COMMUNICATING? VALUABLE. CONVERSING? PRICELESS.

Our work with changing culture through conversations often leads people to conclude that we are in the business of helping people and organizations communicate better.  Well, yes and no.

Sure, communication is the foundation, but it doesn’t tell the whole story.  Communication and conversations both are necessary, valuable and help us get things done. But from our perspective, viewing communication and conversations as the same thing is like comparing a technical manual to great literature.

By definition, communication is a transmission. It’s transactive and reactive, a process that skews toward the utilitarian. Two-way communication is typical: I deliver information to you, and you react and respond.  But delivery/response is not imperative in communication: I can deliver a message to you without wanting or needing a response. And I can receive a message without feeling the need to reply. We can communicate one-to-one, or one person can deliver a message to the masses

Communication is a transaction that says: “Here is what you need to know. This is what I want you to hear.” That’s why a singular focus on “better communication” in a relationship or in an organization misses the mark, in our view.

Conversation, according to Merriam Webster is an oral exchange of “sentiments, observations, opinions and ideas.” And we think it is something much more. Conversations extend an invitation: “Come closer. Let’s engage each other, and talk about things that are meaningful to us.”

Conversations name things and create reality. If we see our boss as efficient, focused and powerful, that is our reality, even as our colleague considers the same person to be distant, a control freak and manipulative. I like rainy days — you think sunny skies are perfect weather.

Through conversations, we reveal what we see and the meaning we make of it.  I love the rain because I grew up in the desert, and a rainy day was rare and special. You're from Seattle, and a sunny day always lifts your  spirits. Conversations draw back the drapes and let others see through the window of our experience. We invite each other to see what we see.

Our conversations have the ability to sustain our beliefs — and have the power to change them.

Authentic conversations turn it up a notch. When we engage each other authentically and with good will, our conversations become richer and deeper. They build trust, and create relationships we can believe in. Being authentic requires that we treat each other’s life experiences and points of view as a fundamental reality, and let go of the need to convince others that only one reality exists. We honor each other by telling the truth as we know it, always with empathy and compassion. We agree to honor our differences even as we look for ways to find common ground.

Are conversations a form of communication? Of course they are. Like the technical manual, communication is a useful tool for giving and getting information. But an authentic conversations, like great literature, informs our minds and feeds our souls.

WHAT WAS MY CONTRIBUTION?

One of the conversation skills we teach and emphasize in our work with individuals and organizations is also one that people find really difficult: Owning your contribution to the problem.

It creates a very different conversation than one where I describe a difficult issue and then begin reciting all the ways YOU have made it difficult.  Stating out loud, right away, “Here are the ways I have messed up” becomes a powerful, daring act of personal accountability. In addition, it makes clear the things that are completely within my control to change — I don’t have to wait for anyone else to “go first.”

This conversational skill is the antidote to blame and its destructive forces, and a step toward taking full accountability for the success of outcomes and relationships.

One of the trickiest parts of owning your contribution to a problem is doing it without the expectation that it will unleash in another a list of the contributions they made as well. We often get asked, “What happens when I own my contribution and the other person just agrees and doesn’t own theirs?” While it’s unsatisfying advice, we usually recommend resisting the temptation of naming someone else’s contribution if resolving the problem is really your intention.

In a New York Times article published Aug. 13, we were delighted to see this skill being taught to young people. Rachel Simmons, author of The Curse of the Good Girl, runs a summer camp for adolescent girls, which aims to help them develop and maintain confidence as they navigate the rocky shoreline of the teen years. Conversation skills are among the things taught, including helping them own their parts when relationships go awry, and to ask directly for the things they want and need.

The article said Simmons hopes that by helping girls resolve tensions with their friends, they will also be developing the skills to confidently ask for the respect they deserve in the future — including promotions and raises — and become the “leaders of their own lives.”

One example the article uses is a conversation between a girl named Taryn and her roommates, who she feels have been excluding her. Her contribution? “Mine was not bringing it up sooner and hoping it would get better.”

Sounds like the kind of situation that happens in the workplace every day.

MAKE A MISTAKE AND LEARN SOMETHING

One way to diagnose whether your organization is maximizing its potential is to answer this question: How are mistakes viewed and dealt with?

Are they feared for the negative consequences that will be rained on someone’s head? Are they furtively hidden to avoid exposure?

Or are mistakes celebrated as learning opportunities? Are those who risk and fail applauded for a “good try that didn’t work?”

As we’ve written about many times, organizations that center their conversations on “holding others accountable” are sending employees a strong message that they should do as their told. That might get employee compliance, but it won’t unleash the diversity, creativity, and independent decision-making that could strengthen the organization and foster innovation. “Compliance” by definition requires conformity, which discourages risk-taking and critical-thinking skills, which are essential for developing superior results.

Research done by Jennifer Lerner of Carnegie Mellon University and Philip Tetlock of Ohio State University has shown that many employees base their performance decisions on gaining the favor of those to whom they are accountable — typically supervisors — rather than thinking through what the business and its customers really need.  Sheena Iyengar, in her recent book, The Art of Choosing, points out that organizational systems designed to “hold others accountable” stifle freedom and encourage people to do less than they are capable of, which stifles innovation.

For example, an employee who is tempted to bend rules to better serve a customer might choose instead to doggedly follow company policy for fear of being discovered by the supervisor, who has the ability to influence rewards and punishments. They don’t want to be seen as “making a mistake” when it could influence their rewards (approval, benefits, salary) or avoiding punishment ( betting yelled at, a bad write-up, a negative performance evaluation).

What’s the alternative? One of them is to embrace, celebrate and be grateful for mistakes.  Vineet Nayar, author of Employees First, Customers Second: Turning Conventional Management Upside Down asserts in a recent blog posting that there is “growing evidence to suggest that innovation flourishes when people are given the space to make mistakes.”

Why? Because if people aren’t making mistakes, they are not learning. And if employees aren’t constantly learning, the organization is stagnating. Stagnation is a dangerous environment for organizations that want to survive in a rapidly changing marketplace.