Preston Leadership Blog

The Power (or Not) of Talk

I recently re-read Deborah Tannen’s groundbreaking article, “The Power of Talk: Who Gets Heard and Why”, which appeared in Harvard Business Review a while back (link below). Anyone who wants to improve their influence and effectiveness should read Tannen’s article and commit it to memory.

The real meat of the article, for me at least, was the author’s description of social mores and how men and women learn their most basic relationship and conversational styles at a very young age. And for better or worse, these early lessons carry forward for the rest of our lives.

For women, this can certainly lead to frustration with male-dominated work cultures. At Preston Leadership we often work with high tech clients where the majority of employees are men and women in leadership roles are either wildly successful or struggling for the advancement they seek. There’s not much in the middle.

The Power of Talk brings crisp insight into tendencies we all surely recognize both in ourselves and others. The problem is that these tendencies are mostly subconscious. Handling perceptions can be challenging, and we just may be perpetuating the very things we’d like to erase.

Learning the most effective communication style along with some practical techniques for getting our points across for maximum influence should be a higher priority for most leaders. We encounter many who are smart, ambitious, and experienced but who struggle with why they don’t seem to be advancing at the rate they’d like. The secret may lie as much in how we say things as what we are saying.

Deborah Tannen wrote “The Power of Talk: Who Gets Heard and Why” for On Point, a Harvard Business Review series. It is product number 9977. 

 

Manage Up or Be Disappointed

The very idea of managing one’s boss (“managing up”) is quickly coming back into the mainstream. Subordinates the world over raise their eyebrows when we suggest that it’s not only OK to manage your boss, it’s something you really must do.

The late Peter Drucker wrote about it in 1999, typically pushing the envelope in his time. Those who admire Drucker, including me, consider NOW to be his time – but that’s for another post.

Many good articles and books have been published on the topic since then.

As you might imagine, there are lots of similarities between managing a direct report and managing a boss. For example, setting expectations. Why do so many leaders fail to manage their boss’ expectations well? Surprises are usually not good. Avoiding conflict now often leads to unavoidable strife later.

My dad liked to say, “If you work for a man, work for him.” He was talking about loyalty. It’s never a good idea to be disloyal to your boss.

Finally, get to know your boss’s communication preferences. Drucker puts leaders into two categories in this regard: readers or listeners. Do you rush into your boss’ office with new information, expecting him to make a decision on the spot? It’s more likely that you’ll get the decision you want if you give him time to absorb the information in writing first. Obviously emergencies are emergencies, but readers strongly prefer a little time to ponder.

Or, do you send your boss volumes of information via e-mail (or paper), only to be disappointed when you learn that she didn’t even read it! Listeners prefer to evaluate facts on the spot, discuss options, and make the call. Volumes of data are not nearly as influential with this style of communication as an overview would be. Give ‘em the summaries.

Interacting with your boss in the most effective way will get you what you want more quickly. It’s really as simple as that. Why do so many people miss this? Send me an e-mail if you’d like to discuss.

You and Your Boss

I read a great blog post by Linda Hill and Ken Lineback in Harvard Business Review called “In Pursuit of a Better Boss”. I liked their emphasis on accountability. In my experience, many “bad bosses” are parties to a dysfunctional relationship; and one that can be fixed if both sides are willing to work at it.

It won’t surprise anyone that good communication is the foundation of a mutually rewarding and productive relationship at work. When we trust each other we can disagree without emotion, and be challenged without getting defensive. Getting all the best ideas out on the table assures the best decisions.

One of the bosses I particularly enjoyed working for at eBay, Mike Bringuel, once said, “Smart people should disagree”. He wouldn’t let his team sidestep disagreements to maintain harmony. After a brief adjustment period, we got used to it and became a much more productive group.

The trend toward more candor at work may sound counter-intuitive in today’s hyper-litigious workplace, but it’s not. The better we get at expressing ourselves in ways that don’t cause problems, the better off our companies will be.

Lots of people are afraid to disagree with their boss or other executives! I hear stories all the time from CEOs who have built teams of yes-people. They complain about not getting honest feedback. Hill and Lineback say that both sides have a responsibility to fix it.

I couldn’t agree more. In work relationships where the stakes are high, there’s a hierarchy and pressure to perform, people can become tentative. What they need to do is learn to speak up appropriately. Bosses need to prove that they can take it by not attacking subordinates who challenge them. It takes time but the payoff is huge.

Do You Have a “Tell”?

Good Poker players learn to spot other players' "tells", those (mostly) subconscious signals that we send out when we have a good or bad hand. Looking around the table in a certain way, fumbling with chips, and sighing are examples of common "tells". Learning to eliminate one's "tells" is an important skill in Poker and other games that require a degree of deception.

Do you (or does your leader) have "tells"?

I used to work for a great boss who had one. When she asked me if we could "chat" I always knew that something was wrong. But when she asked me if I had a minute or if we could "talk", I knew that the meeting would be positive. Worked like a charm and when I told her about it one day, she had no idea she was telegraphing the nature of her requests. She'd also drink a ton of coffee on the way to work and be so wired when she arrived that everyone would brace themselves for long lists of stuff to do. Empty travel mug in hand meant watch out! But LeAnne was an excellent leader.

For many, silence is a "tell". So many people have told me that when their boss goes silent, they know something bad is brewing. Doors closed? Uh-oh.

Leaders have a responsibility to communicate. This is not optional. Nature certainly loves a vacuum, and in the absence of their leader's voice, people will draw conclusions of their own. We've all seen this happen. Anyone who has had to dig his organization out of a hole created by secrecy at the top knows how difficult it can be. Morale is like an aircraft carrier; it takes time to turn it around. Don't go any farther down a path if the truth will surely require a 180.

Communication is not just talking; it's also listening. Want to engage key contributors? Discuss. Leaders should not strive to have the last word.

Abusing the authority that comes with a leadership position can take many forms, not the least of which is squelching healthy debate because it is uncomfortable. Have the courage to participate in conversations that challenge conventions. Stop a debate only when it becomes disrespectful or tangential.

Learn to be influential. There are millions of brilliant people who are not heard because of poor communication skills. If it is your responsibility to communicate, then work on it as you would any other critical job skill. Charm only goes so far – there are earnest techniques that can bring clarity to complex issues in the workplace and inspire others to higher levels of performance.

 

Again

The English language is full of traps, making it one of the harder languages to learn. Words have two or even three meanings and depending upon their inflection or placement in a sentence, their meaning can be dramatically different. This is one reason e-mail is a challenging medium and why we have created emoticons to help get our true sentiment across.

One such word that is troublesome for me is "again".

Adding a question mark gives "again" a range of meanings, some of which express exasperation. Maybe this is why the word "again" without a question mark can also carry a tone that conveys impatience or even condescension.

Consider this: When someone doesn't understand what you're trying to say, or maybe wants to challenge you, starting your reply with "again", as in the example below, can feel a bit aggressive.

1^st person: "What did you mean when you said "soon"?

2^nd person: "Again, I did not say anything that would imply immediacy. I simply tried to estimate a timeframe."

Inserting "again" at the beginning gives the response a little edge, something like, "OK dummy, apparently you didn't understand what I said the first time" or "How many times do I need to say this so that you will understand?" Not always, but often times this is what I hear.

I think the use of "again" to help with clarification isn't necessary and can sometimes create a bit of defensiveness in the listener. Do you agree with this or am I too sensitive?