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?

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.

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.

Although there were a variety of answers, there were two underlying themes.  The first was how to motivate people to change.  The second was how to deal with people when they resist change.  It was all I could do to say “If you stop trying to motivate them, you might find they are more cooperative.”

Stop trying to motivate people!? Are you nuts Ford?  Isn’t motivation what leaders and managers are supposed to do?  How do you expect to get people to do what needs to be done if you don’t motivate them?

The answer to that question has two parts.  The first is by making good requests and getting good promises in return.  The second is by consistently following up on those requests and promises in order to build credibility, trust, and accountability.

In many cases, “motivation” has become the code word for convincing, either positively or negatively, people to do something we want done.  Such convincing may involve trying to inspire them, making them feel guilty or obligated, offering them some inducement, or threatening them.  But regardless of its form, convincing people (motivating them) has the effect of reducing people to victims.

How does it make them victims?  Because it says we are the cause of their behavior, not them.  They are doing what they are doing at the effect of “our” motivation.  It is tough to have others be accountable when we say we are the one motivating them – so they aren’t accountable for their behavior, we are.

Why not stop trying to motivate people and let them be accountable for their own motivation?  Make good requests in which you ask people to take actions or produce results by a specified due date, ensure they have the resources needed to do what is asked (this includes time and availability), and that they have an idea of how to accomplish what is being asked.  Let them know you are taking them at their word, ask if there is anything they need from you, and set a time to meet to discuss the outcome.  Then follow through true to your word.

Something happens when people realize their internal state (motivation) is not your responsibility, but is up to them.  They become more willing to engage with you as partners rather than someone you have to convince.

Managers seem to believe that accountability is a personal attribute or characteristic of someone, like being introverted, or charismatic.  So when they say “we need people to be accountable”, they are talking as if they have nothing to do with the fact that accountability is missing.  They are wrong.

Accountability is something that is learned.  It is something that is built and developed.  It is built and learned through relationships where accountability is part and parcel of the relationship.  Relationships where both people are accountable, but for different things: one for doing something and the other for seeing that it is done.  What this means is that if accountability is missing, then it is missing in that particular relationship.  I have seen many cases in which a person is not accountable in one relationship, but is accountable in another.  If accountability were a personal attribute or characteristic, it would be present in all relationships.

If managers are looking for greater accountability, then they need to be sure that they are fulfilling their side of the accountability equation.  This means that they are sure that people know WHAT they are to do, deliver, or produce, by WHEN they are to have it completed, and WHO they are accountable to.  If these are not in place, then you can try to hold someone to account, but for what?  Not doing something they didn’t know was to be done?  For not completing something according to some timeline they didn’t even know about?  Or for not communicating to the person or persons they didn’t even know they were to communicate with?  If you want people to be accountable, you have to give them the things they need in order to succeed, otherwise accountability becomes some kind of blame game.

Oh yeah, there is one other thing.  If you are sure people know WHAT is to be done, by WHEN it is to be done, and to WHO they are accountable, then you have to follow up with them at the due date to find out if they succeeded or failed.  When you follow up on the things you assign or ask for, people learn that you will ask them to account for the results, positive or negative.  Just knowing this begins to build accountability.

What more accountability in your workplace?  Then stop waiting for people to somehow magically become more accountable, and start building accountability into your relationship with them by making sure that WHAT, WHEN, and WHO are clearly in place and then following up to have them account for the results.