Welcome to this week’s Discuss HR. I often write about time flying and there is no better example than the fact that today’s edition is the 2nd article by leadership coach, Dorothy Nesbit. You may recall Dorothy bravely launched Discuss HR with her article which asked the question of whether HR is its own worst enemy. She cited 3 examples of how HR can improve its performance and reputation. Today she expands her third point about real conversations. (Ed Scrivener)
Real conversations – talking in ways that work
And because we are human and the leaders we serve are human I would want to see us make the mother of all our investments in learning how to hold what I call “real conversations”. This would require an examination of the beliefs that underpin our chosen approach to communication and a commitment to replace a unilateral (“domination”) approach with an approach which is rooted in acceptance and aspires to mutual learning.
Dorothy Nesbit
Recently, when a valued friend and colleague (let’s call him John) wrote in response to an e-mail I sent that “your tone towards me in your email is inappropriate and not appreciated”, I knew immediately that the spirit in which I wrote had got lost in translation.
Communication, it seems, is something we all recognise as important and, at the same time, find difficult. Many organisations continue to invest in training in many aspects of communication. There is no surprise in this: we all know that poor communication skills can lead to any number of outcomes which, in turn, lead to poor business results. Improve communication and we reverse this trend. How is it, then, that even with the level of investment that many organisations make in communication, few organisations boast of their prowess in this area?
Perhaps one reason is this: that few organisations, and few organisations that consult to organisations, have taken any systematic view of what it takes to hold a real conversation, let alone what it takes to make such conversations an ongoing part of an organisation’s culture. In this article, I identify and briefly explore seven areas which need to be addressed as part of any systematic approach to communication. In case you’re interested to read more, I’ll be writing a more extended series of postings on this subject in the coming days in my blog.
Meantime, I am interested to hear your questions and I also have some questions for you. To what extent, for example, do you see HR as guardians of effective communication in your organisation? How desirable is it – and how realistic – to have a communications policy which identifies the aspirations of your organisation?
Area 1: What are your aims for communication in your organisation? So much has been done to study the effects of different styles of communication that it’s possible to choose your approach to communication based on a clear understanding of your aims. Choose one style of communication, for example, and you increase levels of mistrust which, in turn, makes it hard to get to the root of and to resolve problems. The more this style of communication is endemic across an organisation the more it leads to mediocre performance, poor morale and low levels of engagement, increased sickness and high staff turnover – and that’s before we even start to think of the impact on our customers.
Choose another style of communication and you build trust even whilst making it easier to have some of the most challenging conversations which face us (and, let’s face it, HR practitioners are charged with their fair share). This second style of communication gets to the root of problems so that they are addressed fully and effectively. It also facilitates the conversations that generate the most creative and effective solutions.
Once you have a clear understanding of the outcomes you would like from your chosen approach, you can choose a communication paradigm that supports you in making progress towards your aims. This is relatively easy given the amount of research available in this area.
Area 2: Choosing a communication paradigm that supports your aims: Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y are essentially two paradigms of communication. One of them (Theory X) is based on the idea that management control is required because employees need to be “coerced, controlled, directed and threatened with punishment to get them to put forth adequate effort toward the achievement of organisational objectives”. This is a communication paradigm which is based on the idea that some people know better than others and have, as a result, the right to dominate and control. As an alternative, McGregor offers Theory Y, which is based on the assumption that employees are worthy of trust and respect because they are intrinsically motivated to do a good job.
One aspect of McGregor’s research that is often overlooked is that both theories appear to be “right” in the sense that they constitute self-fulfilling prophecies. If you want motivated staff, choose and cultivate an approach to communication which is rooted in acceptance and aspires to mutual learning (Theory Y). If you want mistrust and mediocre performance to proliferate, choose a domination-based approach (Theory X).
Both approaches differ in where they place attention. If you’re serious about choosing motivation and engagement, you need to choose the Theory Y approach to communication and, in turn, to choose to focus your communication in a way that supports it.
Area 3: Choosing the focus of your communication: A domination-based approach to communication will tend to focus on who or what is right or wrong and to gather data which supports the case. At best, data which does not support a particular way of thinking or forward path is dismissed or ignored. At worst, parties to communication are opponents, seeking to prevail, galvanising their arguments in order to win. This approach may be explicit (in the request for a presentation to support a proposal, for example) or implicit (in the way we think about our colleagues behind the scenes).
A mutual-learning approach, by contrast, is about collaborating in order to achieve a variety of outcomes, including business and personal outcomes. This paradigm has as its central focus desired outcomes, underpinned by needs or - to use the language of negotiation - “interests”.
The idea that communication might seek to identify and respond to diverse needs tends to gladden the hearts of many people in the workplace. Until, that is, they realise that holding real conversations means standing close to the fire.
Area 4: Standing close to the fire: It’s one thing for Sarah to suggest to her CEO that some extra resource might move forward the IT project more rapidly. It’s another thing for her to share with the CEO that his decision to use his friend as a consultant to the project has proven to be a disaster and has put progress back by three months. At the same time, sharing this information might be precisely what’s needed to get the project back on track.
Real conversations require a willingness to share and discuss information which may be sensitive for one or more of the participants in the conversation. It implies being ready to discuss the undiscussable issues that are holding the organisation back. At the same time, it implies having safeguards in place which make such discussions possible.
If you want to have real conversations about real issues, your chosen approach to communication needs to be underpinned by values and beliefs which facilitate this kind of sharing.
Area 5: Choosing values that support your chosen communication paradigm: One of the most important values, in my view, that underpins the ability to hold real conversations, is compassion. This is the willingness to hold oneself and others as human and to accept everything that this involves. When I think of John, for example, whom I mentioned at the beginning of this article, I am guessing that my e-mail triggered strong emotions in him – what Goleman calls an amygdala hijack. It was from this place that he responded.
This can be a bit like getting drunk at the office party. You did it. Everyone involved knows you did it. You wish you hadn’t done it. You all have the choice to ignore it and pretend it didn’t happen, though this is not without consequences over time. At the same time, restoring trust requires being able to speak about what happened in ways which honour everyone’s needs. These include needs which are deeply human, such as John’s need for dignity and my own need for empathy as the recipient of John’s e-mail. Sharing these needs can stimulate feelings of vulnerability unless we have a shared value of compassion.
Our ability to hold real conversations also depends on holding beliefs that support us. This is my next area of exploration.
Area 6: Choosing beliefs that support your communication paradigm: McGregor’s early theory rests on the different beliefs and assumptions that underpin two different approaches to communication. By paying attention to our beliefs we can check out whether or not they support our chosen approach to communication.
One discipline which has done this very successfully is neuro-linguistic programming (NLP). Borrowing from Alfred Korzybski, for example, practitioners of NLP are taught that “the map is not the territory”. Holding this belief reminds us to differentiate between the facts and our view of the facts. In the same way, holding the belief that “every behaviour has a positive intention” invites us to look behind some of the behaviours we find most difficult in others in order to identify and respond to the positive intentions that underpin them.
Taken together, the areas I have identified can be translated into ground rules which support communication in line with your chosen paradigm.
Area 7: Creating ground rules for effective communication: The more you can translate your aspirations into ground rules for effective communication, the more you can implement an approach in line with your chosen paradigm. A number of disciplines and approaches have chosen to do this.
Marshall Rosenberg, in the field of nonviolent communication (NVC) emphasises maintaining connection as a priority in communication – what NLP calls rapport. By adopting this as a rule, you remind yourself (and others) that communication is about building and maintaining relationships first. Any other outcomes depend on your relationship with others in the moment.
Roger Schwarz, in his Skilled Facilitator approach offers a number of rules which pre-empt some of the most common communication problems. He invites people to test their assumptions and inferences, for example, and also to explain their reasoning and intent. Looking back on my own communication with John, I can see that I could have done more to make my own intentions crystal clear and that this, in turn, might have made a misunderstanding less likely.
Finally, what about John? As I write, he has chosen to withdraw from the group of which we were both members as a way to improve his management of his time. He’s also chosen not to have any of the discussions which might help to rebuild our sense of connection. And me? I am ready to support John in doing what’s right for him. And I’ve also invited him to join me in the kind of dialogue that repairs relationships. I’m trusting he’ll do that ...when he’s ready.
About the author:
Dorothy Nesbit, Leadership Coach, unleashes innate leadership potential through powerful, compassionate and authentic conversations.
Blog | Website
Blog | Website
*****
Discuss HR is the blog for Human Resources UK, the leading LinkedIn group for those involved with HR in the UK. Next week’s Discuss HR will be published on Thursday 10th January and we are delighted to welcome guest writer, CEO Greg Kilminster.
No comments:
Post a Comment