The scene:
This week a case from our business turnaround files. The client: a small restaurant food supplier. Timing: at bottom of a deep recession. Situation: company going under as a number of their restaurant customers failed or migrated to price-cutting competitors.
Business development game plan:
Identify key issues and opportunities. Engage everyone in brainstorming solutions to obstacles as well as ideas for customer retention and acquisition. Build a turnaround strategy. Create detailed action plans. Get everyone working as a team to execute plans.
No. 1 Challenge:
Getting people working together turned out to be the greatest obstacle to their turnaround. Owners, managers and department teams were at war in all directions – blaming each other for causing the crisis.
Example:
Credit department was at war with sales. Blamed them for making “bogus sales” and bringing in applications that “they must know” couldn’t be approved. Sales accused Credit of dragging their feet on applications; rejecting good prospective customers; placing holds on orders without advising Sales – and more!!
A classic failure of leadership
First I met with managers of Credit and Sales. Recorded their issues on whiteboard. Asked if they had spoken to each other personally about the situation. The Admin manager said, “No, I make my feelings known publicly at every management team meeting.” Sales manager said, “No, we’re not on speaking terms.”
Clearly these hardworking, well-intentioned managers – who saw themselves as ‘protecting’ the company from each other – were caught up in a situation where they were speaking ‘about’ instead of ‘to’ each other – not knowing they were literally enabling the problem to go on and on by doing so. This is a classic failure of leadership – and in this case both a recipe for disaster and an opportunity to fix something that clearly stood in the way of their recovery.
An ‘Aha’ moment
When I shared the dynamics and consequences of speaking ‘about’ instead of ‘to’, they got it immediately. One said, “That’s us. That’s exactly what we do,” and the other, clearly embarrassed, agreed. This ‘Aha’ moment enabled us to get unstuck and immediately begin solution-making.
The floodgates opened
Working together in problem-solving brainstorm sessions they astonished each other with the number and quality of ideas they came up with. Their initiatives included setting a turnaround time standard on new credit apps… providing basic training for sales reps on credit management…pairing a sales rep with a credit staffer on each application…starting a new customer onboarding program that featured a tour and meet and greet for new customers, in order to personalize the new relationship…and more…much more!
Why didn’t the managers speak to each other in the first place?
- It’s much easier to speak ‘about’ another person than it is to speak ‘to’ them when there’s a problem
- By speaking about instead of to, we can avoid potentially hostile confrontation and conflict – and possibly gain sympathy from those we speak to (at least in the short term)
- Painfully few people are trained in the assertiveness and interpersonal skills needed to approach safely (i.e. without provoking defense and a potentially hostile reaction)
- As a result serious problems like this one are allowed to go unsolved, becoming an accepted feature of life in a poisoned environment
Consequences:
- By attacking the person instead of the problem they perpetuated the stalemate
- They drew others into the conflict, wasting time and energy and compounding the conflict
- Combined with similar conflict raging elsewhere (e.g. Sales Dept. vs. Production) they contributed to an atmosphere that I described as a ‘toxic waste field’ throughout the company
- And of course, they unintentionally sabotaged the company they sought to protect
Isn’t this just common sense?
As I write this I can imagine you thinking, “Wait a minute. This is just common sense.” And you’re right of course. Once stated it seems obvious, self-evident – just common sense – to speak to instead of about. But beware…as I’ve said before and will repeat again, we must never confuse common sense with common practice. To make speaking ‘to’ instead of ‘about’ common practice we first need to bring these dynamics into our conscious awareness…then we need that personal aha moment when we self-confront…and accept that it’s not someone else we’re talking about…”it’s me.” (Hey, if it’s genuinely not you then thank goodness for the training or insight that has helped you avoid this deadly trap). Then, once we have ownership sorted out…we need to practice.
Your call to action
- Validate the premise that we tend to talk about instead of to when we have a problem with someone. Is it true for you? Is it true for others?
- Do a reality check. Think of someone you’re unhappy with. Challenge yourself. Are you speaking to them personally about the issue? Have you spoken to anyone ‘about’ them?
- Be hyper-aware when someone else is talking about a person they have a problem with, or a complaint against. Are they talking ‘to’ the other person as well? Or not?
- If you want to test this idea out in practice, the key to approaching safely is choosing words that pre-empt a negative response.
- For example, “I need your help, Chris…could we talk about XYZ…”) This kind of approach can work because it’s hard to be defensive or hostile when asked for help. However, if you’re dealing with a long-standing grievance a more direct approach may be called for, such as, “Chris we need to talk seriously about XYZ…Keeping this going isn’t helping us or the company. Can we grab a coffee and talk?”
- Look for opportunities to observe these dynamics in action everywhere…at work, at home, in politics, volunteering, teaching, coaching…everywhere effective leadership and responsible citizenship are called for.
- Helpful hint: Use productive language. Instead of thinking about how you could ‘confront’ the other person, think about how you could ‘approach’ them. The goal, as always, is to get a collaborative win-win solution; get ourselves unstuck – and get things done.
See you next week.