Dan Erwin

Why Is It So Tough To Get Useful Feedback?

In an enlightening conversation with a 28 year-old digital finance employee, he wanted to understand why it's so difficult to get useful--read, developmental--feedback.  Perhaps more than any generation, today's young men and women have brought the need for feedback to the fore.  Yet, again and again in various professional settings, I meet employees of all generations who are asking for more feedback, but not getting what they want.

Feedback is terrifically important. There are plenty of studies showing that it''s nearly impossible to learn and grow without constructive feedback. 

Reflecting on that issue, I was reminded of an article by Jim Heskett of Harvard Business School on what to me is a related subject:  'Why don't managers think deeply?'

“Setting” Boundaries Versus “Negotiating” Boundaries

Is there a substantial difference? Or are they just two words for the same thing? And does it really matter? Prior to the 1950s, they would have been just two words for the same thing. That is, if anyone ever used the term “negotiating” boundaries. The practice of “negotiating” boundaries comes primarily out of the 1980s with the flattening of business hierarchies and the strong orientation to women’s rights. With the exception of sales negotiation, it was rare to talk about negotiating relationships until the mid-1980s. And since then there has been tons of research and some training solely in the practice of negotiating interpersonal boundaries. In simple terms, setting boundaries is one individual determining boundaries for others. Negotiating boundaries is two or more creating a workable agreement on the boundaries between them.

So, there’s a significant difference between setting and negotiating boundaries. Major business leaders as well as many community leaders recognize these differences even without distinguishing between the two terms. But, ask the right questions and they can clarify immediately. I’ve learned, sadly, that these same professionals are typically incapable of using the negotiation competence in their family. Shifting competencies from one context to another without training is highly problematic—even for top business school grads. Similarly, lower level bureaucrats, patriarchal families, pastors, the Roman and Evangelical churches, small and medium-sized privately held owner-firms lack insight to the distinctions and sometimes have a lot of resistance on their hands as a result of their ignorance.

Creating still more difficulty, my psychologist colleagues have no rhetorical format for negotiation. Common formats provide the means for improving, changing or even rejecting former ways of communicating. Without a common format, they’re always attempting to reinvent the wheel, a strategy which readily results in failure or limited success. They talk a good talk about “setting boundaries,” but lack awareness of the extensive implications of differing boundaries. This is surprising, because the counseling profession knows that ignoring or flagrantly setting boundaries is one of the major causes of family breakdown. And there are plenty of other people and organizations in the dark and looking at abject failure because of their ignorance and unwillingness to operate on the basis of negotiating boundaries.

The role of power
Although I’ve never heard anyone make the distinction between setting and negotiating, it’s time to start using the rhetoric much more carefully. Why? Because, the distinctions are primarily about power: who’s got it and what are the most effective ways to use it.

In business organizations power is traditionally viewed from three perspectives: vested, expert and network. Simply put, vested power is the legitimate power given to an individual to run teams, projects or disciplines within an organization. Expert is the power conferred on an individual who has the necessary knowledge others require for success. And network power is that of a person who knows a terrific amount of people who are capable of providing the necessary support and insight which individuals or groups require to succeed. Obviously simplistic, but occasionally useful clarity.

However, as a result of the unique work of the French academic, Michel Foucault, we understand that power is a lot more complex than the above little model. Foucault emphasizes that where there is power, there is also resistance. So, it’s all the more important to understand that successful power has much more to do, for example, with how a person or an organization chooses to organize ideas, make comparisons, and locate new ideas, often metaphorically, within highly respected old ideas. To an obvious degree, knowing what to say, how to say it, and what not to say in a given culture can be powerful negotiation strategies. That kind of expertise is usually necessary for successful boundary negotiation, which at its core is a matter of interaction around “I’ll do this if you’ll do that.” Simple relationships can sometimes be negotiated in three minutes, while major organizations or nations may take ten to twenty years to negotiate their differences in order to achieve mutual goals...

Figuring Out the 2020 Candidates by Counting Words

Back in 2004 Pete Buttigieg, his Harvard Colleague, Ganesh Sitaraman, along with Peter Emerson wrote an intriguing, fun article suggesting that by counting the number of words in the party platform, you could figure out who would win the presidential election. The smaller the page count, the more potential for winning the election.

They surfaced a great deal of examples to support their proposal. They found that since 1960 the average page count of the Democrats' platforms in losing years was 82 pages, but that the average of winning years was 46. The longest platforms at 128 and 124 pages came during the disastrous years of 1980 and 1984. 

They also found that another indicator was what they called the candidate-to-opponent ratio. In the Democrats long 1984 platform they were unable to spell out their platform without mentioning/comparing to the Republicans. That year Ronald Reagan was mentioned 213 times, while Walter Mondale, the Democratic candidate wasn't mentioned once. Reagan won by a complete rout. 

These guys also studied the rhetorical use of words, specifically the use of "crisis." The Republicans used the term "crisis" a dozen times in their 1980 platform, including in the first sentence. Of course, that was the year that Reagan won in a landslide.

I've thought about this article and my own background of rhetoric in the past months by comparing Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren. I've listened to Buttigieg throughout his campaign and compared his positioning to that of Elizabeth Warren. Buttigieg was in no hurry whatsoever to create policy. In fact, he pushed back on media's demands for a lotta policy statements, wanting to keep his approach simple, while Warren made "I've a policy for that" her mantra. All along my rhetoric background suggested that what Pete's doing is very smart and that Elizabeth Warren's inundating us with policy will bring her down, even though right now she's getting all the attention...

5 Steps to Get Buy-In from Your Colleagues (and Your Boss)

Many people do not seem to recognize that getting buy-in for their ideas is not only key to organizational success--but also to personal and career success. This is an issue that does not seem to go away or get old. Furthermore, the inter-disciplinary set-up of businesses today just makes the competency both more difficult and more valuable.

Surprisingly, there is a definite process for how actionable recommendations evolve and gain acceptance. When I say “process” I’m revealing that much of communication is built upon protocols. To a degree, communication process can be compared to software development process—to coding.  

But don’t misunderstand. Though the analogy to coding is insightful, the behavioral consequences of communication are far more unpredictable and the inferences can be strikingly different and even more political. Still, basic processes exist for many communication competencies. Once internalized these communication processes (I prefer “rhetorical processes”) can be applied and adapted to differing contexts and interactions. In short, there is specific, learnable process for how actionable recommendations can have a better chance of gaining support.

How Effective Is Your Democratic Candidate?

In March 2014, I wrote a blog post on Satya Nadella, at that time the new Microsoft CEO. Based on his conversational rhetoric I proposed that he would be able to look forward to a highly successful tenure. My conclusion proved accurate. After listening to a number of 2020 candidates I realized that the same process could be quite applicable to an assessment of their future. One Democratic candidate fits the bill perfectly. Although I'm not willing to share my conclusions about the candidates thus far, I thought that the blog might be useful for other political junkies like me. Thus, I have reprinted the blog, making it immediately available on my site. Your assessment will need some awareness of the typical Democratic policy perspectives from the past twenty years, but given that assumtion, this blog should be of value to the astute listener.

Can you guess who these candidates are?

Preface to This Blog: Most perspectives on organizational and leadership change propose that communication occurs in the context of change. Here, I invert that perspective and propose, instead, that communication—in the form of conversations—is the context in which change occurs. In other words, communication/conversation is the tool to successfully execute change, not a result or by-product of change. The promise of leadership conversation is that there’s a new and better way to lead an organization now that command-and-control is at best futile, and at worst, and probably more commonly, destructive. Satya Nadella is indicative of the best. Kudos to Microsoft for their choice. The blog below elaborates and extrapolates.

“If they engage with conversation in the right way,” Harvard’s Groysberg and Slind write, “they have the potential to unleash organizational energy of a sort that no leader could ever command.” That’s why the conversation between Adam Bryant and Microsoft’s new CEO, Satya Nadella, grabbed my attention. And though an interview is not the kind of dialog that is inevitably revealing, the uniqueness of Nadella’s response can only be indicative of many highly astute leadership conversations. 

Powerful rhetoric
Social science research finds that organizational mindsets form the boundaries of possible change within an organization. Proposed changes that do not fit within existing paradigms—including corporate leadership--simply do not ...

“If they engage with conversation in the right way,” Harvard’s Groysberg and Slind write, “they have the potential to unleash organizational energy of a sort that no leader could ever command.” That’s why the conversation between Adam Bryant and Microsoft’s new CEO, Satya Nadella, grabbed my attention. And though an interview is not the kind of dialog that is inevitably revealing, the uniqueness of Nadella’s response can only be indicative of many highly astute leadership conversations. 

Powerful rhetoric
Social science research finds that organizational mindsets form the boundaries of possible change within an organization. Proposed changes that do not fit within existing paradigms—including corporate leadership--simply do not ...

In March 2014, I wrote a blog post on Satya Nadella, at that time the new Microsoft CEO. Based on his conversational rhetoric I proposed that he would be able to look forward to a highly successful tenure. My conclusion proved accurate. After listening to a number of 2020 candidates I realized that the same process could be quite applicable to an assessment of their future. One Democratic candidate fits the bill perfectly. Although I'm not willing to share my conclusions about the candidates thus far, I thought that the blog might be useful for other political junkies like me. Thus, I have reprinted the blog, making it immediately available on my site. Your assessment will need some awareness of the typical Democratic policy perspectives from the past twenty years, but given that assumtion, this blog should be of value to the astute listener.

“If they engage with conversation in the right way,” Harvard’s Groysberg and Slind write, “they have the potential to unleash organizational energy of a sort that no leader could ever command.” That’s why the conversation between Adam Bryant and Microsoft’s new CEO, Satya Nadella, grabbed my attention. And though an interview is not the kind of dialog that is inevitably revealing, the uniqueness of Nadella’s response can only be indicative of many highly astute leadership conversations. 

Powerful rhetoric
Social science research finds that organizational mindsets form the boundaries of possible change within an organization. Proposed changes that do not fit within existing paradigms—including corporate leadership--simply do not ...

The Demands of Extreme Teaming

In an interview with Harvard’s Amy Edmondson, the professor points out that today’s managers have to work with teams that cross distance, discipline and hierarchy—a task that doesn’t come naturally. She refers to the task as “extreme teaming,” arguing that with the complications of 24/7 global operations, more people than ever are required to collaborate outside the context of a formal team.

Edmondson is extremely cautious in her conclusions. For example, when asked why we’re seeing more extreme teaming, she responds, “beyond the increasingly globalized workplaces, there’s a recognition that we’re not always going to rely on vertical integration to solve all of our challenges. It sometimes just makes sense to team up with another organization to get something done.”

Note the language: “not always going to rely…” “increasingly globalized workplaces” “sometimes just makes sense.” That many caveats and qualifiers in just two sentences of 37 words including articles? Really? In medium-sized or large corporations, 90% of execution is cross-disciplinary. And in small tech firms, close to 95% of execution is cross-disciplinary.

There actually are hurdles, as the interviewer writes, “Many managers are not equipped with the skills to capture the full value of these multifaceted collaborations.” And what about the ordinary workers who are involved in all these cross-disciplinary teams?

Actually, team failures abound in virtually every organizational change. One recent study of 95 teams in 25 leading corporations found that nearly 75% of cross-functional teams are dysfunctional. Engineers don’t converse well with designers, marketing doesn’t converse well with development, and so on. It’s becoming rather clear that the real business of business is conversation. Yet few have these skills at the level necessary for today’s successful business person.

And what about the few that have these skills in spades?

How to Be Your Own Worst Enemy

One of the most damaging cognitive biases, especially for the successful, is the illusion of control. It’s the tendency for people to overestimate their ability to control events. It occurs when someone feels a sense of control over outcomes that they demonstrably do not influence. The illusion of control is a confusion between skill and chance situations. So, it’s seen in issues as disparate as gambling behavior and belief in the paranormal. Another place it operates—very much out of sight--is in business conversations.

In a fascinating study Boaz Keysar and Anne Henley, psychologists at the University of Chicago, studied 40 pairs of listeners and speakers.  The talkers believed that their intended meaning was understood "most of the time."  But that belief, like a lot of other so-called "soft skill" beliefs, won't stand up to the scrutiny of research.

Instead, the research showed that nearly half the time that speakers thought they were understood, they were actually wrong.  In 46% of the cases there was a breakdown--the listeners didn't get it.  What's most surprising is ...

Why You Need to Think and Talk on Two Tracks (Part Two)

In complex business conversations, metacomm can profoundly impact conversations and make them far more constructive and efficient—even timesaving. To a significant degree, metacomm functions to facilitate conversation and is highly useful for training participants in sequencing 101. In our studies and experience with metacomm, we have found a number of these forms especially useful.

Monitoring processes. Conversations that stick to your planned objectives to focus on problem solving, innovation or developing cross-disciplinary agreements, readily become mere discussions rather than action-oriented. However, the use of metacomm can serve to 

Why You Need to Think and Talk on Two Tracks (Part One)

One of the most difficult problems with collaborative conversation is staying on track. Smart people inevitably get waylaid by tangential ideas that are suggested by their meeting interactions. That’s precisely why many think that team meetings are such a waste. Yet solutions and decisions in today’s business world inevitably require conversations to gain the buy-in of diverse teams and multiple business disciplines.

One underlying limitation business groups face is that few participants have a good handle on sequencing ideas. We used to think that software coders, who constantly work with digital sequencing, should be able to manage linkages. We’ve found, however, that the majority of technical people are unable to make the transfer of digital sequencing to conversational sequencing. Those with an extensive background in the liberal arts are able to sequence conversations fairly well, but most technicians, lacking the arts background, have a great deal of difficulty sequencing conversations. Add the sequencing difficulties to the highly analytical nature of development and conversational misunderstanding becomes the status quo, costing business billions of dollars and sometimes costing jobs for the less capable. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos deals with this problem by forcing all his senior team executives to write out their proposals, using a format forcing reasoned linkages and sequencing in six pages prior to every team meeting. The first 30 minutes of each meeting is spent reading the proposals: then they’re ready to converse...

A New Approach to Human Assessment

Back in March 2014, I read a fascinating interview of Microsoft’s new CEO, Satya Nadella, by the Times writer, Adam Bryant. Nadella’s orientation was so unique and rhetorically fascinating that I decided there was enough information provided for a verbal analysis. Using psycho-rhetoric, a new tool that makes assessments possible, I posted the results on my blog. 

I drew a number of conclusions growing out of Nadella’s consistent use of the rhetorical form of point/counterpoint. The form--a verbal pattern--stresses affinity to the past, and provides an alternative reading for the future. The use of the form made it possible to reap the positive and constructive legends surrounding Gates’ tenure without rejecting Steve Ballmer’s tenure. Significantly, the strategy limits the potential for rejection and blowback that many new CEOs face.

Using point/counterpoint, Nadella positioned the individual expertise as the real power of Microsoft’s teamwork. He also moved to confirm the present leadership team, strongly emphasizing their abilities, and securing the value of continuity. Finally, he used the Microsoft rhetoric of “formula,” but tweaked so that he can insert his own strategy. In effect, Nadella affirms the traditions of the past while adapting them to the new leadership and the present. Implicitly, my post suggested that Nadella was a superb CEO choice, a conversationalist and leader par excellence.

Well, was the analysis correct? Just three years later, a March issue of The Economist had a two page article on Nadella and...

Converse Like a Professional, But. . . .

. . . expect to revisit, restructure and revalue the conversation.

FYI: This is a response to a great number of interactions over more than thirty years of consulting. It grows out of two recurring questions: "How do I say that?" and"Can I say that?" They've been asked by entry-level employees and managers as well as senior executives. So here goes.

Conversely, don't merely talk. Conversation is about interaction and even dialog. It emphasizes shared, growing ideas. Talk tends to quickly become monologue or a presentation--as in, "my talk was about. . . " Talk is also very encompassing, whereas conversation refers to a specific kind of talk with definite parameters.

The term "professional" emphasizes a person who engages in a practice and has certain and unique kinds of competencies and skills. It can be used popularly to refer to any businessperson at any level: entry-level to executive. Although some academics don't think of business as a profession and some business people don't think of themselves as professional, clearly the term has cachet. The term is used both negatively and positively, as in "that's not very professional," and "you can count on her being very professional in her dealings." It's important to think about yourself in this manner. It implies a more careful consideration of your behaviors.

Ummm, yeah. Vocabulary is always important. The shift of a single word can automatically change one's perspective...