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.

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”.

The topic in my leading change class today was integrity and its impact on a leader’s ability to effect change.  Integrity was defined as honoring your word and doing what you said you would do by when you said you would do it and if you are not going to do what you said, to communicate fully to everyone affected as soon as you know you won’t be going what you said so that they can make the appropriate and necessary accommodations.  During the discussion, several students told of job situations in which projects they were working on were not going to get done when promised, but were told by their immediate managers not to tell the project clients.  The reasoning was that if the clients were told before the due date, they would question the manger’s competence.  However, once the deadline was missed, other factors could be blamed.

Although managers may think this “don’t tell them” strategy protects them from looking bad, it actually undermines their integrity and reputations.  Each of the students involved in these situations said they lost respect and regard for the managers involved.  This is unfortunate since all the managers needed to do to maintain their integrity was to have closure conversations with their clients.

Having one closure conversation, even if it may be a little uncomfortable, seems like a small price to pay for keeping one’s integrity and the respect of others.

As one manager explained, “It is my assessment that the success of my change has been a direct function of the choice, use, and content of the conversations I used to communicate with members of my team to adequately illustrate the shared value of the desired future state I believed we could achieve.  I feel it is important to highlight the power of utilizing a well-placed closure conversation to establish my credibility with the Senior Bankers that comprised my team.  Upon the onset of my initiative, it was evident that many of the Senior Bankers were experiencing fatigue and frustration with the ongoing efforts to support the merger of Their Bank with Our Bank.  By connecting with these individuals through the use of closure conversations, I made a concerted effort to acknowledge the additional time and effort that they have already contributed to making the merger a success. Prior to this acknowledgement, the majority of the Senior Bankers were of the belief that few individuals “truly” understood how requests of their time to complete merger related tasks negatively impacted their ability to complete their regular job assignments.

“Providing the Senior Bankers with this recognition of their  efforts allowed many of them to move past their feelings of resentment towards being asked to accommodate a change in the way they conducted a profit analysis of  corporate clients.  Giving this recognition fostered my ability to successfully propose my initiative in a manner that enlisted their active support for the desired future state instead of exacerbating their previous state of dejection towards new demands on their time.

“I discovered the value that can be produced through deliberately planned conversations with the individuals whom I hoped to enlist in the support of my change.  This willingness to place faith in the success of my change as a product of communication allowed me to view the concept of a “conversation” as something more than interpersonal discourse.  I began to view the four conversations as a tool to be used to deliberately manage the evolution and direction of my change . In recognizing these conversations as a tool to be used in implementing of my change, I was able to view myself as a manager of change from the perspective of a “facilitator of action” rather than as an authoritative figure who viewed the accomplishment of  change as a function of ordering an action and expecting a corresponding re-action.”

Communication is key to the accomplishment of change, but not any communication.  As this manager illustrates, successful change is a product of using the appropriate types of productive conversations.

I see why performance conversations are such a confront: saying publicly what I’ll do and by when would be fine if I was sure nobody was listening!

So, I have created a timeline for getting my “management is missing” summaries – including solutions – out on the Management-is-Missing blog before the end of December. And I’ll meet with my weblog guy to learn how to turn the prototype into something user-friendly – in that timeline too.

To box myself in, I’ve requested an appointment with him. So as soon as he picks the date and time to meet, I’ll have an agreement to turn over a deliverable.

When I know someone will be expecting to meet with me and discuss my deliverable, I have an obligation to produce, and to arrange my schedule to do the work and be at the meeting. That’s why performance is a product of agreements.

OK, I’m a woman at work!

Unfortunately, in none of the recommendations offered for improving “soft skills” is there an explanation of how project managers translate these personal capabilities and understandings into other people taking effective and appropriate action in a timely manner.  Rather, it is assumed that having these capabilities will somehow magically translate into project managers do the right thing, at the right time, in the right way.  Now that’s a big, and erroneous assumption.

Getting other people involved, engaged, and continually contributing requires communication.  But not just any communication.  I recently led a training program to a Master Black Belt group in which we explored why they were having difficulty getting projects accomplished.  Interestingly, none of them ever said anything like “I am having problems because I am ineffective in my communication with other people.”  However, by the end of the class, they began to see that one reason they were having difficulty is because they were either using the wrong type of conversation or the conversations they were using were missing important elements that reduced their effectiveness.

It would be nice if there was a direct link between personal qualities and attributes and effective communication.  However, as such books as Difficult Conversations, Crucial Conversations, and The Four Conversations point out, there is much more to effective communication than simply talking.  Until project managers realize that the results they get are a direct product of the appropriateness and completeness of their communications, communication skills will continue to be missing and projects will continue to fail.

Years of research indicates that managers who have authority over resources important to subordinates (e.g., pay, job assignments, vacation time) assume they do not have to persuade or convince subordinates of their assessment of a situation.  Managers are often blind to the fact that subordinates see things from a different point of view.  According to a recent study published in Organization Science, one result of this blindness is that when managers with authority confront a threat to the successful completion of a project, they engage in fewer and less immediate (e.g., face to face) communications than managers lacking that same authority.

In reviewing the results of the study, what is particularly interesting is that when compared to their counterparts without authority, managers with authority do not engage in Understanding Conversations or use complete Performance Conversations.  The study indicates that managers with authority do not explain why a particular event is a threat, explore how it might be resolved, or address subordinates’ concerns regarding the impact changing their work to resolve the threat may have on other work (an Understanding Conversation).  Furthermore, rather than get good promises from their subordinates, they assume their subordinates will “just do it”.  Unfortunately, 72% of the time the managers’ communications regarding a threat are ineffective and their subordinates do not respond as expected, requiring additional communication.  This additional communication can result in a loss of credibility and diminish their reputation.

One conclusion from this study is that managers use authority as an excuse for reducing their communication on the assumption that their subordinates will automatically accept what they are told and act accordingly.  We know from our work with The Four Conversations, however, that there is no substitute for appropriate and complete communication.

1. People get upset.  Although most of us don’t like dealing with upset people, the fact is they have a right to be upset.  After all, they counted on us to do something and we didn’t do it.  Being upset is perfectly understandable.
2. We lose credibility.  Credibility results from doing what you said you would do by when you said you would do it.  Even if we have a really good excuse, every time we fail to keep a promise, our credibility suffers.
3. We lose trust.  When we fail to keep our promises, people see us as less trustworthy.  Even if we think we are completely trustworthy, others may not share that opinion if we fail to keep our promises.
4. We can lose affinity.  People stop liking us as much.  Sure, our close friends will still like us if we don’t keep our promises, but others may not.  Like it or not, people make decisions about how they will treat us based on whether they like us.

There are no doubt other costs , but these are among the primary ones.  How many of these can you afford?

One way to reduce these costs is to have a Closure Conversation in which you (1) acknowledge you did not keep your promise, (2) recognize it had an impact on the person to whom you made it, (3) apologize for the mess you have created, and (4) offer whatever assistance you can to clean it up.  Such a Closure Conversation might look something like this:

“I promised that I would have the data to you today by 3 and I have not done that.  I know you were going to use the information in a report that is due at 5 and that my failure to have the data puts you in a tight spot.  I apologize for the problem I have created and if there is anything I can do to help you now, please let me know and I will do it.”

Closure Conversations don’t make everything better, but they can sure help.  Next time you fail to keep a promise, no matter how big or small, try having a Closure Conversation with the person.

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.

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.