About this episode:
Original Air Date: March 17, 2020The one-on-one meeting, often between a manager and their "direct report" is among the most common and popular meetings in existence. But it may also be the most harmful.
In this episode, we debate and discuss the best and worst ways to hold this meeting. Later, we're joined by the author of The Coaching Habit, Michael Bungay Stanier, to figure out how to show up to one-on-ones as a coach rather than a boss.
Tools from the episode:
The Ready’s OS Canvas
Mentioned in this episode:
"Radical candor": BNW Ep. 13 with Kim Scott
"First 90 days of self-management": BNW Ep. 11 with Doug Seacrist
Immunity to Change by Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey
In this episode:
Michael Bungay Stanier
Author and Speaker
Michael Bungay Stanier is best know for The Coaching Habit, the best-selling coaching book of the century and recognized as a classic. His most recent book, How to Work with (Almost) Anyone, shows how to build the Best Possible Relationship with the key people at work. He’s the host of the Change Signal podcast. Michael was a Rhodes Scholar, and was recently awarded the coaching prize by Thinkers50, “the Oscars of Management".”
Michael's LInkedInMichael's WebsiteMichael's Podcast
Aaron Dignan
Rodney Evans
Listen now:
Episode transcript:
Aaron Dignan:
Hey everybody. Welcome to the show. This is Brave New Work, a podcast about reinventing our organizations and the search for a more adaptive and human way of working. I'm Aaron Dignan, and I'm joined, as always, by my co-host, Rodney Evans.
Rodney Evans:
Hey, y'all.
Aaron Dignan:
On today's episode, we're going to talk about one-on-one meetings, those notorious meetings where managers and bosses get together with the people that work for them and talk about... Well, they talk about all kinds of stuff, so we're going to get into that. Before we do that, why don't we have a little one-on-one check-in and decide what's going on with us today?
Rodney Evans:
Okay, let's do it. For those of you who are joining us for the first time, we do a check-in question at the beginning of every episode of this podcast. It is just a moment for us to get present, to get connected, to forget about what we were just doing the moment before this. Our check-in question for today is, what was the highlight of your week? We happen to be recording this on a Friday afternoon, so just having a look back, what's something great that happened this week, Aaron?
Aaron Dignan:
So, I got to facilitate two different workshops in a row this week, which is really, really fun for me, and also really exhausting. So, I'm in this satisfied but tired state.
Rodney Evans:
Nice.
Aaron Dignan:
But two different groups, one in Austin, one in San Francisco, one in government, one in the private sector. Just a nice mix of beautiful people doing important work.
Rodney Evans:
Sweet.
Aaron Dignan:
Yeah. What about you?
Rodney Evans:
For me, I do a seminar at a local university a couple of times a year. This one was focused on self-awareness, and I was talking to graduate students, and we did some pretty deep work around values and unpacking ego, and understanding how the choices that they're making now may or may not impact their 70-year old selves. I had a lot of really nice and pretty profound conversations in the hallways afterwards.
Aaron Dignan:
That's awesome.
Rodney Evans:
It's one of those things that I never want to go do it, and then every time I do it, it's really fun.
Aaron Dignan:
Fun fact about self-awareness. For those of you that don't have it, the Tension and Practice Deck for The Ready has a card in it that says "We aren't self-aware", and it's a trick card because no one can ever choose it, because if they are self-aware, of course they don't need to choose it. If they're not self-aware they don't allow themselves to choose it. It's really fun to watch teams grapple with that. So, I was tickled by the fact that you're digging deeper on self-awareness.
Rodney Evans:
Nice.
Why standard one-on-ones are garbage
Aaron Dignan:
Okay. So, today's topic is the one-on-one meeting, as we said. I want to start by just getting oriented. So, can you tell us why, why is this a hot topic for you right now? Why one-on-ones, why now?
Rodney Evans:
Yeah. I've been thinking about this topic a lot lately, because I've had a bunch of people in different spots ask me how to do them right, and I've been like, should you do them at all? I feel like maybe we have a slightly controversial take on what this meeting is and what it should be used for. So, I just thought it would be fun to riff.
Aaron Dignan:
Nice. So, let's start with what they're all about. What is the traditional, or at least popular one-on-one meeting all about? What do you see out there?
Rodney Evans:
I see a weekly or biweekly meeting that a manager holds with each of their employees, for somewhere between 30 and 60 minutes, that generally includes some combination of context from the manager being pushed, status updates from the employee being shared, and then a general triaging of things needed by each party.
Aaron Dignan:
Decisions that have to be made. Yeah, exactly. It's all the things that are blocking the progress of the individual employee usually, and all the things that are gnawing at the mind of the leader, jammed into a space.
Rodney Evans:
Yeah, exactly. Exactly. It's just a bucket for stuff that happens between two people.
Aaron Dignan:
Yeah. Sloppy bucket.
Rodney Evans:
It is a sloppy bucket. Yeah. I think that's why we're interested in this because we might want to clean it up a little bit. So, what do you think, what's your hot take on one-on-ones, good or bad? Pro or con?
Aaron Dignan:
So, I mean generally the way they're done, I think they're bad news. I think they can be good. I think it would be weird to take a position, although it might be fun for the sake of argument, but I think it'd be weird to take a position that two people should never get together and talk shit. That is not the thing. There's going to be moments where we need to connect and be vulnerable and steer and mentor and all that. But what generally tends to happen is that the one-on-one becomes a symptom. It becomes symptomatic of other problems in the operating system. From a meeting rhythm that's anemic, where we don't have a place to put our stuff, to decision rights issues that are not clear and people are unable to proceed until they get that permission. To information flow that's weak and asymmetrical, so they need the context.
It just feels like when the rest of the OS is somewhat hosed, as we know that it often is in bureaucracy, then the one-on-one is the superhero to the rescue. That's why it's so funny that most managers go into this being like, I don't really necessarily want to or need to do this, but it is my employee's favorite meeting of the week. They just love it and I wouldn't want to take it away from them. I'm like, that's like offering somebody a glass of water in hell. Of course they don't want to lose the glass of water. You're giving them this one place where they can actually get shit done and get your permission and play politics and know what's going on, so it does feel like it's this codependent thing that I want to disrupt. But now that I've shit on it a bit, what would you add to that?
Rodney Evans:
Yeah. I like the way that you talked about that, in the context of the broader OS, because I think that's exactly right. I feel like one-on-ones should be mostly about membership, if we think about the fields of the canvas, but they end up being about all of the other pieces that you mentioned, because those things are not well-designed and enforced where they belong. So, they all get put into this sloppy bucket.
Aaron Dignan:
It could be membership and mastery, but instead it's everything else.
Rodney Evans:
Exactly. Yeah, exactly. I have a bunch of other problems with one-on-ones.
Aaron Dignan:
Break it down.
Rodney Evans:
So, the main thing is that if you believe, as we do, that sunlight is the best disinfectant in a system, one-on-ones to me just create a bunch of these little pockets of secrecy and non-transparency. I think that they just hold a space for conflicting information to happen and gossip to happen, and for influencing. I know when I used to have a one-on-one with my boss when I worked at a bank, it was my one hour of the week to get my point of view across and nudge her in the way that I wanted to, often not very generously that was against other people.
Aaron Dignan:
Back to manipulative insincerity from a couple of weeks ago.
Rodney Evans:
Yeah, exactly. I think that's so much of what happens in one-on-ones is, it is the place for manipulative insincerity that is cloaked as a place for radical candor.
Aaron Dignan:
Right.
Rodney Evans:
But I think it totally tips into that bucket. So, I feel like just by keeping that container alive, we fill it with things that are not super beneficial, really often.
Aaron Dignan:
It does seem to me that without structure, it preys on our worst nature in that way. If we just leave it empty, we're going to fill it with that stuff in order to navigate the system. In some ways, that's actually the beautiful thing about human beings is that, we're so good at navigating complexity that when we're put into an environment that's heavy on bureaucracy and has the wrong operating system, we will find these ways to get our way, to nudge, to make things happen, to go around the system. So, the one-on-one is just one more example of that, where we're like, "Oh, this is a way I can get things done, so I'm going to do this." We sort that out. But there is a reality that at a bare minimum, if they're doing something we could be doing somewhere else that's more transparent and more at scale, then they're wasteful.
So, it's like, even if what's happening in them is super positive, unless that's something that really is exclusive to that one person, and this goes back to that whole idea of, are we talking about the nature of our membership? Are we talking about mastery? Is this a feedback opportunity? Those kinds of things. If it's about anything else, then it's wasteful because we could have done it together, or we could have done it once, or we could have recorded it, or we could have done it as an AMA, or we could have done something else that would've funneled that energy around. So, I do think that that's one part of the move here, is let's put that other stuff where it belongs so that what's left over is the good stuff. So, at some level, I think the thing that's going on here is we just have to start to package that stuff that belongs somewhere else and ship it out, and then focus on what's left over.
Rodney Evans:
Along the lines of waste, that is absolutely something that happens. Because you have a leader, they come back from a big meeting or from a board meeting or from a conference, and in every one-on-one they share the same context.
Aaron Dignan:
I'm going to do this nine times.
Rodney Evans:
It's just a huge waste of time. Just roll tape. But the insidious part of that is that often what happens is they share something slightly different with each person, depending on what they think you need to hear or want to hear. Over time, it actually fuels mistrust, because it's like, somebody hears one piece of information from me and then in someone else's one-on-one they hear that, but with a different spin, and all of a sudden it's like, is Rodney trying to shape us or move us or nudge us or manipulate us in some way? Then they're comparing notes. Even if that's not the intention, the reality is that it's better either to do it one time and do it publicly, and then sense make and synthesize as a group, or not do it at all. Because repeating slightly tweaked versions of the same context or the same conversation, is really a breeding ground for misinterpretation and mistrust.
How to redesign the one-on-one for the future of work
Aaron Dignan:
Plus one. So, let's say that we took all the decision stuff and we cleared that up by having very clear decision rights for our people, and having moments in the operating rhythm where we can do governance together and things like that. Let's say that we took the context out of the meeting and had information sharing in public channels, and had single group settings where the leader or any member of the team could tell everyone else what's going on. We removed the political waste by having these forums for conflict management and for changing the rules and roles of the organization. What's left over, I assume, is what would make a good one. So, can you paint a picture of what you think a good one-on-one looks like or one that you've seen?
Rodney Evans:
Sure. I think a good one-on-one looks like a place for development in whatever form that's going to take. So, that might be a leader or the power holder in the dynamic, saying to someone who works for them, "Hey, I really want to hear from you how something's going, how I'm doing, how I can help you," or whatever. Or vice versa. An employee being able to say, "I really want some insight into how this is going," asking for that information that is better to be shared one-on-one. It probably doesn't feel safe to be doing that kind of one-on-one candid, feedback oriented conversation in a larger group, for the most part.
Aaron Dignan:
Safe or efficient. It's inefficient in the opposite direction if you're doing that in front of everyone else, which happens all the time. Where it's like, Rodney gives me feedback in front of 10 other people and they're like, "We're not here for this."
Rodney Evans:
Right. Exactly.
Aaron Dignan:
Yeah.
Rodney Evans:
Then the other thing, this actually comes from a personal anecdote. So, there was a period of time that I was on a team, and there was a person on that team who really, really disliked me, and had a really difficult time working with me, who was a peer. It was pretty one-sided, and it was like she was just fighting a one person battle against an absent enemy for the most part. Our boss eventually said to me, "75% of my one-on-ones with this person are taken up with her complaining about you."
Aaron Dignan:
Interesting.
Rodney Evans:
And he eventually said to her, "Rodney has literally never mentioned you in a one-on-one. So, you might want to think about that as a dynamic."
Aaron Dignan:
The story you're telling yourself.
Rodney Evans:
I bring that up as an example because I think that, there has to be a place for that, there has to be a place if you are really struggling with someone on your team or with a peer or whatever, I think it's fair-
Aaron Dignan:
A place to play.
Rodney Evans:
... to have a place to say to your boss, "This is really difficult for me. It's really bugging me." I also think in a good one-on-one situation, your boss pretty quickly would be like, "Okay. Let's move you to action. What are you going to do about this? What are you asking me to do about this?" What I hear a lot, a of the complaints that I hear about one-on-ones from leaders are basically people showing up every week with the same axe to grind. Not actually wanting the leader to do anything about it, not coming with a request for the leader, and also not coming with any solution or progress week-on-week, but every week just coming back and being like, "Here's another thing Rodney did that pisses me off." Then having the leader be like, "Have you done anything or talked to her about it," and having them be like, "No." Then the leader being like, "Would you like me to?" Them being like, "No." Then doing it again next Tuesday. That is a very ineffective pattern to be broken.
Aaron Dignan:
So, hearing you talk about this, my twisted frameworky mind has concocted a three C's framework.
Rodney Evans:
Oh, God. Let's hear it. Let's hear the alliterative Friday afternoon framework.
Aaron Dignan:
That's right. It's Friday afternoon. I'm just going to let it off the leash. So, it's coaching, it's counsel.
Rodney Evans:
Yeah.
Aaron Dignan:
So, the coaching is the feedback two-way, that whole relationship about mastery. The counsel is exactly what you said. Sometimes we're in these conflicts, we need someone to break us loose, send us back to the source, whatever the case may be. The third one we haven't talked about, but I actually think is one of the most important is connection. So, even if there's nothing to talk about developmentally, even if there's nothing going on in the system, even if the rest of the operating system is humming perfectly, we are human beings and we should have time to connect. We should have time to be with each other and just check in and show that we care personally, as human beings, about each other.
So, I think the one-on-one when done correctly can be as simple as that. "Hey, I'm going to get some coffee. Do you want to come get coffee with me?" We can just be people and we can catch up on what's going on. That will inform our vulnerability and our intimacy, and our empathy with each other for the rest of the week, when we're in actual serious meetings. So, coaching, counsel, connection. Three Cs, Friday afternoon framework.
Rodney Evans:
You should trademark that.
Aaron Dignan:
TM.
Rodney Evans:
I think that's exactly right. I feel, people in meetings, whether they're group meetings or one-on-one meetings, hesitant to just call out the social aspect of those things.
Aaron Dignan:
Right. Don't want to waste my boss's time.
Rodney Evans:
Yeah. I say to people all the time, when we try to get people into a facilitated meeting structure and they're like, "This feels formal. It doesn't feel like we have time to connect." I'm like, "Do that later and do it on purpose. Don't do it during the meeting that's about doing a retrospective, or that's about doing governance. Schedule time to actually do that, because it's valid and it's important. But call it what it is." You and I had a meeting like that years ago when we just didn't really have any shared work. I remember there being a time where it was like, we just aren't crossing paths. Let's just put half an hour on the calendar every six weeks just to say, what up? The agenda was like, how have you been?
Aaron Dignan:
What up? Yeah.
Rodney Evans:
Yeah. There's nothing wrong with that. That's a really valuable use of time, and it doesn't have to come disguised as work theater, business role play. We could just say, it's an important part of our relationship, so we're going to do that.
Why one-on-ones aren’t just for bosses
Aaron Dignan:
Yes, and it dovetails really nicely with the next place I wanted to go with this topic, which is one-on-ones are not just for bosses anymore.
Rodney Evans:
Sure.
Aaron Dignan:
This is definitely not something that has to be something that happens across layers, or it can be across span. It can be people from your same group. It can be people you work with a lot, people you work with a little. The one-on-one is literally just the meeting of the minds and so I think we should way open up the aperture of when and who gets to play in that way. Because you and I have great one-on-ones and we don't work for each other.
Rodney Evans:
Right. I think it's a really nice way to see someone in a working context, and then connect personally. What I mean by that is, I've had one-on-ones with people in the last bunch of years where I'll get a ping and it'll be like, "Hey, I just realized that you and I haven't caught up in a while." Or, "I heard about this thing that happened to you, and I want to make sure that you're okay," or whatever. It's like, it's a very nice way in a busy world and a complex system and a large number of humans to hold in our heads, it's a really nice way to make someone feel seen and valued and special, because you go like, "Hey, I heard your aunt died. So, I put time on your calendar because I just want to hear how you're doing."
Aaron Dignan:
Yeah. My ant farm is very important to me. So, the thing about this one that I love is it also connects to the whole Dunbar's number thing, and the idea of we can't have an infinite number of connected relationships in our lives. So, when we choose to make this investment, it is a gift and it is a choice. I think that's something that's special and worthy of respect and some honor.
How to use one-on-ones during change work
Aaron Dignan:
Zooming way out from that, way out from the one-on-one connections to the whole system. When we're thinking about transformation, is there a role to play for one-on-ones in that, and how do you see them either helping or hindering a transformation when you're inside advising and coaching?
Rodney Evans:
I see a couple of things happen. So, just like in our episode about the first 90 days of moving to self-management with Doug Seacrist from a couple of weeks ago. You see people start to freak out in the face of big changes, and in the face of a lot of uncertainty, and frankly a lot more empowerment and agency and authority people have a lot of feels that they have to deal with. What most people do with those feels is set up one-on-one meetings to process them, with people that they trust. That can be okay in a very limited way.
But I want to put a lot of caution tape around that statement, because what can also happen is that people stay in that hamster wheel of freak out and they don't do their own work to say, "I'm freaking out and what I need to do is design an experiment, or create a proposal, or get clarity on my role, or look at why this structure isn't working for me." Instead, by continuing to feed the drama in a one-on-one context, people don't ever do the system work that's necessary, because they stay in their personally held tension in the face of change. That's a missed opportunity.
Aaron Dignan:
It feels to me like the difference between processing and self-medicating. So, the processing would be like, I'm having one-on-ones, but each conversation is moving my thinking forward. I'm asking different questions or I'm bitching about different things. It's moving. Versus, this just feels good to just be salving with this conversation type that we're having and so let's just do it over and over again. Have the same conversations over and over again. It's like eating a bag of Snickers or watching Netflix on stream, just like, I'm just avoiding. I'm using this as a way to avoid and sooth. Yeah.
Rodney Evans:
Yeah.
Aaron Dignan:
Exactly.
Rodney Evans:
I think there's a place for the one-on-one, or often in our case two-on-one because we often work in duos, with a leader in transformation. Because where a leader is having agita and feels and uncertainty and questions, I would rather that they're processing that with me than that they're out in front of their team being like, "I don't know if it's working."
Aaron Dignan:
A little bit of that's okay, but not a lot.
Rodney Evans:
A little bit of that is okay.
Aaron Dignan:
Reassurance. Yeah. The reassurance.
Rodney Evans:
We've talked about this in the past, in terms of a leader's role in transformation, and how big of an ask it is to have someone being steadfast in a thing that they themselves are learning, and how much cognitive load and emotional load that takes. To me, having a standing one-on-one with your transformation person so that you continue to refine your thinking and stay a day ahead on the syllabus, makes a lot of sense. But I rarely see those scheduled interactions fall into the patterns that I'm talking about. Because those are usually the interactions where the leader, my current one, he'll show up and say, "This is what's on my mind right now. How can I be thinking differently about that?" I think that's a great use of that interaction in transformation that does not create dysfunction or disruption.
Aaron Dignan:
That makes total sense. It's funny because one of your principles for change that I like best around, start by stopping, really is an interesting and provocative one when it comes to one-on-ones, because I do really like the idea of one of the first experiments out of the gate is the leaders shutting down the old one-on-one rhythm. Not because they don't want to bring it back ever, but because it'll push all that needed authority and decisioning and agita back out into the wild, where people then are going to have to be like, "Can I just make this decision? How do I get this done? Or I guess I'm going to have to go talk to this person." It's a really cool way to screw down the lid on the boiler, and just let things heat up a little bit and see what starts to emerge. So, I was wondering if you would have seen that before and if you were into that, because I am.
Rodney Evans:
Yeah. I totally am into that. Well, and it's like anything else, if we have the time, if you have the time with the leader, you're going to find something to talk about. And if you just don't, if that time is just deleted from the calendar, then you have to be more thoughtful about what a valuable use of time would be if you're going to put it back on. So, I think it's a really good exercise to go through, just to see how much of the stuff I'm bringing to this conversation is just bullshit to fill the time. How much of it is, "I cannot go on if I don't have this one-on-one conversation with my boss."
Aaron Dignan:
Right, right. So, who should we talk to?
Rodney Evans:
Who should we talk to, Aaron? I feel like you have an idea about this. What you thinking?
Aaron Dignan:
I do. The light bulb went off. So, I think there are many different angles we could take with this, but I think the angle that's most helpful to the listener is the coaching angle. Because we all know how to connect as human beings. We're probably reasonably good at giving someone else interpersonal counsel, but how to coach well and how to pick up on some of the conversations we've had about feedback, and about mastery, now connecting the dots with what does coaching really look like? What kinds of better questions can we be asking?
So, I was thinking Michael Bungay Stanier who wrote the book, The Coaching Habit, among others, has a really interesting mind on this. He has obviously coached an enormous number of people and he's written a great book about how to do it well. So, when we get back after the break, we will be joined by Michael. Ready, set, go.
[Theme music]
Michael Bungay Stanier joins the show
Aaron Dignan:
Hi, everybody. We're back with Michael Bungay Stanier, author of The Coaching Habit, and, The Advice Trap. Michael, welcome to the show.
Michael Bungay Stanier:
So good to be here. I feel only slightly daunted following on that introductory conversation about what you guys are talking about. I'm like, okay. I think I'm going to drag the quality of this show right down, but that's just my style.
Aaron Dignan:
You know what? We'll do the best we can and see what happens.
Michael Bungay Stanier:
Audience, come and sink with me as I lower the standard of the quality of podcast you are used to.
Rodney Evans:
I'm sure that will not be true.
Aaron Dignan:
They're really getting a flavor for you.
Rodney Evans:
I'm sure that will not be true. But it's always nice to start with lowered expectations, right?
Michael Bungay Stanier:
Totally.
Aaron Dignan:
It is. Yeah. That's the secret to happiness actually, I've heard.
Michael Bungay Stanier:
That's right.
Aaron Dignan:
For those that have not read your book or heard of you, which has got to be not many because your book is in literally every airport bookstore I've ever been to.
Rodney Evans:
True.
Aaron Dignan:
Just tell the folks at home a little bit about Box of Crayons, the coaching habit, your world in a nutshell.
Michael Bungay Stanier:
So, I founded a company called Box of Crayons nigh on 20 years ago. After a certain amount of flapping around, trying to do anything or everything for anybody who would give me some money, because I was a solopreneur, it emerged into actually turning into a real company and over the years, its found increasing focus, and now we talk about Box of Crayons as helping organizations shift their culture from being advice driven to curiosity led. The work we do in lots of organizations, and typically bigger organizations, is to work with managers and leaders to give them coaching skills, and to really unweird the whole feeling about coaching.
Because as important as coaching is, and you've talked about it, for most people, coaching is a slightly peculiar, slightly weird, slightly black box experience. They're like, "I don't even know what's going on here." We're like, "Okay. Coaching is an essential leadership behavior, it's an essential leadership skill. Let me help you and actually make this feel like it's a normal, useful, practical way of showing up, that doesn't just help the people you're coaching. Doesn't just help the people that are in your organization, but it helps you live a better life and a more human life and a more effective life as well."
Rodney Evans:
Absolutely.
Michael Bungay Stanier:
Driving the success of that are a couple of books, The Coaching Habit, which I put out about four years ago, which has, to my delight and surprise, sold lots of copies, about three quarters of a million copies now, which is awesome.
Aaron Dignan:
Insane.
Rodney Evans:
Damn.
Michael Bungay Stanier:
It is insane. Made all this sweeter by the fact that I spent three years trying to get it published, and in the end I self-published it, having been rejected. So, I'm like, yes. You can imagine how smug I feel about that.
Rodney Evans:
Yeah.
Aaron Dignan:
Yeah. You'll love to tell us your secret later.
Michael Bungay Stanier:
If only I knew, because I would love to be able to repeat that. Then there's the new book called, The Advice Trap, which is I follow on from that and to deeper dive into behavior change.
What are the boundaries of coaching?
Rodney Evans:
Awesome. What might be fun, because we landed, in the beginning of this episode on a need for coaching in all organizations, I'm sure the three of us are very aligned on that. Is for the uninitiated, Michael, maybe you could just talk a little bit about, when you say coaching, what you mean and what it is and is not.
Michael Bungay Stanier:
Oh, so that's a brilliant place to start, because this is part of the baggage of coaching is everybody kind of knows what we're talking about, but doesn't really know, because it just gets used in so many ways, in so many places, in so many contexts. It's like strategy. It's one of those words that you can just throw in and it's just, okay. I don't know. I'm not sure what that means, but let's go with that. So, here's how I talk about coaching, and here's what I mean. I make it a very clear, keen behavior. It's this. Can you stay curious a little bit longer? Can you rush to action and advice giving a little bit more slowly? Because here's the truth of the matter.
Most people are advice giving maniacs. I mean, honestly, they love it. You know this. Everybody who's listening, you know it. Somebody starts talking and you don't really know what's going on because you don't really have the context and you don't fully understand the people or know the people, and you definitely don't know the technical specifications. After about 10 seconds you're like, "I think I've got some ideas." It's ridiculous. Soon as you hear that, you realize how ridiculous that is. But we are so wired and trained to go, "The way I add value is I leap in and I give advice." So, what I'm saying with coaching, and really I say don't even be a coach, but be more coach-like, it's about slowing down, staying curious a little bit longer, rushing to action and advice giving a little bit more slowly.
Aaron Dignan:
Nice.
Rodney Evans:
That's really cool. I think that's a really good shorthand. Also to me, feels like a very safe definition for all the people out there that are coaching. "I don't want therapy," which as a coach, I hear that a lot from people. I'm like, "Slow your roll, I'm not here to be your therapist, I'm not a medical professional. I'm going to just ask you some questions and we're going to find some insight today." But I do think it's a very misunderstood practice. So, I really love that definition, and that feels like it could apply in almost any circumstance, which is also really super cool.
Michael Bungay Stanier:
Well, I mean you are both nuanced experts in understanding change, and you know as soon as you come in with some sort of external offer, homeostasis means that the system pushes back. That's what happens when you approach somebody and go, "Hey, Aaron. I've got good news. I'm going to do some coaching with you."
Aaron Dignan:
I'm going to fix your haircut.
Michael Bungay Stanier:
Your lizard brain goes, "Okay, I don't know who you are. I don't know what coaching is. I don't know what's wrong with me. I don't know what the hell you think you're doing here, but I'm not at all interested in this offer that you've just made me." Whereas if you don't even tell them that this is coaching you just go, "Look, let me just ask you a question because I'm interested." They're like, "Oh, okay. We're in a conversation. We're in a relationship together." Part of what you are about is this humanizing of work and coaching is one of the great methods for humanizing our work relationships and the way we show up.
What makes a one-on-one work, according to Michael
Aaron Dignan:
So, steering that back for a second to this episode's topic, which was one-on-ones, and we found ourselves in the pocket of really believing that one-on-ones are about having these great coaching conversations. I am curious to just get your take on, are one-on-ones generally good? Are they generally bad? How do you see those intersecting with your work and helping people coach? Just what's your impression of that meeting and that phenomenon?
Michael Bungay Stanier:
Well, as far as I can tell, most one-on-ones are terrible. I mean, they're terrible on both sides of the equation, because they're this ritual where each person is saying to themselves, "I hope this is good for the other person, because this is an utter waste of my time right now." But tradition dictates that we should have these one-on-ones. So, often it has that kind of experience where if you're the more senior person in the conversation, you're like, "All right. I'm doing this nominally to support you. But really to hear a checkup and make sure that you are behaving."
Aaron Dignan:
Yes.
Michael Bungay Stanier:
Then if you're on the other side you're like, okay. I'm just proving my value. So, let me tell you all the stuff that's going on.
Aaron Dignan:
Let me perform.
Michael Bungay Stanier:
So, let me perform. So, it's like a panopticon, that kind of thing where you're like, okay. This allows us to keep everything in view and make sure that I've got my arse covered and you've got your arse covered and that we're safe here. It becomes a tedious collaboration in self-protection. Now, not all one-on-ones are like that, but I've talked to lots of people and I go, "Are all your one-on-ones anything like this?" There's that nervous laugh in the audience just like, oh, that's scary that you know that about us. I'm like, "It's not about you. It's about one-on-ones. There's something systemically flawed with the way that they're set up." One-on-ones can be really powerful. There is a place for that experience to say, this is my chance to be supported by somebody. But for me, when I talk to people about, "Here's one way of rethinking your one-on-ones." I mean there's a deeper way to say, "Do you even need to do this?"
Because I loved in your conversation leading into this, which is like, is there something systemically flawed with the whole idea of one-to-ones, in a way that creates distrust, creates niches, creates blind spots, and actually is a way of diminishing autonomy and a shared commitment to an outcome? But if you're going to have one-on-ones, one of the things I say is, don't come in with an agenda. Just go, "Look. I'm here to help. I know you've got a lot on your plate, so how can I help? What's on your mind?" It makes it a conversation about, I'm here to help you, rather than, I'm here to check up and approve of what you're doing.
Aaron Dignan:
In your past, have you had one-on-ones with your team members in an ad hoc basis, on a regular basis? What has worked for you? I'm just curious.
Michael Bungay Stanier:
Well, we've experimented with a bunch of things. The way we do it at the... So, I have a very small team of one person at the moment. So, inherently, I have an all hands meeting and it's a one-on-one, so it's a bit complicated. Ainsley and I, who are the team of my new little spinoff after Box of Crayons, we're experimenting with the Rockefeller Habits pattern of meetings. So, part of that is a morning check-in. It's like, "Hey, how you doing? What's useful for us to talk about? How can we help? What are you up to? I want to know what you're doing. You want to know what I'm doing, not that we're checking up on each other, but we are just understanding that we work remotely, we're a distributed company, we want to see each other, we want to connect on a human level. I want to hear how Quinn's doing, I want to know how we're handling the... Quinn's six. So, she's staying home because we've just declared an extra long March break. So, Ainsley's like, "How do I do childcare?" Because she's a parent.
So, we use it as a human connection moment. Shannon, who's now running Box of Crayons, the CEO of Box of Crayons, she does do one-on-ones with her leadership team. But more important I feel are the team meetings, where there's a chance to get together and cohesively work on stuff. This is probably getting way into the weeds about Box of Crayons, but we were a distributed company for many years, and our business model and our distribution meant actually that we turned into a very siloed company, and there was a way that the baton got passed from one thing to the next thing. Then the next thing to the other thing, so it kind of went through a very linear experience of something being processed, or something being solved. As we've grown, we've realized that that is insufficient to support the people we're trying to support, and collective responses and collective accountability is what's required at Box of Crayons.
Aaron Dignan:
Interesting.
Michael Bungay Stanier:
So, Shannon's seeing this culture change, which is a much more profound sense of client-centric, meaning we as an organization, support our clients, not there's a way clients are supported by different parts of the company at different times.
Rodney Evans:
That cohesion is going to be a lesson a lot of folks have to learn, as in this moment we all had to work remotely. I was having a conversation with clients earlier today, who have not historically supported working from home. Both from a philosophical perspective, but certainly not from a logistical perspective. I was like, "Well, lucky for you guys. We're going to just skip freshman and sophomore year right now, and we're going to go right to junior year. We're going to go right to the 301 level of what distributed workforce looks like." So, let's see how that goes next week. It's going to be super interesting. "This is the video camera on your computer, let's start with that."
Michael Bungay Stanier:
Exactly.
Aaron Dignan:
Let's take the tape off that and get to work.
How to stay curious and resist the urge to give advice
Rodney Evans:
Exactly. Yeah, it's really fascinating. So, when you think about those one-on-one interactions, whether in your own company or how you coach your clients, I really liked where you started with curiosity led conversation. The question that has been nagging at me since you said that is, how do you actually stay curious? Because I think as a species we suffer from lack of curiosity in a lot of moments, particularly interpersonally. So, I'm just wondering, because I agree with you that your reptile reaction is like, let me tell you all the ideas that I just had because I'm so smart and I listened so well. I'm not even going to let you finish what you're saying. I'm going to just tell you all of the things. So, for real, how do you lead with curiosity when everything in you wants to just give advice?
Michael Bungay Stanier:
That's a hugely awesome question. Settle back everybody, because in 90 minutes I'll have explained this.
Aaron Dignan:
Exactly. Here we go. Longest podcast ever.
Michael Bungay Stanier:
Possibly longer. I'm just going to read my entire book to you.
Aaron Dignan:
Page one.
Michael Bungay Stanier:
Yeah. Page one, in which the reader is surprised at how difficult it is to stay curious. So, all right. So, there's two answers to this, and it actually starts by stepping back and going, let's talk about the nature of change. This work, this thinking, comes to me from people like Ron Heifetz, and Bob Keegan, and Lisa Lahey and Immunity to Change. I've taken some of their ideas and tried to make it a little bit more accessible, and talked about the difference between easy change and hard change. What Heifetz and the other two would call technical change and adaptive change. But let's talk about easy change. Easy change is what we do all the time, we're all pretty good at it. It's when we come across something that we don't know how to do and we figure it out, we read a book and we listen to a podcast, and we watch a YouTube video, and we start practicing it.
We're a bit mediocre at the start, but we move from consciously incompetent to consciously competent. Then we get the hang of it and we master it. So, you get a new phone, you get a new workplace and you figure it out. For some people being curious is actually easy change. They're like, "Oh, you know what? I just needed a few good questions and a little insight as to how to ask a question well. Once I got that, I get it. Actually, I'm there and I'm just practicing it." You build habits and repetition means that you get better and better at it. That's how it is for some people. But that's not how it is for lots of people. Because for lots of people, staying curious is hard change, or what Heifetz would call adaptive change. Adaptive change is when you realize that it's not simply enough to graft on a new piece of knowledge.
You actually need to rewire how you show up in the world. It's the difference between downloading an app and getting a new operating system. For some of us, many of us, I think actually being curious is a bit more of this hard change. I need a bit of rewiring. This takes a little more self work, because here's the fundamental thing that you're playing off. You're saying, I want to say no to some of the short term benefits I get from not being curious, because there are plenty of those. And trade that off for some of the longer term benefits for being curious.
Aaron Dignan:
We're so good at that as people, trading the short term for the long.
Michael Bungay Stanier:
Exactly. I know. It's hard. This is hard change, but most of the time we're not even conscious of the trade-offs that we're making. So, one of the simplest acts to do is to take a breath and go, "As I see myself, as I see my advice monster take over the conversation, what are the benefits that I get from being in control of the conversation like that?" In the book I say, look, there are three different types of advice monsters. There's tell it, there's save it and there's control it. Tell it, it's all about the, I've got to have the answer, I've got to have all the answers. That's the way I add value. That's the only way I add value is to have all the answers. There are benefits to that approach. You feel smart, you feel like you're adding value. You feel like if you're, if you're old like me, you're like, see. I've still got it. I'm not redundant yet. But the price you and others in the system pay is that you become the bottleneck. You become a block to others' growth, you stifle innovation.
Save it, is the second persona of the advice monster. Inside it's like, your job is to rescue everybody. Don't let anybody stumble or struggle or fail or find it difficult. If they're sweating at all, you are failing. There are some great advantages to being save it, because you feel like you are the rescuer, you feel like you're a bit of a burning martyr because of your self-sacrifice, and trying to save the world. You keep everybody safe. You're seen as a kind of mother hen or a fraternal or paternal figure. You've got all of that going on. But you can see the price you pay for that, which is, first of all, you can't rescue everybody. Secondly, people only learn by stumbling and making mistakes, that's what growth looks like. Thirdly, it is exhausting to do that. It's stifling. People get stifled by your, oh, I'm just trying to help them.
Then control it is the third of the advice monsters, and it's driving most business owners. It's like, don't ever give up control, because if you give up control, you're going to lose. You're going to fail. I mean, who knows what chaos will result? There are some great advantages to control it, which is you keep control. You keep everybody safe, you keep out random and chaos, you've got your hands on the reins, so you've got nobody threatening you. You've got status. But of course the price you pay is the weight of that responsibility, and the fact that you don't allow others to step in and step up. The fact that you don't allow the serendipity of the future to come in and influence what's happening. The starting point for this shift of behavior to stay curious is to get a little clearer about the prizes and the punishments of your current behavior. That's a very long answer, but shorter than the initial 90 minutes that I was promising.
Rodney Evans:
That was chapter one.
Aaron Dignan:
I feel like I have a small trophy with my name on it for each of those monsters in my management closet, that I could pull out and dust off and show you.
Rodney Evans:
You should name them, we'll name them.
Aaron Dignan:
Yeah. I've definitely worn all those hats. So, that, I think that really resonates with folks.
Rodney Evans:
It does really resonate. I had this insight this morning and then I posted a slightly sassy Tweet about it, but with the third type of monster, the need to control, what has occurred to me in this moment of chaos is also, if you're going to try to exert control over other people, you're going to limit the agency and authority that they have, you better be right. You better be right for every single one of them. Good luck with that homie.
Aaron Dignan:
Because statistically, it's super unlikely.
Rodney Evans:
That's going to be real hard right now. So, I like this idea, even applying this just because of the kind of week we're having right now, and how rapidly the COVID situation is evolving, I like applying this thinking to say, in complexity with our family members, with our employees, with whomever, how can we be curious rather than rushing to conclusions, or advice, or answers, when actually in this much uncertainty we don't have any? We're much more likely to make better long-term choices if we don't immediately rush to tell people what is right for them and what to do.
Michael Bungay Stanier:
I think one of the keywords you put out there is the word complexity. Because part of what the behavior, that precedents on, I've got the answers and my job is to have the answers and to save the people and to save the day, is that this isn't a complex situation. It may be a little complicated, but it's not complex. As soon as you understand the implications of going, "No. It's complex. What that means is it is messy and confusing and unpredictable", and the chances of you having the answers and the chances of you saving all the people, and the chances of you maintaining control, is delusional. I mean, it's ridiculous to think that you can pull that off, and if you think you can, you just don't understand the situation.
Coaching leaders vs. coaching other people
Aaron Dignan:
Speaking of delusional, I am super curious about this experience that you've had that a lot of people don't get to have, which is you've coached a lot of top leaders, and in fact at a recent event you and I were both at, you coached a top leader on stage in front of 1,000 people. What do you find is different or interesting or stands out to you about doing coaching with people that are normally the coaches, and normally the knowers and the tellers, and the controllers and all those monsters that you just described?
Michael Bungay Stanier:
I think, and I can speak on both sides of that equation, because I do coach people. I'm also just a terrible person to try and coach, because I know all the tricks and I see them coming, and I can do fake vulnerability so I can sound like I'm being coached, but in fact I'm being quite slippery about it. What I find is that when you are working with senior people, they have a well honed defensive shield, because they're like, "I actually have a responsibility in this role to not be vulnerable. People look to me for confidence and certainty and vision and drive," and all of that. That's a very strong narrative still in the work that we do. It's like, don't be messy. People have succeeded often by going, "Look. Actually, I just eat my feelings, swallow my pain." One of the things that can be really powerful is to do two things. One is show up in a way that feels undaunted by their status. Even if you are daunted.
I mean, to your point, Aaron, I was coaching this person on stage, and two of them, they're super senior in a really big company. They're far more experienced at everything than I am. They're paid a hundred X what I've ever been paid in my entire life. In terms of status, they tick all the boxes and I tick none of the boxes, other than the fact that I'm actually sitting with them on stage. I'm mostly trying to control my imposter syndrome and going, "You know what? My job is to meet them as an equal. My job is to not fall for the opening salvos of authority and status and certainty." But to say, "I am seeing the human being beyond the EVP title," or whatever it is, CVP title or super RFNPVP title, whatever. Whatever the letters they've got behind them. I'm like, "You know what?"
Aaron Dignan:
All of them.
Michael Bungay Stanier:
I remember coaching another person, it was a similar event, same company. She started off by going, "Well, here are my challenges around this visionary statement for this part of my company." I was like, "Yeah. But what's the real challenge in that for you?" She's like, "Well," and she restated it. "It's about vision, transformation and moving to the..." I'm like, "Yeah. But what's the challenge in this for you?" She's like, "My job's really hard. I'm overwhelmed, I'm exhausted. I don't feel I have control." There was this gasp from the audience, because these were all her...
This is 2,000 people who effectively all reported to her. To see her open up and go, "Actually, this is the hard thing. This is the hard thing for me," was this honestly, it was amazing piece of leadership from her, even though I don't think she quite read the small print and knew what she was getting into. But it was an amazing, amazing moment of vulnerability, because if you are four levels or five levels or six levels down from that person, you're like, "You're just a demigod and I assumed you've got it all together, and actually no."
Michael Bungay Stanier’s three principles of better coaching
Rodney Evans:
Right. So, for people who are going to try to create more of a coaching habit with those around them, what are some of your tips for cutting through a bit of that avoidance, slipperiness, et cetera? The question you just gave us, what's hard about this for you? I think, to me, that's a great way to find an opening. I feel like in a lot of conversations that a lot of us have all day, it's like, no, I really want to know what's really going on here. I'm not interested in your jargon filled, content oriented bullshit. So, what else would you tell people to try to get through some of the shenanigans?
Michael Bungay Stanier:
Well, let me give you three principles to start things off, because principles are often more useful than tactics, more fundamental. As people who deal with complexity, you understand that. The three principles I talk about to help anybody be more coach-like, be lazy, be curious, be often. So, I'll break those down.
Aaron Dignan:
I like the first one.
Michael Bungay Stanier:
So, be lazy is like, stop working so hard to try and solve everybody else's problems for them, because it's exhausting for you, you're actually not that good at it, and it's disempowering for other people. So, allow you to step into the fact that the most powerful thing you can be doing is helping them figure out what's going on, not providing them a fast, wrong answer. So, being lazy is a starting point.
Being curious is truly to say, look. As I said before, you're an advice giving maniac, start noticing your advice monster. Start noticing how fast that advice wants to looms up and go, "Oh, I really want to jump in here," and start building a coaching habit. To start with a question, and I'll give you one or two questions in just a minute. The third principle is around being often, is to say, here's the thing. One of the pieces of baggage that comes with coaching is, it needs to be a formal sit down situation. We're doing our coaching session now.
Being often says, actually any interaction can be a bit more coach-like, because being more coach-like is simply staying curious a little bit longer. So, you can do that in a podcast interview, in a one-to-one meeting, in a team meeting, by text, by email, on a phone call, on the bus way home. Every conversation can be infused with a little more curiosity, and that's you being more coach-like. So, if you go over with those principals, be lazy, be curious, be often. Then what I would say is, so pick a question. Doesn't really even matter which one, just pick a question and start trying to... It's like picking up a 10 pound dumbbell in the gym. It's like start with a small weight and start working out. The question I go to is, if you're going to pick one question, this might be it. Actually, I'm going to give you three questions, to the people listening, it's like, pick one of these questions, I don't care which one. There's one that you can use all the time, and it's this. It's, "And what else?" Because-
Rodney Evans:
I love that one.
Michael Bungay Stanier:
... their first answer... Yeah, exactly. Their first answer is almost never their only answer, and it's rarely their best answer. So, not only will you get more from any conversation you are in, but and what else, tames your own desire to leap in and stop asking questions. So, that might be one to take off. Part of the amazing power of, and what else is, nobody even notices you're asking it. Somehow you're just keeping the flywheel of the conversation going. But if you don't like, and what else? You're like, "Ah, it's too weird. I didn't want that one. Give me another one, Michael." I'm like, perfect, I've got one for you.
It's an opening question, the kickstart question. The kickstart question is, "Hey, so what's on your mind? What's on your mind?" What that does, and we talked about that before is, rather than setting the agenda, you say to the other person, "Hey. Your conversation, you get to pick what we talk about, because this is what empowerment looks like. I'm giving you that choice. But don't tell me anything and don't tell me everything. Tell me what you're excited about or you are worried about or you're anxious about, or what you are fearful about. Let's go somewhere important."
If people are listening and going like, "Well, that's all right, I guess. But I want another one. Give me another one, Michael." I'm like, okay, I've got another one for you. It's a question you can ask at the end of any conversation. So, listen, I'm giving you the bookend questions. What's on your mind is one bookend question. The learning questions, the way you can finish almost any conversation, not just with your direct reports, but with your boss, with your colleagues, with the person who's interviewing you, with a vendor, with a customer, with a client. The learning question is, "So, what was most useful or most valuable here for you?"
Aaron Dignan:
I love that one.
Michael Bungay Stanier:
Because it says and recognizes that most people will not pick up what was actually helpful in that conversation, unless they figure it out for themselves. Even if you're on one side of the conversation going, "Oh, that was amazing. I mean seriously, what I have just offered them up there is just genius." They're like, "Yeah. I didn't get any of that." So, when you go, "What was useful here for you? Most valuable?" A, you are forcing them to figure it out, make new neural connections and get smarter. B, you're getting feedback around what you do that's actually helpful and useful and valuable.
Aaron Dignan:
That's what I was going to say. It's often unexpected for me, what they say when I ask that question. It's like, "Oh, really? That?" I thought that wasn't even my best move.
Michael Bungay Stanier:
I know. You say, another cool added bonus. If you're asking somebody who's on your team what was most useful or most valuable, you actually position every single interaction with you as a useful, valuable interaction. So, come the end of year appraisal, and the question is, how useful and valuable is your team leader? They're like, "I don't know how they do it, but they're amazing."
Aaron Dignan:
Incredibly.
Michael Bungay Stanier:
In one single conversation. Genius.
Aaron Dignan:
Oh, my gosh, Michael. That is classic. At this point in the pod, I could ask, and what else?
Michael Bungay Stanier:
Yes.
Aaron Dignan:
But I'm not going to because we've run out of time. So, instead I'm going to take this opportunity to wrap things up and say, Michael, thanks so much for joining us today and for your-
Michael Bungay Stanier:
My Pleasure.
Aaron Dignan:
... generosity of spirit.
Michael Bungay Stanier:
It was a fun conversation. Thank you.
Aaron Dignan:
Yeah. It was. Rodney, I have to tell you, this was so much more than a tedious collaboration for me.
Rodney Evans:
I'm so glad to hear that. I feel very relieved.
Aaron Dignan:
As soon as he said that I knew that was a phrase I was going to get a T-shirt for and stop calling them one-on-ones. All right, cool. Then a quick tip of the hat to Taylor Marvin for making us all sound good and cutting this all together. Brave New Work is produced by The Ready, where we help organizations around the world change the way they work.
You can get in touch with us by emailing podcast [at] theready [dot] com. If you want to get in touch with Michael, check the show notes. We always drop some good nuggets in there. If you like what you're hearing, throw us a review. Or even better, send the show to a friend, trying to grow and spread this message as far as we can. Finally, as for you, thanks for listening. Now, go change something.