Talking about what we’re talking about
I think the conversation theory post may have been a little dry. It all sounds so theoretical. It’s so far out there you may be wondering how can it be applied in business. So here’s a a couple specific examples.
We had a client that had five IT departments, one to support each line of business. Each group believed that their business was so unique that they had to have their own support groups. The CIO of the company thought that there was probably a lot in common between them, he was just struggling to get everyone on the same page. Everytime they tried it would break down in a defensive battle. With some of the executives from the operations group, we helped facilitate the development of a common semantic model of the businesses. We started with some clearly common concepts and worked our way through the business. At the end of the effort, management reached an agreement that about 80% of the business models were the same. Working towards developing a common background of understanding, instead of defending a previously established set of concepts, led to a breakthrough for the business. We talked about what we talked about, and common understanding became explicit, rather than each person defending how their view of the world was correct. Combining common technology and functions saved the company millions of dollars a year. The added organizational agility and synergy probably contributed to the massive growth the company experienced over the next two years.
A software development group was struggling to get what product management was promising to the customer in a timely fashion. There was a lot of conflict and frustration. Customer commitments were consistently missed. Working with key people in development and product management, we worked our way through how work was coordinated, how commitments were made, and how understanding was established between the customer, product management, and development. We identified the key points that were leading to waste, quality problems, and rework. Then we talked about the conversations that were leading to those breakdowns. The rate of work through the organization doubled in just over four weeks. We didn’t change any people or technology, we didn’t cut any scope. We spent time talking about what they talked about to make the conversations more productive.
These are not isolated circumstances. This is how people interact. When people from different backgrounds or with different roles get together, they participate in a way to justify their groups norms. When these norms get in the way of successfully moving work through the organization, these problems tend to go unexplored. Because talking about what we talk about is considered threatening, too touchy-feely or too theoretical. I believe there are huge returns for addressing this situation. Look around your organization, do you think the returns are there if there was a way to address it? What would it take for you to start talking about the conversations in your organization?
March 14th, 2007 at 9:59 am
I believe that one of the key issues is that “conversations” are not taking place at all. As the project lead across several independent, as well as inter-related projects I often deal with what I consider concurrent monologues – each team member looking out for themselves or their turf.
The root of these challenges seem to be engineered into the overall process with local goals, measurements, and management styles all being different, and ultimately driving what each individual/functional area is saying and how they are acting. In siloed hierarchies it has been my experience that these differences rise all the way to the top, and thus are very entrenched at the bottom.
Coming to this understanding over the past few years has allowed me to modify myself to allow dialogues, and in rare instances what I would consider meaningful conversation when the right people are in the room. When it works, it’s beautiful, and makes it a little bit easier to get out of bed in the morning.
March 14th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Based on this definition of conversation “The use of language to exchange thoughts, ideas or information”, then they must be taking place, they just aren’t taking place purposefully. However, I recently found a great definition of conversation. A conversation is a “two way exchange entered into with an intent on the part of both parties to be changed in the process.” I need to research the source since I will using it. But based on this definition of conversation it appears you are right, the conversations aren’t talking place. I would say that people are participating in the conversations differently. In one case they are partcipating to defend their norms and perception of value without regard for productivity. In the other case they are participating with the intention of improving productivity. Sometimes, you are able to induce the second type of conversation when it is necessary. The goal of Productive Collaboration is not to induce these conversations everywhere all the time, but to purposefully identify the ones that must happen effectively and consistently induce the second kind of participation.