Forum - September 2008

INTOPRACTICE

The Conversations We Never
Really Have

BY HOWARD HORWITZ

“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” — Martin Luther King Jr.

Almost every association professional knows the anguish of missing the opportunity to remedy a broken situation. Yet time after time, we let those moments slip by or we don’t act in a way that really improves the situation. We can’t seem to find the right words or approach to say what really needs to be said.

In their best-selling book, Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes are High, authors Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan and Al Switzler addressed the tragedy of conversations never had or handled poorly. The staff of the American College of Healthcare Executives has been trained in the Crucial Conversations tools and practices to make those important interactions more timely and meaningful.

Not every conversation is or should be crucial — most are just an information update or the exchange of ideas. But when there are what the authors call Opposing Opinions, High Stake Outcomes and Strong Feelings, the conversation just got crucial. Recognizing when these elements are present and taking the appropriate steps in the right order can save time, emotions and relationships.

SOUND FAMILIAR?

A staff member asks to take on a new project. In an attempt to develop this individual you agree, but you know the required skills are just not there. Later, he excitedly brings you a draft, explaining that it took longer than he thought but he believes you will be very pleased with the outcome. You read the document and a combination of disappointment and affirmation well up in you.

That little voice inside says, “I knew this wasn’t going to work” and “he thought I was going to be pleased with this?” The voice, now a little louder, says, “Why did I ever agree to this? Now, it has to be fixed and I just don’t have the time or interest.”

We complete this negative tale with the assertion that our budding protégé cannot improve it on his own and probably should not be given any more opportunities to waste time and organizational resources.

Despite these strong emotions, when the opportunity arises to provide open and honest feedback, we rarely say what we really feel. Instead, we hedge. We say things like, “This was a very good effort,” or “let me make a few minor changes and I think we are there.” You and your staff member part ways after taking part in a presumably positive dialogue. But in reality, neither of you feel good and the project still has a long way to go.

A crucial conversation was at hand and you failed to recognize it or, more likely, just failed to act on it. Why? Because saying what we really feel, especially when it’s bad news, takes more time, is emotionally risky and is just plain hard. The potential for a better future outcome and a better working relationship is sacrificed. And worse, it will be harder to address the same type of situation in the future.

THREE TECHNIQUES TO AVOID 1. Procrastination and Assumption Most of us delay providing valuable feedback even though we know the more immediate the conversation, the more likely the desired outcome will be achieved. When we finally do provide that constructive criticism, the message is sometimes out of context or we don’t deliver it in specific, honest terms. We assume that the other party understands and mentally “close the case.” Why are we surprised when a similar situation reoccurs?

2. Sandwiching

This is a communication technique to provide a balance of good news and bad news. The bad news is usually “ sandwiched” between two relatively thin pieces of good news and the outcome is generally questionable. Saying to a fellow staff member, “The color you’re wearing looks really good on you,” followed by, “The quarterly report you filled last week was

full of typographic and factual errors and failed to provide the key analysis that our team really needed,” and then close by saying, “I hope you’re doing something really special for your birthday,” can really leave a mixed message!

When communicating potentially negative information, it is far wiser to focus on that issue while providing clear, accurate and substantiated information. Give plenty of time for discussion and questions. But trying to soften the blow with poorly disguised “happy talk” is generally seen as insincere and cowardly.

3. Overuse of Electronic Media

Despite the ease and accessibility of e-mail and voicemail, refrain from using them when the topic is of an emotional nature. The chance of misinterpreting the real meaning is just too great. When you need real understanding, there is no substitute for face-to-face communication or, when that is impractical, a phone call. This way, both parties know the issue and intent, and they can agree on the outcome.

When the topic has Opposing Opinions, High-Stake Outcomes and Strong Feelings, there is the opportunity for a crucial conversation. These conversations require forethought, compassion and the time to make sure the outcomes you desire can be achieved. Invest those resources the first time — your long-term results will be so much better.