A time for pushing?

What are some other ways to consider doing the opposite of pushing people?
We're pulling for people whenever we:

• create space for them, give them room to maneuver
• leave things unsaid, let them come to their own conclusions
• take an indirect approach, let the cycles involved work through the resolution
• give them the pieces, leave the final say up to them

Is pushing people always a bad thing?
Not at all. There would be no pulling without pushing. It takes both. What's usually missing is the pulling. We seem to be addicted to pushing with all our forcing of content, compliance and consensus in relating, learning and working together.

How can pushing be a good thing to do?
We need to be pushed when we lack structure and cannot organize our own efforts. We need a push when we are wallowing in self pity, past history or perpetual misery. We need a push in a new direction when we're caught up in bad habits, pointless pursuits or poisonous relationships.

How can we know when to push and when to pull when we're looking to do a better job of relating, selling, instructing or managing people?
By living that exact question. By not know whether a situation calls for pushing or pulling. By having both options in mind as potential good things to do. By having no attachment to either one. By leaving it open and creating the space for the most appropriate approach to come to mind.

Skip over the skill gap

I'm working with several managers who have poor communication skills, over-controlling behaviors and ineffective use of the tools at their disposal. Training them in their deficient areas didn't work. What should I do?
Forget about fixing them. They're problem may be feeling pushed from your trying to eliminate their skill gaps. They may have even developed self-concepts as "managers who need to be pushed" and will rely on your constant pressure to change their conduct. You're feeding the problem by trying to solve it.

Are you advising outright neglect of their skill gaps as way to pull for these ineffective managers?
No, I left the other part unsaid to pull you deeper into this discussion. I recommend selling the people who will benefit from improved management. Help these managers' direct reports see how their work lives will be easier, more productive and more satisfying when their managers communicate better, use less-controlling approaches and make more use of the tools. Skip over the skill gap and show the people affected by the mismanagement what to expect differently.

How will that pull for the ineffective managers?
When the managers get the impression that their direct reports: want to be managed better, expect the benefits from it and foresee the improved work experiences, a demand for change is created. The managers face a new opportunity to make a difference and an opening in a wall of obstacles. They feel pulled into the new possibility instead of getting pushed into fixing their same-old skill gaps.

Why won't they feel you went behind their back, undermined their authority and set them up to look inadequate by selling their subordinates on the benefits of changes?
You're describing managers with high control needs and a very low tolerance of ambiguity. You're right that "control freaks" will take it wrong if you create space for them to fill. Their skill gaps are deeply unconscious and inaccessible to the effects of pulling for them. Anything they do not oversee appears out of control, dangerous and antagonistic to them. They need therapy, not training or a contextual change from pushing them to pulling for them.

Complicating their decision

I've always thought it's helpful, when I'm selling someone, to simplify their decision with clear alternatives. Why do you recommend complicating their decision?
Simplifying a decision comes across as an ultimatum: "make the right decision or else", "my way or the highway", or "this is a stick-up". When the decision gets simplified into what they should buy, people feel pushed to concede, cave in and forego their self-reliance. When the decision gets complicated into how they could choose which option to buy, people feel trusted, respected and validated.

Don't people get confused by more criteria to factor into their decision?
People manufacture confusion if they do not want to make a good decision. They favor over-simplifying their decision if they are wanting to conform to others expectations, impress others with their loyalty or avoid conflicts of interest. People value varied inputs to make better decisions when they are self reliant, functioning in leadership roles and instigating changes.

Why don't people feel pushed by giving them more criteria, distinctions and consequences to factor into their decision?
Complications give them the space to make up their own minds in ways that fit their experiences, hunches and feelings. Added criteria take away the pressures to conform and replace them with permission to do what works in their estimation. Considering more consequences moves them onto ground where they stand on their own two feet and take responsibility for their conduct. By pulling for them this way, they gain self respect.

If I care more about how they make their decision than what they decide to buy, I've quit caring about making a sale. How can I let go of wanting to succeed?
Actually, you may want to consider letting go of sabotaging the sale. If you push, people will push back by making excuses, giving you the runaround and dodging your questions. If you pull for their interest in making a wise choice, people will feel respected, trusted and supported by you. When you're deciding to focus on the way they decide, there's a difference between confusing them with too much information and complicating their selection process with added criteria. If you're giving them more reasons to buy what you're selling, you're giving them a sales pitch they will pitch in the trash when you've gotten out of their face. If you're giving them more ways to be careful, to serve their best interests, and to consider the big picture, you're creating space for their better judgment to emerge. You succeed indirectly by pulling for them.

Pulling for the pushers

Can pushers of content, tools, products and changes be stopped by pulling for them?
Pulling does not stop people, it creates space for them to rethink their options. When people feel like someone is pulling for them, they lower their defenses and welcome the opportunity for collaboration. By not getting pushed, they sense they don't need to guard against what they are getting sold or told to do. They experience the presence of mind where their right brains kick in?

Do hard-core pushers feel these effects from getting pulled for?
Not in my experience. People that believe in the necessity of pushing people perceive pulling as a lack of effort, determination or courage. They cannot respect pulling or value the differences it makes. In their minds, every situation calls for pushing other people into submission, compliance or self-contempt. The practice of empathy for pushers relates to their one-track mind, one right answer and one way to win.

Does that mean the way to pull for pushers is to help them be more pushy?
Yes indeed. Pushers set up arguments about the necessity and legitimacy of pushing where pulling for people is wrong, bad or stupid. To come back with no argument, no pushing back, no resistance to their pushing -- does effectively pull for them. The silence about not-pushing is deafening. The cooperation with their pushing is mind boggling. The permission to persist with pushing is not the least bit pushy. The contrary example is successfully provided without calling attention to it. The message is sent subliminally.

What if the pushers don't get it?
They won't get it. Pulling is off their radar. They cannot make sense of it as something to do to make necessary things happen. They cannot argue against it because it comes from out of nowhere in their minds. It gets to them without thinking it through, understanding how it occurred or explaining it rationally.

Learning to pull

Why is there so much pushing of employees to learn new skills, use new tools and access new resources?
Because most people have only had cognitive apprenticeships in how to push. They are unfamiliar with how to pull for others and to create interest without pushing the product. Of course the pushy people would not give you that answer. They'd say whatever they are pushing is for the good of the individual and the collective endeavor in some way. They may be thinking their pushing is legitimate because it will yield increased revenue, profits, efficiencies, competitiveness, quality or some other benefit.

What difference does it make to pull for someone instead of push them into something?
The person on the receiving end senses the difference immediately. The relationship is enhanced whether we are pulling for the learners or pulling for the creatives. Pulling yields more commitment, trust, buy-in and motivation. Pushing has the reverse effect: less commitment, trust, etc. Pushing breeds resistance, cynicism, defensive rationalizations and avoidance tactics.

Why are cognitive apprenticeships in pushing so common?
Pushing takes no imagination, empathy or reciprocity. It's something the left brain can do on its own. Pushing is extremely linear, rational and methodical. There's nothing cyclical, chaotic or paradoxical about it. Also, our techno-rational societies are predicated on pushing: the industrial paradigm and the factories for diplomas, surgeries and every other mass-produced merchandise -- all confirm the legitimacy of pushing people. There's a consensus trance that favors pushing to get what you want -- that is hard to escape.

Why is it so difficult to learn to pull from others who are doing it now?
When someone has empathy for those getting pushed, it's difficult to articulate where those impressions came from. When there are insights into how something could come about by letting go, being indirect or not-pushing for it, they are not straightforward explanations. The thinking about pulling gets into the complexity of subtle influences, shared contexts, implied messages and cyclical dynamics. Pulling deeply involves the right brain that relies on imagery, symbols and patterns rather than logic, language and methodical sequences.

Pulling for the creatives

Very creative people don't fit into push systems. Managers either learn to pull for them or lose them. If a creative person's manager thinks s/he is difficult to manage, the manager continues to be a pusher. The manager fails to learn from his/her mistaken approach to bring out the best in the creatives. Last week I ran across two examples of people in control choosing to pull for the creatives.

On the occasion of his 100th blog posting, Roger von Oech interviewed David Armano, the high profile blogger of Logic + Emotion. David told the story of realizing how to pull for the creatives in their advertising agency. By learning from his own mistakes, he creates a context where learning and growing thrives on mistakes, misunderstandings and missteps:

RvO: What are the two biggest mistakes you’ve made in your profession?

DA: Not giving my teams enough “space,” and not managing peer relationships effectively. An effective creative director should excel as a facilitator. I wasn’t very good at this early on in my career and I’ve had to work on it. The mistake I made was using my teams as a production crew to execute my own ideas vs. cultivating an environment where they could come up with the idea while I helped refine them. I’ve learned that though project success is important—it’s also just as important that your team grow during the project. I have a better track record of managing both down and up vs. sideways. However, if you want to have influence your organization, you need to manage at all three levels. I’ve learned this throughout my career, but still find it doesn’t come naturally for me. So it’s a work in progress.

I watched the DVD of 25th Hour last week with the Director Commentary turned on. Spike Lee (director) mentioned that Edward Norton (lead actor) has developed a reputation in Hollywood for being difficult to work with. Spike Lee sees Norton as intensely creative and easy to work with. During the two weeks of rehearsal prior to shooting, he gives Norton countless opportunities to add his input. They discuss the different ways to play the character, deliver the underlying message, be true to the story and play off the other cast members effectively. In short, Spike Lee has learned to pull for the creatives when making a film.

Whenever we are giving learners control or pulling for the learners, we see the learners as creative and we pull for them. We are finding the right balance between structure and freedom or making learning more game-like, we are pulling for the creatives.

Pulling for the learners

When we're pushing content, we are not pulling for the learners. It's time to get "out of their face and into their corner". When we back up the learners' endeavors, we can see what we are doing to them through their eyes. We get what it's like to be on the receiving end of the content we're delivering. We can relate to the ways the learners are relating to our expertise. We can stop being a bully and take what we dish out.

Whenever we pull for the learners, we shrink the power distance between "us and them". We de-escalate the adversarial context that gives learners the impression they are our enemies and threats to our personal security. We lower the learners' anxiety levels and guards against indoctrination. We create the space for opposing ideas, tougher questions from the curious ones and slow learners with a lot on their minds.

When we pull for the learners, we get insights into what else they want besides what we are giving them. We see the context they are in and the ways they might use our expertise. We expect them to bring other issues to the table besides their commitment to learn from us. Rather than exclude those issues as distractions from covering the material, we can bring those concerns into play.

Learners quickly get where we are coming from. They are like a horse that instantly knows how confident the rider is feeling. They read the instructor's intentions vigilantly because it has a major effect on their experience. If their interests are getting looked after and included, they feel understood and validated. If their interests are dismissed or downplayed, they feel neglected or diminished.

Pulling for the learners creates a context for the content we intend to deliver. When we are representing the learners' interests, the information appears to be useful, meaningful or life changing to them. The value of our educational offering is in the eyes of the beholder, not on the label stuck to the package or in the fine print on our credentials.

We share our expertise with an increasingly receptive audience once we appear to have shared their points of view. Pulling for the learners creates demand what what we've got to say. We reap what we sow: seeds of mutual respect and continual growing with each other.

Gravitational pull

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make the horse drink. Likewise for getting learners to internalize new information, to transfer book smarts to street smarts in use, to develop the intrinsic motivation for applying the skills and to gain the confidence for playing around with variations on the right way to do it. Pushing does not work. Pull works great.

In Informal Learning, Jay reminds us:

Learners need to be attracted to learning experiences, or not much is going to happen. IBM's Steve Rae posits three gravitational forces for informal learning...access ... quality... walkaway value. (p.18)

When "walkaway value" is taken over the top, the learning experience sells itself. There's no need to push. The gravitational pull "gets the horse to drink". Here's four ways to increase "what's in it for me?" when selling higher ups on slowing down, increased quality, more extensive evaluations or the use of gaming.

1. Push selling says to identify the decision maker. Selling without pushing identifies the team of constituencies who can oppose the "buy", stab the decision maker in the back, and cause trouble if the "go ahead" is given.


2. Push selling says to overcome objections raised by the buyer. Selling without pulling identifies the subsequent battles the buyer will face and offers ammo, arms deals and military advisors to win the battles with his/her constituencies.


3. Push selling says to convince the buyer of the right choice and control the conversation to a favorable conclusion. Selling without pushing "hands off the final say" and gives control of the process to the buyer.


4. Push selling says to simplify the buyer's decision to reach a favorable conclusion. Selling without pushing complicates the buyer's decision with added criteria, comparisons and scenarios to improve the customers' satisfaction with how they made up their minds.

The parallels to self-directed learning are left for you to make.

Technorati tags: Informal learning, selling, learning