1. We have a real communication problem here.
2. They don’t tell us anything, and when they do tell us, it’s not much.
3. They never give us enough information.

The absence or inadequacy of communication is one of the most frequently voiced complaints in the workplace.  Perhaps the only complaint more frequently voiced is some version of “there is no leadership”.  Interestingly, the complaint is always from people on the receiving end, never on the sending end.  In fact, if you talk to leaders and managers, they are likely to tell you they are “always communicating” with people.

So, when it comes to communication in the workplace we have this interesting conundrum: leaders and managers insist they are communicating, but people on the receiving end insist they are getting no or poor communication.  Is this simply an issue of misperception?  In some cases, but misperception does not account for all of it.  In fact, my research and experience indicates that misperception accounts for very little.  The bigger factor is that managers don’t distinguish among the types of conversations they are using and whether they are using the appropriate conversations.

There are numerous articles that offer recommendations on how to improve workplace communication.  One article, for example, proposes that managers change the style, method, content, timing, and frequency of their communications.  Another article recommends such things as avoid gossiping, getting overly personal, or raising controversial subjects.  Although these recommendations all contribute to more effective workplace communication, they all ignore one simple fact – not all conversations are the same.  If managers use the wrong type of conversation, or use the right one inappropriately, getting the style, content, etc. right won’t make any difference.  They will still be ineffective.

Many people erroneously believe that understanding is the source of action.  Understanding may be necessary for action (e.g., you can’t sum a column of numbers if you don’t know addition), but it is not sufficient to get people to act (e.g., knowing how to add doesn’t mean you will tabulate the column of numbers).  A result of this belief is that considerable attention is given to trying to improve the chances people will understand our communications.  The assumption being that if people clearly understand and comprehend the communication, then they will behave in the desired manner.

Check it out for yourself.  How many times have you “explained things again” when people didn’t do what was expected?  Or how often have your heard (or said) something like “What didn’t they understand?” or “How could they not understand this?”  I have found in my work with managers that when they don’t get what they expect, their explanations frequently become longer and more detailed.  They earnestly believe that people didn’t do what was expected because they didn’t understand something.  And if the longer explanation doesn’t work, managers blame the other person for being lazy, stupid, uncommitted, incompetent, etc.  Rarely do managers consider that they may be using the wrong conversation to get what they want, or that if they are using the right conversation, they are using it inappropriately. Understanding is only one of four types of conversations used by managers.

There is only one type of conversation that reliably gets people into action and that’s a performance conversation.  Performance conversations involve making requests and getting promises.  Although there are a variety of ways (styles?) one can go about making requests and getting promises, they all boil down to asking the other person to take an action or produce a result within a specified time period.  For example, “Will you schedule a brainstorming session of our lead designers for the last week of April?”

If what you want to accomplish is people taking a specific action or producing a specific result within some time period, then the appropriate conversation to use is a performance conversation.  On the other hand, if you what you want is to inform people, develop a plan for accomplishing a goal or objective, or have them understand something, then the appropriate conversation to use is an understanding conversation.  However, if you use an understanding conversation on the assumption it will lead to people taking specific actions or producing desired results, you and the people with whom you have the conversation are likely to be very disappointed.  They will not know what actions or results you want or by when, and you will not get the actions and results you expect.

And what do you think the result of this disappointment will be?  Well, among other things, they are likely to say “We weren’t told”, “The communication wasn’t clear”, or “We weren’t given the right information.”  In other words, they will blame “poor communication”.  You, on the other hand, may say something like “I don’t get it.  I told them everything they needed.  What more do they want?”  In other words, you will say there was sufficient communication.

Sounds like the very conundrum we started with, doesn’t it?

Consider the case of Paul (you met him earlier in http://professorford.com/2010/02/01/is-demanding-%E2%80%9Cnow%E2%80%9D-undermining-leadership/).  He has consistently had problems with his boss not setting deadlines and calling things “high priority”.  From where Paul sits, this habit is frustrating, inefficient, and ineffective.  So he wants his boss to stopping doing it and start having more complete performance conversations in which deadlines are established and agreements for actions and results clearly established.  Now, unlike many people who just complain about their bosses, Paul has actually talked to his boss about the issue, but without success.

In the face of his failure, Paul asked, “I need to come up with an angle/pitch that proves unequivocally that the form of “high priority” manipulation my boss uses is inefficient.  I need to detail a “process” to help him make better requests more efficiently. Any thoughts, resources, and editorial skills are welcome.”

I told him, “If it were me, I would want to know what my boss is concerned about, what he is accountable for and how he wins at his game.  Inefficiency may not be his thing in which case you are showing him something he may not care about. The thing that is likely to interest him is if you can show him that his actions are actually working to limit him getting what he wants or cares about.”

No matter how insane, inane, or just plain stupid the actions of a boss may seem to us, those exact same actions look reasonable, appropriate, and potentially effective from the boss’s point of view.  Bosses and the people who work for them live in different worlds – what looks “wrong” in our world looks “right” in theirs.  So, if you want to understand more about why bosses do what they do, you will want to learn more about what the world looks like to them rather than judge them from a world they do not inhabit – ours.

Paul raised an interesting issue: “Maybe that is the problem in of itself.  Maybe my requests to understand his concerns are not good enough.  It feels that when the topic comes up I am rebuffed more than answered.  I will have to think some more on that.  Maybe the simple answer is that my request is just not understood?”

What I like about Paul’s response is that he is beginning to consider that maybe he has something to do with how his boss is acting.  Rather than put all the blame on his boss, or make what his boss is doing wrong, Paul is looking at one of the things he can personally control – his own communications.

I told Paul, “Pperhaps he doesn’t understand why you would want to know what they [his concerns, etc.] are. There are at least two reasons someone might want to know my concerns – to support me or to thwart me.  Since most people don’t seem to care about the concerns of others, it can be seen as strange and create suspicion and guardedness.  The key would be to make it clear you are his partner in winning and that your only interest is to support him in winning at what he needs to win at.  Any other reason is worthy of suspicion.  If any of this were the case for him, then the approach would be a closure conversation to acknowledge the past attempts and your concern that your interest may have seemed out of place and apologize for that.  Then let him know it was out of an interest in support and that you still have that and if he is willing to share with you, you promise your support, thereby creating a new agreement with him [or something like that].”

Bosses are interested in winning at the game they are accountable for to their bosses, and anything we do that does not support them in that is seen as a hindrance, a distraction, or unnecessary.  Paul’s wanting deadlines is something he wants, not something his boss necessarily sees as valuable no matter how often Paul tries to explain it to him.  However, if through the use of deadlines, Paul can have his boss win, his boss is more likely to see the value in deadlines.  Paul now has a choice, complain about the way his boss works, or become a partner to his boss and use what he (Paul) knows to have his boss win.  If what Paul has to offer has value, the proof will be in the results.

Paul wants his boss to use deadlines rather than calling everything “high priority”.  One way of accomplishing that is to partner with his boss.  Now he has to decide if he wants to do that, or if he just wants to BMW (bitch, moan, and whine) about his boss – could be a tough choice!

There are lots of reasons why we don’t like some people at work: they don’t treat us or others the way we think they should, they create problems for us and others, they don’t do what they say they will, and so on.  For the most part, these differences don’t create problems for us and we can go on about our work without much difficulty.  But occasionally the fact that we don’t like them, or the things they do, gets in our way.  It is at these times that our lack of affinity for them actually works against us; our effectiveness is reduced, our stress increases, and we lose our sense of humor.  Work gets harder and more unpleasant and it takes longer and more effort to get things done.  And, we blame them.

What we fail to consider in all this is that it is OUR lack of affinity for them that is an issue.  It is not surprising that we treat people we like differently than the people we don’t. Nor is it surprising that we use the fact we like or dislike someone as a justification for how we treat them.  When asked why we do or don’t do things for others, we are likely to respond (if truthful) “I like/don’t like them”.   We act as if they are responsible for our liking or disliking them; that it is their fault we don’t have much affinity for them.  As a result, we believe that unless and until they change, our relationship with them has little chance of improving.  We are not responsible.

Like most people, the managers in my MBA class bought into this line of reasoning.  That is, until they did an exercise in which each one of them wrote a letter to three people they didn’t particularly like.  In the letter, they were to write out exactly what they would say to the person to authentically:
1. Acknowledge the person for something they had done but which the manager had not acknowledged, e.g., completing a project on time;
2. Appreciate something about the person, e.g., a good sense of humor;
3. Apologize for a mistake or misunderstanding the manager was responsible for but had not owned up to, e.g., not providing clear directions on an assignment; and
4. Amend an agreement that had been broken but had been stepped over, e.g., an agreement to meet on a weekly basis which wasn’t kept.

What surprised each and every manager was that they had more affinity for the person after they wrote the letter than before.  They discovered that it was their interpretations, assessments, evaluations, and conclusions about the other person that was the source of their liking or disliking them, not the other person.  They realized that they could be responsible for their affinity toward others and that if they were willing, they could shift that affinity.  What they found most exciting was that they could potentially improve their working relationships with other people if they were willing to authentically engage in something as simple as acknowledging, appreciating, apologizing, and amending agreements with them.

No doubt, inspired understanding can get people excited and energized, and there are numerous books and websites that focus on being an inspirational leader.  But inspired understanding is not enough.  If it were, Obama and other inspirational leaders would be far more effective and successful than they are.  If leaders want reliable action from others they will need requests and accountability.

One of the biggest mistakes leaders make is to assume that when people understand something, they will take the appropriate actions on their own.  That somehow the excitement and engagement that comes from being inspired will automatically translate into effective action.  Unfortunately, understanding, even inspired understanding, does not cause reliable action.  During the 2008 Presidential campaign, there was considerable speculation whether the younger voters who were inspired by Obama would, in fact, vote.  This speculation shows that the link between inspired understanding and action is not direct or tight.

How many times have we attended meetings, conferences, or seminars in which we were inspired by what was said and then left the event and did nothing?  We may have talked about how great the event was, or even what difference it would make if people did the things that were talked about, but then still did nothing.  Or, maybe some of us did take action.  Maybe we were one of the one’s who saw the value and importance in what was said and initiated some actions on our own only to find that no one else was.  No, inspired understanding is not enough.

If leaders want action, reliable action, then the way to get people into action is by having performance conversations in which they make requests and then holding people accountable for their promises through closure conversations. The American Society of Training and Development (ASTD) conducted a study to determine under what conditions people are most likely to complete a task. Their results indicate that people are six times more likely to do something when they promise actions, results, or outcomes to someone else (65%) than when they just hear a good idea (10%).  And they are almost certain (95%) to complete a task when they have a scheduled appointment where they will be held to account for their promise.

Requests provide people with an opportunity to take specific actions that forward the accomplishment of something that may, or may not, inspire them.  Well formulated requests let people know what is wanted and needed, when it is wanted and needed, and why it matters.  Getting people inspired and not making a request gets everyone buzzed, but gives them no outlet for the energy.  As the ASTD study shows, leaders who assume inspired understanding is sufficient will be frequently disappointed.  People may “feel good” about the leader and the message, but little will happen.

But requests must come with accountability.  Accountability is built in the interactions between people in which they account for the status of the promises they made to each other.  As the ASTD study shows, if this accounting does not happen, there is a substantial reduction in the likelihood people will do what they promised.  As a result, leaders lose credibility and trust by failing to follow through on their requests.

Inspired understanding clearly can energize people.  But if leaders want reliable and appropriate actions, they will combine inspired understanding with requests and accountability.  Otherwise, they run the risk of becoming “motivational speakers” people like listening to, but do nothing with what they hear.

When Ed Koch was mayor of New York, he was concerned about the number of accidents resulting from bikers darting in and out of traffic. Determined to solve the problem, he had “bike lanes” painted on the sides of city streets. But instead of making things better, the bike lanes actually made things worse. Drivers, undeterred by the double yellow lines identifying bike lanes, crossed them so frequently that police could not write enough tickets, and accidents involving bikers increased. As a result, Mayor Koch had the bike lanes removed, ending a futile exercise that cost the city millions of dollars.

Plenty of editorial space was given to criticizing the blunder and Koch’s poor judgment. Reporters, looking for blood, sought interviews with the beleaguered mayor. In one television interview he agreed to, which was scheduled to last thirty minutes, the host was armed with a list of questions that were sure to make Koch look bad. The host began by asking, “Mayor Koch, you spent millions of taxpayer dollars to paint those bike lanes only to remove them. That tax money could have gone to valuable social services. What do you have to say for yourself?”

Pausing, Mayor Koch replied, “You’re absolutely right. It was a huge mistake. I made the wrong decision, and I apologize.” The host, stunned by the mayor’s response, gathered herself and proceeded through her list of questions, each of which was an accusation of some kind. To each accusation, Mayor Koch gave a similar response, admitting the mistake and apologizing for it. The interview lasted for only five of the scheduled thirty minutes after which the topic was dropped, never to be raised again.

Mayor Koch’s success in this interview demonstrates the power of what we call Closure Conversations. By acknowledging the facts that New Yorkers already knew—that the bike lanes were an idea that didn’t work—and then apologizing for it, Mayor Koch completely disarmed the issue and brought it to a close. In the process, he restored some of his credibility and the confidence New Yorkers had lost in his stewardship of the city.

Closure Conversations can restore credibility and confidence, reduce resentment, build accomplishment and accountability, add velocity to projects, and increase the engagement of participants and potential participants.  Try them – they work.

[From “The Four Conversations: Daily Communication that Gets Results” by Jeffrey and Laurie Ford, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, p. 131-2]

Here is what Paul has to say about it:  “While I continually ask my boss for deadline and priority setting, I often receive non-committal responses or am blatantly ignored when I attempt to clarify his requests.  He has also taken to using the excuse that his boss “demands it now” and that is why he does it.”

Clearly there are times when bosses are under the gun to get something to happen immediately.  Emergencies do happen and unexpected opportunities arise with short response windows.  When these arise, bosses are completely justified in asking that things be done “now”.  But these should be rare occasions, not standard operating procedure.  The fact that bosses can demand something be done now doesn’t make it good leadership practice.  And passing the blame, as this boss does, only further undermines credibility, reduce other’s confidence, and creates victims who are not accountable.

Habitually asking for things “now” is inconsiderate, disruptive, and reduces the likelihood of getting them “now”.  It is inconsiderate because it denies people the opportunity to plan and schedule their work while increasing their levels of uncertainty and stress.  It is disruptive because these types of interruptions result in missed deadlines on other projects and assignments, lower productivity, and increase inefficiencies.  As a result, things that are wanted “now” can actually take longer to achieve than they would have if planned for in advance.

Habitually asking for things “now” contributes to a “fire fighting” culture where people become increasing resentful (resistant?), resigned, and disengaged.  You can almost hear the resentment and resignation in how Paul describes his response to when his boss demands “now”: “I just pull out my sheet, point to the deadlines, and say “We’ll keep working at it.”

Contrast this with what Paul says about his own use of deadlines:  “I have been highly successful in by cooperatively establishing timelines for projects.  Doing so has endeared me to my resources and I feel they are going the extra mile to meet the established deadlines.  I work at restraining the urges to push the “now” button so that when I do, I get a “now” response.”

There are times when, as Paul says, managers need to push the “now” button.  But it is possible to minimize its use.  One way to minimize its use is to plan. There is a popular saying that “Your failure to plan is not my emergency.”  Unfortunately, for people like Paul, the failure of a boss to plan does become their emergency.

Planning doesn’t have to be an elaborate process.  At a minimum it involves looking at the work that is due in the coming week(s) and making the appropriate requests in a timely manner.  One tool that can support managers in doing this planning is a weekly schedule in which they schedule not only meetings and appointments, but when work needs to be to them in order for them to meet their obligations.  Without some structure for reminding us of what is due and when, managers are left to their memories, which are not always reliable, and can result in suddenly remembering that something is needed “now”.

On the surface, habitually demanding things be done “now” might look like it works.  Deeper down, however, leaders and managers are contributing to the very things that undermine the productivity and performance they seek to achieve.  Leaders who are interested in building engaged, accountable, and reliable performers will reconsider this practice.

I recently talked to a manager – let’s call him Roy – whose company had completed a series of employee satisfaction surveys.  It turns out that although Roy’s unit scored higher than others on overall happiness, there were a few areas in which his unit was lower.  To find out why, the people who conducted the survey had a meeting with the employees in Roy’s unit in which they were asked to talk about the things they didn’t like.

“After that meeting, I am convinced people were more unhappy with work than they were before,” Roy told me.  “Why is that?” he wanted to know.

What Roy’s unit went through is what might be called “trauma sharing”, which is a form of understanding conversation in which people want other people to understand how bad things really are.  There is no purpose to the conversation other than to get the misery out.  In the process, people try to “one up” each other with how their problem or situation is so much worse than anyone else.  The result is a form of emotional contagion in which people become increasing dissatisfied and unhappy.

An alternative to “trauma sharing” is to have people talk about what they like at work and how they could get more of that.  In this case, people talk about the things that give them satisfaction and happiness.  The point here is not to outdo each other, but to share the things that you like about your work: the people, the assignments, the equipment, and humorous interchanges, anything that gives you satisfaction.  The result is a positive form of emotional contagion in which people become increasingly satisfied, animated, and happy.

People’s emotions and attitudes are a product of the conversations they are having.  If they are having conversations about things they find dissatisfying, they will become increasingly dissatisfied.  By the same token, if they are in conversations about things that are satisfying to them, they will be satisfied.  Want to increase your satisfaction at work?  Change what you talk about from what you don’t like to what you do and see what happens.

Most of us have experiences similar to those reported by Chiang.  I once order some electronic marketing materials online with a “money back guarantee”.  When I downloaded it and found it did give me what I wanted,  I emailed and called the seller – multiple times.  At no time did he respond (sorry, I don’t remember the  seller’s name), so I finally contacted my credit card company, went through their processes, and eventually got my money back. Interestingly, even though I don’t remember the seller, I do remember one of the people who endorsed him (whom I also contacted and who didn’t respond) and I will no longer consider his products either.  Unfortunately, not only do the people who “don’t respond” hurt themselves, they cast a shadow of doubt over everyone else in the business.

But “no response” is not limited just to businesses.  How many people do you send replies to when they send you something important?  How many people tell you when they got the report, the email, the proposal, or any number of other things you invested in providing them?  Is your opinion of them higher or lower as a result?

I, like most people, get plenty of emails.  Some are simply “fyi”, whereas, others want me to do something.  In each case, I read the email to determine if it is something they need to know “I got it” and, if so, respond accordingly.  I am not yet 100% reliable, but I am working on it because I think it makes a difference to the other person.  I like knowing when people get what I send them, so I assume they would like to know as well.

During our discussion, several people pointed out how often they are not told why something is being undertaken and how much it bothers them.  Laurie and I heard similar comments from the managers and supervisors at Rolls Royce in Ohio who were going through several organizational changes.  When we told them about the four different types of conversations, they pointed out that they were not told why the particular changes were being made.

What was particularly interesting with both the COSI and Rolls Royce groups was that they were not so much concerned with the WHY itself as the fact that they were not being told.  In other words, it wasn’t important to them what the reason for the changes were, or why it they were important as much as it was that they were not being told; they were given no explanations.  For the people at Rolls Royce, the fact that they were not being told was seen as disrespectful and distrusting.

People want a reason for why you want something, and if you don’t give one, they can become resentful and hold it against you.  Some people may argue with the reason, dislike the reason, or even think its stupid, but they want a reason.  There is a story about people waiting in line to use a copier when someone tries to cut into the line without giving a reason.  People already inline got upset and “threw” the person out of line.  However, when another person tried the same thing, and gave the reason that they were in a hurry to meet a deadline, they were allowed to cut.  Telling people why you want something or explaining why you are doing something helps people to make sense of what is happening.

If you want more effective working relationships with people, try telling them WHY something is important.

I recently had a conversation with a manager who was disturbed by her inability to meet the expectations of those “higher up” (her term).  They would give her assignments and then, when she would complete them, they would point out something that was missing they expected to be included. Has this ever happened to you? Although it is easy for this manager to blame the “higher ups” for not being clear, she shares some of the responsibility for not finding out what they wanted.

If you look at each of your current assignments, are you confident you are 100% clear about what is expected of you in every case?  Is everyone else involved in the assignment also 100% clear about what you expect of them?  Or are you assuming you’ll figure it out, or they already know?

Assumptions and expectations are “silent standards”. We take a big risk when we assume that everyone knows what to do. If creativity is desirable, it’s fine to give a general direction. But if there are specific creative requirements that matter, you’ll want to get them spelled out.

Take the time to spell things out. What should the final product look like? What are the components? When do they need to be ready? Are there other people who should be involved and if so, who?  Is there a particular method or process that should be used or avoided? What restrictions and specifications apply? Don’t take a chance: assume nothing is obvious.

Remember: everyone associated with an assignment has expectations and assumptions.  Some people expect you to ask for their advice, others want to be kept informed, and some only want to be involved in an emergency.  And, they expect you to operate according to these expectations even if you don’t know them!  Ask people to take time with you to spell out their expectations.  Yes, you have to ask.

Sometimes people are afraid to ask because it might make them look less competent or capable, or they don’t want to deal with an unpleasant reaction.  One way around this is to say something like “I want to be sure you get exactly what you want and in order to do that, I want to be sure I understand the assignment clearly.  I don’t want to complete it only to find out there is something missing that you wanted included.  Could we take a few more minutes to clarify some things?”

Getting clear creates a common ground in that both of you know what is expected.  This has the effect of turning an expectation into an agreement and gives you (and them) the opportunity to say whether you can or cannot do what they ask. If something new comes up later, you can always say, “I didn’t agree to that, but I’m willing to consider it.”  What you want to avoid is having to say, “I didn’t know you needed that,” or, “I thought this is what you wanted”.

Reduce your risk by taking time to unspoken expectations into clear agreements that everyone can see and understand.