The Communication Problem Solver

Nannette Rundle Carroll

• Publisher: AMACOM
• Year: 2009
• ISBN:
  9780814413098
• Topic: Betriebswirtschaft
• Subtopic: Entscheidungsfindung

Learn the simple communication tools and techniques that busy yet successful managers use to constantly drive productivity and business success.

Management trainer and consultant Nannette Carroll has spent her career instilling top-flight communication skills in managers to keep their staffs productive and collaborative. In this detailed guide to workplace communication, she shares her best problem-solving techniques to resolve the people issues that derail productivity and guides you through an analysis of your own communication skills to help you overcome personal roadblocks to success.

The Communication Problem Solver teaches you how to:

• set clear expectations;
• ask questions that will uncover important facts;
• sharpen listening skills to grasp information better in every conversation;
• avoid imprecise judgments based on emotional reactions;
• provide useful feedback;
• encourage collaborative interactions;
• delegate more effectively;
• improve performance discussions using observable facts;
• and build trusting and lasting relationships.

Easily accessible and packed with real-world management examples and tangible solutions to managers' most common communication challenges, The Communication Problem Solver is the key to helping any leader immediately increase their effectiveness.

PART I
THE SECRETS TO CREATING
AND SUSTAINING ENERGIZED
RELATIONSHIPS

Topflight managers develop exceptional skills in forging relationships throughout the organization, and in particular with their own manager and direct reports. Built on trust, respect, and goodwill, a good relationship eases the exchange of information on expectations, and therefore enables successful cooperation. People more freely express their ideas when a trusting connection exists. Clarity contributes to sustaining good relationships because people learn to trust each other when they have the same understanding of roles, responsibilities, and levels of authority.

Trust, in the management context, means that you and your employees have confidence that the other person’s work behavior is consistent. Employees can rely on you for honest, direct communication of expectations. You can depend on them to get the work done as agreed because you share an understanding of what is expected. When you habitually state clear expectations, employees can tackle the assignment with conviction that they are on the right path. Knowing clearly what to do builds commitment to the work. It drives the creation and maintenance of positive working relationships.

Relationships power collegial communication of expectations and earn employee buy-in. Well-developed associations with staff are the most important key to preventing and solving communication problems. Relationships and consistently clear expectations deliver results.

CHAPTER 1:
The Power of Relationship

This chapter gives tips on how to reinforce relationships and thus prevent performance disappointments—even when dealing with people you don’t like. Good working relationships are pivotal to getting positive results and developing team harmony. When interpersonal communication at work is pleasant, people can focus on the projects and tasks instead of being sidetracked by poor relationships.

The manager’s intention and decision to form good working relationships is crucial. Leaving it to chance means ignoring a great opportunity to create an environment conducive to people producing their best work.

Your staff know what your intentions are. They know whether or not you value them as persons or just as tools to get what you need done. They know if you like them or not. Managers need to communicate that they value relationships with their direct reports.

What Is a Work Relationship?

Simply stated, a working relationship is a connection between people who deal with each other in some work way. The association can be required by business interactions or can be desired based on enjoyment of productively working together and trusting the other person will contribute and meet deadlines.

Relationships can be kept at the acquaintance level or can involve a continued connection that develops rapport and mutual trust. Some people may go beyond the minimum work requirements and enjoy coffee or lunch together to learn more about each other’s backgrounds and interests. Others may choose friendship based on compatibility and common pursuits. I have enjoyed friendships with both my managers and my direct reports. Some of these friendships took place only at work. For others, we chose to socialize outside of work and were close friends. Sometimes people keep up the relationship after they cease working together and sometimes they do not. So there is a wide range of acceptable work-related relationships.

The word “relationship” intimidates some managers because they think it implies friendship or getting close to someone. They don’t want to invest time in a relationship and they don’t want to get personal with coworkers. In reality, it can have a minimal meaning of being respectful, friendly, and courteous and getting the work done together. It does not have to be personal.

Some managers do want to be somewhat personal but want to know where to draw the line. How personal can we be in establishing work relationships? One senior executive asked, “Most people do want to talk about their kids, but how friendly and personal can we be without being nosy?” Managers do want to play it safe and not offend direct reports. There is no one way to define work relationships. The work must get accomplished and the manager needs to create a comfortable environment with open communication so coworkers can trust and help each other. The types of relationships developed depend on the people and the situation.

Types of Relationships

Years ago I had a friend named Jerry who liked to shop at the corner grocery store. Every time he shopped there he complained about how high the prices were. “Why don’t you go to the big chain grocery store?” I asked. “It’s two blocks closer to your home.” “No,” he would always say. “I go to the mom-and-pop store because they know my name.”

Jerry felt good because the corner grocers treated him as an individual person. He could not expect this treatment at the chain grocery store where the checkout people would ring up his groceries but not show any interest in him. He was willing to pay more and walk farther because he enjoyed the relationship at the mom-and-pop store.

On the other hand, a relationship can be based on the quality of the work. I have used the same dry cleaner for years because I like the consistent results. Ownership and employees have changed, but the standard of quality remains. My relationship with the current woman at the dry cleaner is friendly, cordial, and surface. We smile, exchange pleasantries, and nothing personal is discussed. Our brief but regular interactions deal only with the task at hand—the dry cleaning of my clothes—and perhaps comments about the weather and other small talk. If there is a button missing or a shirt that needs to be re-ironed, I bring it up in a friendly, nondemanding, nonaccusatory way that leaves the door open for her to suggest the solution. Our relationship is based entirely on the business transaction. If I didn’t like the quality of the work, I wouldn’t patronize the shop.

Relationships vary depending upon how much both parties want to know about each other. Many neighbors have relationships. Typically they entail showing respect and meeting mutual community goals— cleanliness, safety, and regulations, if the neighborhood has an association. Maybe neighbors collect each other’s mail and papers and care for animals during vacations. One household might have neighbors they only say hello to, ones they see only at neighborhood social functions, and others they are friends with. One size does not fit all, because there are at least two people deciding how much to interact and how much personal information to share.

It’s the same thing at work. What brings people together is a task or project. Then colleagues choose how much interest to express in getting to know about where their coworkers are from, where they worked before, other places they’ve lived, hobbies, families, travel, and so on. And they each choose how much to tell. Despite a manager’s best intentions, a particular employee may not want to discuss anything personal. Even some managers have said they don’t want to disclose personal information.

Work relationships don’t need to be personal, but they do need to be congenial. Some managers have mentioned that they don’t want to listen to direct reports’ stories. But those few minutes of listening can be the bridge to employee commitment and enthusiasm about the work and the manager. Taking a little time to express interest, to show compassion when employees are sad or bereaved or ill, and to feel happiness for them when they celebrate a work achievement or personal feat can make life at the office more pleasurable and productive for everyone. Smiling, laughing, and using open body language show the manager is congenial. Setting a climate of courtesy and cooperation enables teams of coworkers to exchange their thoughts and ideas on common tasks. The better the relationships, the better the chance of collaborative results.

Relationships can make the difference in whether people want to come to work and in how willing they are to help others. A comfortable workplace invites people to be their authentic selves.

Importance of Relationships

Is there “fire” in the bellies of your coworkers? Is it passion for the work or is it sabotage? There are people who will “walk through fire” with and for us to get projects done if they like us. And, if they don’t, they might “throw fire at us” to defeat our objective. Think about someone you would do almost any work for. You want to help that person meet objectives and get them done well. Why? Chances are it’s because you value the relationship you share. Perhaps you want to preserve and enhance the association and the shared achievement.

For example, when my friend Marilyn and I were college students, we both worked part-time in Manhattan. We rode the train together into the city for work and also on many weekends just for fun. Rarely did we simultaneously have money for eating out. So, whoever had the money that day paid for the meal. We never tracked who spent what. There was no expectation of “you owe me something.” The pleasure of helping the other person and having a good time together was the only thought. The relationship superseded fairness, rules, and bookkeeping. We are still friends today.

You have known people on the job for whom you would “walk through fire” despite your own heavy workload and schedule. Perhaps it was taking on an extra project your boss needed done. Maybe you helped a peer who was wrestling with a tough problem. Or could it have been a direct report who needed an extra pair of hands for a crucial deadline? And you have had direct reports and peers and bosses who would work passionately to help you meet a work objective. Why? Sometimes people do the extraordinary for colleagues because it is the right thing to do or because it gets the job done. More times than not, however, it is because they value the relationship and enjoy the interaction of working together toward a goal.

On the other hand, there are some people in the workplace who are always too busy to help a coworker. They may have personal goals, but those objectives may not be aligned with the organization. These people may not buy in to mutual goals because of their nature, personal issues, organizational obstacles, the manager, or even an experience with a previous manager. Many just do their jobs at the minimum level. Other folks will even do what they can to actively sabotage the manager’s objectives. Maybe they wanted the management job. Maybe it is personal, and maybe it is just the way they behave at work. These employees are expressing fire, but not the passion of loving their jobs. The blistering behavior seems unlikely from people who have a good relationship with their boss.

There are many reasons people don’t have comfortable relationships with their managers. Sometimes it is that the manager doesn’t manage the relationship, and sometimes the employee prefers not to engage. Also, some workers are extremely competent technically but don’t have a natural aptitude or desire for interpersonal interactions.

Jack, a West Coast computer programmer, complained for years about management because, he said, “They don’t know anything about my work but want to interfere with my decisions every now and then.” Forthright, friendly communication was not part of Jack’s workplace. Jack worked alone and very successfully managed a major project that didn’t require much interaction with others. That’s the way he liked it. Dealing with others was difficult for him because, in his words, he felt technically and intellectually superior and because he was introverted. He didn’t have a relationship with his boss and he didn’t want one. Any involvement of the boss was seen as interference. It was easier for Jack to blame the boss than to develop a relationship. When computer systems changed, and continual communication with coworkers or users became a requirement, he chose the “early retirement package” instead of making the transition.

Jack exemplifies some who do not want relationships and exchanges with people; they just want to do the job and be left alone. Some other people are shy about communicating. Still others are willing to learn how to work with people, but they just don’t know how.

For example, a manager from Washington state regaled a class I was leading with the following comments: “I’m a geologist. I’m trained to work with rocks. Rocks don’t talk back! People do. I told my bosses if they wanted to make me a manager, they would have to send me to management training classes to teach me how to work with people. I still don’t know if I want to be promoted to manager because of the people issues.” This man was about to make a career decision, which he saw as binary: rocks or people.

Why do some people find it easier to learn the technical aspects of the job than to learn to develop relationships? Managers sometimes say that the work would be easy if it weren’t for the people. In many cases, as long as things go smoothly, working with others is fine. It’s when individuals disagree or believe there will be confrontation that many have difficulty.

Certain people embrace conflict as just another bump in the road. Some welcome debate so that ideas can be aired and innovation can flourish. But numerous managers fear disagreement will damage a relationship or the other person will attack them or aggressively ask questions that they are unable to answer. In one class, a seminar participant said that if conflict arose in meetings at her workplace, the CEO would cover his eyes with the palms of his hands and peek out through slits in-between his fingers. That’s pretty extreme body language from such a senior person, but there’s no right or wrong about the fact that some people flee rather than fight. It is reality. Adept managers frame statements in ways that do not generate conflict with coworkers. They also facilitate discussions with agility when inevitable conflicts arise. Managers need conflict radar to ensure that their employees feel free to express themselves and also feel emotionally safe. Are people really debating ideas or are they attacking each other as persons? It is in the best interest of the organization and the individuals who work there to be able to voice their ideas without being personally challenged. When the team critiques ideas against the goals instead of criticizing the person, new thoughts can flourish.

A solid working relationship can make the difference in whether a person wants to come to work or not. The relationship can color the willingness to help others. It can influence the readiness to work out misunderstandings and take mistakes in stride. Opinions and emotions about managers and coworkers vibrate strongly. Managers can take the initiative to nurture relationships and create a positive climate where employees are free to be themselves and voice their concerns without fear. When managers care about employees as human beings, they increase the possibility that employees will shape their strong emotions about work and the team into supportive excitement instead of actions that undermine the group’s success.

Surprises Cause Communication Problems

Some of us like surprise parties and some of us don’t. Most of us, however, do not like being surprised about work. Blindsiding direct reports, bosses, peer managers, and people in other departments can cause stress, frustration, and organizational workflow problems. Surprises can negatively affect relationships when employees’ schedules and work suddenly shift them into high-adrenaline mode. Employees want to know what management’s expectations are—both planned and as unexpected things happen. Minimizing surprises can help preserve relationships. But occasionally they happen, and any temporary relationship dents can be repaired as shown in two examples.

H. Pat Ritz, CEO of Footwear Specialties International of Portland, Oregon, says, “What frustrates people most on the job is not overwork. It’s when they are blindsided—when unexpected things happen. This can occur when the company is not clear about who is to do what. A systems breakdown can take place. Then everyone gets mad because they don’t know what to do. So they blame.”

For example, one Friday, shoes scheduled to be shipped were not shipped to customers. Pat, the CEO, asked the shipping department, “What happened?” and worked back through the chain. It turned out that several large orders were held by the credit department until 11:45 a.m. and then sent to the shipping department all at once. The shipping target might have been met if (1) the credit department had communicated to shipping that a high volume of orders was coming later that day, and (2) sales had alerted credit to the need to ship the orders that day.

Pat says, “Unfortunately you can’t rely on the workers to pass the information up—it’s management’s job to alert people as to when things will happen. Workers in this situation don’t have enough knowledge— they’re task oriented. Management is at a level where it can see enough to predict trends.”

“Work flows through your company like the tide,” Pat continues. “It ebbs and flows. As an order for shoes passes through the company it touches a lot of different spots. Management has to ...