Chapter 5

Say What You Mean: Not What You Think They Want to Hear

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.

—Mahatma Gandhi¹

Mission Statement

The truth may sting but it always cleanses.

In a world dominated by “political correctness” (or fear of unemployment), we often feel compelled to sugarcoat or back-pedal our thoughts and ideas. After all, it’s much more important to our comfort zone to avoid rejection or the possibility of “offending” someone than to put ourselves out there. Here’s the thing: If you don’t put yourself out there, you won’t be rejected, but you won’t be accepted either. Successful personal brand impact depends on one’s ability to take appropriate and clear stands that will allow you to distinguish yourself and, above all, demonstrate value. Watered-down thoughts will make you instantly forgettable—we like people who have opinions, and if you want to stand out and be memorable, it’s imperative that you communicate honestly as well as politely.

We live in a culture that frowns on dissent and prizes agreement. Our body language may indicate agreement—we may be silent or deliver a tepid “yes”—when on the inside, we are in complete disagreement. Regardless of the relationship (friend, colleague, family member), most of us prefer to smooth over differences rather than be confrontational. We also value speed over deliberation, and feel that it’s important to get our work done as quickly as possible to preserve relationships and avoid conflict.

This is in direct opposition to the notion that growth and innovation are dependent upon a certain amount of “constructive tension.” In my previous book, Be the Brand, I discussed the importance of taking mere informing to persuading and getting people to act during any conversation. There’s always a certain amount of conflict when trying to persuade someone to do, think, or act differently, and if we avoid these temporary moments of discord, then very little gets accomplished.

“It is discouraging how many people are shocked by honesty and how few by deceit.”

—Noel Coward²

The truth is that bosses, for the most part, don’t like a lot of dissent and do not foster a culture of communicating differences, despite the heralding of a corporate “speak-up” culture. What is often fostered is an environment where loyalty is measured by how much one accepts corporate decrees and policies—with only superficial challenges. If we want to hold on to our jobs and move up in our organizations, stifling conflict is the safest way to do it, or so we believe.

And, lying to avoid conflict in the office is quite common, according to Carol Kinsey Goman, author of the new book The Truth About Lies in the Workplace. She conducted a survey of business professionals which found that 53 percent admitted to lying to cover up job performance issues or as a means of career advancement.³

I can’t tell you how many companies I visit that herald a “speak-up” culture, but really don’t advance the notion of sharing or expressing differences. On the contrary, it’s common to see a more “top-down” culture where employees are considered loyal if they tow the company line, values, and decisions with minor dissent. I think it’s safe to say that as a result of the signals sent by corporate hierarchies, if they want to advance, or even keep their job, avoiding conflict is the less risky avenue.

And although it’s appropriate to point the finger at bosses, they are not the only ones who raise the fear of dissent. Our brand is on display for everyone, with potential consumers everywhere, and our concern about our image extends to subordinates and peers alike. We can be rejected or scorned by them as well, so we don’t want to risk creating a negative impression or cause a potentially embarrassing incident.

The problem with this is stifling conflict often elevates the odds of the negative impact we fear the most—that is, work streams taking longer to perform tasks, sometimes unsuccessfully. Also, when key issues are not properly vetted due to unexpressed conflict, it can potentially ruin and/or devalue good relationships.

Every time we crush conflict, it sets a more concrete precedent: that it’s good to be silent. The downward spiral continues, and although we may think that it makes relationships relatively safe, the conflict doesn’t go away. It gets suppressed, and the work suffers. We feel less satisfied and less engaged. Potential disaster looms around the corner as a result.

Not being constructively honest (dissent with a viable alternative/solution) cuts across all organizations, regardless of size, influence, industry, or location. And when the economy goes south, it gets worse because everyone is worried about possibly losing their job—so, creating a pseudo-“kumbaya” atmosphere is preferred over dealing with simmering differences and/or disagreements.

It is really quite simple: Say what you mean and mean what you say. The ramifications for not doing this could be dire, especially in business. The potential for wasted time and effort as a result of poor/ineffective communication is considerable, along with the additional collateral damage of anger and frustration. In fact, a career can be significantly derailed when you are unclear, are disingenuous, or contradict yourself.

Then there are those who are afraid to say what they mean because they don’t want to potentially turn off the individual to whom they are speaking. I have known many individuals in sales who value maintaining client relationships over inserting constructive tension to change behaviors (that is, get their clients to buy more), and their year-end numbers reflect this. Or, to avoid conflict, they say nothing (when they should say something) and completely erode their credibility. Remember: It’s business, not a social relationship. You can’t forget that. (They certainly won’t.)

“If you ever injected truth into politics you have no politics.”

—Will Rogers⁴

Probably the most famous and successful “truth teller” of the 20th century was humorist and entertainer Will Rogers. Born in Indian Territory in Oklahoma, this humble Cherokee turned cowboy turned vaudevillian became one of the most famous and listened-to people in the world simply because he “told it as he saw it.” He became such an iconic figure that at the time of his death, The New York Times devoted 13 pages of coverage. President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, “His appeal went straight to the heart of the nation. Above all things, in a time grown too solemn and somber he brought his countrymen back to a sense of proportion.”⁵

And probably, the major reason he was so successful is because he never attacked people personally—but told the truth about behaviors and actions of which he disapproved (or approved). For example, he famously denounced the stealing during the Harding administration (remember studying the “Teapot Dome scandal”?), but did not attack the individuals who were eventually sent to prison for their misdeeds. He focused on the culture in Washington at the time. During Theodore Roosevelt’s administration, the Native American Five Tribes experienced the greatest treaty abrogation, yet he kept his attacks aimed at the thievery that was occurring, not the man in the White House. The same thing happened when he criticized the government during Hoover’s administration as being probusiness and anti-people (especially the poor). He took on Washington without having to belittle the president. Everyone listened to him and, above all, believed him!

The lesson here is that you can hold people accountable without playing the blame game. Our fear around truth telling often centers on the negative reaction we might expect from those to whom we deliver feedback. However, as Will Rogers proved, if you deal with the situation (“we have a problem with retention, as the culture of this department doesn’t go out of its way to express appreciation for people’s efforts”) as opposed to attacking the individual (“if you made appreciating people’s efforts more of a priority, you’d be able to retain people”) you’d get the action needed while taking the fear out of the equation. This kind of strategic facilitation is critical, especially in high-performing organizations in which egos are strong and associates are constantly jockeying for position.

Much more recently, Andy Rooney, the late (and much missed) cantankerous pundit of 60 Minutes was a regular fixture on Sunday night television. We all waited to see what sacred cow he was going to eviscerate next. No matter whom or what he talked about, we believed him, because he always told the truth and was truly an “equal opportunity offender.” Unlike the predictable positioning of the pundits on many of the network and cable news outlets, you never knew what Mr. Rooney was going to target and what he would say, but regardless, he always made sense. When nouvelle cuisine was all the rage at fancy restaurants (carefully arranged bits of food at sky-high prices), Mr. Rooney famously cracked, “I don’t like food that’s too carefully arranged; it makes me think that the chef is spending too much time arranging and not enough time cooking. If I wanted a picture I’d buy a painting.”⁶ When online purchasing began to take hold and consumers began to wonder about the extra fees they were being charged, he declared, “I understand shipping—you have to expect to pay for the stamps or for the freight company—but what’s this handling they always have? How much does handling cost, anyway? I don’t want a lot of people handling something I’m going to buy before I get it.”⁷ Who could argue with that?

Being known and respected as a truth teller (and always being believed) is a huge asset in any community, business, or organization, just as not being trusted or believed is a career-killer. So, here’s a plan to help you say what you mean:

Ask yourself what you would say if you weren’t worried about being right or about the reaction, then edit your words to make them more tolerable and specific.

How liberating it would be if we could always say exactly what we wanted to, without a filter or worrying about being judged or reacted to in a negative way. Unfortunately, real life doesn’t work that way, but that doesn’t mean we have to avoid issues altogether or be afraid to express our true opinions. Once you’ve figured out what you would say if you weren’t worried about being right, or concerned with the reaction you would get, then adjust the language to what you think your audience can handle. I’ve tried this many times, and I’ve discovered that people have a much higher tolerance for constructive tension than you think. The first few times, lean on the conservative side, then as you get more comfortable with this approach, you can begin to take greater risks. And remember, these should be benefit-driven conversations as well. If you accompany your thoughts with the benefits your audience would accrue if they saw things “your way,” you’d be amazed how they would gloss over the things you feel would be difficult for them to hear, and focus on what they’d get out of it. Here’s an example:

You have to ask yourself what result you are seeking when you speak up and edit your words, targeting them toward the result you want. I have always subscribed to the notion that awareness without solutions is useless. As soon as I hear someone ask me, “Do you mind if I share an observation with you?” I immediately tell them, “As long as you tell me how to fix whatever you’ve observed. Don’t make me aware of some deficiency if you can’t help me solve it.” So, in the process of saying what you mean, be sure you have a good idea of the outcome. In short, it’s perfectly okay to vent, but be sure you have a plan to go with it. And make sure your words reflect what your audience is going to get out of it.

Edit your words for blame and emotional reaction

Editing your words is critical! One of the most powerful motivators of behavior is shame, or what we’ll do to avoid it (almost anything). No one is going to want to listen to you if you play the blame game aimed at people inside or outside the room. The idea is to safely express your thoughts and drive action to a desirable outcome. It doesn’t do any good to preface comments with, “If it weren’t for XYZ, then this wouldn’t be happening,” or “They don’t have a clue how this is going to roll out.” You always want to deal with the situation, not the person(s). As opposed to “They don’t have a clue…” try “While the prevailing wisdom is that we’ve anticipated all contingencies, the achievement of a seamless roll-out may be more complex than we originally anticipated. We need to look at….” Notice the use of “we” in order to avoid finger-pointing. This will make your comments inclusive (“one for all and all for one”) as well as much less threatening.

Say what you mean and mean what you say

While flexing new “speak-up muscles,” you might find that defensiveness comes out as a mean voice (“Now that I’ve liberated myself to speak up, you’re going to be the recipient of my pent-up frustration”).

Instead of letting it speak for you and potentially misrepresent your brand, express yourself in a more strategic and thought-out manner that can turn a negative message into one that could be interpreted as complimentary and positive. For example:

“You know, you can really be annoying sometimes” can be changed to “It’s amazing how confident you come off sometimes.”

“I can’t believe how bossy you can be” becomes “You’re always so clear about what you want and need.”

“You always have to be right” turns into “I appreciate how concerned you are about me falling on my face, but sometimes you need to let me experience that painful face plant.”

See how this works?

You can also try using the “deposit before withdrawal” style of criticism instead of just going in for the kill and criticizing. Begin by complimenting something (the deposit), accrue some equity, then constructively criticize so you can end with the benefit to them if they modify their behavior (“You have great style, and in a business setting, a more conservative approach might have people listening more to what you have to say as opposed to focusing on your look. It all depends on what you want people to take away.”). Basically, you want to speak to others as you would like others to speak to you.

Our level of self-esteem is largely based on our ability to feel that we have a place at the table and are being heard—that we have some input into what goes on in our life and are not merely being reactive all the time. When we can’t say what we mean, the consequences can be dire; we feel “less than” (inferior), as well as frustrated. Conversely, when we are able to be honest and constructively transparent, we feel we matter, what we think matters, and our words matter. To clearly and honestly communicate one’s ideas, thoughts and needs is a key skill toward building valuable relationships. First, it tells people what you want, and it can prevent you from being taken advantage of. Regardless of cultural conditioning (personal and professional), standing up for yourself is critical.

Robert C. Roberts of Baylor University and W. Jay Wood of Wheaton College wrote in their book, Intellectual Virtues: An Essay in Regulative Epistemology, about how we need to face the challenges around us with honesty and intellectual integrity. The authors divide intellectual virtue into six categories.⁸ The three that resonated most with me are firmness, humility, and autonomy. Regarding firmness, on the one hand, you want to avoid being the individual who caves on beliefs when initially confronted or opposed, though you don’t need to be stubborn and maintain your position against all evidence to the contrary. The virtue of firmness seeks a middle ground. A person with firmness can evaluate and add new information on top of a solid foundation and is able to ratchet up or down the intensity of his or her beliefs based upon the quality of the new information. Roberts and Wood contend that firmness and mental agility are directly related.

Humility is a critical component of intellectual virtue. Does your desire for status interfere with your objective view of what you perceive to be the truth? The truly humble individual avoids such vanity and need for self-aggrandizement, placing concern for others ahead of oneself. Intellectual virtue, which includes humility, allows you to learn from others at any point in time and to avoid becoming overly arrogant.

The virtue of autonomy guides you down a path of individualism but avoids unnecessary conflict with authority and tradition. Never blindly adopt whatever your boss or someone else tells you. However, failure to accept guidance from those who have more wisdom or helpful information may come at your peril. Tradition and authority have their place, and the person who has mastered this virtue knows when to accept it and when to be an individual.

Being able to stand up for yourself and always say what you mean will not always get you what you want. However, the chances of getting at least some part of what you want are greatly enhanced by your ability to articulate what you mean. Also, even if your argument (with constructive tension) doesn’t carry the day, at the very least you can gain comfort in knowing your voice was heard!

   Test Yourself!