Complaints are prevalent in organizations.  People complain about the weather, about their work, about their coworkers, and about their boss(es).  Although some complaints may seem innocuous, complaining contributes to a culture of negativism, lowers morale and satisfaction, gets people upset or angry, and adds to resignation and cynicism.  Complaints act like depressants, particularly when they are expressed to people who really can’t do anything about them.

But some complaints can be productive if they are directed to the right people.  Properly directed complaints can improve processes, products, and customer service.  They can lead to and support change and be a source of innovation.

If you want to increase the number of productive complaints (and reduce the number of unproductive ones), create a policy where you ask people to direct their complaints to someone who can do something about it.  If you are the someone, then listen up.  However, if you aren’t, then let them know immediately they have the wrong person and then either direct them to the right person or ask them to find out who the right person is.  This will reduce the number of complaints you listen to and train people to being accountable for their complaints.

Kouzes and Posner, in their book The Leadership Challenge, contend that credibility is the foundation of leadership.  According to them, credibility is a result of doing what you said you would do when you said you would do it.  But this definition creates a problem for anyone who is new to a situation and has no established history of doing what they said they would do when they said they would do it.  What am I suppose to do if I don’t have any credibility with you and yet I need at least some in order for you to listen to what I have to say?

One way to obtain some immediate credibility is to use a closure conversation in which I acknowledge what you already know – that I have no credibility. I could do this by saying something like, “I have something to tell you that you may not believe coming from me since I am new to the group and don’t have any credibility with you.  If I were you, I would probably be skeptical too and so I won’t take it personally if you doubt me. [Then proceed to deliver message.]”.

Making such a statement is both authentic (i.e., I am not pretending I have credibility) and courageous. How many people do you know are willing to admit they have no credibility to a group of people with whom they need credibility?  The result is that people will listen to you, at least for the moment.  Of course, you can only do this once, so you better be sure that what you say is easily and quickly verified.

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?

?

In terms of The Four Conversations, Tiger’s address was a closure conversation.   The primary purpose of closure conversations is to create endings by completing something from the past.  It could be to complete an outstanding promise, it could be to report the status of a project, it could be to acknowledging that you received something that was sent to you, or it could be to own up to something you did, as in Tiger’s case.  Closure conversations, when done completely can be very powerful because they make it possible to “move on”.  When they are done poorly, however, they only add to the mess they are trying to address.

Closure conversations involve 4-A’s, though not all four are used in every conversation: acknowledge the facts, appreciate the people, apologize for mistakes and misunderstandings, and amend broken agreements.  How did Tiger do on each of these?

Acknowledge the facts, say what’s so.  Tiger clearly acknowledged that he had been unfaithful, that he had cheated.  Although we already knew this, this was the first time Tiger acknowledged the facts, the first time he “came clean”.  What he did not do, however, was acknowledge the extent or degree of his cheating.  How many women had he cheated with?  Were the reports in the press exaggerated, or were they accurate?  By not addressing these, he left questions that will haunt him in the future.  He did not have to provide the sordid details, only acknowledge something about the extent of his affairs.

Appreciate the people.  Tiger was clearly appreciative of and spoke well of his wife Elin and who she has been through all of this.  He was also appreciative of the people who have sent him emails, letters, etc. in support.  What could have made this even more powerful would have been had he appreciated the people who “blew the whistle” on him.  By not doing so, we are left with the impression that had he not been caught, he would have continued doing what he was doing.  If, as he says, he has no one to blame for the shame but himself, then the women who went public did him a service by giving him an opportunity to transform his life.  Not pretty, but a service nevertheless.  It would have been extraordinary for him to do this.

Apologize for mistakes and misunderstandings.  This was the whole point of Tiger’s address, to apologize.  He did a good job of saying what he did that was wrong, and what he felt contributed to doing it (“I had worked hard all my life and thought I deserved…”).

Amend broken agreements.  Amending broken agreements begins with recognizing an agreement has been broken and reporting on its breakage to those involved.  Tiger broke agreements with Elin his wife, his sponsors, friends, and fans.  He betrayed their trust and confidence and owned up to having done so.  He also tried to address some of the costs and consequences of breaking these agreements, but I don’t think he came even close to dealing with the true cost.  He did, however, acknowledge that regaining people’s trust would take time and would involve a change in his future behavior.  Finally, amending broken agreements requires committing (promising) to a new future.  Tiger did that by saying he would continue therapy, that he would need help, and that he was promising to be a better person.

Was Tiger successful?  He seemed to have done a good job in terms of having a complete closure conversation.  It seems clear to me that just having the conversation completed things for Tiger and cleared some space for him to move forward, which is the intent of such conversations.  Did he satisfy everyone?  Probably not.

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”, p. 131-2]

The purpose of a Closure Conversation is to bring parts of the past to a conclusion, thus making room to start something new or to restart something that has bogged down. Closure Conversations acknowledge the facts, determine what will complete something that is unfinished, and allow people to move ahead. Closure Conversations, can restore credibility and confidence, reduce resentment, build accomplishment and accountability, add velocity, and increase the engagement of participants and potential participants.

Complete Closure Conversations acknowledge the facts, appreciate the people, apologize for mistakes and misunderstandings, and amend broken agreements.  If you listened to the President’s address, you heard some of each of these “A’s”.  I think, however, he could have gone further, particularly in the area of appreciation, apology, and amending broken agreements.

It takes a big person to appreciate the contribution of those who oppose what he seeks to accomplish.  Leaders and managers rarely sing the praises of those who resist change, even when that resistance actually improves the quality and result of the change.  Lisa Haneberg points to the value of inviting naysayers and critics to engage with your work in her Invite a Challenge and Zoom Forward posting.  It would have been completely disarming for Obama to recognize the Republicans in a positive way.

One of the criticisms of Obama is that he that he has not accepted enough responsibility for how things are currently working (or not) in Washington.  Although he said that his administration has made mistakes, he didn’t really say what they were or specifically apologize for them.  It is one thing to say mistakes were made, it’s another to own up and apologize for them.  Had he been more specific about these, it would have provided more closure.

Finally, there are the promises Obama has made but has not kept even though he appears to have had an opportunity to do so.  Breaking promises is THE key contributor to a loss of credibility and trust unless something is done to repair trust.  The best way to do this is to acknowledge the promises not kept, apologize for not keeping them, and then say what will be done about them in the future.  Although he did recommit to keeping some of the promises not kept, he could have been more explicit and it would have generated more closure.

As far as closure conversations go, Obama’s State of the Union address was very good.  It would have been interesting to see what would have happened had he gone further.

Most of us have experiences similar to those reported by Lynette.  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?

Telling people “I got it” does not take much.  Telling people “I got it” is a simple closure conversation, but it  makes a world of difference to them and to your reputation.  Tell people “I got it” and see what happens.

Jeffrey

The other day I was changing a light bulb in my basement work area.  One of the screws holding the cover on the light was tight, so used a screwdriver to loosen it.  When I was finished with the screwdriver, I threw it down onto the workbench (I was on a stepladder), where it hit and scattered some small ceramic tiles I had been removing from a table made by Laurie’s dad.  I found all the tiles except one and was upset because its loss would mean the table could not be restored in its original form.

When I went upstairs to tell Laurie, my first thought was to say “The screwdriver knocked a bunch of tiles off the workbench, and now I can’t find one.”  And that’s when I noticed how the absence of accountability sounds – there is no “I” in the action of what happened.  My initial thought made the screwdriver accountable for the lost tile, not me.  I was the one who threw the screwdriver and my having done that accounts for why the tiles were scattered.

As I thought more about this one example, I began to notice how many places I leave off any mention of “I” when things happen, as if they happened on their own accord and I was simply an observer.  You know, stuff like “The cup feel off the dish drying rack and broke” rather than “I hit the cup and knocked it on the floor.”  The more I considered explanations for things that I have something to do with, the more I realized that the key word missing in those explanations was “I” and what “I” did that produced the result – good, bad, or ugly.

Perhaps you have noticed the same thing when people give explanations – there is no “I” in what they say except, possibly, when it is something good.  Check it out.  Listen to the explanations you and others give and see when there is an absence of accountability.  Let me know what you discover.

Jeffrey