CHAPTER 4
THE SWAMP: GETTING INTO AND OUT OF BAD CONVERSATIONS
ENGAGING IN A Powerful Conversation brings the participants to a higher place in an expedited way. A Powerful Conversation really has power: it’s exhilarating, it’s deeply connecting, and it drives results.
But we all know how destructive a conversation can be when things go wrong or when two people fail to see eye to eye. We’ve all gotten stuck in conversations that go nowhere or cause bad feelings to erupt—conversations that leave people exhausted, distrustful, or just plain frustrated. The blame for that type of conversation can hardly ever be attributed solely to one person or the other. In most instances, the blame is shared (although that may be the only thing that is shared). In this chapter, we will look at where bad conversations go wrong and what happens when they do. We will also examine how a bad conversation can be turned around and put back on track toward positive results.
Bad conversations are tremendously damaging to individuals and organizations. Even more clearly than Powerful Conversations, bad conversations seem to ripple from micro to macro levels, transferring from the individuals involved to infect those around them in ways that negatively impact the energy, culture, and teamwork of a group. Bad conversations with customers can affect a company’s bottom line and result in poor relationships and lost business. Even more serious than the immediate damage of a bad conversation is the cost of lost opportunity and lost effectiveness.
In our study of Powerful Conversations, a look at bad conversations is an important way for us to examine how conversations function. It highlights the ways we can work toward solutions, despite difficult circumstances, through Powerful Conversations—not bad conversations.
POWERFUL CONVERSATIONS VERSUS BAD CONVERSATIONS
How draining a bad conversation can be. As soon as I think of one, I am reminded of the resulting loss of energy, the bad feelings, the sense of wasted time, and, indeed, the wasted opportunity. It is amazing how a negative interaction can stay with us long after the fact. Personally, a bad conversation can plague and haunt me night and day. I find myself going over and over it in my head, thinking about the righteousness of my position and the wrongs I felt. I try to shake it off, but it won’t go away.
In contrast, a Powerful Conversation is always energizing. Even the most mentally exhausting conversation or meeting, if it is powerful, results in an exhilarating feeling. The memory of such an experience obscures the lethargic and tiring parts. You are left with an optimistic energy; you look forward to the next opportunity to meet or talk. In a Powerful Conversation, there is a sensation often described as a “click.” Good things begin to happen. Ideas begin to flow. The relationship gets stronger, even with someone you barely know. There is lasting impact. Goals are achieved.
None of this happens with bad conversations, which are destructive and emotionally draining. There is no replenishment after such an experience. Indeed, you are lucky if you are able to forget it at all. I look back on a bad conversation and say, “How did I let that happen? Why did I say what I did?” I chide myself for letting my emotions or bad tendencies get ahead of my reason, logic, and discipline.
In short, a bad conversation is exactly the opposite of a Powerful Conversation. While I offer no pithy definition of bad conversations, I assure you that you know when you’re involved in one. In case there is any doubt, you can also hearken back to the three measurements of a Powerful Conversation (advanced agenda, shared learning, deepened relationship), because a bad conversation produces absolutely nothing in these regards.
Agenda
In a bad conversation, an agenda is not advanced. Moreover, if progress has previously been made on any goals or objectives, a bad conversation can reverse that progress. Indeed, participants in a bad conversation may even go so far as to deny or fail to remember commitments that have been made and assumptions that have been agreed to prior to entering “the Swamp” (a place that I will describe more fully later in the chapter).
As an example, I once observed a sales meeting at Linkage quickly lose its focus on agendas when problems emerged and complaints grew louder than goals. The meeting had been scheduled to kick off the attendee sales efforts for one of our yearly programs. The leaders of the meeting—the program managers—were making their presentation to the sales force and had succeeded in large measure in getting the salespeople excited about what was a very strong event with specific and detailed selling points.
Then someone grumbled about the timing of the program. Having the program fall between Thanksgiving and Christmas every year was a consistent mistake, he said. Every member of the sales force had his or her own private grievance about losing a significant sale for this program because of its inconvenient timing. Once unleashed, the stories became a tidal wave, overruling all the progress that had already been made. The program managers, while sympathetic to some degree, became more and more frustrated and angry. The situation threatened to become a real problem.
Then a small voice spoke up as if from nowhere. The Midwest office sales rep was listening in on the meeting by conference call. No one had remembered that she was there when the conversation degenerated. Her voice was a surprise.
“Look, I have a question,” she said.
Everyone listened.
“I don’t see how this discussion has any value at all. I’m out here in the regional office and I feel like I’m all by myself. I thought we were going to share closing techniques to get more sales, not to discuss what’s wrong with the schedule. You guys are around each other all the time. Can we please refocus on how we are going to achieve our goals? I really need this information to make my numbers.”
Chastened, sharing a guilty laugh, the group was knocked out of its downward spiral and got back to work. We had sunk into the Swamp and hadn’t known it.
Learning
In a bad conversation, points are made, explanations offered, and facts argued, but information is not shared and learning is not advanced. This may be because each participant is locked into a rigid point of view or is perhaps discussing a completely distinct matter from the other participants. Defensive routines often override any chance of unearthing new thinking. At other times, information sharing is prevented and learning impeded by simple actions such as talking when another person is speaking or by behavioral attitudes such as giving over to emotional outbursts or resorting to blame, excuse, recrimination, and so on. About the only thing people learn in a bad conversation is that they don’t want to be in one again.
Relationships
As a result of a bad conversation, relationships are not advanced and are more often than not harmed. The resulting bad feelings for another person can reduce levels of trust and damage rapport. When conversations are extremely negative and when those patterns of behavior become fixed, a relationship may become irrevocably damaged. In the heat of a bad conversation, people say things that might never be forgiven or even forgotten. At the very least, it can take a tremendous amount of time and emotional effort to rebuild a relationship damaged by a very bad conversation. The journey back is usually painful and slow.
I offer another example drawn from Linkage. A development meeting was scheduled for 1 P.M. on a Wednesday, involving several senior officers and senior program directors. A client had called me with an emergency that morning and I was late. The vice president of programs was also late for some other reason. Coincidentally, we both joined the meeting at the same time, nearly one hour after it had started.
The meeting participants had been trying to wrestle a conceptual issue to the ground for more than an hour and were disappointed that we had not been there to provide our input. As soon as we walked in, one program director made a comment that showed his anger. Trying to express his honest feelings, he said: “I’m mad that you guys weren’t here. This is an important meeting. I really rely on you two in particular for your conceptual thinking.” This set off a chain reaction of feelings in the room. Those who had been involved in the meeting from the beginning felt insulted. The vice president was defensive about the reasons why he was late. I was feeling angry. We were suddenly mired in the Swamp.
If we had tried to push forward anyway, I think something bad might have happened, perhaps even something irreparable. Someone spoke up, however, and suggested that we stop the meeting right then, despite the fact that we were all finally gathered. He offered the suggestion that we get together on Saturday morning for a fresh start. It was the right thing to do under the circumstances.
I offer the example to show how quickly things can sometimes turn around. Even when you are conscious of bad conversations and how they manifest themselves, it doesn’t make it any easier to be rational when emotions and strong feelings begin to clash. When we reconvened on Saturday, emotions had cooled and we were no longer in the Swamp. With honest feelings and without hidden dialogue, we used the Tower of Power to forge a solid “Let’s Go!” strategy.
THE SOURCE OF BAD CONVERSATIONS
Even the most powerful communicators can’t completely escape from bad conversations. We all have our moments of irrationality, obtuseness, obstinance, emotional outbursts, self-pity, and blame, and we all can be guilty of manipulation and willful destructiveness. These are the characteristics that underlie and contribute to bad conversations. It is important to realize that bad conversations can come in intentional and unintentional forms, and that we can be guilty of either at different times.
Conversations that become bad in unintentional ways are usually characterized by a lack of skill in communicating or a temporary lack of understanding of the tenets of Powerful Conversations. Misinterpretation, lack of patience, and poor sharing of emotions or true feelings can unintentionally—and quickly—lead you into the Swamp. Unintentional bad conversations are often those that disintegrate during their course. Things start okay and deteriorate. Meanings are lost, perspectives are distorted, and defensiveness rises. What is said does not match what was intended. Clarity is poor. Nonverbal signals can contradict verbal ones. Values, cultures, and norms of behavior often clash.
A skilled conversationalist can recognize these warning signs and take appropriate steps to reduce or reverse this negative slide. In many cases, however, unintentional bad conversations leave all parties shaking their heads and unable to recognize or work out where things went wrong. Facilitators help because they can observe traits and behaviors. Practice and care can reduce the likelihood of dysfunctional traits and behaviors being exhibited.
Characteristics of bad conversations include:
• Unclear, poorly expressed, or poorly understood content
• Unfocused content marked by tangents, or the cramming in of too many facts, concerns, wants, and needs
• Frequent interruptions leading to poor exchange of signals and information as well as rising frustration
• Uninterested participation and lack of active listening
• Unexpressed feelings or beliefs, guarded emotions, and unspoken needs and wants
• Indirect language, with facts and assumptions ineffectively communicated
• Harsh voice and tone, often unintentionally at odds with message
• Nonverbal signs at odds with words, revealing true negative feelings
• Unresponsive body language, such as poor eye contact, turning away, and crossed arms
THE OUTPUTS OF BAD CONVERSATIONS
Most of us would be able to stomach bad conversations if they did produce some positive lasting impact. Bad conversations never truly end—they seem to linger in the form of certain negative outputs that can haunt relationships as well as organizations. In particular, negative outputs of a bad conversation fall under the following categories.
Bad Feelings
In bad conversations, there is a low level of listening and sharing of feelings, thoughts, and beliefs. The people in such a conversation can often feel hurt because of the lack of understanding or sharing. All of us take part in conversations that we regret. We make questionable commitments or poor decisions as the result of poor communication, lack of reason, or clouded judgment. And we feel lousy about it. This can indicate poor communication skills, hidden dialogue, or low levels of trust. High-Impact Leaders recognize such circumstances and actively check assumptions around sharing so these feelings won’t result.
Bad Judgments
Bad judgments result from an incorrect or incomplete assessment of facts and conditions. Sometimes agendas are based on error. An agenda may have been created despite conflict between feelings and facts, poor reasoning and inquiry concerning assumptions and facts, or merely incorrect facts. High-Impact Leaders are careful to test assumptions, challenge facts, and uncover true feelings in order to increase the chances that they will address agendas properly. Many High-Impact Leaders rely with great success on gut feeling; either they are particularly perceptive and intuitive in the first place, or they are aware of their own limitations.
Sometimes errors are made in judgment because of the presence of undiscussables. When all facts or assumptions are not revealed, it is frequently because organizational levels of trust are low. Similarly, self-deception can happen when someone has a blind spot to an issue or fact. When levels of trust are low, honest communication is difficult. The innovators go unrewarded, and “yes men” and “yes women” abound.
Bad Decisions
Bad decisions take bad judgments a step further because they represent committed action. Bad decisions frequently lead to flawed programs, policies, and processes that are difficult to remedy. Once the products of a bad decision are in place, they are difficult to revise or remove, even in those organizations with high levels of trust. In organizations where trust levels are not high, bad decisions can linger for long periods because members of the organization feel powerless to change, make counterproposals, or question. Leadership effectiveness in such organizations is impeded because of the lack of confidence in the leader. This doubt is further exacerbated when a leader defends a bad decision despite a general recognition that the decision was misguided.
DECEPTIVE POWER
Sometimes leaders fool themselves: they believe that conversations are powerful or that trust is thriving, when this is simply not so.
I was called into a large manufacturing company to observe the leader’s tremendous success with his senior team. The leader’s aim was to showcase his team, document its attributes, and roll out its practices across the organization. He was eager to show off his accomplishments in this regard, but he told me in advance that he didn't want to color my thinking or otherwise bias my observations by introducing the reasons for my visit to his team. He asked me to watch the open, rational, and expedited ways by which the team made decisions.
I observed the group work through a worldwide strategy for sales. The senior leader had prepared me to expect the best, yet what I saw was very different. Nonverbal and verbal signals alike indicated significant hidden dialogue, as the group seemed unwilling to say what was really going on. Canned presentations were applauded. Questions and objections were perfunctory and unchallenging. There was rapid agreement on assumptions, which were not challenged and seemed to override or leap past contradicting facts. There were some in the group who were eager, high energy, and open; their ideas (supportive of the leader’s) went to the forefront. There were others in the group who were taciturn and restrained; their assumptions and statements were ignored and went unexpressed. The team quickly arrived at the sales strategy. True to the leader’s predictions, the team had made decisions in an expedient fashion.
I could see why the senior leader believed that trust was alive in this group. The atmosphere of the room was very polite. It was collegial and friendly before, during, and after the discussion. Nobody expressed any negative words. Everybody supported the leader. Yet it was clear that this was not a great team coming to profound conclusions or moving decisively forward toward a great end.
As Peter Senge has observed, it is a myth that great groups are characterized by agreement and civility. In this case, I’m not suggesting that bickering and overwrought outbursts would have been indicative of a healthier team. The complete lack of argument suggested, however, that the group lacked trust, rapport, and a deep connection between the thoughts and feelings of the team members. I worried that this team, rather than standing out as an effective example of a group working through issues, was more a model of bad decision making processes.
Discussing my observations with the leader was painful. To his credit, after a certain period of protracted defensiveness, he was able to overcome his own hurt and wounded ego and see the valid indicators of the facts. Further observations of the organization at large led me to suspect that ineffective communication style was the cultural norm, the way the organization itself communicated. Although the leader was a career-long “company man,” his eyes were nevertheless opened when I pointed out various other things I had observed. He saw suddenly that the emperor had no clothes. He could see why there were too many errors and too little innovation: the group was never really committed to action.
This leader ultimately deserves praise because of his openness to awareness and change. It is a difficult thing for any leader to change communication styles, especially when those styles are so ingrained in the culture around him or her. Yet this leader did change. When he confronted the group with this new information in a humble and deeply honest way, it turned into a powerful moment for both him and his group. When the group was exposed to the power of a truly connecting conversation that did not merely skip along the surface or give lip service to falsehood, there was a palpable sense of relief, as well as a refreshed and exhilarating aura of possibility. As a result, the group made its first long stride toward really coming together as a team with power.
This type of revelation is amazingly transformational. Conversations dictate results. Most times, truths, facts, and honesty are things that are stumbled around, sometimes stumbled onto, and, more often than not, ignored or avoided. There is a prevailing, unspoken feeling that truth and honesty sometimes bring pain. In my experience, the opposite is true. Bad conversations may bring a degree of short-term comfort in their avoidance of real, tough issues, but their long-term results are truly painful. They make us less than what we really are; they prevent us from achieving what we really can.
The responsibility of the High-Impact Leader is to rescue bad conversations and guide followers toward power.
THE SWAMP
Sometimes, despite our best efforts and most careful and rational interactions, conversations go nowhere. We become stuck in a bad conversation and there is seemingly no way out.
As I mentioned earlier, I call this place the Swamp. It lurks below the Tower of Power and is an area that is actually worth an occasional visit. I will explain why later. For now, let’s focus on the chief implications of being stuck in the Swamp.
For Victims, the Swamp Is the House of Suffering
Some people are so hurt and damaged emotionally that they are unable to break free of those feelings. No matter what approach is taken or what overture is made, such people feel compelled to roll around in their own misery, sadness, bad experiences, past transgressions, and maligned positions. They refuse to see the opportunity to move forward toward constructive action that would rectify real or perceived wrongs. They either don’t want to heal or aren’t ready to heal.
You can heal sometimes by acknowledging wrongs. You can resolve buried conflicts by actively inquiring about emotions, sharing feelings, and taking emotional risks. The natural response to bitterness is to feel negatively toward that person. This response is often exactly what they want, but never need. By pointing out or openly acknowledging bitterness and hurt, you can make a victim aware of his or her behavior and the fact that such behavior is unproductive and unacceptable.
For Criticizers, the Swamp Is the Theater of Complaint
Complainers probably like to think they are only trying to improve things. I have even heard whining defined as “caring combined with powerlessness.” When it comes to complaints about ideas, processes, or strategies, there is a difference between criticism and critique. Criticism is a negative approach that actively seeks to tear down and belittle, or to prove that something cannot be done, will not work, or does not work. Critique is another matter. There is a time and a place for the rigor and in-depth questioning of critique. Sometimes, in the process of moving toward possibility and action, it is necessary to suspend an overly judgmental tendency, at least for a while. Most great ideas and innovations, not to mention deliberate work systems and practices, would not survive the slings and arrows of criticism in their early stages. It is through critique that ideas are given sea legs.
It is important to couch critique in factual observations, or to acknowledge such statements as observation. It is also important to be aware of how emotions are at stake and to state things in deliberately positive and supporting ways. You can overcome overcriticism in another person by actively pointing out that person’s behavior and making clear that you will accept only more productive paths.
For Small-Minded People, the Swamp Is the Mud and Muck of Rumor
Some people choose not to support and foster the positive energy and culture of an organization. Rather, they actively spread hearsay, rumor, and innuendo. Often these types of people do this insidiously, behind the scenes, after the meetings, through e-mails, and on extended coffee breaks.
We all like to gossip about and analyze people, motives, happenings, situations, and events. However, some of us go too far and infect others with doubt, dispirit, lack of enthusiasm, and energy. It is important to nip such behavior in the bud, to point out that such a conversation is unacceptable or uninteresting, and to avoid fueling the fire by listening or upping the ante of observations.
For Passive People, the Swamp Is the Lounge of Resignation
Some people simply go with the flow. They are inactive about sharing emotions, information, wants, or needs. They do not want to test or challenge facts and assumptions, or make active commitments that bring about change. They are powerless, feel powerless, or choose to be powerless in ways that lead them to exhibit overtolerance, avoidance, and general “checking out.” Such people may be misaligned with organizational goals. Alternatively, they may be poorly motivated, beaten down, lazy, uncaring, or unfit for the organization’s environment. By seeking to uncover the roots of resignation, High-Impact Leaders seek to reenergize or realign (or else rid themselves of) a wasted resource.
THE SWAMP AS A SOURCE OF POWER
Sometimes, by acknowledging the Swamp, you can uncover important information. You can provide an outlet for pent-up frustrations, hurt, anger, and misalignment of personality and culture. People often feel a tremendous pressure to conform and align in ways that eventually sap energy, reduce enthusiasm, and establish bad habits and behaviors. The Swamp allows people to vent and uncover some tough things. Hundreds of companies, in fact, now use the term Swamp Talk as a way of referring to bad conversations. It seems to serve a need in describing this kind of behavior or incident, and in providing an impetus to refocus on the important issues.
One of the advantages of having the Tower of Power as a tool is that it objectifies the problems or issues in a conversation, removing them from association with a particular person or behavior. It is much easier to correct a bad conversation when you treat it in such a manner. Two people, growing heated in their discussion, can break the tension by saying, “Hey, look, we’re in the Swamp now. Let’s refocus.”
The Swamp can also be used as a means to a productive end. A High-Impact Leader knows when the Swamp has been entered into and views that as a warning sign to be extra perceptive and inquiring. Sometimes, the Swamp reveals points of dissatisfactions or real problems. (See Chapter 9 on dissatisfiers as related to retention.) It may be a result of undiscussables, lowered trust, the mismatch of Say and Do, or poorly aligned systems, values, and stated goals.
Finally, the Swamp can also be a tremendous source of unleashed emotion. It is often difficult for rational people in a work environment to share sincere thoughts, personal feelings, and real wants and needs. And yet it is exactly such emotions that are the source of energy for reaching the power of a Powerful Conversation. By letting people descend into the Swamp, High-Impact Leaders can allow defenses to lower, feelings to emerge in unguarded ways, and people to fall back into their core patterns of behavior—their most basic wants and needs, the small seeds inside that form the outer shell. The Swamp is often the right place (albeit tangled, confusing, and dirty) to root around for a while in order to discover and uncover real values and issues.
GETTING OUT OF THE SWAMP
Still, a High-Impact Leader knows when it is time to reemerge from the Swamp. Too much time down there can be habit forming. Ultimately, a High-Impact Leader is focused on positive outputs, tangible results, forward direction, synergies of Say and Do, real channeling of forces, and real commitments. A High-Impact Leader views bad conversations as a nice place to visit once in a while for purposes of growth, breakthrough, and transformation—but not a place where people should live.
Keep in mind the following steps you can take to get out of the Swamp.
1. Drop your agenda. As soon as you hear Swamp Talk surface, recognize that you need to deal with it or the conversation will stall.
2. Validate the issues and feelings. It is equally important to dig in and uncover the roots of the feelings that drove the conversation into the Swamp (and that are keeping it there).
3. Create a list. One complaint or issue of resistance is usually the sign of more. Uncover them all and affirm and validate each one.
4. Confirm the list. Once you have a full list and the person agrees that nothing else stands in the way, review the list to gain clear understanding of the issues.
5. Start with the last thing on the list. Often, the first few objections are smoke screens, covering up other more difficult or deeply held convictions or problems. A bottoms-up approach usually brings faster resolution.
6. Build up the issue. Have the person tell you why the issue is so important to make sure you are dealing with all its dimensions.
7. Hold up the mirror. Establish the other person’s line of reasoning and make it visible for examination. Often, doing so will expose a fallacy.
8. Leave the Swamp behind. Use the Tower of Power introduced in Chapter 2 to reframe the issue, unearth the assumptions, consider new possibilities, and craft actions that everyone can commit to in going forward.
POWERFUL CONVERSATIONS FOR BAD PURPOSES
There is another type of bad conversation that does not involve a descent into the Swamp. These are bad conversations masquerading as Powerful Conversations. These conversations are masterminded by people who intentionally employ the techniques and tools of Powerful Conversations for selfish reasons or as a strategy toward malevolent ends. These people are especially destructive because they represent a lethal combination of intelligence (in their mastery of Powerful Conversations) and ill motives.
These people are particularly difficult to spot, even for a highly perceptive leader, because they are highly intelligent, skillful, and careful at feigning the best intentions. Nevertheless, they use Powerful Conversations as a kind of poison, turning perception into misperception, trust into distrust. I call such people Iagos after William Shakespeare’s character in Othello.
There is another type of person, commonplace in organizations, who cares only for his or her agenda and only pretends to listen, share, communicate, and engage. These people are actually interested in doing the minimum in terms of living commitments and arriving at shared goals and objectives. They really want only to maximize their own objectives, which usually comes at the expense of others around them. Such leaders are frequently strong, intelligent, and dominant, and are artful in getting what they want. They are able to feign authenticity, sincerity, honesty, and truth. Though they may achieve organizational goals and bring about short-term productive results, their actions and behaviors destroy organizational trust, a much more important long-term organizational asset.
Then there are those who are charismatic or particularly skilled in organization or manipulation. These leaders are the most destructive. Because of their positions of great authority or strong leadership, their actions and behaviors negatively impact a large number of people. Such a person is out of line with human values and principles, but is so strong and persuasive that values and perceptions become twisted. The Stalins and the Hitlers of the world were skilled at connecting deeply and fostering strong commitment and loyalty. We all know the power of their words—and the terrible consequences.
More often than not, however, bad conversations do not stem from malevolent people but are instead symptomatic of communication, personality, or organizational problems.
Bad conversations nevertheless represent an opportunity to turn toward power. By being conscious and conscientious of the Tower of Power as well as the symptoms and conditions of bad conversations, a High-Impact Leader can uncover the roots of problems and refocus and realign conversations on an upward path.
Conversations in the real world—the ones that take place amidst the pressures of getting work done, in the confusion of mixed signals, and with the clash of personalities—are difficult, slippery, and often unfocused events. Understanding how conversations function and how they achieve a movement toward results is the key to using them in skillful and artful ways toward positive ends. Such awareness reduces the occurrence of bad conversations and promotes the development of Powerful Conversations.