place. When meaningful conversations
take place mostly on the side, or outside
of the committee room, there’s a big indication
something isn’t right. When teams
consistently run out of time for discussion
and debate because presentations are taking
too long, perhaps it’s because time isn’t
being left for them. Are executives simply
pretending to listen to or build on each
other’s points of view, but actually only
pausing long enough to find another opportunity
to speak? Are conversations
repetitive with executives restating their
points of view several times?
A seemingly polite atmosphere created
by these behaviours could easily be perceived
as respectful. But the absence of
trust is covertly driving the discussion. It
is common to find an absence of trust at
senior levels of an organization because
colleagues tend to avoid the real issues
by defensively shutting down emotionally,
not listening to others and by creating a
wall that prevents the sharing of information.
Being able to distinguish politeness
from respect is the first step in identifying
an absence of trust.
The second step is to initiate uncomfortable
dialogue. In teams where excessive
politeness is the norm, this will be difficult.
People may try to initiate uncomfortable
dialogue at the end of a meeting, but dialogue
is unlikely to get challenging at that
time. No one wants to leave a meeting on
bad terms, when there are low levels of
trust. Difficult conversations need to be
initiated in the middle or even at the beginning
of a meeting. They also need a
defined space and time. Sometimes moving
to another room and agreeing on a
time limit will facilitate and contain a difficult
conversation. Different spaces can
break the scripted and polite conversations
that often emerge among executives.
The third step is to encourage transparency.
Transparency to most senior
executives means allowing others to
see information that is otherwise held
privately. However, a deeper level of
transparency is about actively sharing and
revealing thoughts, emotions and beliefs
that flow through our mind. Senior executives
are usually very good at keeping
these things private, and some believe it’s
the right thing to do.
But this is not humanly possible.
Everyone carries emotions with them that
influence their perceptions and judgment.
By being open and transparent about irritations,
frustrations, competitiveness or
anger, executives can understand how they
are restraining the dialogue. For example,
it may be helpful to say, “I felt no one was
listening to me,” to shift the conversation.
Suppressing emotions can trick us into
thinking that we or others are not experiencing
any discomfort.
To be sure, building trust requires an
active disclosure of selected thoughts and
feelings. We cannot disclose everything we
think or feel – nothing would get done,
and it would lead to chaos.
Another form of transparency involves
giving feedback. For example, “I felt irritated
with you when you said…” or “I felt
angry when you were dominating the conversation.”
Such feedback is difficult to
find in executive ranks, especially on polite
teams. On the surface, feedback can be
seen as a personal attack, and as such it is
often avoided. There can also be a tacit collusion
between executives not to criticize
each other publicly.
The deeper explanation for the lack of
feedback is the fear of rejection. When
giving honest and direct feedback both the
receiver and the giver may feel rejected,
even when the feedback is requested. Yet,
the relationships that are most likely to
strengthen and build trust are those where
disclosure and feedback are reciprocated.
If we actively make our feelings transparent
through disclosure and feedback,
we stay with one another through our
feelings of rejection. If acceptance follows,
we feel greater trust in the relationship –
building belief that it will sustain in the
long term. Achieving this state is the key
to maintaining the balance between the
intimacy and tension needed for optimal
productivity. It needs to be a gradual and
reciprocal process. Sharing too much can
overwhelm. Sharing too little or much
more than others can breed mistrust.
The fourth and final step is to keep
difficult conversations ongoing and continuous.
Difficult conversations are often
replayed in our own minds for many
hours after they are over. While executives
will need to move on and get back
to the task, if one person or a relationship
is left “bruised” or “raw,” it is better to
acknowledge this and then move on rather
than pretend nothing has happened. It
is also wise to come back to the conversation
a day or a week later. As time passes,
if expressed, most difficult feelings pass.
By coming back to the issue, you are signaling
that you are still “with” the person,
and not avoiding or dismissing them.
You are showing them that they can trust
you with difficult issues, not just the
polite ones.
With corporate failures often dominating
the headlines, one has to ask how
many could have been avoided if more
trust had been achieved across management.
Because of the responsibility and
power embedded in senior executive roles,
there is much going on below the surface
that is difficult to discuss. Instead, corporate
leaders often fall back on being polite
or “civilized” with colleagues. How many
Wells Fargo employees knew they were
engaging in wrongful behaviour, but didn’t
have an environment to speak up?
In many cases, being polite creates the
delusion of respect, but an absence of
trust. By making themselves vulnerable
with one another and by exposing some
of their thoughts and feelings that they do
not usually share, managers will be able to
build trust, and with it, genuine respect
and a better corporate world. n
Professor Ben Bryant is director of the CEO
Learning Center at IMD business school.
workplace culture
WHEN MEANINGFUL CONVERSATIONS TAKE PLACE MOSTLY
ON THE SIDE, OR OUTSIDE OF THE COMMITTEE ROOM,
THERE’S A BIG INDICATION SOMETHING ISN’T RIGHT.
26 ❚ MARCH 2017 ❚ HR PROFESSIONAL