Take this lesson as we look at an illustration to further explore the FAMe model.
In the previous lesson, we had looked at the FAMe model, which helps us make objective decisions in complex situations.
Let us see how this model works in practice by using it in the context of Komal’s case.
F: Fact Checking or Verifying Beliefs / Assumptions
Komal would do well to ascertain if the facts concerning Rajiv are valid, or a product of someone’s biases or ulterior motives? She must also ascertain if the information/ data presented by Kirti, Rajiv’s supervisor, is complete
For example, what does the term ‘consistently’ in the feedback “Rajiv has consistently failed to do what is required of him” imply? How often has Rajiv failed to do what is expected of him?
Also, what percentage of people are saying that Rajiv’s attitude is poor? Do these people represent the majority view on Rajiv? Who prompted this data collection (if it was not you)? Why was this data collected (perhaps it was motivated by personal vendetta)? How was this data collected?
Komal needs to verify the facts and generate as much information as is possible, or she will arrive at a faulty decision.
A: Generating Alternatives (Avoiding binary ‘either/ or’ thinking)
In the case study confronting Komal, most people would choose either to ‘fire Rajiv’ or to ‘work with Rajiv to help him improve’. And for most people, such a decision would be almost spontaneous.
Both decisions, though, comprise a binary, “either/or” approach to decision making. But are these the only two options available to her?
For instance, how does Komal know that Kirti’s assessment of Rajiv is accurate? Perhaps the problem is with Kirti, rather than with Rajiv. It could very well be Kirti that must be ‘fired’ or ‘worked upon’. This could represent option number three for Komal.
Or, how do she know that people hate Rajiv’s conduct? What if she does an informal survey of the team and 80% of the people say that they appreciate his honesty, and just dislike the crudeness in the phrasing of his feedback? All that’s required to fix the issue here would be some sort of training for Rajiv on how to provide feedback. This could be option number four for Komal.
And why has Rajiv failed to deliver? When did such slippages first begin to appear? Why does he not take the initiative with the innovation tasks that he excels at? Maybe, Rajiv has reached a plateau with his job role and wants to explore other career avenues that are currently not available to him. A lateral movement might be just the answer. This could be option five.
And finally, assuming the situation does warrant performance managing Rajiv out of the team, must it involve a termination of contract? Could there be the scope of redeploying him to an area that might benefit from his strengths and skills? Or maybe give him an individual contributor role, where Rajiv doesn’t need to work with a team and the organization can still utilise his strengths? This is option six
So, you see, it needn’t be a ‘fire’ or ‘keep’ decision. The binary ‘either-or’ mindset serves to be nothing more than a mental blinker.
