COMMUNICATING? VALUABLE. CONVERSING? PRICELESS.

Our work with changing culture through conversations often leads people to conclude that we are in the business of helping people and organizations communicate better.  Well, yes and no.

Sure, communication is the foundation, but it doesn’t tell the whole story.  Communication and conversations both are necessary, valuable and help us get things done. But from our perspective, viewing communication and conversations as the same thing is like comparing a technical manual to great literature.

By definition, communication is a transmission. It’s transactive and reactive, a process that skews toward the utilitarian. Two-way communication is typical: I deliver information to you, and you react and respond.  But delivery/response is not imperative in communication: I can deliver a message to you without wanting or needing a response. And I can receive a message without feeling the need to reply. We can communicate one-to-one, or one person can deliver a message to the masses

Communication is a transaction that says: “Here is what you need to know. This is what I want you to hear.” That’s why a singular focus on “better communication” in a relationship or in an organization misses the mark, in our view.

Conversation, according to Merriam Webster is an oral exchange of “sentiments, observations, opinions and ideas.” And we think it is something much more. Conversations extend an invitation: “Come closer. Let’s engage each other, and talk about things that are meaningful to us.”

Conversations name things and create reality. If we see our boss as efficient, focused and powerful, that is our reality, even as our colleague considers the same person to be distant, a control freak and manipulative. I like rainy days — you think sunny skies are perfect weather.

Through conversations, we reveal what we see and the meaning we make of it.  I love the rain because I grew up in the desert, and a rainy day was rare and special. You're from Seattle, and a sunny day always lifts your  spirits. Conversations draw back the drapes and let others see through the window of our experience. We invite each other to see what we see.

Our conversations have the ability to sustain our beliefs — and have the power to change them.

Authentic conversations turn it up a notch. When we engage each other authentically and with good will, our conversations become richer and deeper. They build trust, and create relationships we can believe in. Being authentic requires that we treat each other’s life experiences and points of view as a fundamental reality, and let go of the need to convince others that only one reality exists. We honor each other by telling the truth as we know it, always with empathy and compassion. We agree to honor our differences even as we look for ways to find common ground.

Are conversations a form of communication? Of course they are. Like the technical manual, communication is a useful tool for giving and getting information. But an authentic conversations, like great literature, informs our minds and feeds our souls.

OPTIMISM: BE WELL AND LIVE LONG

Here’s another reason to choose for hope and optimism, even in the face of disappointing circumstances: Optimistic people are more likely to live longer, healthier lives, according to several research studies. A recent blog written by David R. Hamilton, who has a PhD in organic chemistry, cites studies done at Yale University, the Mayo Clinic and Carnegie Mellon University that show significant health benefits or longevity associated with people’s positive outlooks on life.

“When something doesn't quite go to plan, a person with a positive attitude might just deal with it, typically refocus, or even look for another solution,” Hamilton writes. “But a person with a negative attitude will typically complain more, get angry or frustrated, and they will expend a lot of energy going over and over in their heads what has happened and how much it is a real inconvenience for them. Inside the body, the difference between the two people is stress.”

He suggests a few ways to transform the negative to positive: Count your blessings, make “molehills out of mountains” and go on a complaint fast.

We have a suggestion, too: Recognize that how we react to circumstances is a choice, completely within our control. No matter how disappointing, frustrating or aggravating the circumstances we face, we can always choose how to face them. One of the things we advocate in Authentic Conversations is communicating in a way that makes these choices visible.

It’s not a far-fetched, New Age hocus-pocus theory. It’s based on the work of Dr. Viktor Frankl, who wrote Man’s Search for Meaning, an account of his time in the Nazi concentration camps. As a psychiatrist who was assigned to work as a doctor in the camps, he describes the sordid and dehumanizing environment he and his fellow prisoners faced every day. Some chose hope of a better future (including him), and were more likely to survive, according to Frankl.

Make a choice for optimism in the face of disappointment. Then have conversations about the fact you’ve made the choice and how you tend to live that choice out. You can even point out, with good will, that others can make a similar choice.  Along with the immediate benefits of making your intentions transparent and creating stronger relationships, you’ll be increasing the odds of a long and healthy life.

I'LL TELL THE TRUTH IF YOU PROVE I CAN TRUST YOU

A senior leader recently told us over lunch that he had serious reservations about the changes being made in the organization where we are working together.

 

The organization has begun using principles and methods from the Authentic Conversations book and the workshop to build an adult culture of accountability. The broad premise is that if you want to change the culture, you must change the conversations. This requires clear intentions, commitments and new skills. He asked us this question: “Isn’t is necessary to trust someone in order to have authentic conversations with them? Otherwise you can’t really be open.”

 

It sounded to us like he was saying that in order to tell the truth with goodwill to others, he had to trust them first. “Did I get that right?” Jamie asked.

 

He agreed that was his position, and added that trust required getting to know people well, even outside of work, “and this is a big organization.”

 

We frequently hear this concern and others like it.  An undercurrent of fear runs through these statements: “I can’t be authentic unless I find a trusting environment in which to do it. And I’m still looking.” People think about authenticity and look outward, rather that recognizing that it is first a statement of who you want to be, and how you want to interact with others.

 

The fears surrounding telling the truth are not unfounded,. They reflect the experience many people have that being authentic in an organization is risky. People see a huge downside to telling the truth in an place where open disagreement could be seen by people in power as a form of mutiny. It’s easier, and feels safer, to disagree in silence and use nonverbal forms of resistance in a futile attempt to make disagreement invisible.

 

Authentic conversations will build trust, because it’s impossible to be authentic without telling the truth. But the wish is for others to earn our trust before we start telling them the truth — the old “you go first” conundrum.

 

Building trust isn’t really that difficult if you tell the truth with goodwill and follow through with what you say. If the other person doesn’t reciprocate, you can choose to confront the issues directly, non-judgmentally and with goodwill — but it doesn’t affect your ability to be transparent unless you allow it to.

 

When we said this to him, he said he needed time to think about it. The conversation reflected an understandable vulnerability. Everyone longs for safety. We want to know that taking a risk will reap a reward.

 

Unfortunately, the only way we know how to build trust it to be the one who goes first.

ELIMINATING "BRUTAL" FROM HONESTY

Frequently friends, family, clients and colleagues call on us for advice. They usually begin, “I really need to have an authentic conversation with my boss/colleague/sibling/child.” And though that is what they say, what they typically mean is they want to discuss something that both parties will likely find unpleasant.

 

We see this phenomenon in our work with clients as well.  An “authentic conversation” suddenly becomes code for: “Brace yourself. I am going unload on you in a way you’re probably not going to like.” Brutal honesty, if you will.

 

This viewpoint of authentic conversations is not too surprising in organizations, considering the avoidance of conversation that foster adult cultures characterized by commitment, accountability, purpose and meaning. Telling the truth has often been seen as dangerous, even subversive. And the people at the top — those who have the most organizational power — often have viewed suspiciously the notion of transparency, building business literacy and true collaboration.

 

Historically, organizations have seen people as objects, as opposed to the complex, thinking individuals they are. That opens the door for manipulative conversations, and disregards the fact people always choose how they will engage the organization.

 

Writing “Authentic Conversations” doesn’t make us the make us the conversation police – nor is it a role to which we would ever aspire. Even so, we want to dispel the idea that “authentic” and “brutal honesty” are the same thing. Honesty should never be modified by the word brutal.

 

If we had to sum up an authentic conversation in one sentence, it would be this: “Telling the truth as you know it, with goodwill and curiosity about another’s point of view.”




While we do advocate raising difficult issues — always with goodwill — it is with an eye toward collaborating on a solution that is good for everyone. If you enter a conversation with the intention of dumping on someone, or “winning” them over to your point of view, authenticity is not really the goal.

 

When I am conversing authentically, I am willing to name my contribution to the difficult issues. I listen for understanding so that I can take and support the validity of other’s point of view — even if I don’t agree with it. Instead of insisting on my own way, I frame choices as a way of resolving issues, and invite others to do the same. I maintain goodwill even if it’s not returned.

 

Authentic conversations happen when we see others as our partners and collaborators. It means caring as much about the success of other people as we do our own. And it means considering what is good for the whole enterprise instead of focusing only on our individual or departmental needs. Authenticity is about connection and communication, not emotionally dumping or vanquishing the opposition.

 

So instead of announcing that you want to have an “authentic conversation” with someone, why not just have a conversation — and engage others authentically?

TO LOVE AND TO SERVE

You cannot lead the people if you don’t love the people. You can’t save the people if you don’t serve the people. — Dr. Cornel West

We were lucky enough to see Cornel West speak this past weekend at an event that had to do with Arizona’s controversial immigration law, SB1070. The woman who introduced him recited the trademark lines that were featured on the Starbucks Coffee Cups "The Way We See It."

While he didn’t say this in the specific context of business and organizations (although he had plenty to say about the corrupt values of many large corporations) it struck us that Love and Service are rarely the first two qualities on the list of “Leadership Qualities.”  Check it out. Most of the lists touting Top Leadership Qualities have to do with vision, integrity, intelligence, decisiveness, risk-taking and fairness.

You hear leaders talking about the importance of loving their jobs, loving a challenge, loving what they do — but loving the people they work with? Not so much.

You hear leaders espouse the necessity for serving customers, and the ways in which they serve the marketplace. But hearing them expound on the ways they serve those they lead? That is rare.

We know at least one well-known company that doesn’t hesitate to use both words freely — and it’s not only managed to succeed, the people who run it have been heralded for their loving, serving ways. Southwest Airlines founder Herb Kelleher, current CEO Gary Kelly, and President Emeritus Colleen Barrett, use “love” and service” freely when talking about their employees, their customers and even their shareholders. Those words have been part of the Southwest lexicon from the very beginning. It even chose LUV for its stock market ticker symbol.

Gary Kelly, who took over as CEO when Herb Kelleher retired in 2004, has said that the Southwest organizational culture is like a family, “And that implies love.”

“My passion always has been, and always will be, serving other people,” said Colleen Barrett, while speaking in 2008 to the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton College of Business.

As the company’s president, “85 percent of my time is spent on employees and delivering pro-active customer service to the employees.”  It’s not that she’s soft on business results. She argues that it only makes good business sense. Her thinking is that if she and other company leaders are doing that well, it’s going to show up on the bottom line because it will trickle (or gush) over to the customers, who will get “outstanding, proactive service.” And if they get that, well, they’re bound to come back for more.

In the Southwest food chain, shareholders are at the bottom, and yet unlike many airline shareholders, they have consistently received a return on their investment for 35 years (as of 2008). Barrett says she wishes people could see the “love fest” that takes place at shareholders meetings. “It’s awesome,” she said.

We love it.