You might find it helpful as background to look at the ARIES Analysis and Tools page before reading this case story.

Eric is a client support team leader in a company providing customized software products, related training, and support services to the financial markets.

He has received an email from his manager, Martine, concerning a telephoned complaint from one of the company’s major clients about poor service. The complaint related in part to the behavior of one of Eric’s team members, Kate.

The client, Cameron, said that he had been waiting on a response from Kate for nearly 3 days. He had requested assistance with an issue that was preventing him from producing some reports that he urgently needed, and felt that he was getting nowhere. The client also said that the last time he had spoken with Kate she had been quite rude.

According to the client, Kate had said in an aggressive tone, “What is it exactly that you don’t understand? Our trainers have been onsite several times to show you how to prepare the reports you need, and I’ve provided as much support as I can. I’ve also explained that you need to upgrade to the latest version of our software to do most the things that you want to do – the ball is really in your court.

When Martine (the manager) advised Eric (the team leader) about the complaint, Martine said to Eric, “We’ve had several of these incidents from your team recently, and two of them involved Kate. Can you please look into this to ensure that we avoid these problems in the future? Obviously, we need to protect our client relationships.”

Eric then met with Kate. Being aware that she is experiencing some outside-work pressures (with a sick child), Eric was conscious of not being overly critical.

Eric described to Kate the message he had received from his manager, Martine, and asked Kate for her version of events. It wasn’t as if Kate didn’t understand correct customer-facing behavior, she had been in her role for 5 years and had generally been a solid performer.

Kate reacted angrily. “Why did the client need to escalate this?” she demanded. “I told him that it would take a couple of days because we are down 2 team members. Doesn’t he get it? In any event, we are doing all of this support because Cameron’s company doesn’t have the infrastructure needed to support the current version of our product - it’s not really our problem.”

Later in the meeting when Kate had cooled down a bit, she said to Eric. “Look part of the problem here is that we’re short staffed. And part of that is because you assigned (named staff member) to work on the project with the marketing group. You didn’t discuss that with us, and then we had (another named staff member) leave unexpectedly two weeks ago.”

After the meeting, Eric found himself thinking about the resources issue. Kate had a point, he admitted to himself. When his own manager, Martine, had asked for a resource to be made available for a new marketing project, Eric thought this would have negative implications for the team’s service quality - but he hadn’t spoken up. Perhaps this was a mistake.


Now we apply the ARIES framework to open up this issue, looking at what could be going on and at possible opportunities from the perspective of Eric, the team leader. Let’s imagine we are working with Eric, helping to make sense of the issue.

ATTENDING

Here we pick out some aspects of the issue that could be directly discernable to Eric. And for each of these “observations” we contemplate possible inferences, interpretations – allowing that there can be more than one inference for each observation. Note also that inferences don’t need to be likely, just possible.
 

REFLECTING

The reflecting component aims to help in uncovering a more complete story as to what might be real for the various stakeholders; to decipher more about the underlying logic, beliefs and feelings that drive them. This part of the process uses a tool called the Reflection Matrix to look at what might be “under the waterline” of the iceberg for the key stakeholders; that is, possible hidden assumptions, interests, feelings, and knowledge.

In the present case, we imagine – from Eric’s perspective – what might be true presently for each of Cameron (the client), Martine (the manager), and Kate (the team member), as well as for himself. The presentation here is not intended to be comprehensive: you might be able to think of other hidden assumptions, interests, feelings or knowledge for the people involved.

Keep in mind the importance of attributing reasonableness in completing the matrix. It is only if we can regard others as acting reasonably – at least from their perspective – that we can test our analysis. Only an analysis capable of being tested is likely to contribute to engaging people and eliciting energy for change.
 

INQUIRING

The inquiring component of an ARIES analysis involves the case owner in framing vital questions; those that, in the particular context, are likely to foster joint exploration of contentious issues towards the achievement of deep-reaching change. An imperative for Eric, or for anyone else undertaking this process, is to think about the questions that really matter, including questions he would like to ask but may be inclined to hold back on. The attending and reflecting parts of the ARIES process should help in identifying such questions. A task then is to find ways to express those questions so as to minimize the prospect of hostile responses by others.

The inquiring component of ARIES includes 5 types of questions, as described in Chapter 8 of in the Leadership Mode:
 

Some sample questions
Here are a few examples of questions that Eric (the team leader) could ask the other stakeholders.

To Cameron (the client):

As I understand it your complaint concerns our delay in providing you with information you needed to produce urgent reports, and also what you see as rudeness by the team member, Kate, you dealt with. Do I understand the essence of your concerns correctly? (Checking)


What is your expectation for the turnaround time in response to an issue that you raise? (Info Gathering and Clarifying)

What is your recollection of the discussion with Kate? (Info Gathering and Clarifying)

You said that Kate was “rude” in her interactions with you, and you’ve provided some examples. What was it particularly in her behavior that you found to be rude? (Info Gathering and Clarifying)

Are you hesitant about upgrading your infrastructure? If so, can you share your reasons? (Exploring)


To Martine (Eric’s manager)

What do you see as the underlying issues raised by Cameron’s complaint? In asking this I appreciate that the issues may include aspects of my own performance and that of my team, but I’d like you tell it as you see it. (Exploring)

I imagine the recent series of four similar complaints, with two of them involving Kate, must have raised concerns in your mind about the performance of my area and of Kate in particular? (Testing)

What would be a good outcome for you, in working through this complaint and the associated issues it raises? (Futuring)


To Kate (the team member)

I heard about the complaint from management.  But I didn’t hear about it from you. I’m wondering did you make a decision not to talk to me about it. And if so, what was your thinking here? (Testing and Exploring)

Could it be that you were worried that a client you had been working with was upset, and about the possible reaction of management? (Testing)

You’ve mentioned the resources factor. How big a factor is this in the scheme of things for you? (Exploring)

I’m aware that your child is sick. How much has this been a factor in the issues that have arisen here? (Exploring)

You said that Cameron’s company doesn’t have the required software to support the current version of our product. Tell me about your thinking as to how we should deal with clients where they haven’t undertaken the necessary software upgrades? (Exploring)

How do you think we might be better able to deal with other similar complaints if and as they arise? (Futuring)

 

EXPRESSING

The expressing component provides an opportunity to think through and rehearse what you might say to specific stakeholders.

Keys with expressing are to:

• Speak from beyond your own frame of reference (i.e. to avoid being captive to the “truth” of your own argument and to acknowledge other realities, while holding open the reasonableness principle)
• Disclose some of what might otherwise be hidden for you (assumptions, interests, feelings and/or knowledge)
• Invite others to engage with what you say.

Creating a short “script” may help you in working out what to include in a verbal presentation and how best to express it.

 

Elements of the expressing framework

Introducing: Outlining the context for your remarks, your purpose in speaking up; naming the content you intend to cover

Asserting and supporting: Putting forward the key elements in your case and any reasoning and evidence to back them up, while acknowledging other views

Illuminating: Presenting stories and examples to “color-in” your arguments

Disclosing: Making explicit the relevant assumptions, interests, feelings and knowledge that you might not otherwise state

Inviting: Creating an opportunity for others to respond to what you have said.

Let’s imagine that Eric, the team leader decides to speak up to Martine, his manager, about the complaint from Cameron and the broader issues it raises. (Of course, Eric might also use the Expressing tool in thinking about what he might say in other conversations, including with Cameron, and Kate.) Also, in reality, such a conversation would probably include elements of both expressing and inquiring.

 

Introducing:

• I want to talk with you about the recent phone call you received from Cameron and the issues that come out of that incident and discussion.
• There are several sets of issues that I think it would be useful for us to talk about. They concern the client’s problems that led to the call, Kate’s behavior, the status of the client’s infrastructure, and our team’s resourcing and implications of that.
• My purpose is that we develop a shared understanding about the relative importance of the factors at play here, and about ways of preventing similar problems occurring in future.
• I’d also like to talk with you about the action I have in mind to deal specifically with Cameron’s complaint.

Asserting and supporting:

In relation to the client’s problems, Eric could:

….describe the research he has done

… describe his findings with supporting evidence, regarding

    Kate’s behavior

    Client’s infrastructure

    Team resourcing

He might present his own distillation of the issues, while acknowledging the realities he imagines that the client, Kate, and Martine see:
 

For the client, that the delay in getting information from Kate is impacting on his ability to produce urgently-needed reports

For Kate (team member), that she is facing pressures including with reduced staff resources and in her outside work life, in the context of her being a 5-year contributor with a solid record

For Marine (manager), that she would expect complaints like Cameron’s to be sorted out at Eric’s level (or lower) and not come to her; that she may wondering about the performance of Eric’s group – and Kate – as there has been a series of complaints; and that she (Martine) be aware of the resources issue.

Eric could frame a clear request concerning what he wants from Martine.

And he could also state what he’s prepared to do, both by way of dealing with the present complaint and preventing further occurrences in future.

 

Illuminating:

Eric could offer an illustration or story to support his argument, perhaps drawing on experience from elsewhere.

 

Disclosing:

(Drawing on his Reflection Matrix self-assessment), Eric might speak about thoughts and feelings he has previously held back on, such as:
 

His earlier assumptions that the resourcing issue was non-negotiable; and that to speak up about the resourcing issue to Martine might have made him appear as not a team player

His sympathy with the position Kate is in, and his regret at not having spoken up on the resourcing issue – and the associated feeling that he has let his team down

His concern as to how Martine may have assessed him and the team in light of the complaint from Cameron, coming as it did after other complaints.

Inviting:

Eric might seek Martine’s response to his analysis and to the request/s he’s making.
 

SYNTHESIZING

Naming and specifying a Transformational Challenge

From (description of an initial set of conditions that can be held out as contestable):

A series of complaints have been received reflecting a combination of issues including resourcing issues, unclear expectations, infrastructure issues, and inappropriate customer relationship practices. The various stakeholders hold differing perceptions regarding the importance of these issues.


To (description of a desired set of conditions, representing a future vision fulfilled, again that can be held out as contestable):

A fully-staffed, informed, and responsive support function, with clear and agreed understandings with clients about the levels of service and quality they can expect and that we will provide, and client-oriented communication - leading to improved levels of customer service. This to include establishing understandings with clients about their obligations, particularly with regard to infrastructure upgrades.

ARIES Framework by Don Dunoon, New Futures is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at www.dondunoon.com/contact.html