Everyone needs a copilot
Why workshops are so valuable
Author’s note: For the best listening experience, I recommend listening to this article with Henry's voice at 1.5 (310 WPM) speed. It will read the article in a bit over ten minutes, and while the voice doesn’t sound like me, it’s the closest option. Unfortunately, Medium hasn’t added Rednexican to the voice menu.
At least not yet.
BLUF: An unbiased workshop facilitator is the most effective way to have the crucial conversations necessary to make wise business decisions.
Question: How would you define a thriving organization?
Is it when they make more money than they spend? When their employees are fully engaged and doing things that give them purpose? How about if their customers give glowing reviews and evangelize them to their friends and on social media? What if they operate with very little waste? If an organization did all these things, would it be thriving? Now that we’re talking about it, how many thriving organizations do you know?
In my twenty-plus years of experience, I can honestly say I have never seen a fully thriving enterprise organization. I have seen them thrive in pockets within specific aspects of the business but not throughout. It’s rough out there. And it’s not out of a lack of trying, either. Year after year, I witness leaders spend millions hiring firms to develop strategies that can only be accomplished through many follow-on efforts, pay the lowest bidder tens of millions for a massive enterprise platform their employees hate because it didn’t actually solve their needs, and forced upon them, or spend years with their teams going round-and-round trying to build solutions internally, only to have it killed before they could get it live because they weren’t moving fast enough. In many cases, I’ve seen clients do all three, wasting years and tens-if-not-hundreds of millions of dollars along the way before posting on LinkedIn about their next adventure to do it all over again.
Does any of this sound familiar?
The numbers don’t lie. Study after study shows it’s hard for organizations to thrive.
Here are just a few statistics to illustrate what I’m saying:
- 84% of software projects are completed late and over budget. (Standish Group Chaos 2020)
- 87% of digital transformations fail, most often due to employee resistance. (HBR 2022)
- 31% of software projects will be canceled before they are completed. (Standish Group Chaos 2020)
- 53% of software projects will cost 189% of their original estimates. (Standish Group Chaos 2020)
- 75% of business and IT executives anticipate their software projects will fail. (Standish Group Chaos 2020)
And customers and employees feel it, too.
- 87% of companies have stated they provide an excellent customer experience (IDC White Paper, commissioned by Emplifi)
- 11% of customers agreed that companies provide an excellent customer experience (IDC White Paper, commissioned by Emplifi)
- 89% of customers do not feel valued (IDC White Paper, commissioned by Emplifi)
- 68% of employees don’t feel engaged (Staples Workplace Survey 2019)
Recently, Forrester published a report finding that CX Quality was at an all-time low in 2024.
Because of these statistics and what I’ve witnessed myself, I firmly believe in the power of workshops in helping organizations thrive. Not because they solve the problems directly. They don’t. However, they create the environment to allow the right people to have crucial conversations critical in removing the barriers to success, mainly being human.
In this article, I want to share my philosophy on workshops and why, if done correctly, they are the vital ingredient needed to help organizations save billions in lost revenue and years in lost time.
In a nutshell, my philosophy breaks down like this:
- Being human isn’t the problem, but it must be factored in
- The right environment leads to the right outcomes
- Everyone needs a copilot
Being human isn’t the problem, but it must be factored in
As Richard Thaler describes in his book Nudge, being human means being driven by self-interests that seek to avoid pain and discomfort. Our survival instincts, combined with our physical and emotional limitations, create a dynamic within us to inherently use limiting mental models, avoid conflict, and see the world from the perspective of others.
However, these limitations aren’t the problem. We’re all human and share these same instincts and behaviors. The problem is that we forget to recognize that everyone we interact with is living within their own universe, where they are the protagonists of their stories, and their self-interests act like gravity, pulling inwardly. Therefore, every human on earth makes decisions generally in their best interest.
Let’s look at three areas I continuously see within organizations to better understand how this manifests.
Man-with-a-hammer tendency
In his masterful book Poor Charlie’s Almanack, Charlie Munger describes the tendency of people to make decisions based on limiting mental models. He calls this the “man-with-a-hammer” tendency.
I always call the “Johnny-one-note” turn of mind that eventually so diminished Skinner’s reputation the man-with-a-hammer tendency, after the folk saying: “To a man with only a hammer every problem looks pretty much like a nail.” Man-with-a-hammer tendency does not exempt smart people like Blanchard and Skinner. And it won’t exempt you if you don’t watch out. — Charlie Munger
It is astonishingly easy for us to be the “man with a hammer,” and we all do it. We develop mental models throughout our lives, which become second nature because we use them so much. However, because they are second nature, we need forcing functions to help us get uncomfortable and use additional and, sometimes, competing mental models to help us see clearly.
In essence, limiting mental models prevents us from thinking clearly. It’s not that we’re incapable of thinking clearly; it’s that, in our natural state, we use mental models that are second nature to make most decisions.
My favorite chapter of this book, “The Psychology of Human Misjudgment,” is a talk written for the book. If you take anything away from this article, it should be to read this chapter because there is no substitute for wisdom.
Crucial Conversations
In my experience, crucial conversations are the most necessary step in creating alignment between groups of people to make wise organizational decisions. Yet, we rarely put ourselves in a situation to have these crucial conversations, and our organizations suffer. As Peter Bromberg so eloquently stated, “When we avoid difficult conversations, we trade short-term discomfort with long-term dysfunction.”
I firmly believe most organizations struggle because they aren’t having crucial conversations, and it can be felt by everyone who works there. Like the pungent and enveloping smell of smoke from burning wood, it permeates the halls of every organization I’ve been a part of, worked with, and know about. How many of you know of an executive who doesn’t want to hear bad news, leaders afraid of conflict, and teams that won’t be in the same room with each other? Dysfunction is everywhere. But let me be clear: I’m not claiming to be squeaky in this. I’m 1000% in the middle of it, rubbing elbows with all of you. We’re all dysfunctional because we’re human. It’s in our very nature to self-preserve and focus on what benefits us, our teams, our families, and so on. As I stated, our self-interests act like gravity, and if you imagine everyone with this same force pulling inwardly, you can begin to see how this can impact our decisions. I know people who would rather go to the dentist than have a difficult conversation, and I’ll admit, I, too, struggle with this in some cases.
Therefore, by accepting this necessary aspect of our humanity and using tools to work within those behaviors, we can have safe, constructive, and mostly positive discussions that lead to breakthroughs teams need to thrive and get things done.
At Fjord, we would say, “We believe a breakthrough is just on the other side of conflict.” We weren’t wrong. Some conversations became intense when two or more people shared differing viewpoints on critical aspects of a situation. Then, through thoughtful questions, active listening, and empathy, teams would stack hands and make a plan. These types of moments were common.
Are we seeing the same elephant?
At the same time, while we might be saying the same thing, we’re not seeing the same elephant. A colleague of mine, Megan Rogers, introduced me to the parable of the “Blind men and an elephant,” which illustrates the idea that while a group of people sees the same thing, they will see it differently. (Thank you, Megan.) I love this thought so much that I have created a method to further demonstrate the power of personal perspective by asking participants to draw an elephant drinking water in 90 seconds.
The chances are incredibly high that anyone in my workshops has seen at least a picture of an elephant. Yet, when asked to draw an elephant drinking water, they draw the one in their mind, and none are the same. Now, if people aren’t capable of drawing the same picture of an elephant drinking water, what are the chances they see the vision of a company, the strategy of a transformation initiative, or the purpose of a product in the same way? Technically, this is called “subjective interpretation” or, more aptly, Syadvada and Anekantvad, for those who practice Jainism, but I’ve begun calling it “are we seeing the same elephant.”
How often have we agreed to an SOW only to have it modified due to perceived scope creep? I once had a project exactly like this. Our teams fell so far behind schedule that people were sleeping in the office and working 18-hour days just to get it done. We were miserable. But it was because what we had in our minds when writing the SOW wasn’t the same as what the client had in their mind when reading it.
When we don’t see the same elephant, we put ourselves at odds with one another, which can lead to disasters for leaders and teams.
The right environment leads to the right outcomes
It sounds daunting, but working with our human nature to position us to use new mental models, have crucial conversations, and see the same elephant is possible. It can be done in ways that won’t manipulate people, foster collaboration, and encourage empathy. It’s called Workshops.
Yeah, I’m sure you saw that coming from a mile away.
But seriously, I have seen workshops bring people together to use activities to give people space to share their points of view and discuss them with others. I’ve seen hourly employees unafraid to tell the CEO they are wrong about how things are, and the CEO listens. I’ve seen people argue and disagree but come to an understanding. Workshops are tools to help teams find alignment with one another to move everyone forward. I don’t have to agree with you to be aligned with you. That alignment is what’s needed for organizations to thrive.
Here are critical factors to creating the right environment:
- It should feel safe
- It should feel different
- It should feel productive
Safety above all
The most critical aspect of a workshop is safety, not from physical harm but from psychological and career harm. No one wants to share their perspectives only to have others judge them and think less of them. Think about the impact social media has had on psychological safety due to others' judgment. It changes how you behave. At the same time, no one wants to tell the boss they’re wrong, fearing they will be reprimanded somehow, like never being promoted or losing their job.
Workshops must be places where people can be vulnerable and honest. The facilitator’s role is to create a safe space by holding people accountable to the shared principles of workshops: being open to differing opinions, being curious and not judgmental, and being brave enough to share honestly. While facilitators may use different words, they will say similar things.
Facilitators typically open their sessions by sharing guiding principles to set expectations and align everyone. It’s never heavy-handed, but being a facilitator entails the responsibility to ensure the psychological safety of participants. Throughout the workshop, the facilitator models these principles when interacting with people. Typically, participants follow that model, and people naturally begin to behave in a way that is safe for them to share. It’s an effective technique and should feel natural.
Boardrooms Suck
Have you ever left a boardroom with more energy than when you entered? I can’t think of many unless it was a phenomenal announcement of a big win or everyone getting raises and bonuses.
Boardrooms are designed for a singular purpose, and that purpose was created generations ago by the earliest civilizations, who gathered in councils to discuss critical topics to ensure all sides of a topic were discussed and agreed upon. However, today, boardrooms are where teams gather to report to a manager, and the manager will decide on the value of what is being shared and make a decision. Yes, it’s possible to have good conversations in boardrooms; however, for big decisions, I’ve rarely seen them used to have productive discussions due to the psychological nature that hierarchy, familiarity, and conformity play on those in the room.
We must get people out of the boardroom and into a collaboration space to change this behavior. At Fjord, we had Rumble™ rooms, large, open, and configurable spaces with tables and props to allow us to have all kinds of conversations. These spaces are becoming more common in organizations that embrace Design Thinking but don’t exist in organizations that don’t, which is why most organizations don’t have them.
Workshops need a space where people can be strategically grouped in teams, write on the walls, and build experiments out of cardboard, Styrofoam, or legos. These are the spaces where big hairy problems can be solved.
Facilitators who can configure a space for the specific team and problem they are looking to solve will have an advantage over facilitators who are forced to use a boardroom. They can craft activities and use Design Thinking methods to ensure participants are engaged, challenged, and energized throughout a session.
We don’t need this fluffy stuff!
Have you ever seen a three-star General act goofy? Me neither. These people are serious, and rightly so; they have serious jobs. In the military, decisions mean lives, and with that level of severity applied to their decisions, their appetite for fluffy is negative infinity.
When describing workshops to a three-star General or senior leaders, I inevitably get the “We don’t need this fluffy stuff” comment. It’s an all-too-common phrase from leaders who haven’t experienced an effective workshop. However, once they understand how the flow of activities will produce the outcomes they are looking for, they are eager to move. They see the value in creating the right environment for crucial conversations and new ideas, even if it is a foreign way of having them.
Remember, they are human, too.
Drawing pictures, using legos to build models, and role-playing scenarios aren’t fluffy when they are intentionally used to take what’s in your mind and bring it to life for others to see and experience. Methods like concept canvases, where participants answer prompts, allow people to verbalize and visualize their perspectives in isolation first, then share them with others to get feedback, leading to tremendous conversations. And Crazy Eights is a fun yet productive way to ideate, as it allows people to generate ideas under pressure, which creates better ideas.
All of these tools are designed to help people productively frame their ideas and thoughts and connect those ideas with others. At the end of a session, you would be surprised at how much is accomplished by drawing pictures.
Everyone needs a copilot
I’m convinced that workshops help organizations thrive by creating the necessary conditions for people to have crucial conversations that lead to sound business decisions. Yes, they can be fun and entertaining, but a tremendous amount of work is happening. However, having an unbiased facilitator is crucial to the success of a workshop. Unfortunately, an impartial facilitator is impossible if they are internal to the organization or from a firm incentivized to “land and expand.”
Internal facilitators can try all they want, but they live and breathe the company and culture. Pre-existing biases, power dynamics, lack of fresh perspectives, and conflicts of interest are just a few barriers that prevent internal facilitators from successfully helping their organization thrive. Do you know any therapists who can be their own couples counselor? How might that go? This is the same thing. While they may be highly gifted, they are incapable of being impartial.
Being in the client services space for most of my career, I will tell you that we are incentivized to sell. Within consulting firms, it’s built into the career model of every employee. They are trained to build relationships with the singular purpose of identifying opportunities and winning work. Their bonuses, promotions, and reputations are tied to their ability to sell or help others sell. Direct sales and sales attribution are the primary factors in the success of every consultant and consulting firm. Client satisfaction, while tracked, is only an indicator of future sales.
To be clear, this isn’t evil, and I don’t fault client services firms for behaving like this. They are a business, and every successful business needs to be profitable. Therefore, client services firms are designed to generate profit through sales. I take great joy in identifying opportunities within my client’s business that my firm can help solve. I love the thrill of a sale, and we’re all salespeople at some level. The idea of driving business through sales isn’t the problem. However, when firms facilitate workshops, the incentive to sell means that while participants try to create solutions, consultants are looking for prey.
I have never seen a management consultant’s report that didn’t end with the same advice: “This problem needs more management consulting services.” — Charlie Munger
To avoid falling into the trap of biased workshops that avoid conflicts or have hidden agendas, bringing a facilitator from outside your organization and the firms you work with is the best way to give you the needed buffer to have a successful workshop. An outside facilitator is like a copilot; they’re incentivized to support the pilot, you, in getting everyone to their destination safely and together. If they do a great job, they can continue to help the pilot. However, they aren’t building the airplane or the airport; they aren’t unloading the airplane or providing any other services than supporting the pilot with the needed information to make the best decisions to ensure everyone reaches their destination. While the journey might experience some turbulence, if they’re good, they always land the airplane.
The good news is that having an outside facilitator means that your firms can participate in your workshops, which they should. How much of a partner are they if you cannot trust them to be a part of the solution? Furthermore, if you only see them as vendors, how do you expect to get the most from them?
Conclusion
Every executive should strive to use good judgment to make wise business decisions. As I stated at the top, an unbiased workshop facilitator is the most effective way to help leaders in that endeavor. Organizations having crucial conversations are more informed, have a greater understanding of potential risks, and use good judgment, leading to wise decisions, products and services people love, better service for their employees and customers, and more efficient operations. If organizations are having crucial conversations, they can thrive.
The good news is that there are many tremendous facilitators and facilitating services out there. If you’re not using one or multiple, I highly recommend you use this Google search to find one. Your business needs this, and your employees and customers deserve it.
Everyone needs a copilot. If you don’t have one, get one or contact me.
Let’s make magic people!
