Q&A with Susan Lesser of nPlusOne, West Hartford | Workplace communication

Q. As you say, technology is detaching workers from personal interaction, making them unpracticed in the area of verbal communication. How do you overcome that?

A. While technology can be an invaluable communication delivery system, there is no substitute for face-to-face interaction. Face-to-face conversations offer the full benefit of communication’s most impactful elements: tone and non-verbal interaction. Studies have shown that up to 93 percent of our communication lies in, and relies on, these non-linguistic cues.  Technology, on the other hand, gives us the ability to communicate in an organized and logical fashion without distractions. Businesses should use both methods for peak effectiveness: encourage employees to use technology as a delivery system (to distribute an agenda prior to a meeting, highlight the key points of a discussion in advance, or send a memo explaining your reasoning for a policy change) and follow all of these pieces of communication with a conversation.

Q. Is it a mistake to have a difficult conversation via e-mail? Inferences can be lost but clarity seems to be more likely with written communication.

A. Yes, it is a mistake to have a difficult conversation solely via email. Ambiguity is oftentimes greater in written communication, stemming from an absence of essential non-verbal and tonal cues as well as from our inability to instantly seek clarification. Asynchronous communication, such as email, leaves the receiver free to misinterpret and misunderstand.

Our approach and attitude towards the conversation ultimately shapes its outcome. Mistakenly, we often view difficult conversations as a win-lose proposition. Instead, if we take the stance of trying to jointly solve a problem the other party will become our partner. This approach shifts the focus from the personal to the external. Now that the ‘enemy’ is an external entity we are both better equipped to deal with the issue. At nPlusOne, we often implement this ‘diffusion’ technique by bringing parties to the table not to point fingers at one another, but rather to join together to solve a common problem affecting the organization.

Q. What is the financial impact, if it’s been measured, of companies having workers without good interpersonal skills? Is it a metric that can be quantified?

A. To our knowledge, there aren’t any studies that quantify ‘interpersonal skills’ per se. However there are studies focusing on human resource analytics that attempt to quantify organizational performance as a whole and measure intangible assets such as leadership, communication, teamwork (including interpersonal skills), and employee engagement. Towers Watson’s communication study found that companies with highly effective communication had 47 percent higher total returns to shareholders between 2004 and 2009, compared with companies with less effective communication practices. In addition, the Gallup Organization measures employee engagement and placed the cost of ‘actively disengaged’ workers at $416 billion for 2009 alone.

Q. Another good point you raise is feedback is expected to be positive-or minimally cloaked in a politically correct “praise sandwich.” What’s wrong with being gentle with an employee? How does this work against the organization?

 A. Being ‘gentle’ is an appropriate starting point. However, we routinely run into situations where tact has been taken to an extreme. It ranges from annoying, as in the case of ambiguous and unclear feedback, to detrimental, when responses offered are outright disingenuous and false:

• Encouraging a manager despite his/her shortcomings may bring about a situation where his/her employees suffer, ultimately weakening the organization.

• Sugarcoating a worker’s misbehavior may lead to a failure to address a compliance issue or exacerbate a legal situation.

• Addressing a flawed initiative too delicately may result in a domino effect of harmful action steps.

Similarly, praise sandwiches allow for selective hearing, which means that the final message may be lost in the middle.

Company culture is everything. Companies with a dysfunctional culture constantly face conversations plagued with euphemisms and imprecise directions for change. The fact is that you can be schooled in all of the powerful communication techniques available; however, your skills will be meaningless if you work in an environment that supports “getting along rather than getting it done.”

Q. Is there a way for an organization to self-identify as dysfunctional? What might some of the warning signs be?

A. A company is not generally prone to recognize and admit its deficiencies. The reason is twofold. First, companies are formed of individuals and we struggle to admit we are deficient in any areas. Secondly, commitment is required to diagnose and resolve the uncovered issues.

Companies that request our services usually display any number of organizational dysfunction symptoms: excessive self-interest as observable through the existence of strong silos; considerable ‘scapegoating’ at the individual and/or group level; regular operational missteps-increasing errors, missed deadlines; a sense that information is simply not being shared; and most notably, a pervasive lack of trust.

Self-identification is only possible in companies where the company itself is understood to be greater and more important than any of its individual employees, and where complete objectivity is possible. We have yet to witness a self-identifying culture at the start of an engagement.

Q. How do you cure a dysfunctional corporate culture? The very word culture seems to suggest something deeply engrained.

A. You are absolutely right. Culture is deeply engrained. Supported by so many systems and so much history, it can be quite cumbersome to unwind a dysfunctional culture, but it is always possible.

First and foremost senior leaders must actively believe in the culture change effort. They must display a willingness to improve themselves as individuals, opening their minds to new perspectives and welcoming constructive criticism from any level of the enterprise.

Secondly, the value of this endeavor must be communicated to and embraced by all levels of the company. It will not suffice for this communication to be a one-time message; it must be continual and consistent.

Finally, real changes will be needed to cement this new culture; changes in systems and processes, from annual employee review to internal newsletters to budget creation. And none of this will lead to anything other than frustration unless the progress is properly measured. You can only improve that which you can measure. Otherwise, how do you know which way you are trending?