Explain your sandwich

How to build a word picture

Imagine a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Picture it. The bread, the peanut butter, the jelly, how and if the sandwich is sliced.

Got it?

My imaginary sandwich is on whole wheat bread, with chunky unsweetened peanut butter and the kind of raspberry jam I used to make in the summers with my grandmother. It is sliced diagonally to form two triangles.

Your sandwich is probably different than mine. It reflects your tastes, experience and possibly what supplies you have available. If we were all sitting together in a room I would have some of you volunteer your vision of the sandwich, so we could see the differences and similarities. Tara’s is crustless. Juan’s is made with almond butter. Gina’s has bacon on it.

Everyone on your team, everyone you work with and for, has a different idea about what leadership, teamwork, conflict, communications should be. If you don’t name the expectations it can cause confusion or conflict.

We often assume that everyone understands what good leadership is, or how effective teams work. The more experience a person has, the more likely we are to assume competence.

For those of you thinking, really Stephanie, this is a pretty basic topic, I’m scrolling away now, I’d suggest you stop. I can’t tell you how many senior leaders I’ve seen who fall into the trap of assuming that everyone is operating from the same work playbook, only to be shocked when others have an entirely different idea. Those of us with lots of privilege tend to do this more, assuming that our culturally prevalent assumptions about how to work are the norm or standard, or the best way. We are often mistaken in this assumption.

The solution for this is easy. Name it. Explain your sandwich.

Be explicit about how to manage, lead, be part of a team and resolve conflict, to name just a few. Create a word picture. Don’t make it just an intellectual list to check off, use emotion. Be evocative.

Here’s an example of jargon-y leadership advice.

“I want our leadership team to have a bias for action, and use best practices to move our team towards our goals. We need to be able to disagree and commit, and continuously learn and grow.”

Here’s instruction that’s more of a word picture.

“My hope for our leadership team is that we can use our time together as effectively as possible to harness our individual strengths.

I want us to be able to have difficult discussions, tell the truth, and tolerate conflict while still respecting each other.

I want this to be the meeting where you are at your most focused, and I want you to leave each of our gatherings engaged and positive.

We’ll respect our time, and start on time, share the time and duties and have an agenda we stick to, and end on time, with a report sent out after the meeting to clarify next steps and responsibilities. No one will dominate the conversation and we’ll welcome and make space for dissenting voices.

I want us all to engage with the same level of intention that many of you bring to your workouts or sports; you make time for it, you show up on good days and bad, in the rain or heat, and you prioritize that space to build strength and capacity. Think about how you feel after a great workout, or hike, or ride. That’s the feeling I’m hoping for at work – I know it won’t be the same, but it’s a great goal to have.”

I know, that’s more than most people would ever say, but you get the point, right? Be clear about what you expect, and what your ideal looks like. When you’re talking about a team, involve them in the process where feasible. Build that word picture with them.

That’s what the Group Agreements exercises is about, that time in the beginning of a facilitated meeting where I take a few minutes to ask the group how they want to gather and manage their time. I’m sketching a word picture of how they want to work, one that they co-create and influence.

Why do you need a level of specificity? One person’s ideal of being a good manager might be focusing on building personal connections with their direct reports, praising and instructing, helping them develop skills through regular weekly 1:1s and check-ins three times a week. It’s emotionally connected and focused on relationship and assumes that is what the direct report wants.

Another person’s ideal of being a good manager may be to leave their direct reports alone, assume competence, and not micromanage. They like clear goals, assessments of progress and reports to stay on the same page. They don’t think it’s appropriate to ask personal questions and they keep a clear boundary between management and friendship. This relationship is focused on tasks and competence, and is open to what the direct report needs and wants in terms of additional guidance and support.  

Both are valid ideals. And both could be very successful. But imagine a deeply introverted engineer with a manager who is determined to build an emotional connection. Or a person who wants to trust and connect with their manager and get lots of mentoring and guidance working for the leader who prioritizes task and goals. Imagine how much more effectively these pairs could function if they just named what styles and specifics work best for them? If they simply asked each other to explain their ideal approach to whatever issue is at hand?