Page 93 - Fearless Leadership
P. 93

80  FEARLESS LEADERSHIP


             3. You form a judgment about the “exception.” It doesn’t
                make sense that Fred is friendly today and was abrupt and aloof
                yesterday. You add an interpretation to the facts and attempt to
                make meaning of this change in behavior. You may think,
                “Fred is political so he’s covering up the problem and putting
                on a good show.”
             4. You make up a story about the “exception.” You build a story
                that links and explains why Fred is behaving differently today.
                Your story is designed to ensure that the exception proves the
                rule. For example: “Fred’s slick; he’s buying time with the Board
                situation. He’s going to manipulate this so he comes out on top.”
             5. You search for past evidence about the “exception.” The
                search for past evidence is to prove that you are right, not
                discover something new. For example: “Fred never reveals
                what is really going on so we need to watch him carefully.”
             6. You predict the future using the “exception” to be right.
                You have now traveled full circle, and the mind predicts the
                future. You might think, “All of this friendly behavior is just a
                show so Fred can get himself a great package when he leaves.”

             By the end of the loop, the exception has proven the rule. Contradictory
           information, behavior, and actions are distorted to support your view. In
           automatic listening, you are guilty and will not be proven innocent, and
           there is no court of appeals.
             The following example of two business groups in an insurance com-
           pany illustrates how automatic listening can lead to costly problems.

             Automatic Listening and Distrust between
             Two Groups Impacts Business Results

             The New York claims office had decreased its referrals to the San
             Diego office by an estimated 50 percent. This was based on their
             automatic point of view, which was described as follows: “We no
             longer have confidence that the San Diego office will adhere to
             our process.”

             What Happened. There was a long history between these two
             offices, which fueled the belief that the San Diego office was not up
   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98