in a gotcha way, but in a way that actually helps people to move forward.
00:05:15.088 --> 00:05:23.821
What he shares next about unmasking the issue is super practical and honestly, kind of a shift in mindset.
00:05:23.821 --> 00:05:26.850
Right, right.
00:05:26.850 --> 00:05:29.774
It's not necessarily about forcing agreement.
00:05:29.774 --> 00:05:31.637
It's more about creating clarity.
00:05:31.637 --> 00:05:36.081
And this is what sets the stage for what you call unmasking the issue.
00:05:37.103 --> 00:05:37.964
Yeah, yeah.
00:05:37.964 --> 00:05:47.096
Unmasking the issue is about not just qualifying what type of issue it is, but making sure that you're solving the right problem.
00:05:47.096 --> 00:05:52.382
When you solve the wrong problem, you can walk away with something that feels right.
00:05:52.382 --> 00:06:02.004
like you got to the end, but a lot of the times there's an underlying disagreement or you walk away without even solving the underlying problem.
00:06:02.004 --> 00:06:09.934
So without unmasking the true issue, you run the risk of a false sense of confidence that will definitely bite you later.
00:06:10.454 --> 00:06:10.875
Oh, I bet.
00:06:10.875 --> 00:06:23.011
So JP, something that you said that really stuck with me is that most of the so-called bad actors on a project aren't actually trying to sabotage anything.
00:06:23.011 --> 00:06:24.353
They're just not aligned.
00:06:24.353 --> 00:06:28.738
Or maybe they're not being totally upfront about their real priorities, right?
00:06:28.738 --> 00:06:36.569
And I love that your approach isn't about calling them out, but more about unmasking what's really going on underneath.
00:06:36.569 --> 00:06:39.653
So can you talk a little bit about that?
00:06:39.653 --> 00:06:45.242
How do you spot that kind of misalignment and what it looks like to handle it constructively?
00:06:46.721 --> 00:06:47.041
Sure.
00:06:47.041 --> 00:06:53.951
I mean, most people who just don't want to do something aren't usually going to come out and say, I don't want to do something because I'd rather not, right?
00:06:53.951 --> 00:06:56.896
Sometimes they will, and that's refreshing.
00:06:56.896 --> 00:07:06.290
But most of the time, there are a flurry of plausible issues that are brought up that have nothing to do with what's actually going on, right?
00:07:06.290 --> 00:07:09.012
Nobody thinks of themselves as a bad actor.
00:07:09.012 --> 00:07:10.593
No one's the villain in their script.
00:07:10.593 --> 00:07:15.117
So I'm asking the issue is, you know, you're not punishing them for having an opinion.
00:07:15.117 --> 00:07:17.901
You're trying to surface the reality.
00:07:17.901 --> 00:07:26.970
And so by collecting the facts about the matter, I mean, that'll get you close, but that doesn't always give you everything.
00:07:26.970 --> 00:07:32.716
So you really need to invite people to reveal the deeper reason that they're holding back.
00:07:32.716 --> 00:07:36.663
If somebody doesn't want to do something, It's not a moral judgment.
00:07:36.663 --> 00:07:41.932
Maybe they think that it's going to be too much work for them or it's going to affect their performance review.
00:07:41.932 --> 00:07:45.838
Maybe they think it properly is with somebody else's department.
00:07:45.838 --> 00:07:51.146
And what's crucial is you don't ask them to justify what they want, right?
00:07:51.146 --> 00:07:53.509
You're asking them to share their concerns.
00:07:53.509 --> 00:08:00.661
And you might have to come back and ask them to justify depending on what their concerns are.
00:08:00.661 --> 00:08:06.499
But you're never going to get their true answer if you come at them like a ton of bricks.
00:08:07.220 --> 00:08:07.560
Got it.
00:08:07.560 --> 00:08:08.761
That makes sense.
00:08:08.761 --> 00:08:11.144
Anything else you wanted to add to that?
00:08:11.504 --> 00:08:14.966
Motivations are always valid, and they deserve to be acknowledged.
00:08:14.966 --> 00:08:17.610
And those are also part of the facts.
00:08:17.610 --> 00:08:19.451
So facts just aren't a business problem.
00:08:19.451 --> 00:08:23.274
Sometimes they're motivation, alignment, and concerns.
00:08:23.274 --> 00:08:30.161
And they're risks as well as facts, but they deserve to be acknowledged and taken down.
00:08:30.466 --> 00:08:31.226
Absolutely.
00:08:31.226 --> 00:08:34.309
You know, I think that's one part of it that often gets skipped.
00:08:34.309 --> 00:08:41.918
So I love that you mentioned that motivations are also valid and part of the quote-unquote facts, right?
00:08:41.918 --> 00:08:47.024
Everyone has that right to have their opinions and have their motivations validated.
00:08:47.024 --> 00:08:53.070
So how do you stay professional when the facts aren't clean and emotions are all over the place?
00:08:53.070 --> 00:08:55.852
Because I know sometimes these projects get really emotional.
00:08:56.793 --> 00:08:57.174
They can.
00:08:57.174 --> 00:08:58.635
I mean, it's people's livelihoods.
00:08:58.635 --> 00:08:59.937
We're in there for...
00:08:59.937 --> 00:09:04.606
you know, six months, a year, two years, and that's their career.
00:09:04.606 --> 00:09:10.197
So acknowledging where people are when they have a disagreement is really important.
00:09:10.197 --> 00:09:20.298
And then you've been getting the facts to get enough clarity to decide, you know, who's going to get their way or escalate something if something isn't happening.
00:09:22.433 --> 00:09:25.817
I feel like you're gonna say something about governance model now.
00:09:26.758 --> 00:09:28.320
Yeah, the governance model's key.
00:09:28.320 --> 00:09:37.448
So the purpose of mediating and gathering these facts is that either people are gonna have to agree or someone's going to have to decide.
00:09:37.448 --> 00:09:53.792
And that's why having a good governance model in place is if someone's gonna pick a winner and a loser, somebody doesn't want to do it or they're worried about something and it still has to be that way, Ultimately, that's not you as a consultant that's going to convince them.
00:09:53.792 --> 00:09:57.697
It has to go into their project governance and become part of their job.
00:09:57.697 --> 00:10:00.423
So you always have to be ready to take it there.
00:10:01.043 --> 00:10:01.323
Got it.
00:10:01.323 --> 00:10:01.884
Thank you.
00:10:01.884 --> 00:10:07.114
So let's talk about another thing that you mentioned that I think a lot of folks will relate to.
00:10:07.114 --> 00:10:16.349
And it's the idea that the people with real concerns are often the ones staying quiet, while the louder voices are usually just pushing their own agenda.
00:10:16.349 --> 00:10:17.951
And that really resonates.
00:10:17.951 --> 00:10:30.572
So can you share more about why that happens and how a project leader can create space for those quieter, but probably more thoughtful perspectives and bring them to the surface?
00:10:31.833 --> 00:10:38.205
Yeah, I mean, not everyone who's loud is a bad actor, but most bad actors just happen to be loud.
00:10:38.205 --> 00:10:39.746
And so
00:10:39.787 --> 00:10:40.769
when
00:10:40.808 --> 00:10:40.928
you
00:10:41.009 --> 00:10:41.470
listen...
00:10:42.049 --> 00:10:42.931
To be fair, right?
00:10:42.931 --> 00:10:53.307
And so what that means is that if you only listen to those loudest voices, I'm sure you're going to get a bunch of people who are really confident, but you generally aren't going to get a lot of expertise.
00:10:53.307 --> 00:10:57.192
Project work means nuance, and nuance is quiet.
00:10:57.192 --> 00:10:58.413
Nuance is never loud.
00:10:58.413 --> 00:11:04.703
So you have to listen for the people who are your stakeholders, but they're holding back, not the one dominating.
00:11:04.703 --> 00:11:05.825
And if somebody's quiet...
00:11:05.825 --> 00:11:09.886
But their job is deeply involved with your project, right?
00:11:09.886 --> 00:11:13.932
If you're doing a supply chain project and your planner is really, really quiet, right?
00:11:13.932 --> 00:11:16.134
Or your logistics person is really, really quiet.
00:11:16.134 --> 00:11:20.299
You have to pull them in because it's not just about facts.
00:11:20.299 --> 00:11:24.065
It's about establishing trust with all of your stakeholders.
00:11:24.065 --> 00:11:33.778
And if there's a detail that they are holding back for whatever reason, that needs to land with equal weight to the loud people.
00:11:33.778 --> 00:11:39.033
It can't just be the volume of ideas.
00:11:39.033 --> 00:11:40.956
It has to be the quality of ideas.
00:11:40.956 --> 00:11:45.903
And that complexity and that nuance, like I said, is often quiet.
00:11:45.903 --> 00:11:56.258
And by giving it the full value that some of your bigger ideas have, you can identify where all those risks live because the devil is in the details.
00:11:56.258 --> 00:12:01.405
And those details, again, require some digging, right?
00:12:01.405 --> 00:12:13.466
to get out of people, especially people who are experts, because expertise is often quiet because it is full of doubt and ignorance is often loud because it doesn't have any doubt.
00:12:15.248 --> 00:12:16.229
Very philosophical.
00:12:16.229 --> 00:12:16.269
I
00:12:17.551 --> 00:12:18.172
don't know about that.
00:12:19.052 --> 00:12:28.625
So we've talked about structure and facts, but one of the things that we may not have said expressly is the role of curiosity.
00:12:28.625 --> 00:12:34.851
So you're not just managing the process, you're asking, why does this person see it that way?
00:12:34.851 --> 00:12:36.534
Tell me a little bit more about that.
00:12:37.216 --> 00:12:39.721
Well, first and foremost, curiosity disarms people.
00:12:39.721 --> 00:12:44.669
Most folks kind of go into a battle mode.
00:12:44.669 --> 00:13:17.374
when they're going into a disagreement or even when they're just showing up for their project work that relates to their job they are there to defend turf they are there to protect their teammates they are there to protect their kpis and their bonus and their paycheck and all that stuff that goes with it so uh curiosity invites them to leave their guard down and also it leads yourself to be ready to be wrong right um when you're asking questions you are by the nature of the conversation, you are learning.
00:13:17.374 --> 00:13:21.438
And sometimes you learn stuff that is a problem.
00:13:21.438 --> 00:13:24.101
Sometimes you learn stuff that makes you feel better about the project.
00:13:24.101 --> 00:13:28.988
But it is always helping you surface the truth without judgment, right?
00:13:28.988 --> 00:13:32.251
There will be time for judgment later once you get the ideas.
00:13:32.251 --> 00:13:35.475
Like I said, either we're going to agree or someone's going to decide.
00:13:35.475 --> 00:13:42.224
But you really need to steel yourself to not judge at the point of collection.
00:13:42.224 --> 00:13:59.559
And so I think that being open to learning and questioning rather than telling especially in the beginning and midpoints of the project uh that's strategic right it's not just hand-holding it is it is actually being strategic about how you spend your time
00:14:00.601 --> 00:14:10.254
yeah i love that always learning right just open to being wrong that because you know that's possible so
00:14:10.333 --> 00:14:17.455
there's probably it's all the time right The people you're working with have the expertise, not you.
00:14:17.455 --> 00:14:19.278
And you got to remember that.
00:14:19.879 --> 00:14:20.399
Absolutely.
00:14:20.399 --> 00:14:28.673
So there's probably someone who's in the middle of a disagreement right now on a project and staying quiet because they don't want to stir things up.
00:14:28.673 --> 00:14:30.976
What would you say to that person?
00:14:31.918 --> 00:14:32.379
Oh, gosh.
00:14:32.379 --> 00:14:36.186
If you care about the outcome, you've got to speak up.
00:14:36.186 --> 00:14:43.369
You really have to own the escalation of your issues and Because other people won't do it for you.
00:14:43.369 --> 00:14:49.498
You're not going to always have, you know, a blue skies guy or someone else who is making sure every voice is heard at the table.
00:14:49.498 --> 00:14:54.846
And you can't wait for someone just to call on you and ask you for your two cents.
00:14:54.846 --> 00:14:56.908
So get your voice out there.
00:14:56.908 --> 00:14:58.110
Use facts.
00:14:58.110 --> 00:14:59.513
Stay respectful.
00:14:59.513 --> 00:15:06.062
But be direct because quiet doesn't solve tension.
00:15:06.062 --> 00:15:07.745
It just it just delays the fallout.
00:15:07.745 --> 00:15:13.244
There will be an impact for you being quiet and it will probably be a lot later than you wanted it to be.
00:15:14.405 --> 00:15:15.267
Yeah.
00:15:15.267 --> 00:15:17.809
These are all my new JP quotable quotes.
00:15:17.809 --> 00:15:19.673
Quiet doesn't solve tension.
00:15:19.673 --> 00:15:21.315
It just delays the fallout.
00:15:21.315 --> 00:15:21.796
I love it.
00:15:21.796 --> 00:15:30.166
JP, this has been just a really insightful and relatable discussion.
00:15:30.166 --> 00:15:35.714
So thank you so much for bringing all of this clarity and real world experience to the table.
00:15:35.714 --> 00:15:40.663
If our Frontline Insights listeners could take one thing away from today, what would it be?
00:15:40.663 --> 00:15:40.724
Oh,
00:15:41.706 --> 00:15:42.046
gosh.
00:15:42.046 --> 00:15:45.571
Don't avoid tension.
00:15:45.571 --> 00:15:48.995
Don't overreact to it either and blow it up in a thing.
00:15:48.995 --> 00:15:50.477
But get in there.
00:15:50.477 --> 00:15:51.239
Stay curious.
00:15:51.239 --> 00:15:53.061
Be structured in your approach.
00:15:53.061 --> 00:15:57.547
And when in doubt, just get all the facts before you make a decision.
00:15:58.327 --> 00:15:58.729
Awesome.
00:15:58.729 --> 00:16:03.034
Thanks again for taking the time to join us on the podcast today.
00:16:03.034 --> 00:16:05.158
It's always a pleasure talking to you, JP.
00:16:05.474 --> 00:16:05.895
This is
00:16:05.916 --> 00:16:06.157
fun.
00:16:06.157 --> 00:16:10.494
And that wraps up another episode of Frontline Insights.
00:16:10.494 --> 00:16:15.432
Until next time, keep listening between the lines and leading with clarity.
