9
___________
How to Hold Conversations Nobody Wants to Have
___________
A STRONG EXECUTIVE presence is an asset when you’re a party to a difficult conversation. The confidence and professional poise you exude can imbue the situation with a healthy sense of respect. Also, successfully negotiating a difficult conversation can add another dimension to your executive presence, especially because a corporation is a challenging place to have such an exchange. The same is true for any organization in which a hierarchy is in place, especially when careers and paychecks depend on some semblance of order and responsibility. Because these things are delivered by human beings—not all of whom are enlightened in the art of commanding respect with warmth and strength—such conversations occur with wide variations in effectiveness and empathy.
But besides being challenging, these conversations are common. We’ve all been on the receiving end of difficult conversations, managers and rank-and-file alike. We’ve been challenged, reprimanded, reassigned, realigned, and, in some cases, fired. We’ve been called on the carpet, summoned to the boardroom, and put out to pasture. Unless it was done with tact and skill, chances are that we remember the conversation with zero fondness. On the other side of the table, most managers have faced the task of delivering feedback, discipline, and even the proverbial pink slip, and have found that role to be just as stressful. However, as with most managerial skills, aspiring leaders can learn to create the positive perceptions that will set them apart from their peers.
Specifically, the process of having difficult conversations can be made more effective and less stressful through an understanding of certain principles and the adoption of certain behaviors that minimize defensiveness and open the listener to the feedback, which is essential to meaningful change. In the process, you’ll also build a compelling executive presence and command the respect of your peers, colleagues, and bosses.
The Anatomy of a Difficult Conversation
Difficult conversations are rarely simple. They may seem straightforward, but below the surface lurk issues that could fill an entire psychology textbook. Moreover, these exchanges often put the delivering party in a difficult position. As ambitious business professionals, we’ve learned our way around a spreadsheet, but tackling a tough conversation with a long-term employee is something we’re just expected to do, without any sort of training. That’s a shame, because doing it well or not certainly affects others’ perceptions of our executive presence.
Below are the three major components of a difficult conversation, each of which can derail the exchange unless we’ve learned how to manage it:
1. Body language matters. Nonverbal communication adds critical nuance and emphasis to your words, often more than you know. I again point to my client Jim, from Chapter 2, whose facial expressions could shut down a meeting faster than a fire alarm.
A boss who sits with an employee and leans forward while speaking softly and empathetically delivers a far different message than a boss who stands over a subordinate with hands on hips and speaks with a raised voice and a staccato delivery. Especially when there is a power gap, it behooves the higher-ranking interlocutor to lower his or her status and match the body language of the other to avoid creating unhelpful psychological barriers. And if the intent is for the conversation to shift from a sober tone of holding someone accountable to a more compassionate style of coaching on the issue at hand, let your nonverbals reflect the transition. Also, if the meeting is to end on an inspirational note, a sunny facial expression and increased vocal volume can inject enough energy to have both parties leaving the encounter feeling good and looking forward.
2. Emotions will happen. In the real world the term “difficult” often means “emotional.” Emotions can arise on both sides and, as I discussed in Chapter 3, affect how we’re able to process information. The person who delivers feedback or gets something off his chest experiences anxiety. The receiver experiences hurt feelings, wounded pride, and defensiveness. More often than not, both parties try to hide their true emotions, which is rarely effective in either the short or long term. In fact, the best way to keep the line of communication clear is to acknowledge both your and your interlocutor’s feelings; try to manage those feelings rather than suppress them. This openness, however, has limits. If you’re angry, you must manage your anger so that you do not cause unintended and irreversible damage to the relationship and, possibly, your position in the organization. Instead, as psychologist Delee Fromm has counseled, “Expressing yourself assertively (not aggressively) will prevent emotions from building momentum and allow you to deal with bothersome behavior or issues in a way that is both constructive and affirmative.”
3. Our identity is scanning for threats. One of the reasons people feel threatened during a difficult conversation, and experience the associated emotions, is that their identity, or at least their perception of how they are viewed by others, is being challenged. Most people view themselves as competent; if negative feedback arrives, it collides with that self-image, which is deeply unsettling because our self-image tells us where we fit in the social order around us.
Research shows that our social status is always on our minds, informing us of whether we’re doing better or worse than our friends and colleagues. If, in this constant comparison with others over intelligence, education, skills, looks, popularity, money, etc., we feel “less than” someone else, the resulting emotional pain (which our brains experience as profoundly as physical pain) can prevent us from thinking rationally. As Fromm notes, “Threats to our identity are profoundly disturbing” and can set off a cascade of fear-based emotions. Recognizing up front the centrality of status can enable you to conduct difficult conversations so as to lessen the threat to a person’s identity.
Preparing for a Difficult Conversation
Preparing for a difficult conversation requires more than simply having an idea about what you’ll say. If your emotions are driving your urge to meet—perhaps you are downright angry—you are unlikely to be as prepared as you should be. We know that raw emotions can cloud the issues and send people reeling. For this reason, your first job is to practice some of the emotion-regulation strategies we discussed in Chapter 3.
Once your emotions are in check, create an agenda for the impending conversation. Plot your opening—the first 30 seconds or so. A good way to start is to create the context for the meat of the discussion by summarizing the policies and cultural expectations that are already in place. These can be the wallpaper for the issues you are about to address. Then review those issues in order of priority, so that each issue creates the context for the next. For example, if the issue is a salesperson’s habitual lateness for customer calls, plan to begin there and show her how this behavior creates a poor first impression and a negative context for the entire call. Also plan to ask quickly for the other person’s point of view. How does she explain her behavior? What’s interfering with her promptness? Are meetings scheduled too close together? Is it a preparation issue? Poor time management perhaps? Is there a way you can help? Professor Jean-Francois Manzoni, from the International Institute for Management Development in Lausanne, Switzerland, notes that this last point affords you the opportunity to see where your interests overlap and makes the conversation more collaborative than combative. More broadly, as you plan, be sure to position yourself as an ally and mentor rather than an outsider and a disciplinarian. If we know anything about human nature, it’s that people are more open to the wisdom of allies and mentors than to that of critics.
As these are by definition conversations you’d rather not have, don’t procrastinate and let issues and problems fester. Although you may need some time to cool off and get your emotions in check, be wary of delay for avoidance’s sake. Avoidance means that the behavior or conditions that constitute the agenda of the conversation will continue unchecked, since the recipient has not heard your views. And so will the consequences of that unwanted behavior, whether it be poor performance, a disruptive environment, safety compromises, etc. Procrastination usually stems from anxiety and fear, but as Manzoni points out, difficult conversations “are not black swans”—they are not rare or unexpected in the business world. Given that reality, it might be better to reframe these difficult conversations as less dire and more routine. We learned earlier how effective cognitive reappraisal can be. Reframing “difficult conversation” more positively—as “a clearing of the air,” or “a way to provide helpful feedback to help the person grow,” or even “a chat”—can blunt your anticipatory anxiety and help you get on with it.
Finally, while planning the conversation can itself also help to minimize anxiety, don’t overdo it and create an elaborate advance script. Neither one of you—certainly not the recipient—will stick to it. What’s important is that you keep the agenda in mind, i.e., the topics you want to discuss. Having that as a compass and remaining flexible throughout the exchange ensures that you stay on message and fully present in the conversation.
Conducting the Difficult Conversation
Reasons to have a difficult conversation are as varied as the causes of conflict. One of the most challenging reasons is to hold people accountable for behaviors and results. This kind of tough conversation is so challenging that a global survey of 5,400 leaders revealed that 46 percent of them shirked the performance of this task.
An example from our coaching practice fits this statistic:
Rick is the cofounder and CEO of a highly successful social media and social networking company, and yet most days he hates going to the office. Despite stellar business results and the company’s reputation as a darling of Wall Street, the office climate was nothing to brag about. Its rapid growth from R&D to full-on commercial operation had required Rick to hire a new senior management team very quickly, fostering a Wild West ethos where type A individuals arrived, headed up their function, and staked their claim. Rick soon gained a reputation as a pushover because he failed to hold the aggressive managers accountable for such toxic behavior as sniping at each other in meetings, undermining one another in public and private, and engaging in backstabbing and gossip. And when not engaged in those behaviors, they’d come to Rick to complain about each other, forcing him to spend precious time brokering various peace pacts instead of setting strategy and sharing the company’s vision with the world.
When I talked to Rick in our coaching conversations about the importance of holding people accountable for their behaviors and not just for completing innovative projects or delivering business results, he countered, “It’s tough to put teeth into accountability.” He said that when he tried to talk to his team about abiding by certain behavioral guidelines, his CIO—also the chief antagonist in the executive leadership team—shot back, “Come on, we’re not in high school.” (The CIO likely missed the irony in that statement.)
So how can a difficult conversation about, say, toxic behaviors be conducted with as few bruises to the ego as possible and while keeping minds open instead of shutting down? Here’s a simple map to guide you through this minefield.
Revisit Agreed-Upon Expectations
At some point you probably had a conversation with the recipient, or held a meeting that the recipient attended, about what your expectations are or what the cultural norms are in the team or the organization at large. If you haven’t had that conversation or meeting, this might be a good place and time to start, but in the more likely event that you have, use this history as a factual jumping-off point to contrast the offending behaviors with the agreed-upon behavioral expectations and norms. By taking this factual approach, you’re not blaming the other’s personality, which might cause the person to batten down the hatches and focus more on self-defense than change and growth. Especially emphasize the impact that the person’s behavior has on others in the organization and how a cascading effect can lead to more than ruffled feathers—maybe even a full cultural shift in the wrong direction.
Once all that’s clear, move on to the next step.
Check In on Ability and Motivation
Expecting someone to deliver on a commitment he or she can’t deliver on is futile. To avoid this, consult any psychological or professional assessments you have on the person to determine whether the behavior in question is part of the person’s core personality—which means that without coaching or other intervention the behavior is unlikely to change. If it is not a core trait, i.e., the errant behavior is a one-off, it can probably be kept in check with increased self-awareness and disciplined self-monitoring. For instance, imagine a leader whose scores on a standard psychological assessment show that she’s extremely diligent and has exceptionally high standards for herself and others, and that she tends to criticize others, often in public, whose work falls short of her potentially unrealistic standards. This leader isn’t easily going to align with behavioral expectations that are outside these engrained traits without some help in the form of coaching, a solution you may suggest during your conversation. But if her offending behavior is more along the lines of frequent and rude interruptions of colleagues in meetings, simply urging her to self-monitor in meetings should result in a noticeable improvement (perhaps only after a few cold stares from you during such meetings to congeal the habit). Either way, simply by checking for whether the behavior is core or not, you signal that you care enough to help the person grow as opposed to just criticize and run.
Define What Success Looks Like
Once you’re clear that both the clarity and ability to change are present, it’s time to discuss what outcome you’re looking for. Ask the other person to envision the impact of the changed behavior compared with the impact now. Our frequent interrupter, for instance, might offer such insights as, “Others will feel like they’ve been heard,” “We get more diverse viewpoints,” and “People will feel respected and more willing to collaborate with me.” You might add that, without egos clashing, meetings will be less contentious and more productive. As for postconversation follow-up, you might suggest measuring success meeting by meeting, as explained in detail in our next step.
Agree On Timing and Frequency of Feedback
Like a pilot who relies on instruments and ground control to get where he’s going, business leaders need others’ perspectives on whether they are living up to their agreements, or whether their darker behaviors have emerged under pressure or exhaustion, or whether they have stopped self-monitoring. Annual performance reviews are hopelessly inadequate to provide useful, timely feedback, so find additional ways to deliver it.
In our example, the interrupter might receive her meeting-by-meeting feedback from you or another trusted stakeholder, right after each meeting, perhaps in a quick chat in the hallway or office or by phone. The more immediate the better, as nuances of the meeting will still be fresh in everyone’s mind. “You did well in today’s meeting hearing people out,” you might say, while also adding, “However, make sure you extend the same courtesy to all of the team. I noticed you kept wanting to talk over Sylvia when she pushed back on your idea. In the end you agreed she had a good point. We may not have gotten there had you succeeded in interrupting her.” This is specific, targeted feedback that enables a person to consider the context of the situation and prepare to adjust at the next opportunity. The more consistent you are with providing feedback, the less uncomfortable these conversations will become, and the more likely a behavioral change will manifest.
Enforce Your Red Line
Remember my client Rick’s complaint that it’s hard to put teeth into accountability? After numerous half-hearted attempts at getting his aggressive managers to change, Rick gave up and continued to tolerate their toxic behavior. In so doing, he lost credibility with the others, including the board of directors, which grew tired of the company’s ballooning discord and infighting. Rick was losing his executive presence, too—and all because he was unwilling or unable to draw and enforce his red line, i.e., the consequences for bad behavior.
The red line may be the hardest part of a difficult conversation, but without the courage to say “Enough!” and follow through with action—whether reassignment, termination, or a performance improvement plan—there will just be more of the same behavior. When you draw your red line and it is crossed and you take decisive action, you eliminate the need for the same difficult conversation to occur over and over, all as you watch your leadership influence erode.
And if you do have to have the same conversation again, check the previous five steps to look for the snag.
Managing Negative Outbursts
Let’s face it—no matter how evolved your approach to a difficult conversation is, there’s always a good chance it may go off the rails. But striking the right balance between directness and sensitivity early in the conversation can help set the tone for the rest of it. Being too direct at the start can get you shut out as defenses go up, while soft-pedaling does you no good either, as the other fellow may not hear you as you intended. Manzoni recognizes that these kinds of conversations can be hard on relationships, and he says that being both straightforward and compassionate means that you can “deliver difficult news in a courageous, honest, fair way.”
Still, none of this may work as planned. Sometimes you can engineer all the negativity and criticism out of the conversation, but the bad feelings are on standby, ready to erupt when a raw nerve is touched. At that point you have very little control over the other party’s response. However, you do have total control over your reaction to that response, and if you manage it effectively with a clear focus on the overall outcome you seek, you can minimize damage to the relationship and return the dialogue to a productive realm.
One of the best ways to ratchet down the tension is to slow down the conversation. Manzoni notes that slowing down gives you a better chance to really hear what’s being said, including between the lines. “If you listen to what the other person is saying, you’re more likely to address the right issues and the conversation always ends up being better,” Manzoni reasons. And as I discussed in Chapter 3, taking a break when things get heated is an effective way to restore some calm, both in yourself and in the other party.
One thing you shouldn’t do, however, is to instruct someone to “calm down.” This request, in effect, says that his response is unwarranted, which is another way of saying that he is wrong. And honestly, have you ever felt more at peace after someone told you to calm down? Another mistake is to match your own emotions with the person’s. That is the quickest way to ignite a shouting match or, at a minimum, render the rest of the discussion dysfunctional. Instead, stay focused. Hear him out. Recognize his emotions—“I know you’re upset; I would be too if my boss just said that to me”—and demonstrate the empathy required to convey what you really want, which is for the conversation to continue in a productive fashion. An emotional outburst is often a cry for attention, a signal of pain. He wants you to see how you’ve made him feel, so do just that. Empathize—recognize the emotion as it happens.
When an emotional outburst occurs, the best response is to allow it to run its course, as long as it doesn’t endanger your safety or violate the corporate culture’s norms. This requires a thick skin, but most of the time if you let people have their say, their energy will dissipate before your eyes. Also, the less defensive you are, the faster this dissipation will happen. Then, after an empathetic acknowledgment of the outburst, you can resume the discussion.
However, if you can’t get the moment under control, avoid the temptation to plow through. Instead, either offer a short break or suggest picking up the conversation later—and follow through. Don’t admonish or make the other feel guilty for this break. Simply suggest that a delay for a few hours might help each of you to gather your thoughts. People are often embarrassed by their own emotional reactions, which can in turn feed into their anxiety about resuming the discussion. When you do return to the conversation, acknowledge its difficulty without lingering on the outburst, and reinforce your intention to work with, not against, the person. Emotional outbursts are often par for the course in a highly charged and competitive organizational environment, and having the reputation of someone who remains calm—though not indifferent—during such sensitive encounters will amplify your executive presence to all the right people.
How to Ask Questions That Build Receptivity and Trust
There is a big difference between a conversation and a lecture. The former is a matter of give-and-take, but when the conversation is difficult, it can be hard to get the other person to do either one. The key to making sure the conversation doesn’t degenerate in this way into a lecture is asking the right questions in the right way with a view to building trust and creating a positive, forward-looking context for the unfolding dialogue. Questions are a way to allow the other person to tell his side of things, and if they are posed strategically, they can get the other person to explore your side of things as well. “Why do you think we ask people to observe those safety rules?” is better than asking, “Don’t you understand those safety rules?” It’s a subtle shift that springs from a perspective of providing mentorship rather than criticism, even if the latter is also part of the agenda. An enlightened communicator knows how to impart criticism in a way that feels like supportive mentoring rather than punishment.
Whenever possible, questions should be open-ended. Any question that requires a yes-or-no answer is closed-ended and does little to impart learning. If it’s an employee you’re talking to, the more you can get her mind to process and explore what happened and what should have happened, the more the learning can stick. Yes-or-no questions spring from a lecturing-and-punishing approach, whereas open-ended questions involve the employee in the creation of a solution. The former makes you a bully who’s in charge; the latter, a leader whose maturity and interpersonal savvy is acknowledged, appreciated, and respected by employees and bosses alike.
Asking open-ended questions—and responding appropriately to their answers—can also increase the trust a person has for the leader. The yes-or-no style of question can appear dismissive and unfair, making you seem biased and causing the person to shut out anything you have to say. As David Rock notes, “The perception that an event has been unfair generates a strong response in the limbic system, stirring hostility and undermining trust.” Similarly, Judith Glaser and Richard Glaser state that a perception of unfairness can also increase cortisol levels, which can decrease a person’s ability to listen. If you demonstrate genuine curiosity and a willingness to learn by asking open-ended questions, people will generally respond in kind and open their hearts and minds to you.
There are limits to open-ended questions, however. If a person is likely to be evasive, for example, you might be better off asking for a specific response. Harvard Business School professors Alison Woods Brooks and Leslie John cite research that “people are less likely to lie if questioners make pessimistic assumptions . . . rather than optimistic ones.” If someone has fallen behind in his work, for example, preface your question on the completion date with “It looks like you’ll need more time” rather than “Everything’s on schedule, yes?” By acknowledging the unhappy truth in advance, you make it easier for the person to tell the truth.
You should also pay attention to the sequence of your questions. Brooks and John suggest that in a conflict situation, leading with the most difficult questions can actually open up the conversation. “When a question asker begins with a highly sensitive question . . . subsequent questions . . . feel, by comparison, less intrusive, and thus we tend to be more forthcoming.” You have to make sure not to push things so far with that first question, however, that you offend the person and cause her to shut down. This sequence should be reversed when you’re trying to establish a relationship. In that case, you want to start with the more anodyne questions and build up to the more difficult ones. In these cases the gentler questions enable trust, which makes it easier for the person to respond honestly to the harder questions that follow.
What are the best kinds of questions to ask? Brooks divides questions into four types: introductory, mirror (asking the same question back), full switch (in which you switch topics), and follow-up. It is the last type, the follow-up, that can highlight your interpersonal integrity and build trust. As she and John observe, “They signal to your conversation partner that you are listening, care, and want to know more. People interacting with a partner who asks lots of follow-up questions tend to feel respected and heard.” As I noted earlier about the sensitive role of “identity” in a conversation, people who feel respected tend to be less anxious and better able to hear what you have to say.
Asking smart questions in the right way can meet a number of objectives for the leader who is building a strong personal brand: High-caliber questions signal intelligence and an interest in personal growth; they show curiosity and a willingness to learn; they illustrate to others that you care and can be trusted; they teach by causing reflection and inspiring discussion; they convey knowledge and experience; and they enable the leader to frame even the most difficult conversation as an opportunity to learn from mistakes and move forward together.
Summarize Your Conversations for Maximum Impact and Positive Conclusions
It’s true that people often tend to hear what they want to hear. And sometimes people misconstrue another’s meaning. In highly charged, difficult conversations, these failures to communicate can be more frequent. For that reason, it is wise to always summarize what you’ve heard the other person say. Not simply to parrot the content, but to reflect what you understood the intention of the message to be. Ask the other person to do the same from her end. What did she hear? What meaning is she taking away from the conversation? What conclusions is she drawing? If important detail and nuance is misrepresented, this is the time to correct it and ensure you’re both on the same page. Especially in difficult conversations, it benefits both interlocutors to be as clear about takeaways and outcomes as possible.
In Chapter 10 we’ll discuss the dark side of executive presence and how the strengths inherent in a compelling presence can morph into weaknesses if not adequately monitored. In that regard I’ll provide you with a number of coaching tips that can help keep your career on a winning track.