On Friday, April 13 I received an unreasonable request from a colleague at Benedictine University. He asked if I would come to Benedictine and teach an Executive Ph.D. course on organization change the following Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.  He apologized for the lateness of the request, but explained that due to an accident, the person scheduled to lead the class could not come.

Initially I was surprised at the request given the short notice.  But, after checking my schedule, I realized I could do it and let him know.   And it turned out to be a fabulous time with some really great people.

I share this because I have found there are times such as these when people are faced with making an unreasonable request or giving an apology, and they don’t make the request.  My colleague could have decided there was no real point in asking someone to come since it was unlikely they could on such short notice anyway.  Instead, he could have apologized to the class, explained what happened and, given the short notice, it was not practical to find a substitute; they would have been disappointed, but they would have understood.

But he didn’t do that; he made an unreasonable request.  He asked for a large result in a very short period of time from someone he knows is busy.  He didn’t let his considerations about whether the request would be accepted or not stop him from making it.  And, as it turns out, he got want he wanted.

Jay, the friend of mine, was recently accused of lying by Colleen,.  According to Colleen, Jay agreed to print and assemble materials for a training session on community service.  Since this was something Colleen was used to doing, and was prepared to do this time, she was hesitant to turn it over to Jay.  However, after several phone conversations and emails to get the details worked out, Colleen agreed to let Jay prepare the materials.

A few weeks later, Jay informed Colleen the materials were not getting done because he could not find anyone to do the work.  Shocked by what she was hearing, Colleen reminded Jay of their conversations regarding what would be required and that he had ensured her he would get it done.  To her surprise, Jay denied having made that agreement.

In response, Colleen sent an email to the session organizers informing them of the problem with materials and that Jay was misrepresenting what had happened.  Jay, who was sent the email, replied to Colleen “I am sorry you think I misrepresented things.”

Some of the people who received Colleen’s email know the facts and that Jay did misrepresent what happened.  And, they express their disappointed that he has never tried to clean up the “misunderstanding” with a closure conversation.  As a result, Jay is now known as someone who lies to cover his mistakes – a reputation he could have avoided.

Kevin, as director of programs, is responsible for admissions into the undergraduate and graduate programs in his college.  In a recent conversation, he pointed out that registrations into one of the graduate programs was down almost 40%.  If, he pointed out, he was unable to substantially increase admissions in the next several months, his college would suffer a substantial loss in revenue and potential damage to its reputation.

When asked what happened, he indicated that the marketing campaign that had been planned was never fully or completely launched because the college’s communications director was, as he said “doing other things.”  I asked if he talked with the Dean about this, and Kevin said “Yes, I met with him on a couple of occasions and explained the situation and that if we didn’t get the marketing we needed, admissions would suffer.”

“Ok,” I asked, “but did you make a specific request of the Dean to have the communication director implement the marketing plan immediately?”

“No, the Dean knows this program is a priority, so I would expect him to put in the correction,” was Kevin’s reply.

“Well, has he put in the correction?’

“Not that I can tell,” Kevin replied dejectedly.

It is easy to blame the communication director and the dean for the current admission situation.  However, doing so ignores that one or more of the four conversations were missing.  Kevin appeared to rely on conversations for understanding to get the dean to take action, but never specifically asked for what he wanted done, when, or why though a performance conversation.  This is exactly the situation depicted in this Dilbert cartoon.

Further, even if we assume Kevin made a request, that he can’t tell if the dean has acted indicates a missing closure conversation in which he follows up with the dean.  It could be that the dean is willing to take a “hit” on admissions in order to achieve some other goal, but Kevin won’t know unless and until he has a closure conversation to get the current situation complete.

The results we get are a product of the conversations we have.  When we don’t get what we want or expect, the first place to look is at our conversations to see what is missing.

By romance, I am referring to the concepts or ideas they have of what it is to be a leader.  For example, some of them believe that if they just have the right style, engage in the right behaviors, or speak a sufficiently compelling vision, then others will just naturally follow.  And if they don’t follow, well that is because there is something “off” with the followers, not the leader.

But they are now coming face to face with the reality of leadership.  For example, each student is required to take on a leadership project of their own choosing in which they are to produce specific results through leading others.  Since they cannot know everything that will be required of them in accomplishing the project, they have to commit in the face of “not knowing”.  Although making such commitments is a hallmark of leadership, several students were anxious and concerned.  As one student put it “How can I say I will accomplish the project if I don’t know what I will have to do or if I can even do what is required?”

Furthermore, this concern did not disappear even after we had conversations for understanding about the project.  The reality of leadership is you have to commit even when you don’t know or understand everything and even conversations for understanding don’t remove that risk.

Implicit in this “myth of understanding” is the belief that understanding is the key to agreement, acceptance, and action.  No doubt, there are situations in which failing to understanding what another person is talking about, wants, or is proposing results in confusion and contributes to disagreements.  This frequently occurs when using unfamiliar terms or assuming the listener has a sufficient background in the subject at hand.  Under these circumstances, increased understanding can foster agreement and acceptance.

But increased understanding can also contribute to disagreement and non-acceptance.  When something is vague or ambiguous, it allows for multiple interpretations and understandings.  In this respect, it is more inclusive of potentially competing or inconsistent viewpoints.  Under these circumstances, greater clarity of understanding makes the inconsistencies apparent and fosters greater disagreement and non-acceptance.   For example, as managers spend more time explaining and discussing a change in an attempt to increase understanding, the impact and consequences of the change become more apparent and real to people.  Some people will react favorably, others will not.

Increased understanding, therefore, is not necessarily the key to agreement and acceptance, or to the action people think will stem from.  Understanding conversations are important, but they are only one of four productive conversations that are needed for change.

Most people have some form of a “To Do” list, which lets them know the things they have to do.  But credibility and a reputation for effectiveness comes from what you deliver to others and what they deliver to you.  When we know what we have due to others, and by when, we can better schedule the work we need to do in order to successfully deliver what is required.   That is one reason we stress the importance of including “by when” in all performance conversations.  Successful delivery to others increases their trust in us and enhances our credibility and reputation.

By the same token, when we keep a Due List of what other people owe us, and by when, it allows us to effectively follow up with them in a timely manner.  Following up lets people know we really did want what we asked for and that it was important enough that we remembered both what we asked for and by when.  As a result, our credibility increases.  Following up also builds accountability as people come to learn that we will be back to have a closure conversation with them.

Credibility and accountability are built and a key to building them is to keep, and use, a “Due List”.

Agreements are the foundation for performance.  Many managers believe the key to getting things done is to appeal to people’s emotions and feelings, including their likes and dislikes and what they want or don’t want.  However, I have not found this approach to be highly effective or sustainable.  Emotions and feelings are easily changed and since I can’t control my own emotions, I am skeptical of influencing those of others.  Besides, there is a much more reliable approach.

Create agreements with people and then manage those agreements.  Agreements are created in performance conversations where both parties agree on what will be accomplished, by when, and how success will be determined.  These are conversations between adults where what counts is the agreement they create together.  Since agreements are between both parties, both are accountable for its accomplishment – one for delivering and the other for receiving what is promised.  This means that if an agreement is not kept, both parties are accountable.

Closure conversations are used to follow up and hold people accountable for agreements.  In these conversations, both parties have the opportunity to address what worked and what didn’t.  The focus of these conversations is on the success or failure of the agreement, what can be learned, and what can be done differently in the future.

For another take on managing agreements, read this blog.

One of the complaints I frequently get from managers in my MBA classes is that their bosses rarely say by when they want something done.  Bosses say things like “when you get a chance”, “this week”, or “when you are done with what you are doing.”  Unfortunately, none of these is very specific and each leaves the manager open to criticism for not getting it done when the boss expects it.  As one manager put it, “I am clear of the value of giving a deadline, but my boss doesn’t and if I push him for one, he gets irritated. Any suggestions for what I should do?”

Yes, there is something you can do – give your boss a deadline.  How do you do that?  By telling her by when you will get it to her and ask if that will work.  For example, assume your boss asks something like, “I want you to prepare a summary of regional sales by product line and store and send it to me and all regional managers”, in which she doesn’t say by when she wants it.  You can reply, “Sure, I can have it done and sent out by 3PM this Friday, will that work?”  You have just given your boss a deadline.

Due dates are key ingredients in performance conversations and you can give anyone a due date even when they forget.

A student of mine came up after I had handed back an exam and said “I don’t see why I lost these points (pointing to his score on a question).  I didn’t really understand this question, so I answered it the way I thought you meant it.”  Since the exam was a take home exam and he had a week to work on it, I asked “Why didn’t you contact me and ask for clarification like I said you could?  Numerous other students did.”  He replied, “I didn’t want to bother you.”

How often have you see people do work when they were unclear or uncertain about what they needed do or how and then hide behind an excuse like “I didn’t know”, “they didn’t tell me”, or even “I didn’t want to bother you”?  It is difficult to perform effectively when you are unclear about what is to be done.  And yes, there are people who can make asking for clarification uncomfortable.  But is avoiding the momentary discomfort of asking really worth the poor performance and damage to a reputation that comes with it?  Apparently the answer is “yes” for people like my student.

If you want to be more effective, it pays to have an understanding conversation when you are unclear or uncertain. A reputation for effectiveness is worth asking questions for.

I recently showed the daughter of a good friend around the Ohio State campus.  She is interested in going to college, so I took her around OSU so she could get a feel for the.  As we walked, she explained she was thinking of going to a community college first to build up her resume and increase her chances of getting accepted to OSU.  My response was, “That’s a good theory you’ve made up about getting accepted, but why not apply directly to OSU first?  Then, if your application is declined, ask them what you need to do to get accepted.  At least then you will be dealing with what you really need to do, not some theory you made up.”

I don’t think my friend’s daughter is any different than the rest of us.  Rather than make a request that may be declined, we make up a theory that gets us off the hook for making the request.  Students in my classes frequently tell me they have to do some particular thing before they can take a class, or participate in a program.  But when asked, “How do you know, have you talked to the professor (program director)?”, they almost always reply “No”.

Think how much more effective people could be if they had performance conversations before they took action on the stuff they make up?