TRUTH WITHOUT APOLOGY

Friend and colleague Mark Levy, author of Accidental Genius  agreed to give us feedback onour most recent newsletter, which included advice for “A Better Way to Deliver Difficult News.”  “That advice is refreshingly harsh,” he told us

Harsh? Ouch! Sometimes the truth DOES hurt.

We shouldn’t have been surprised. Others have been known to describe our message that way, only without the “refreshingly” modifier.

As we continued to talk, Mark backpedaled a bit, saying a better description would have been “unapologetically honest.”  He said he understood why asking people to “live the experience of truth” at work would be a concept people might turn from.

“It’s not like you're telling people they can get anything they want if they just visualize,” Mark said. “Part of the reason I said ‘unapologetically honest’ is because I am always apologizing for telling the truth.”

What spurs the impulse to apologize for being honest, we wondered. Then we had a revelation — people never apologize for telling the truth unless they are uncomfortable telling it, or they think it is something that might be difficult to hear.

When we talk to people about the rewards of telling the truth as a business practice, it is common for reactions to include fear, suspicion, and skepticism. In the context of most organizations, “telling the truth” almost always has a negative connotation.

If you start a conversation with “Can I tell you the truth?” what usually happens? Typically,  a step back. People brace themselves. They look for something to hold onto so the force of hearing something unpleasant won’t knock them flat.

How have we managed to create organizations where “telling the truth” is seen as a radical act? Why do people consider it as unpleasant as administering a dose of castor oil?

Nobody requests permission to tell the truth (or apologizes for it) if the message is: “I think you’re a terrific leader.” They don’t think twice about delivering a truthful “I really appreciate all the extra hours you’ve been putting in to make this project successful.”

But when the truth is difficult — “things aren’t going so well” or “we need more from you” — people are reluctant to deliver it. And that raises another difficult issue: People are often equally unwilling to hear the truth.

Helping people understand the business reasons for delivering difficult truths helps develop organizations where people can tell each other the truth.  Investing equal energy in coaching people to hear the truth — even if it doesn’t always feel good — fosters reflection, self-awareness and resiliency

NOTE: We’d really like to hear your stories about truth telling. Relate a time when telling the truth felt too risky, and how it turned out. Or an example of when you told the truth even in the face of your fear. What happened?

RENOVATE A RELATIONSHIP

Photo by hoozone/iStock / Getty Images

We met when we were 12, and through teenage angst, volatile relationships, two marriages (each) and decades of housing each other's confidences, we seemed to be through.

Radio silence. The rift we didn't think was possible began after my third marriage and continued for years. Then one day my phone rang, her name in my caller ID. I answered.

Both of us wanted to mend our relationship, but I knew I didn't want to return to the relationship we had before. I wanted to renegotiate, and happily, she was willing. After several weeks of intense, emotional conversations we were back on track and have been ever since. I'm grateful.

Constancy and consistency are rare in relationships, whether at work, in families or among friends. As we grow and change, it makes sense that some relationships no longer fit so well, like that pair of too-tight jeans. Letting go of those that no longer serve us could be the answer. But when we want or need relationships, renegotiating boundaries or ground rules can be a way to save them.

At work, for instance, you may not have the option of abandoning a relationship that isn’t working well. In families or friendships, history and love might keep you bound, but you long to shift the ways you relate. A conversation of renewal can help.

Here is an outline of the conversation I had with my friend. In ourhistory, I had often been indirect — or even untruthful — and put my needs aside in favor of hers. The trust we once shared was eroded.

 If you choose to have this kind of conversation, authentically choosing goodwill and connection is foundational. If you feel things heating up, agree to take a break so you both can refocus on your connection and your intention for the relationship.

• Be clear about the purpose of the conversation: “I want to talk with you about some difficulties (or changes I’d like to see) in our relationship. Are you willing?”

• Name the issue: “My experience is we don’t feel comfortable telling each other the truth.”

• Ask for their views of the issue and your contribution: “How do you see the situation? What have I contributed to the lack of trust between us?”

• Extend understanding and own your contribution: “You’re right. I haven’t always been honest for fear of making you angry or losing the relationship. In addition, sometimes I have told you one thing, and then talked to others about how I really feel.”

• Frame choices about how to proceed: “The way I see it, we can continue this way or make conscious changes to create trust in our relationship. That’s what I would like. What choices do you see?”

• State your intention to make it work: “I am committing to tell you the truth as I see it, and to hear the truth from you without getting defensive or combative.”

• Ask for agreement and commitment: “Are you willing to make a similar commitment? Are there other commitments you see we should be making here?”

• Talk about future steps or another conversation: “My intention is to start changing today. But I’d like to keep this conversation going. How would you like to proceed?

• Factor in feedback: If you see me slipping back in to old habits and patterns, I'd like you to call me out on that. How would you like me to give you feedback?

Forgiveness and letting go of the past are essential. And don't expect major changes overnight, especially if you have a long history, But a conversation like this can be a great start for living out your intentions authentically. It will create relationships you can believe in with the people who are important to you.

WHO HOLDs YOU ACCOUNTABLE?

Who besides you can impose accountability? I asked this question of a young woman, an HR professional, during a workshop onemployee engagement being presented by our friends and fellow Berrett-Koehler authors Dick and Emily Axelrod.

They had asked us to pair off with someone we didn't know. My conversation partner was a young woman who had begun working as an HR manager eight months earlier after earning a master’s degree in Organization Development. Her question about accountability got my attention.

HER: What do you think are really effective ways to hold other people accountable?

ME: I don’t believe you can hold other people accountable. That is one of the big myths in organizations, and this false belief that we can hold others accountable ends up wasting a huge amount of time and energy. People are always making their own choices about whether they're going to be accountable.

HER: But … but we have to be able to hold other people accountable to be effective!

ME: Can I ask who holds you accountable?

HER: Well, my boss holds me accountable. That is part of his job.

ME: So… if you didn’t have a boss watching you to make sure you did good work, you wouldn’t? You’d just show up and do the bare minimum in order to collect a paycheck?

HER: Of course not! I’m really committed to doing a good job! I take a lot of pride in the quality of my work.

ME: So then who is really in charge of your accountability?

JUDGE NOT LEST YE LOSE THE GAME

We played this game on a road trip awhile back -- or maybe you could call it a combination of wager and game.

I challenged Jamie to one hour of judgment-free conversation. The first person to make a judgmental statement would lose. We would be limited to descriptive language – no judging allowed. For instance, I was prohibited from saying, “Jamie, you are speeding” but I could say “Honey, you are going 80 and the posted speed limit is 65.”

If we stopped for lunch, we couldn’t say, “That waitress gave us crappy service.” Instead we would have to describe it: “It took five minutes for that waitress to acknowledge us, and another 15 minutes before we got the water we asked for. She did not bring the salsa we requested. And I never saw her smile once.”

What was the point? 

We often bury assumptions in the statements we make and the questions we ask. “Why are you ignoring me?” is a judgment that may raise the hackles of someone who is lost in thought but has not meant to ignore you. Why not try: “I asked you three questions in five minutes and you have yet to respond. What’s going on?”

So try the No Judgment Allowed game. I dare you! And then let us know how long you lasted.

We didn’t make it to 20 minutes.

GETTING UNSPUN

We've been seeing a lot of James Carville lately. We watched him doing his TV commentary during the Democratic National Convention coverage last night, and last week we saw him with his wife, Mary Matalin, at a Phoenix Chamber of Commerce luncheon. Their mastery of democrat/republican political spin is unparalleled, and watching them together is something to behold.

Typically we would consider “spinning” a manipulative conversational technique, because it is a way of framing information to get someone to buy into your point of view without revealing that intention. However, as spin is a large part of how Carville and Matalin make a living, I suppose you could characterize their “conversation” as authentic because you know up front that their intention is to spin to influence. It’s in their job description.

Everybody talks about what an odd couple they make, but they’ve been married 15 years so they must be doing something right. Near the end of his talk, Carville revealed one of their secrets by saying he would rather be married to someone who is a thinker and passionate about her point of view than to someone who doesn’t pay attention to what’s going on in the world or have an opinion. I think that is completely cool. And I admire their ability to make it work, because most of the political conversations I have with people on the other side of the aisle typically result in tense silence or verbal assault. My contribution to the difficulty is that I often let passion overwhelm me to the point that I am determined to convince rather than connect. It becomes about winning the point rather than seeking to understand and to be understood. But I am working on changing that, and I'd love to see our society start reaping all the benefits of civil, authentic conversations that help expand our thinking and enhance our decision-making.

We are in the early stages of a project with a few other Berrett-Koehler authors to encourage people to have these conversations and give them some useful conversational skills to make them productive. We'll keep you posted as the project progresses -- we hope to have something tangible ready before the November election.

In the meantime, if you're interested in our suggestions on how to do this, check out this document.

"BRUTAL" AND "HONESTY" ARE A BAD COUPLE

• After six hours of “brutally honest” conversations between quarterback Brett Favre and Green Bay Packers management, they parted ways.
• Jim Collins, who authored From Good to Great, says one of the key differences between good companies and great ones is their ability to “confront the brutally honest facts.”
• One company uses “brutal” in its statement of values:We believe in "brutal conversations"; the ability to be honest, direct and challenging with each other while always being professional. We will never tell yo u "what you want to hear", but we will tell you what you need to hear.

What does the word “brutal” add to that statement? And how do you square “being professional” with being brutal? Let’s look behind the cliché and see it for what it is.

Merriam-Webster defines brutal like this: Befitting a brute: as a: grossly ruthless or unfeeling b: cruel, cold-blooded c: harsh, severe d: unpleasantly accurate and incisive.

Why would honesty have to be brutal to be effective? Does the truth have to leave us bloodied and reeling in order for it to have an impact? Truth can be hard to hear even when delivered with kindness and goodwill. When people held up a mirror for me, and I often didn’t find the reflection particularly attractive. But that was about me, not the honesty of the reflection.

In my experience, the times the truth became brutal – whether delivered or received – had to do with a desire to land a punch. The intention was to hurt, or to exercise authority, or deliver bad news in a cruel way.

Honesty? By all means. Brutal? You'd need to build a strong case to convince me that's necessary. Perhaps we could start thinking about “compassionately honest conversations.”

Or better yet, we could wish for the day when “conversations” wouldn’t need to be modified by the word “honest.”

WINNING v. COLLABORATING

The headline Business Weekgot my attention: “Winning the tough conversations at work.” The column lists four steps to follow in an uncomfortable conversation with someone at work (the example used is a manager talking to a subordinate.)

It is typical of advice offered as “good management techniques” that in reality are subtle manipulative techniques to get others to do something you want without revealing your intentions. Our bias is that this undermines trust, accountability and true collaboration. 

The first red flag in the Business Week column was the headline. Collaboration and “winning” are mutually exclusive.

Step 1 tells managers to talk about commitment to the relationship because “people are more inclined to change their behavior when they appreciate just how much you care about the relationship.” 

How can a relationship be authentic when people use the relationship to instigate a change in behavior? An authentic conversation means being direct about the business reasons for changing the behavior. 

Techniques like “filling their emotional tanks” and “replace ‘you’ with ‘we’” also have manipulation at their core. You can see it in the suggested conversation:

• “John, you are one of the most creative designers I have ever met.”


• “Let’s talk about we can get all the tasks completed on time” (emphasis added).

Using praise to “soften” a request/demand for behavior change, or talking about “we” when clearly it is “you” who is being asked to change – well, you get the point. And it’s likely the employee does too. 

An alternative would be to have an authentic conversation by:

• Raising the difficult issue with goodwill (“When a client's project is delivered late, it puts this business at risk.”)
• Acknowledge your own contribution to the situation (“I didn’t stay on top of things the way I should have, and this seems to have contributed to the missed deadline.”)
• Frame choices for the future (“I have some thoughts on how this could be avoided, and I’d like to hear your ideas on what could be done differently in the future.”)

Direct, adult-to-adult conversations are a fundamental to creating a culture where people take accountability for their own performance.