Dear Joseph,

First, I want to thank you for taking the time to answer my question. I think you were right on target with every single remark you made. I believe I originally read the situation wrong and judged incorrectly, and you gave me a much needed wake-up call!

I have talked this through with my boss and now have a much greater understanding of his vision and strategy for the company. He also understands why I think the way I do, and wants to better explain his decisions to the management team. We agreed that expenditures in excess of a certain amount will be brought before the management team for discussion before a final decision is made.

I believe that while we may have different opinions, it will still help us gain understanding and trust with one another if we can talk through our concerns and offer suggestions. Holding this conversation has strengthened our relationship and improved our ability to manage the company effectively.

I really look forward to the Crucial Skills Newsletter each week. You do an excellent job!

Many thanks,
Following the Money

Editor’s Note: This letter was received in response to a question Joseph Grenny answered in the December 29, 2010 Crucial Skills Newsletter titled, “A Boss On a Spending Spree.” If you would like to share similar feedback about the authors’ advice, please e-mail us at editor@vitalsmarts.com.

Dear Crucial Skills,

I have been with my company for five years and consistently receive “exceeds expectations” ratings on my performance reviews. I recently found out that a newly hired business partner is planning to take over my office. There are a handful of open offices in our area that he could take without interrupting another employee, and this individual will not be in the office on a daily basis. I have worked very hard to get where I am and do not feel it’s right for a new employee to make me move.

I get upset every time I think about this situation because I do not want to get pushed around, but I fear I will become emotional and rude if I speak up. I feel completely insulted that someone would think their title allows them to kick another employee out of their office. Can you give me some advice on how to approach the situation calmly, yet effectively?

Sincerely,
Not looking to move

Dear Not looking,

I can tell you’re frustrated because you feel like your options are limited. You can bite your lip and take it, and then move and lose. Or, you can speak up, blow up, and then move and lose. As I try to explore these and other options, I acknowledge that I don’t know all the facts, so I’m basing my advice on my experience with similar issues.

My approach to addressing this challenge is rooted in a poem that comes from Mathematics Theory. I know that sounds like an oxymoron, but the poem has a great point:

“What one does is only one of many things one might have done;
to appreciate the thing selected one must know the things rejected.”

Realizing I could have the facts wrong—and hoping you’ll forgive me if I do—I think there are a couple of good lessons we can learn from exploring your situation from several perspectives.

Action: You don’t speak up. If you’re like most people, you can’t keep your emotions and your words inside. Or, as we say in Crucial Confrontations, “If you don’t talk it out, you’ll act it out.” So you sprinkle a negative comment here or there when talking with your friends and that leaks out as gossip. You find yourself frowning at and avoiding the new business partner. Probable outcome: you move and your reputation is hurt because of the gossip and your bad attitude.

Action: You speak up with emotion. Forget about the namby-pamby courteous stuff. This is about what’s right and what’s just. You storm into your boss’ office and tell him or her all the good reasons you should stay and make the case that the new person should take a different office—all in one breath, no pauses, with fervor. If you take this approach, there are several possible outcomes:

1. Your boss listens and says, “Oh, I thought you knew the new partner has a son with disabilities in the facility across the parking lot. I thought it would be nice if he could see him when his son had recess or outings.” (A challenge that occurred at VitalSmarts a few years ago.) Probable outcome: You move, your reputation is a bit tarnished, and you feel guilty. You have a new problem, this time with your boss.

2. Your boss listens and says, “Are you finished? Look, I didn’t want to do it, but corporate policy requires that a business partner must have a window that is over sixty square feet in size. Yours is the only office that qualifies. What can I tell you? It’s policy.” (By the way, this policy is real in some organizations—you can’t make up stuff like this.) At least now you know what the real problem is and you can tackle the real issue if you choose to do so. Probable outcome: You move, you feel frustrated about red tape and bureaucracy, and your reputation is likely a bit tarnished. When people blow up only a little, other people start looking for this behavior a lot.

3. The boss says, “Whoa, don’t badmouth the new business partner; he doesn’t even know I’m moving him to your office. I made the decision; and it’s final. Now quit your whining.” Probable outcome: You move and it’s pretty clear what your boss thinks and you have another challenge to deal with—relationship and trust issues with your boss.

While some of these outcomes might occur no matter how skilled your approach, I know with 100 percent certainty that you’ll feel better about yourself and you’ll make it safe to have future tough conversations if you start this one in a positive way. This leads me to your third possible action.

Action: You speak up with candor and courtesy. You look at this situation, ask the humanizing question—”Why would a reasonable, rational, decent person do this?”—overcome your fears, practice in private with a friend, then set an appointment with your boss and explain the situation.

It could sound something like this: “Jan, I read your e-mail saying the new business partner is moving into my office and I am moving to office 2C. I’m wondering how that decision was made and if it’s final. I think there are several reasons for me to stay in that office and have the new business partner take a different office. Can we talk?”

Your boss responds: “Oh, I didn’t know it was an issue. If you like, stay where you are.”

For an instant, you hesitate. You have eleven good reasons you should stay put and she’s not asking for them, but you swallow all of them and say thanks. You realize you assumed you knew the reasons for the office change—this caused you to get upset and potentially rude. However, you prepared and practiced, spoke up, and found that there wasn’t really a reason. Probable outcome: you stay in your office and you maintain your reputation.

Of course, there are other variations of these three actions—don’t speak up, speak up with emotion, speak up with candor and courtesy—but this is the point I want to reinforce: when facing a crucial conversation, we have three options:

1. We can avoid the issue, but our feelings generally leak out as gossip and we don’t get the results we want.

2. We can attack and unleash pent-up frustration and demands, but even if we get what we want in the short term, our actions almost always tarnish our reputation.

3. We can address the issue with candor and courtesy and fill the pool of shared meaning with information from all sides of the issue. When we engage in dialogue, we are likely to get the best result—even if it isn’t always the one we wanted—and we are likely to maintain our good reputation and strong relationships.

I hope my advice will help you hold the right conversation to achieve the right result.

Al

How do you hold a crucial conversation via e-mail?

A crucial conversation is best handled face-to-face. No exceptions. The best among us use e-mail and voice mail to schedule and follow up on crucial conversations, not to hold them. The reality is, however, that we can’t always have an in person conversation. For example, I once trained a manger based in the United Kingdom who supervised a team based in India. They met together once a year. A face-to-face crucial conversation was typically not possible.

So, three quick thoughts on applying these concepts to e-mail:

1. Make sure you refuse the sucker’s choice. Too often, we resort to e-mail rather than the telephone. We tell ourselves it is because we can’t get in touch with the other person, they don’t respond to our calls, etc. In reality, it may be that we would simply rather hold the conversation on our timeframe (something made possible through e-mail) than on the other person’s timeframe. Check to make sure you aren’t selling out and always choose to have a conversation over the phone rather than over e-mail.
2. Make it safe. This is probably the most crucial thing to do during an e-mail conversation. What most often gets lost in e-mail is our intent. In a face-to-face conversation, people read our intent through our body language, even more than through our spoken words. Nodding, crossed arms, raised eyebrows all communicate intent. Because safety is a function of intent, you absolutely must find a way to clearly communicate your good intentions. Don’t rely on the other person to assume your good intentions and don’t think that adding an emoticon at the end of a paragraph will solve the problem.
   Contrasting is a great way to clarify your intentions. You also want to consider ways to communicate your intentions that are unique to e-mail. For example, one of our trainers in India related the following example to me: A participant in the course recognized that he needed to apologize to a colleague who worked in a city several hundred miles away. He was concerned that if he simply e-mailed an apology the colleague wouldn’t accept it as sincere. He wanted to do something to demonstrate his sincere intention to apologize and take responsibility for his bad actions. So, he e-mailed the colleague to apologize for his bad actions and copied both his boss and his colleague’s boss on the e-mail. By copying their superiors, he was able to not only state his sincerity but to demonstrate it.
3. Don’t be funny. Never use humor over e-mail when having a crucial conversation. It will almost always backfire. Share your facts, tell your story, and ask for the other person’s path.

Dear Crucial Skills,

My father-in-law is a very powerful person and I don’t feel comfortable speaking honestly about anything with him. If I ask him a question about an issue I want to resolve, he announces his opinion then cuts off any discussion by saying, “Well, that’s how life is sometimes” as he stands up to leave.

I think he is very wise and would like to learn from him, but I can’t get him to engage in any kind of dialogue. As a result, I leave feeling like I don’t exist and that he thinks he knows all. My husband seems to take after him so I feel like I’m in a communication desert all by myself. Do you have any suggestions?

Sincerely,
Craving Communication

  Dear Craving,

I would have given a different answer twenty years ago than I will today. I’m still very much a believer in people’s potential to change. However, some life experiences with a wonderful variety of loved ones have led me to conclude that everyone is a package. Myself included. We all have idiosyncrasies, habits, and proclivities—some of which are the source of our genius and some of which drive everyone around us batty. And sometimes, the genius and the quirkiness flow from the exact same attribute.

I say this as prelude because, while I will advise you to hold a crucial conversation, I will also encourage you to work on yourself first. Clarify your motives before even attempting the conversation. If your motive is to “fix” or “change” your father-in-law, you’re more likely to be disappointed than effective. If instead your goal is to share feedback then accept his freedom to accommodate or ignore it, you will not only come across entirely differently (i.e., not needy or pushy), but you will be more likely to have influence. Ironically, if your motive is to control, you not only fail to gain control, but you lose your influence. If you give up trying to control others, you gain influence in the bargain.

With that said, here is some advice about how to hold the conversation itself.

Hold the right conversation. Often, we fail at the outset because we dive into the wrong topic. For example, we talk about content—what just happened—when we want to talk about a pattern—something that happens regularly. This could happen in your case because you address something your father-in-law just said to you when your real issue is a pattern of these sorts of comments over time. Your goal needs to be to have a pattern conversation. And that calls for a special approach.

Timing is everything. Don’t wait until you’re bugged to talk. That’s what most of us do with our pattern conversations. We wait for yet another instance of someone behaving badly then we pounce on it; not to address what just happened, but to dump our laundry list of grievances from ages past. If you want to talk about a pattern, pick a time that is not clouded with a recent transgression. It not only helps you be in a proper mindset, but it helps avoid giving the other person an opportunity to make excuses about the pattern by pointing to special issues in the present instance. For example, your father-in-law might say, “I had to walk out just now because I have a conference call in half an hour!”

Make it safe. You have all the right information in your question to create safety at the beginning of this conversation. Read it again. You clearly care about your father-in-law. You respect him. You want something from him that he is likely to feel flattered giving, so that’s what you need to make clear as you start.

For example, you might say, “I’d like to talk about some ways I could have a better relationship with you. I value the relationship we have, and I’d like to be even closer and more comfortable. I admire you, sometimes to the point of feeling intimidated around you. I also see you as a great source of wisdom, something I’d like to take advantage of even more than I do now. And yet, there are some things in how we interact that don’t work for me. I’m hoping it is okay to share how I see it and find out how either you, or I, or both of us could communicate better.

Ask permission. One of the best ways to ensure others feel safe is to sincerely ask for permission before launching into the crucial conversation. If your father-in-law might be uncomfortable with this level of communication, it is all the more important to help him feel in control by asking his consent before launching into your concerns. All you need do is add, “Would that be okay?” to the above monologue.

Change media. Judging from your description, it may be that your father-in-law will be too uncomfortable to have this conversation face-to-face. If that is the case, you may want to try mixed media. If you choose to write a letter, I would make the same “make it safe” statement from above then add, “I think the best way to express some of what I wanted to say is in writing—so I’ve written this out. But my hope is that we can discuss it afterward if you’re comfortable doing so. If not, then I understand and will be fine keeping things the way they are now.” You’ll notice that the last phrase tests whether you have surrendered your hope of controlling him or not. Be sure you have or your words will ring hollow.

I hope these ideas help. It sounds like you’ve fallen into the same pattern with your husband, so I hope these suggestions are a step toward creating the relationship you clearly want to have with him as well.

Sincerely,
Joseph

Dear Crucial Skills,
I have some very tough news to deliver and would appreciate your help. My colleagues and I have to tell some good performers in our company that pay increases are only going to a select few of the highest performers. I know they’ll feel the compliment is disingenuous and will wonder why they weren’t one of the few who got the increase. Any advice?

Sincerely,
Can’t Spare a Dime

  Dear Can’t Spare,
Yikes. This is not a fun conversation to have. All of us who have had to disappoint, fire, or critique a dear colleague sympathize with you. When my partners and I looked at the gloomy economic predictions for 2009, we faced some similarly uncomfortable conversations. We did not know what the year would bring, but felt a need to be honest about the prospects while expressing optimism about our incredible team’s capacity to rise to the challenge. We held everyone’s wages flat for the first half of the year while we leaned into the headwinds hoping—and working—for the best.

Your message is even trickier because you have some discretion to offer increases. It’s easier to say, “No one gets a raise” than it is to say, “We’ve singled you out as someone specially qualified to not get a raise!”

Here’s how I would approach that tender message.

Why before what. Don’t share the policy until you’ve outlined the principles. Be sure you, as a management team, have made principle-based decisions; then share the principles. For example, you might say, “One of our principles in determining increases is that we must be market-competitive. Our only hope for getting through tough times is keeping the team together, and the truth is some positions are at greater risk of turnover due to wage discrepancies than others. It would be bad for all of us if we failed to address that and lost precious capacity in those priority areas. This is NOT about who we value more, it is a simple question of externally determined economics.”

Don’t say it if you don’t believe it. As you share the principles behind the policies, be sure you keep your integrity in check by describing only those that have been consistently applied. If, for example, you have cut special deals with certain people that violate principles you are comfortable stating publicly, then do not claim you have been consistent. If you do so, you will certainly be found out and will violate trust in a way you are unlikely to recover from.

Invite feedback without compromising authority. After sharing your principles and your policy, invite feedback. Be clear that the decision is already made and that it could not be made by consensus, but demonstrate your willingness to learn by allowing people to share how they see things similarly or differently. Don’t put yourself in a position of trying to convince anyone you’re right. Rather, begin by saying, “I’d like to just listen to your views. I know I won’t satisfy many of you, so I’m not going to try to make excuses or explain this away. But I care about your opinions and I’d like to hear them if you want to share. Perhaps, at a minimum, they may influence our decisions in the future.”

Acknowledge disagreement. It is likely that, following your candid description of principles, reasonable people will disagree—especially if the principles mean they get the short straw. Few people listen to such a description and conclude, “I see now that I am worth less than others. I am happy that they got the increase.” Your goal is not to garner applause. It is more modest. Your goal is to build trust by sharing your thinking and listening to that of others. After sharing the principles and policy, just listen. Acknowledge views that have merit without suggesting you’re revisiting the decision. Remind them this is a leadership decision and involved tough tradeoffs.

Ask for the long-term view. Conclude the discussion by orienting your employees to the future. Apologize for any hurt or disappointment you’ve caused, but do your best to engage them in contributing in a way that makes the pie bigger for all in the future.

Good luck with this very crucial conversation.

Joseph

How do you handle a crucial conversation/crucial confrontation with somebody who is a really difficult, or even malicious, person?

Great question! We should first define “difficult” and “malicious.” Likely we are talking about some form of silence or violence in either case. Remember that any time you see silence or violence, it indicates a lack of safety.

The fix here is to use a safety tool. If you think the “maliciousness” is due to the other person feeling disrespected, apologize to restore the respect. If you think it stems from the other person believing that you don’t care about him or her, create mutual purpose. If perhaps the other person has misunderstood you, use a contrasting statement.

Perhaps most important is to remember that tough issues don’t necessarily get resolved in one conversation. It may take several interactions to build, or rebuild, trust with the other person.

Dear Crucial Skills,

I recently worked on a very complex and emotional employee issue. I strongly believed the employee needed to be fired—and that was the ultimate outcome—but the employee’s manager and vice president strongly disagreed with me. I stand by my decision, but greatly regret how I bullied my way through our shared experience. I behaved like a bulldozer, insisted on my decision being accepted, and actually lost my temper.

Fortunately, I have many years of work experience with these peers and our work relationship has not suffered, but I want to repair the damage and I want to learn from this experience so I don’t ever repeat this behavior. I’m not accustomed to losing my cool so I don’t know how to make it right. Where do I start?

Bulldozer

  Dear Bulldozer,

In ongoing relationships, it’s so much easier to let bygones be bygones and let our mistakes and interpersonal problems pass away. You are wise to avoid this easier course. Strong reactions often change our view of others, especially when those reactions are unusual. Your coworkers might be creating stories about you in their minds that could undermine your relationship with them.

You mentioned you are not accustomed to losing your cool. Over time, we get used to the behavior of those we interact with. We come to understand how we each operate and learn what to expect of each other. When someone acts “out of character” or in an unexpected way, we have to rethink our view of the other person to accommodate the unexpected behavior. This is when new stories are created—for better or for worse.

For example, let’s say I’m having a bad day. My alarm clock didn’t go off, I dropped my toast on the floor butter side down, and on top of all this, someone cut me off in traffic. I’m grumpy, so in our team meeting, I’m curt with Jeff, I roll my eyes at Sally, and I angrily tell Sanja his proposal is stupid. This is unusual behavior on my part. I’m usually a nice guy.

Because this behavior is out of the ordinary, people take notice. Jeff thinks, “Aaaaaaah, a chink in his armor. I knew he wasn’t perfect. He has big weaknesses and I’m going to report them on his 360 degree survey.” Sally thinks, “He pretends to be nice, but now the real Ron comes out. He’s been hiding it this whole time. Now we see the real, mean Ron revealed.” Meanwhile, Sanja says, “Hmmmm, Ron’s acting weird today. He’s usually so nice. He must be having a bad day.” Sanja quickly forgets and forgives my bad behavior.

Seeing me behave in an unusual way puts my coworkers on alert. They try to make sense of this and tell themselves stories, which in turn affect how they feel and how they will treat me in the future. My strong reaction is an occasion for people to recreate their stories about me; it also provides an opportunity for me to help shape these stories.

Sincerely apologize. You are wise not to let this incident become an undiscussable and let confusion form their stories of you. I suggest you begin with a sincere apology. There might be an advantage to talking with both the manager and vice president together, given that they were both involved. If they hear the same thing from you at the same time, this could also strengthen your accountability to them.

Such an apology might sound like this: “Thank you for meeting with me. I want to talk with the two of you about the situation with Todd. As I’ve thought through what happened, I realize I lost my temper. I insisted on my decision and even bullied both of you—behaving more like a bulldozer than a teammate. I’m very sorry; I shouldn’t have treated you that way.”

If you have a reasonably good relationship with someone, and then slip up, a sincere apology usually acts as a reset button. You get to start over. If, however, you are in a damaged, troubled relationship, a simple apology may be seen as insincere and maybe even manipulative. You need to avoid this possibility by stating your intent then consistently behaving as you promised.

It seems you have a good relationship with your coworkers because you said your relationship “has not suffered,” so let’s assume they receive your apology as sincere. Now is the time to set new expectations so the story they tell themselves is that your “bullying” was an exception, not the new rule.

Share your good intentions. “After a good deal of reflection, I stand by my decision to fire Todd, but I realize the way I went about it was wrong. I desire to be collaborative and listen completely to both of you as well as to others. Going forward, let me tell you what you can expect from me. I will not push my point of view at your expense. I will not bulldoze or bully and will instead seek a healthy dialogue. I will seek a deep understanding of your point of view and will share mine respectfully. If I slip from this resolve, please help me by reminding me of this commitment and I’ll quickly return to dialogue.”

These simple skills, sincerely used, can dramatically reframe relationships. Of course, now the hard work begins. It’s not critical that you are perfect every day in every way; but it is crucial that others see your efforts to keep your word. When you mess up, apologize in the moment (reset) and start over. This way, others will see that you value your efforts to keep your word more than you value saving face or looking good. Leaders and friends make sacrifices for what they truly value. When you sacrifice your ego to the value of keeping your word, trust and respect result.

All the best,
Ron

Dear Crucial Skills,

I need help to work through my relationship with my two married daughters. We live in different states and even though I would like them to call me more often, I initiate most of our conversations. I understand they are busy raising their children, but I need them in my life more than they are. I don’t want to know everything they do, but I would like to have conversations with them several times a week. I have listened to the Crucial Conversations Audio Companion several times and realize that, even though I am their mother, I cannot dictate or expect that they be my friend and talk on the phone daily. It is a delicate subject and I’m not sure how to approach them about it.

Ignored Mother

Dear Ignored,

Some issues are more difficult to bring up than others. When there is a clear agreement it is easier to speak up, but this is rarely the case. The issue often morphs from something that was acceptable to something that was borderline to something that bugs you. In the course of that evolution, we rarely find a way to speak up, and now, at the end of the process, we feel we can’t.

For example, a friend and neighbor you socialize with has had some hard times and now he or she spends whatever time you have together complaining. Every interaction is a downer and makes you feel like Dr. Phil with a muzzle.

Or what do you do when you feel that every conversation with your best friend is one sided? You ask about what’s new, about his or her family, about the economy, about the news (etc.), but he or she never asks any questions about your life. It feels like pulling teeth to have a two-sided conversation.

Or how do you bring up and discuss the fact that your spouse never expresses appreciation? It doesn’t matter what you do for him or her—give flowers, change a flat tire, etc.—he or she never thanks you for your time or efforts.

I bring up these examples because, faced with similar situations, I tell myself stories and explain away the other person’s actions by saying “It’s just how she is,” “He wasn’t raised correctly,” “She will never change,” or “If I speak up, I will just be seen as needy, greedy, or selfish and it will sound like I’m singing loudly, ‘ME! ME! ME!’” You are not alone. I, too, have several of these unaddressed issues on my radar screen. (Yes, we all have challenges.) Maybe as I share some principles and advice, I’ll help find my own answers.

So here is the challenge: How do we determine if we need to speak up? Ask yourself these questions:

Am I acting it out instead of talking it out? The major way we do this is to talk about the person and the problem instead of talking to the person about the issue.

Is that little voice in my head constantly bugging me? If that little voice is saying, “Why doesn’t she call?” “Why do I have to initiate every conversation?” or “Why can’t she be an adult about this?” then I can guarantee subtle nonverbal messages are leaking out—loudly. They will show your frustration and judgments almost every time.

Am I downplaying the costs of not speaking up and exaggerating the dangers of speaking up? If you are trying too hard to convince yourself to remain silent, you have a cost-benefit problem—you’re only counting the costs and not the benefits.

Have I convinced myself that I’m helpless, that there is nothing else I can do? The masters we studied always found a next step, even if that meant working to increase their skills or finding a friend to talk to about the issue to increase their options.

So here are a couple of strategies to help you master your stories and improve your relationships with your daughters.

Make a new agreement. Tell your daughters you’d welcome the opportunity to talk a couple of times a week and find convenient times to do so. For example, suggest that you could call each Sunday night and ask them if there is a regular and convenient time they might call you. If they agree, then you are well on your way to a solution.

Share your intentions. Tell your daughters you’d like to have more regular contact. Tell them what you don’t want—which is to be an interruption during busy times or to take a lot of their time. Tell them you’d like to hear and share what’s happening in their lives, but you don’t think long conversations are necessary. If that works for them, you have a plan.

At this point, there are two options. If they say no, you need to talk about their reasons for doing so and alternative solutions that would work for them. If they agree but don’t follow through, you’ll have to hold them accountable to your plan. Both of these conversations will be much easier to hold because you are already talking and expectations are clear. This is true for family, friends, neighbors, and coworkers. (Are you listening to yourself, Al?)

I’ll close with a personal story. For a number of years (okay, ten or twelve), my mother and I didn’t talk very much. Without getting into too many details, let me admit that I quit calling often to see if she would call me. She only called when there was a crisis or when she needed money, and from my perspective, she often didn’t tell the truth. I told myself some very clever stories about her motives and my situation was framed by watching and listening to my wife talk to her mother a couple of times a week. I admired their relationship, so after several years, I told myself a better story and called my mother. After a few calls, I asked if she would call me every once in a while “just to talk.” It was hard, even awkward, at first, but it got better. She still didn’t call very often, but I did. We talked almost every week for years, and our relationship improved. Four years ago, she passed away and I can’t tell you how glad I am that I took that step to call more often.

Best wishes,

Al

Dear Crucial Skills,

I am the CFO of a small business. Our president spends money in a way that many of the employees see as wasteful—for example, a landscaping project at the back of the parking lot. Most of the projects relate to the importance he places on the image of the business such as landscaping, updates to the interior, etc. I think this is due in part to a level of affluence and prestige he is accustomed to.

How do I talk to my boss about an issue he feels is very important but that lowers the morale of many employees? Ideally, I would like to see a process implemented where the top management team approves expenditures in excess of a set amount, but I don’t think he would be willing to go this direction.

Signed,
Following the Money

  Dear Following,

Your question brought back memories—both good and bad. Good because I can relate to your issue. Bad because my advice might be colored by the specifics of my own situation. So with that warning, here goes my walk through memory lane with you!

I once consulted with the president of a very large organization who was accused of the same thing. After taking charge, he began a major face-lift of the company’s facilities at the same time the organization faced major revenue declines and likely layoffs. While people speculated about how many thousands of employees would lose their jobs, they watched the company lobby become a marketing masterpiece of high-tech interactive displays and pricey designer appointments. While they worried about paying their mortgages, they saw the simple greenery lining the approach to the facility torn out and replaced with full-grown, non-native, high-maintenance flora. The parking lot was spruced up, the guard booths redesigned, and on and on. Employees began bitterly describing the effort as a pure ego trip for the sophisticated boss.

While your crucial conversation may have much different issues at play, I’ll offer a few things I learned from this similar situation.

One person’s story can be another’s strategy. The first is a caution. The problem here could be less your boss’s ego than your judgment. It could be that, in his mind, these investments are a very smart decision for the company that he believes will provide a great return to shareholders. In my situation, this was exactly the case. High-end customers regularly visited the facility and the president concluded it was important to create an image that supported their high tech and sophisticated brand. A frumpy lobby and weedy grass conflicted with this image. In fact, the president argued the only way to save jobs was to increase revenues—which meant, in part, positioning the company as a leading-edge player. He felt that if they had not made these investments, they would have appeared to be on the decline.

Now, reasonable people can disagree on either this principle or on the amount spent on the principle. But if you tell yourself a story that the primary reason for your president’s expenditures is ego or detachment from the way real people live, you might feed conflict and resentment rather than understanding and unity in how you influence others who are critical of the president’s policy. I worry you are heading down this path when you attribute his fiscal bias to his personal affluence. Choosing to see it this way sets this up as a character issue when it doesn’t have to be.

Likewise, when you hold this crucial conversation, if the story in your head is that this is about ego, your resentment and sense of moral superiority may color your approach and undermine your effectiveness. It’s much better to come from a story that says, “I think there is merit in this strategy, but there is more merit in spending elsewhere.” This will tend to make the conversation about different assumptions rather than different values—a much easier conversation to hold.

Dialogue is not decision making. I applaud your desire to be a good CFO. I assume from your description of the size of the company that you report to the president, not to a board. If that is so, then your job is to be a strong financial partner to the president, so your question is a mark of your integrity to that role. Being a great CFO means challenging his judgments at times—which is precisely what you are preparing to do. However, be sure you prepare for the fact that you may need to change if he doesn’t. Ultimately, this decision is his and not yours. In fact, if you make a strong case for redirecting capital in other directions and fail to persuade him, there is a risk that your judgments about his motives for the spending policy could subtly mix with your disappointment at “losing” and cause you to feel even more judgmental about his legitimately different point of view. You risk making it an issue of “who is better and who is worse” rather than “what policy is best for the company.”

Before you begin the conversation, Start with Heart. Erase any hope of “winning” or “being right” from your gut. Go in for the sole purpose of providing honest counsel, then be a loyal subordinate if he disagrees. Drop your judgments and accept that you are reasonable people who disagree. Getting to dialogue does not mean you get to make the decision.

Motivate with natural consequences. It sounds like you have two reasons for speaking up. The first is that you disagree with the president’s judgments. The second is that you see it having a negative effect on morale. If the second is truly an issue, that is an entirely separate but equally crucial conversation. If the spending policies are alienating staff, the president should be aware of that. In fact, if you share this information in a safe way with him it may also persuade him to temper his policy. But do not “use” this information to get him to do that. This second conversation is not about whether the policy is right or not. Strategy is not a popularity contest with employees, it’s leaders’ judgment about what is best for the company. And at times (as in my case above), that means doing things people don’t like in order to produce the best long-term result. This second conversation is about leadership not spending. Your goal is to bring the moral issue to his attention and make recommendations for influencing people to help them understand and support the direction more willingly. Period. If the president uses this issue as a reason to question his decision, that’s his personal prerogative.

Call foolishness “foolishness.” Finally, if after reflecting on all these points you truly believe his policy is damaging and self-serving, then you need to have two conversations. The first is with him. You need to make the strongest case possible about demonstrating why this spending is measurably damaging the company.

The second conversation is with yourself—about whether you’re willing to be part of incompetence or malfeasance if this issue rises to that level. From your question, it doesn’t sound as though it does—but I’d be letting you down if I didn’t challenge you to call it what it is if this is the proper characterization.

In my honest consideration, one of VitalSmarts’ greatest assets is our CFO, Yan, who I believe is the best CFO we could possibly have. She has created a culture of financial accountability that has fueled our success for fifteen years. It sounds like you are working to play the same role in your company and I applaud your integrity.

Joseph

  Dear Crucial Skills,

I used to think I was kind and careful with my words, but I am a month and a half into a new job and feel I can’t trust myself to communicate well over e-mail at all. The time-sensitive nature of solving problems for people means I can’t always ask for the feedback that would help them feel respected, and I find that the tone of my words is rarely interpreted the way I meant them. Do you have any advice for holding crucial conversations over e-mail?

Electronically Challenged

  Dear Challenged,

As you’re suggesting, real conversations rarely occur via e-mail. That makes e-mail a particularly dangerous tool for engaging in a crucial conversation. When stakes are high, opinions vary, and emotions run strong, that’s the one time you really need to make use of a genuine, face-to-face conversation. You need all of your faculties for reading the other person’s reaction and electronic tools can severely limit this. To make matters worse, when you’re typing messages back and forth (often separated by a fair amount of time), there’s no room for subtle give and take. For instance, in a face-to-face discussion you might immediately pick up on the other person’s reticence to comply with a request and choose to back off and try a different tactic. You have no such option when you type out your entire request and then wait for a response.

I know I’m preaching to the choir, but allow me to continue with some of the challenges of electronic communication. Imagine writing a lengthy request you know will be difficult for the other person to complete. You also suspect the work you’re asking the other person to do will put his or her work-life balance at risk. That’s not the kind of thing you want to communicate via e-mail. Inevitably, such a request would lay out every element of the project. To the receiver, that would look like one demand heaped upon another—creating stress, concern, and even anger.

I’ve found myself reading such electronic requests and becoming miffed because the other person seems to blindly plow along with further demands despite my growing frustration. While he or she can’t see the frustration on my face, I assume he or she is just being insensitive to my clearly hostile reaction.

Then, of course, time and distance only make matters worse. As I push back from the offensive e-mail request, I fill in the detail about the other person’s motives. Because I can’t see the concern on his or her face or detect the warmth in his or her voice, I assume he or she doesn’t care about me. This person is cold and calculating and not at all in touch with the fact that I will now miss my daughter’s birthday thanks to the request.

It’s little wonder you’re concerned about holding crucial conversations by e-mail. Bad things can happen when you do—particularly when people don’t know you very well. So here are few steps you can take to eliminate or at least lessen the risks.

First, don’t hold truly crucial conversations via e-mail. Whether you’re making a request, offering an unpopular opinion, or disagreeing with someone in a position of power—whatever the high-stakes dynamics—do everything in your power to hold a face-to-face conversation.

If you can’t meet face-to-face, then find a reasonable substitute. Try talking by means of video-chat software. There can be short delays with this medium, but this form of conversation allows for a simple statement, followed by a pause that allows the other person to respond before you’ve plowed on ahead with a massive request. You can also see brows furrowing and other signs of hesitation or even anger and quickly take steps to mitigate the reaction.

If you don’t have video capabilities, a handy invention created on March 10th of 1876 can be of great assistance. Although the telephone cuts off visual clues, it does allow for two important elements of a healthy conversation. One, you can speak, pause, and allow the other person to speak, avoiding the data dump of a single written missive. Two, you can notice pauses, tone of voice changes, and other vocal indicators that the other person is feeling reticent or emotional. Since you’ll miss visual cues, you’ll have to take special care to listen for signs of stress, but you can typically pick up signs before the conversation spins out of control.

I recently asked my son-in-law, who constantly holds high-stakes conversations with people all over the world, what he does to succeed given the challenge of distance, lack of visual cues, multiple parties on the line, and language differences. His response came immediately: “I listen for pauses, tension, and other signs that not everyone is on board with the proposal. I also take special care to invite the opinion of individuals who have remained largely silent. I never assume silence is a sign of agreement. In fact, I assume the opposite until I hear genuine confirmation.”

Now, if you’re facing circumstances where you can only communicate electronically, then use the medium as an invitation to a real conversation. Explain that you need to chat as quickly as possible. Don’t lead with your controversial content. Instead, start with a simple invitation.

Finally, if you don’t have time for a delayed response, then start your request tactfully and tentatively. Since people don’t know you very well, it sounds as if they may be making the worst rather than the best assumptions about your sensitivity to their circumstances. With time, as others learn about your caring nature and willingness to cooperate, people will begin to trust you and you can communicate by multiple methods.

Until then, when forced to follow an electronic path, apologize for using e-mail for making a challenging request. You’d much prefer to talk face-to-face, but demands require immediate action. Explain that you’re sensitive to the other person’s differing opinion or horrendous workload (or whatever it is that will put you at odds), and then lay out (1) the reason you’re pressed for time and (2) the rationale behind this specific request. This typically includes the consequences you, others, and the company will experience if the request isn’t met. Take care to share the context, not just your demands. Then tactfully ask if the other person can comply or can come up with an alternate solution. Finally, thank the other person for his or her kind consideration and end by asking for an immediate response so you know where you stand.

Once again, this is the sort of thing you do only when you have no alternative or if you already have a relationship of mutual respect and trust with the other person.

Kerry