5
Communication and Action
All business problems are communications problems. In my years working as a business consultant and educational psychologist, I have seen conflicts of all kinds play out between internal units, between supervisor and subordinate, between customer and supplier, between alliance partners, and between business entities and regulators. As varied as they may be, they all have one factor in common: they started as communication issues.
Courses in effective communications all make attempts at improving this apparently difficult thing to do—to communicate. Each of us has probably heard the drill: listen first, speak second; paraphrase before adding your own thoughts; don’t interrupt. And precious little of this makes any apparent difference.
As an educational psychologist, I spent considerable time early in my career wondering about the source of conflict and miscommunication. Whether in one-to-one counseling situations, working with groups, or trying to build teams, I have seen the communication issue rise over and over again. I must admit that before I really understood the problem, I spent a lot of time trying to teach people all the various active-listening skills from unconditional positive regard to how to paraphrase and seek mutual understanding.
I don’t think the problem lies in various listening skills. However, before going further into the source of common communication issues, I want to underscore that effective listening skills are an important part of the solution. It has been my experience that people clearly don’t know how to listen very well. Part of the listening problem stems from how much emphasis we place on the ability to make a case, to advocate a point of view, to argue for a position. If we have been trained in the art of making a strong case for our point of view, many of us therefore might have learned to listen not so much to understand the other as to be able to offer a counterargument.
There is an old Buddhist saying that asks: “Are you listening, or just preparing to speak?” There is a big difference between conversing with someone who is listening to understand and conversing with someone who is listening to argue. I’m sure you have experienced the contrast! We have all had to face people who listen solely for the purpose of countering whatever we have to say, even without having a point of their own to offer. For these folks, the main purpose of conversation doesn’t touch on having a good debate (“my point is stronger and more well-thought-out than yours”); it is more about discrediting the other person, finding holes in the other’s logic, or otherwise appearing superior through the ability to find fault.
Have you ever been on the wrong end of a conversation with someone who has been through one of those effective-listening courses? In this instance, I am not referring to someone who is seeking to listen and to paraphrase before responding; rather, I mean the person who has mastered the art of what I call “malicious listening.” The malicious listener is skilled at listening with a not-so-hidden motive. This person listens to prove you wrong and uses your own words to make his or her case. This type can quote you (“you said . . .”) and quickly follow with a retort, rejoinder, or snide comment about how wrong you are.
An often efficient workaround for malicious listeners is to thank them for listening so attentively and then ask if they could add a few more thoughts on the implications of what you just said. Asking someone what the underlying meaning might be rather than the actual words used generally has a way of stopping the malicious listener cold.
WHAT YOU HEARD IS NOT WHAT I MEANT
Much as with the proverbial iceberg, the words we say frequently represent only a small percentage of what’s below the surface. If you have acquired the listening skill to repeat what was said, you may be able to get the words right and still miss the important part of the message. Here’s an example of how things can go awry even though the words repeated seem to match the words originally spoken:
A team was meeting to try to find a solution to a problem it had encountered in working with another group. Joe had been contributing to the brainstorming of options, and Susan was feeling a bit threatened about the direction things were going. Joe realized that the purpose of brainstorming is not to arrive at a perfect solution but is instead to develop possible options for consideration. In fact, Joe recognized that some of his ideas held only a kernel of possibility, but he also knew that getting those kernels out is part of the process.
Susan had heard all she wanted to hear and, instead of contributing to the brainstorming, turned her attention to what she called “Joe’s half-baked ideas.” Not sure where she was going with this comment, Joe asked if she could elaborate. That was just the opening Susan was hoping for, and she started to tear into him, citing exactly what he had said, word for word. Joe was in an awkward spot: she was accurately quoting him but missing his point. He could start to argue, telling her she was missing the point, and he could even challenge her to come up with something better—all of which could easily lead to an even more disagreeable interaction.
Instead, Joe calmly acknowledged that those were the words he had used and the ideas he was generating. Knowing that the words were accurate but the meaning was missed, Joe said, “Thanks for listening so closely to me. What strikes you as my underlying purpose in sharing these kernels of an idea?”
The purpose of this question was to change the nature of the discussion. People can get hung up on the precision of what was said and, in so doing, miss the purpose of what was said. Often, that has a lot more to do with how the listener interprets statements than with the actual words that were used. By turning the conversation away from the precise words and over to the underlying purpose or impact, you can frequently work around the apparent disagreement and get moving in a more fruitful direction.
Susan scolded Joe, claiming that she heard him saying she was doing a crummy job. Joe responded: “Wow, I hadn’t thought about it that way before. I’m so sorry you felt attacked. What I was really trying to do was imagine ways we could all do an even better job. Are there ways you could imagine our group doing even better?” It took a couple more attempts, but eventually the conversation turned away from perceived attacks and toward a more productive discussion of improvement opportunities.
THE ROOTS OF COMMUNICATION
We have all encountered communications problems from time to time; in fact, we have all probably been the source of the problem for someone else. Regardless of your experience, there is a certain kind of communication challenge that you should be particularly aware of. What follows is an illustration of this problem, laid out in the form of a word game. This word game starts with my assertion that the majority of people don’t know what the word communication really means. Now, of course you know what the word means in one sense, but my experience suggests that most people don’t really know the purpose underlying the word. So, here goes:
Communication
Let’s pretend that the word communication is actually made up of several words and that our job is to ferret them out, put them together, and then discover what the word actually means. Starting with the letter c, what is the first, little tiny word you can find inside the word communication? How about co? What does co mean? “Together,” “with,” and “part of” all come to mind. These preliminary definitions put us on the trail to meaning. Clearly, communication has something to do with being together.
How about the first two-syllable word? Starting again with the letter c, we come up with commun. What does commun suggest? Again, “together” and “part of.” You can see it in words such as community and, well, commune. More togetherness.
Does commun look like another ordinary word, just slightly misspelled? How about changing the u to an o? That leaves us with:
Common
The suggestion here is that communication has something to with togetherness and “in common.” Now take the last six letters in the word—cation. Does that look like another familiar word, with the letters slightly out of order? How about reversing the c and the a? That leaves us with:
Action
In fact, just about any word in English, or in French, or Spanish, or Italian, that ends in ion, tion, or ation means “requires action.” More on that later.
Put those two together, and what do you get?
Common Action
or
Commun i cation
With this little word game in mind, we then have the word communication meaning something about acting together or acting in common. The keys are “action” and “in common.”
So, if the purpose of communication is “common action,” then what does that mean? My suggestion is that the only time we ever bother “communicating” with another person is when we want something from that person—it could be approval, cooperation, support, encouragement, or just plain companionship. What happens when we don’t want or need anything from the other person? Usually, we don’t bother saying anything at all!
If we are looking to “act in common” with another person, what do we both need to know before that can happen? If you are looking for approval, support, or cooperation, a good follow-up line of inquiry may be: approval, support, or cooperation in service to what? If we are going to act together, we probably need to know something about what we are acting together for—some sense of direction or purpose.
Taking this one step further, then, we have the word communication looking something like this:
Common Action
(acting in common)
Toward
(a commonly held)
Purpose
Outcome
Goal
Objective
Result
Now, think back to the last time you had a “miscommunication” at home or at work, and I’ll bet you can confirm that you and the other person (or team) had differing versions of the purpose, outcome, or goal. If this rings even slightly true, then I’ll also bet that your actual conversation was more about the action (who is going to do what) and less about the purpose, outcome, or goal.
The problem, of course, is that if the two parties involved don’t take the time to make certain that they are on the same page in terms of overall purpose and outcome, each is likely to start taking actions toward something slightly different, if not immensely different. And then what happens when it becomes evident that one party failed to meet the other party’s criteria of a “good outcome”? One of them may feel that the other person “screwed up.” Or didn’t understand. Or didn’t explain it well. Or didn’t try hard enough. Or. Or. Or.
From there, it can become comical, perhaps even pathetic. How often have you experienced some kind of miscommunication or failed outcome and then found everyone focused on the “action” part of the equation? “Tell me again what you heard you were supposed to do?” “Tell me again what you did.” “Let’s review the action plan one more time.”
The assumption in these kinds of “review” conversations is that someone dropped the ball at the action level. “Do it again, harder” becomes the mantra of improvement. And maybe it is just a question of doing it again. By the same token, though, doing it again could evoke Einstein’s definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
It is probably painfully obvious by now where we are heading with this. There are times when reviewing the action plan or action sequence makes sense; however, before going over the actions taken or not taken, the first order of review should be to go over the intended purpose and outcome, to make certain that everyone was on the same page to begin with. If the two parties have different versions of a good outcome right from the get-go, you can pretty much predict disaster, or at least disappointment, downstream.
WORKAROUNDS FOR BETTER COMMUNICATION
Start any “communication” with a discussion about your individual perceptions of the intended purpose, outcome, and goal. Make certain that both of you can explain the desired outcome in terms that the other can both repeat and visualize:
• What do you imagine the outcome looking like?
• What will be produced?
• What will it be able to do?
• Why would we want that?
These are some of the kinds of questions that will help both of you verify that you are on the same page in regard to outcomes and general direction.
Then, spend some time on action steps and responsibilities:
• Who will be response-able for doing what?
• What are the deliverables that each person will be producing? What are the time lines or milestones?
• What are the consequences of missing a time line or milestone for other team members?
• What should we do if one or the other is in danger of missing a milestone or actually misses one?
• What impact will missing a milestone have on the desired outcome?
• What should we do if one of us needs help?
There are hundreds of questions you can conceivably ask, and the intent here is not to provide a definitive list. Rather, it is to demonstrate the value of clarifying the outcome as well as the actions required to produce the outcome.
Communication, then, is the process of defining a commonly held purpose, outcome, or goal along with a commonly agreedupon set of actions to get there.
WITHOUT COMMUNICATION, THERE IS CONFLICT
Leaving the corporate world for a moment, let’s check in with a couple who are planning for their “relaxing” vacation in Hawaii.
HIM: “I sure could use some time to unwind and just relax.”
HER: “Me too. Hawaii would be great.”
HIM: “Hawaii. What a great idea. Warm, sunny, relaxing.”
HER: “Perfect. Beaches, pools, scenic vistas. Just perfect.”
HIM. “All right! Hawaii it is.”
HER: “I can’t wait.”
Now let us skip ahead to the day before they leave. Watch them pack for the trip (taking action).
HIM: “Golf clubs, tennis rackets, snorkel gear, hiking boots.”
HER: “Suntan lotion, collection of books, swimsuits.”
Do you see the potential for conflict? I have certainly seen it play out in real life.
“But I thought you agreed this would be a relaxing trip—just time to unwind and let go?”
His version? Unwind equals run around, hit balls, exercise.
Her version? Unwind equals downtime, soak up some rays, enjoy doing nothing at the beach.
The mere fact that you can agree with someone on the “purpose” doesn’t mean you actually have the same thing in mind. In this example, the difference between sports equipment and suntanning gear should point to possible conflicts once both people arrive in Hawaii. Similarly, in Chapter 3 we observed misaligned leaders who could all articulate the same vision statement but who nevertheless produced 18 answers to the question about their company’s top three goals.
Before assuming every member of your team is on the same page, spend some time discussing the purpose to be achieved and what the team imagines it will look like when you get there. The more detail, the better. Then you can each get going on the “action” side of “common.” If this trouble area seems even remotely familiar, just envision how hard it can be to keep the “communication” in the right direction as you roll down three layers in an organization, or even as a project moves along through different departments!
WORKAROUND QUESTIONS
Here are a few core questions to consider that can have the effect of warding off problems before they have a chance to manifest:
1. What goals or objectives are we shooting for?
2. What will it look like when we get there?
3. What will we have to be good at to get there?
4. What projects will we have to deliver to get there?
5. Who has what roles, rights, and responsibilities along the way?
6. What action steps will be taken? Who will take them?
7. How will we report our progress along the way?