seven
Using the Lenses
A “No” uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a “Yes” merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble.
—Mahatma Gandhi1
The first step in conducting a timing analysis is to learn to see the world through each of the six lenses described in the previous chapters. Doing so can bring into clear focus what is wrong in a situation and how it can be corrected.
Let me give you an example. It's the story of a small pharmaceutical company. A meeting has been called to decide whether to go ahead with marketing the company's new weight-reducing drug, Biritonin. As a participant in the meeting, you are painfully aware that a bad decision is about to be made. You know it is likely to end in disaster, but no moment seems right to object without putting your job on the line.
Here is a transcript of the meeting.2 Those present include
Jonathon—president of the company
Bob—director of marketing
Sue—attorney
Fred—liaison with the government, also an attorney
Richard—head of R&D
The meeting is fiction, the dialogue modified from an old black-and-white 16 mm film on group process. No drug company made this decision, but the dynamics that are present are all too real, as anyone in business can testify. The question is, what went wrong, and how could it have been prevented?
Let's take a moment to consider the risks the company is running. Given the number of people who are obese and a projected 20 percent market share, the number of people taking this drug is, forgive the pun, quite large. Side effects, some potentially lethal, were estimated to be “less than 5 percent,” but 5 percent of a very large number is a very large number. With potentially hundreds of deaths, the company would be facing a PR disaster. The sales of its other drugs would be put in jeopardy as public trust in the company plummeted. The transcript provides no evidence of competitive pressure or financial exigency that would argue, or at least rationalize, moving full speed ahead. So the decision to market the drug without first hearing from Dr. Heller, the company's chief research scientist, is irresponsible. But, as the meeting unfolds, it seems extremely difficult to block the outcome. The lawyer tries and fails.
We have all been in meetings like this. Is there anything you could say that would postpone the marketing of the drug as well as get a nod of approval from everyone in the room, including Jonathon? For most people, that task seems like mission impossible. But as we will see in this chapter, it is not. The key is to examine the dynamics of the meeting through all six timing lenses. Each lens will help clarify why dissent is difficult. Once we identify the difficulty, we will be able to find ways to overcome it. I'll number each of these suggestions so that we can assemble them into an effective strategy by the end of the chapter. Let's begin by noting the risks the company is running by marketing the drug.
Soon after comment 15, when the negative side effects are first mentioned, it might occur to you to say something like the following:
(1) Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say, Bob, that we expect a 20 percent market share in only a few years? That's terrific. That's an awful lot of people and an awful lot of profit. [Pause] But it occurs to me that if even a small percentage of people experience serious side effects, we could face a serious problem. After all, a small percentage of a very large number is a very large number. We could have hundreds of people ill because of this drug, and if that happened, our entire company—all of our other products—would be affected. Our reputation would be on the line.
Unfortunately, this comment is dangerous because it threatens the authority of the president. There are many ways to think about power, but from a timing perspective, power means the ability control a number of temporal elements, specifically sequence, punctuation, rate, interval, duration, and shape.
- Jonathon can open and close the meeting at any time. He controls its length (duration), its beginning and ending (punctuation), and its pace (rate or tempo).
- The meeting has a back-and-forth shape as different participants speak and respond to each other. He decide who speaks and for how long (intervals).
- Jonathon can speak at length, any time, on any topic.
- He can expand or compress intervals and hence windows of opportunity. He can cut people off or demand a more detailed answer.
- Most important, Jonathon controls the sequence of the meeting. In fact, he has inverted the normal order of a decision meeting. To see how doing so limits dissent, let's look at the meeting through the sequence lens.
THE SEQUENCE LENS
Jonathon opened the meeting by saying, “We have only one item to discuss today, and I think we can wrap that up rather briefly.” In effect, the decision to market the drug has been made. Everyone in the room knows it. I've diagrammed this state of affairs in Figure 7.1.
The normal sequence of events in a meeting such as this is to first discuss the matter under consideration and then, at the end, make a decision. The window is open for debate and discussion before the decision has been made, but not after. Once an issue has been decided, dissent is literally “out of order” (the closed window). Jonathon has inverted the normal sequence. As a result, any dissent is difficult and risky.
Sequence inversion problems, however, have solutions. I'll mention three.
Reinvert
Reinvert the sequence and open the window for debate by claiming that a decision has not been made. You could say, for example,
(2) I don't think we need to make the decision today, so I would like to reopen the question.
Such a statement, however, is a direct challenge to the president's authority. No one will make such a statement. Two other solutions stand a better chance.
Rescale
If the sequence “debate then decision” could somehow be ignored, then the problem of sequence inversion would not exist. One way to do this is to look back from the distant future. Five years from now, who will remember the exact timing of events? So you might say,
(3) Well, the most important thing is not whether we make the decision today or next week. When we look back at this decision five years from now, the most important thing will be whether we got it right, not on what day or week we decided the issue.
Increasing distance, whether in time or space, diminishes our ability to distinguish objects and the time in between them. What we see as distinct close up merges and blurs at a distance.
Claim Irrelevance
The purpose of an action determines its timeliness. In this example, the meeting has two purposes. The first is to ratify a decision that has already been made. The second is to “be brought up-to-date.” If the purpose of the meeting is the latter, then the issue of sequence inversion is irrelevant because no decision is required.
(4) But didn't you say, Jonathon, that the purpose of this meeting was to be brought up-to-date? We've been acting as if we have to make a decision now.
Nonetheless, redefining the purpose of the meeting is not without risk. Only those in authority can change the purpose of a meeting. A subordinate cannot, without being insubordinate.
THE PUNCTUATION LENS
The punctuation lens directs our attention to commas, pauses, periods, and other marks that segment the continuous flow of time. The following are a number of ways in which marks of punctuation and their placement can be used to help create the conditions for effective dissent.
Insert Punctuation
One reason individuals remain silent is not simply that they are afraid to speak or feel that they have nothing to say, but that the unfolding course of the meeting, and the flow of time itself, lack intrinsic punctuation. One moment follows the next, which blends with and follows the one before. And before you know it, the meeting is over. Punctuation has to be consciously inserted. For example, you could explicitly ask for a pause. You might say,
(5) Could we pause a moment and try to think this through?
Usually, only someone in authority can ask for a pause, which is why I framed the request as a question. Another option depends on timing. The longer the meeting goes on, the more complex the issues become, and the more it seems appropriate to say, “Could we pause for a moment to see where we are?” The answer can take the form of a summary, which becomes an opportunity to make the case for postponement.
Repunctuate
As you recall from the chapter on punctuation, an event, such as marketing a drug, can be grouped with the past or with the future. It can be seen as the last step in the long process of drug development, which one wants to bring to an end, or as the first step in a new marketing campaign, in which case caution prevails because first impressions matter. So if you want to slow a process down, you might say,
(6) We should get the first few steps right in order to create the right first impression in the consumer's mind. If we don't, it could take a long time to repair the damage.
Set a Deadline
Conducting additional research to determine the type, probability, and severity of side effects in different populations raises the specter of a process without end. From a business perspective, this is a fatal condition: the drug might never be marketed because no scientific study controls for every contingency and is ever 100 percent certain. In the context of this meeting, there are two possible solutions. One involves punctuation. The other references an interval, which, by comparison, makes a short delay worth it. For example, you could say,
(7) While it makes sense to look into these side effects, we don't want to be held up forever. Let's get an estimate of how long it will take to get some reasonable closure on this issue, and then set a deadline. Then we should weigh the risk associated with that kind of delay against the time it would take us to recover if the drug turns out to have more serious side effects than we anticipated.
Use Punctuation to Create Boundaries
When there is a clear and strong punctuation mark, like the decision to market the drug, you can emphasize how things change from before and after that boundary is crossed. Thus someone who wants to postpone the marketing of the drug might say,
(8) Once the drug is out there, a lot of things will be out of our control; we will have additional public scrutiny. If the side effects turn out to be more serious than we think, will the public continue to trust us? Lack of trust could threaten our entire product line. It is prudent to pause. Marketing the drug is a big step.
Affirm Common Values
The path between making an objection and, as a result, being marginalized or rejected as a member of a group can be a slippery slope. One statement leads to another, and before you know it, your comments are viewed as not helpful. The path from giving constructive criticism to being seen as a troublemaker has no clearly marked boundaries. One approach to the lack of punctuation is to affirm common values. Doing so makes it more difficult for others to reject you as a valued member of the group, even if your views challenge their own. So you could say,
(9) Well, it's clear to me that we all want this product to succeed. If we dot the i's and cross the t's, we can smile all the way to the bank.
THE INTERVAL AND DURATION LENS
One reason dissent is so difficult is that Jonathon has implied that the decision has already been made. From his point of view, postponing the drug is not desirable: it is not the outcome he wants. However, there are two intervals associated with the ED2 + R sequence, introduced in Chapter Three, that will allow Jonathon to save face and declare the meeting a success. The first interval precedes the ED2 + R sequence. It is the time between when a warning is issued and when the conditions warned about occur or exist. If the information about side effects were seen as part of an early warning system that worked, that would allow the meeting to be considered at least a partial success. For that “framing” to work, however, a warning must not be too early (the “time until” the expected crisis must be relatively short). Otherwise, the warning would be seen as premature or perhaps be dismissed as a false alarm. Here's one way to solve the problem. You could say,
(10) Now if Bob is right… we will achieve a very large market share very quickly. But the greater the market share, the greater our risk if there really is a problem with side effects. The irony is that the more we are successful, the more we have a problem. And that problem… could affect our next fiscal year in a very significant way. It seems to me that if we are this close to that much risk, it's prudent to invest no more than a few weeks as an insurance policy to make sure that these side effects are not the tip of the iceberg. What we really have here in this data is an early warning system that worked. Maybe it is a false alarm, but I am certainly glad to find out now rather than later when it is too late.
Another way to think about the situation in terms of intervals is to use the R term of the ED2 + R sequence. Early warning gives you more time (a longer interval) to resolve any problem that exists. It also helps you avoid the synchronous risk of having to deal with troubling side effects just when other issues might surface to demand your attention. So you might say,
(11) I don't think these side effects will turn out to be anything, but if we look into them now, we can get a head start on addressing them. By starting early, we won't have the added difficulty of trying to deal with a potential public relations disaster at the same time that we are dealing with other issues.
Highlight a Point of Order
The intervals of the ED2 + R sequence are also important for another reason. All meetings come with a defining set of norms and values. When a critical norm is threatened, whoever detects the threat first should immediately inform others. The time between detection and disclosure should be as short as possible. That is what a “point of order” is for. It identifies a threat that can be fatal to an orderly process. For that reason, as Robert's Rules of Order make clear, a point of order is always in order.3 It can be raised at any time. Thus a window opens to object whenever what is being done threatens a core value of the group.
(12) You know, as I listen to this discussion, there is a critical principle that I think we have always believed in, and that is, we don't rush to judgment. But at the same time, we don't sit around twiddling our thumbs. Either extreme would be a fatal.
Be Aware of the Passage of Time
We know from Jonathon's opening comment that the meeting is largely ceremonial; he expects it to be brief. Dissent risks prolonging it. There are two possible approaches to the problem of length.
Compression
Choose a strategy for expressing dissent that is known to be short, one that fits a small window. Here's an example:
(13) Well, let me for a brief moment play the devil's advocate. This is an important decision, and it is important that we look at all sides of the issue. If Bob is right and the drug has a potentially very large market, then the number of potentially serious side effects is also very large…
Playing the devil's advocate does not take long. It is a time-limited ritual and has the advantage of any well-established habit. It is a well-traveled path. There will be no surprises or long delays. Playing the devil's advocate is therefore fast. It is also widely accepted. It is understood as a helpful tactic used to advance the group's goals and objectives, not undermine them.
Elimination
Signal that you know that there are severe time constraints.
(14) Let me just skip to what I think is the central point here.
Focus on Time Until
In Chapter Three, I discussed the difference between “time since” and “time until.” The time since the drug has been under development is long, but the time until a problem might develop is short. One could therefore say the following:
(15) It seems to me that if we are that close to so much risk, it's prudent to invest a few weeks as an insurance policy to make sure that these side effects are not the tip of the iceberg.
Use the “Last Chance” Rule
A common timing rule is this: take advantage of your last chance. But this rule, which might have triggered action, cannot be applied here because no one except Jonathon knows how long the meeting will last. The last-chance rule also runs into another problem. Everyone knows that an objection should not be raised at the last moment. “Why didn't you speak up earlier?” someone will say. One could modify statement 14 by saying,
(16) If it not too late to volunteer for some extra work, just let me say that I'm happy to follow up on those few reports, because if there is any substance to them whatsoever, that would clearly affect our marketing strategy in a profound way. Probably a waste of time, but I am happy to do it.
It is never too late to take on an additional work.
When we look at this meeting through the interval lens, we see what is missing—namely, a way to know how close the meeting is to reaching a final decision. If you knew when that moment would occur, you would know how long you could wait for someone else to make the case against marketing the drug before you would be forced to do so. But the clock that governs the pace and length of the meeting is not to be found on the wall or on anyone's smartphone. The only clock that matters is inside Jonathon's head. Only he can see it, and only he can tell you what time it is. In fact, he already has. According to Jonathon's subjective clock, the time for a decision has already passed.
THE RATE LENS
The rate lens and the interval lens give us two views of the same phenomenon. What moves quickly, takes less time; what moves slowly, takes more. So what one sees through the interval lens, one can also see through the rate lens. But like two tools that perform the same job, one tool may feel more natural or, for some inexplicable reason, may be the source of more creative ideas and solutions than the other. We all have our personal preferences. Sometimes using different language to describe the same phenomenon provides the “aha” that was missing. So here are some brief observations about the meeting as seen through the rate lens.
From Jonathon's introductory comments, we know that he expects the meeting to be short. As a general rule, short meetings are also fast paced. That is their normal speed: no pauses; no long periods of silence; no time-outs to regroup, recharge, or reflect. It is always useful to know the normal speed of any situation you must manage. That way you can come prepared to lead a rapid-fire exchange of views or a long, drawn-out, mind-numbing marathon filled with detailed charts and graphs.
When I think about how quickly something might happen or how long something might take, I always find myself coming back to one cell in the Rate Envelope (see Table 4.1), the one that asks about the minimum speed of the slowest process. Decision making will be slow if an issue is complex and requires careful consideration. But it can't be allowed to drag on so long that it seems as if a decision will never be made. Anyone who plays Hamlet in the boardroom won't last long. It will be his final act. So if we think about the normal speed of a short meeting and the normal speed of a thoughtful decision process, we know there is a conflict. If the issue is complex, either we must agree that a decision has already been considered and made or agree to extend the time to make it.
In the rate and interval chapters, I mentioned that different stakeholders might interpret the same rate or interval differently. For the lawyer, postponing marketing the drug might avoid a problem. But for the director of marketing, it could mean finding that another company has beaten him to the punch by announcing a new “breakthrough” drug for obesity. In deciding how and when to argue for a delay, it is always wise to know how others will interpret a longer, slower process.
THE SHAPE LENS
There are five shapes that describe the dynamics of the meeting: cycles, lines, the helix, the point and fan, and the dramatic arc. Thinking about these shapes will give you another way to understand why an objection to marketing the drug is difficult, and how those difficulties can be overcome. For example, because the meeting is intended to end with a decision, the underlying metaphor is that of a scale on which different arguments, pro and con, will be placed. That is why the devil's advocate ritual is accepted: it helps place items on the scale, which we can think of as a divided line or seesaw. An action is timely if it fits with the shape of what is being referenced at the moment.
Cycle Strategies and Tactics
Jonathon will want to hear from everyone at least once as his or her expertise becomes relevant. The meeting, therefore, requires at least one full cycle before a decision can be reached. The number of cycles, however, will be small. We would not expect the discussion to go round and round endlessly. There are a number of ways you can use the cyclical shape of the meeting to argue that marketing the drug should be postponed. By keeping track of who has and has not spoken, you can decide how best to time your objection—before or after a known point of view. For example, because you can predict what the lawyer will say and how marketing is likely to respond, you can state the lawyer's position and refute it before she expresses it, or wait to respond until after she has spoken. Knowing that there is a cycle also gives you information about how close the meeting is to ending—that is, how much time remains for you to make your point. After everyone has spoken once or twice, you know that the window for dissent is rapidly drawing to a close. Hence, be prepared to act.
Straight Lines and the Helix
The best way to keep a meeting short and on track is to proceed in a straight line. One topic should lead to the next; there should be no detours, no pauses, no interruptions, and no coming back to the same issue over and over again. When our world becomes complex, we hunger for simplicity, for the appeal of a straightforward linear process, even if one has to pause between steps. However, this meeting curves. The discussion, as it moves forward, circles back through all the necessary points needed to make a decision (marketing, government clearance, side effects, and so on). The underlying shape of the meeting is therefore not a straight line but a helix. The twists and turns of that shape, experienced as the meeting progresses, support an argument to pause and investigate side effects now, because those in the meeting are viscerally experiencing how unpleasant it is to go back and revisit an issue that could have been resolved earlier.
The Point and Fan
As the group looks into the future, it knows that if side effects become a problem, it will face a choice about whether to withdraw the drug from the market. It will have to manage the negative publicity that comes with serious side effects. It will have to make sure that its other products are not harmed. There will be a lot to consider. The choices the company will face will multiply and come to resemble a point-and-fan diagram as one choice leads to another. The more the future looks like a point-and-fan diagram, rather than a single straight-line path from product launch to profit, the more uncertain the future seems, which leads to the following timing rule: in the face of great uncertainty, proceed slowly and with caution.
The Dramatic Arc
The dramatic arc is important in understanding the sense of urgency that Jonathon and Bob feel in getting the drug to market. For most drugs, the development process is long. Rewards come only at the end. Thus, by the time the meeting is called, everyone needs the release and reward that marketing the drug provides. Ideally, the rise and fall of tension surrounding the development and marketing of a drug should follow the shape of the dramatic arc. Tension builds during development and is released during marketing. A pause to investigate side effects puts a dent in this shape and postpones the anticipated moment of release. When you know what a group will find frustrating, you are better prepared to help them work through it.
THE POLYPHONY LENS
The polyphony lens directs our attention to the possibility of parallel processes. You could suggest that two activities go on at the same time:
(17) Let me volunteer to follow up a bit with Heller. I don't think there is anything to it, and we should certainly proceed with the marketing. I'll let you know right away if I find anything. I think it's unlikely, but it is a good idea to retain Heller's goodwill. He's one of the best scientists we have.
Comment 17 extends the decision-making process beyond the boundaries of the meeting. The meeting ends, but another process continues. This is the continuity component of the SJPCW sequence that I discussed in Chapter Two, on punctuation. A follow-up means that a second process will go on in parallel with the decision to market the drug.
Delay in marketing the drug as side effects are investigated is not the most desirable outcome. But the cost of a delay is more than balanced by its potential benefit, catching a mistake before it is too late. You can also partially offset the cost of a delay by being willing to assume the burden for having caused it.
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
Some reasons why dissent is difficult are constants in the sense that they are always present. (For example, Jonathon's comment at the beginning of the meeting that suggests that the decision has already been made.) Other reasons are present at certain points and absent at others. For example, only one person can speak at a time, and it is difficult to interrupt. So if someone else is speaking, you can't, and vice versa. Other forces increase or decrease in strength over the course of the meeting. Jonathon indicated that the meeting was to be brief, so the longer it goes on, the more it violates his expectation, and hence the more difficult it is to say anything that would prolong it.
There is always a reason to remain silent, which leads to what I call the tragedy of the temporal commons. When you examine the transcript line by line, you will find compelling reasons to remain silent at every point in the meeting. But complete silence courts disaster. So what is sensible for each moment is not sensible for the collective (for all the moments). So, what to do?
In managing any complex situation, no single action is likely to be sufficient. The same is true of this meeting. No single statement is likely to be effective. You will need to assemble the components that were revealed through the six lenses into a sequence strategy. Here is an example.
(9) Well, it's clear to me that we all want this product to succeed. If we dot the i's and cross the t's, we can smile all the way to the bank. (1) Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say, Bob, that we expect a 20 percent market share in only a few years? That's terrific. That's an awful lot of people and an awful lot of profit. [Pause] But it occurs to me that if even a small percentage of people have serious side effects, we could face a serious problem. After all, a small percentage of a very large number is a very large number. We could have hundreds of people ill because of this drug, and if that happened, the entire company—all of our other products—would be affected. Our reputation would be on the line. (4) But didn't you say, Jonathon, that the purpose of this meeting was to be brought up-to-date? We've been acting as if we have to make a decision now… (3) The most important thing is not whether we make the decision today or next week. When we look back at this decision five years from now, the most important thing will be whether we got it right, not on what day or week we decided the issue. (10) Now if Bob is right… we will achieve a very large market share very quickly. But the greater the market share, the greater our risk if there really is a problem with side effects. The irony is that the more we are successful, the more we have a problem. And that problem… could affect our next fiscal year in a very significant way. It seems to me that if we are this close to that much risk, it's prudent to invest no more than a few weeks as an insurance policy to make sure that these side effects are not the tip of the iceberg. What we really have here in this data is an early warning system that worked. Maybe it is a false alarm, but I am certainly glad to find out now rather than later when it is too late. (7) [And] while it makes sense to look into these side effects, we don't want to be held up forever. Let's get an estimate of how long it will take to get some reasonable closure on this issue, and then set a deadline. Then we should weigh the risk associated with that kind of delay against the time it would take us to recover if the drug turns out to have more serious side effects than we anticipated. (8) Once the drug is out there, a lot of things will be out of our control; we will have additional public scrutiny. If the side effects turn out to be more serious than we think, will the public continue to trust us? Lack of trust could threaten our entire product line. It is prudent to pause. Marketing the drug is a big step.
In Chapter One (Sequence), I mentioned Julio Cortázar's novel Hopscotch, in which he gives readers a choice of the order in which to read the chapters of his book. So here are some suggestions for other sequence strategies. Each responds in different ways to what is going on in the meeting, including what is not contained in the transcript, other facts about the company and the individuals involved, their the nonverbal cues, and so on.
Sequence: 5, 1, 4, 10, 8
Sequence: 1, 7, 11, 17
Sequence: 14, 1, 10, 11, 8
I'll let you decide whether any of these sequence solutions would work given the dynamics and organizational culture present in this particular meeting. What is clear is how much closer we are to an effective strategy compared to where we were after reading the transcript at the beginning of the chapter. Using the lenses has given us a window into the largely invisible temporal structure of the meeting and allowed us to fashion a beginning response to the problem of dissent.
LESSONS LEARNED
The example in this chapter provides a number of lessons, not the least of which is that timing issues are not always obvious. The temporal structure of the meeting had to be uncovered. We needed the lenses to find out exactly why dissent was difficult and how those difficulties could be overcome. It is hard to deal with an enemy that is invisible. What's more, we needed all six lenses to see all the elements of temporal architecture that defined the structure of the meeting. When you find yourself making a decision based on only one or two elements—a looming deadline (a punctuation mark), for example, or how quickly something is changing (rate)—remember to consider others. They may warn you of risks or opportunities that you didn't know existed.
Although there are other ways to understand what went wrong in this meeting—poor decision making, inadequate leadership, groupthink, a flawed group process, an organizational culture that silences dissent, and so on—a timing analysis offers a unique perspective. It brings to the surface what other frameworks and models miss, or mention only in passing.
More than two thousand years ago, Aristotle watched ships disappear mast-first over the horizon, and realized—perhaps for the first time in history—that the earth was curved and not flat. If we had been the ones to notice that fact, how many of us would have dismissed it as an optical illusion, the bending of the light reaching our eyes rather than the bending of the land under our feet? Aristotle needed the principles of geometry to convert seeing into insight. That is what the timing lenses do— they reveal patterns that convert seeing into insight.
The analysis I have provided is intended to help those in subordinate positions find a way to prevent the immediate marketing of the drug. But it also holds lessons for anyone in power who wants to benefit from what his or her subordinates know and think. The question to ask is, Have you structured your activities in a way that creates a window of opportunity for others to safely express dissenting views? You can't rely merely on the goodwill or the courage of your subordinates to tell you what you need to know. You need to create moments when truth telling is possible, and that means, among other things, paying attention to timing. You need to create the right conditions and the right moment. As in this example, when you know what closes a window, you can find ways to open it.
The next chapter offers a more structured approach to conducting a timing analysis. It breaks the process down into seven steps. As you go through them, your understanding of timing will deepen and grow more sophisticated. You will be much more likely to get the timing right.