Conversational Capacity: The Secret to Building Successful Teams That Perform When the Pressure Is On (BUSINESS BOOKS) - Softcover

Weber, Craig

Softcover

ISBN 10: 0071807128 ISBN 13: 9780071807128

Publisher: McGraw-Hill Education, 2013

Synopsis

OPEN, BALANCED DIALOGUE--THE KEY TO PEAK TEAM PERFORMANCE

In a world of rapid-fire change, it's more important than ever to build teams that work well when the pressure is on―and quality communication can mean the difference between success and failure.

Conversational Capacity provides the communication tools you need to ensure that your team remains on track even when dealing with its most troublesome issues, that it responds to tough challenges with agility and skill, and performs brilliantly in circumstances that would incapacitate less disciplined teams.

Praise for Conversational Capacity:

"This book blows the lid off everything you have learned about team building and will have you asking, 'Why didn't someone show me this before?'" -- Rick Woodcock, Chief Technology Officer of the US Naval Institute, Annapolis

"Easy to implement, Craig Weber's techniques will transform your organization. We put these principles into practice and saw immediate results." -- Scott Goodey, CEO, Greenpoint Technologies

"A must-read for leaders and those who aspire to lead. It's one of the most influential books on the value of teaming." -- Benjamin Ola Akande, PhD, Professor of Economics and Dean of the George Herbert Walker School of Business and Technology, Webster University

"Conversational Capacity is one of those rare books that will forever change how you see yourself and the people with whom you work. Read it. Recommend it to your boss, your team, and your friends." -- Jan Wilmott, Director of Leadership Development at the Royal Bank of Canada

"This book provides a practical roadmap to learning the single most important skill that any leader can and should master. Conversational Capacity will change the way you lead and transform your relationships--at work and at home." -- Andy Restivo, President and CEO of Creative Channel Services, an Omnicom Group Company

"Conversational Capacity shows leadership teams how to think actively and adapt quickly. Better yet, the simplicity of the book enables the reader to apply the concepts and ideas in any leadership position." -- Mark Milliner, CEO of Personal Insurance at Suncorp

"Craig Weber has a gift for connecting what it means to build healthy relationships with the nuts and bolts of running an organization. In Conversational Capacity he brings a refreshing combination of practical tools, personal examples, and wisdom from having worked with hundreds of leaders over the years. If you are a leader or someone interested in getting better at what you do, Conversational Capacity is a must read." -- Rob McKenna, PhD, Executive Director of the Center for Leadership Research and Development and author of Dying to Lead

"Craig Weber challenges us to think differently about the way we talk to each other. Not since the seminal work of Chris Argyris have I read a book that so well documents the promise and the peril of dialogue. Readers will learn to develop conversational competence with team members and with leaders at all levels. You will learn to become more mindful in difficult situations, appreciate the power of curiosity, and develop ways to experiment, compare, reframe, and reengage with renewed commitment. We need this book, now more than ever. Once you read it, you will want to share it as soon as possible!" -- Frank J. Barrett, PhD, Professor of Management and Organizational Behavior, Global Public Policy, at the Graduate School of Business and Public Policy, Naval Postgraduate School and author of Yes to the Mess

"This book has transformed the way I lead, teach, and facilitate. Weber captures the essence of team effectiveness and provides a well-researched and tested model that supports the other building blocks of leadership." -- Dr. Tony Herrera, Direct of Partner Development at Schreiber Foods

"Required reading! Improving the conversational capacity of your team and organization is invaluable. These same skills are needed to address the broader issues we face as a society. Get this book! Share it with your colleagues, friends, and family." -- Chris Soderquist, President of Pontifex Consulting and author of The Strategic Forum

"Craig Weber's Conversational Capacity works. It works to build an internal culture that allows our organization to focus on the work at hand--without the drama, emotions, and egos that often get in the way of creating a high-functioning organization. It also works when building relationships with funders, stakeholders, and other clients, allowing our team to listen for commonalities and to find areas of true agreement." -- Michele Lueck, President and CEO of the Colorado Health Institute

"Those who aspire to use a conversational process to facilitate and deliver high-impact team results have come to the right place. Having worked with Craig Weber to design training programs for colleagues, I can personally attest to his brilliance in using narratives to capture our attention and emotional intelligence with evidence-based methods to build our conversational skills. With clarity, practicality, and case examples, this book will help you find the sweet spot in any conversation while ensuring a productive outcome." -- Dr. Kathleen Keil, Senior Manager of Learning and Development at Pfizer Animal Health

"Craig Weber's Conversational Capacity reduces organizational fear through a simple, effective technique that increases trust and maximizes creativity. It will help any organization realize new levels of confidence, creativity, and success. The tools within these pages may very well be the most important keys to both change and growth in the twenty-first century." -- Scott Eck, President of Leadership Masters

"We often see the need for collaboration but do not have the tools and skills required to make it happen. Using Craig Weber's techniques to build conversational capacity is exactly what we need in both our professional and personal lives." -- Karen Minyard, PhD, Director of the Georgia Health Policy Center at the Andrew Young School of Public Policy, Georgia State University

"The ideas in these pages are profound, life changing, and applicable to every area of life. My nonprofit team acquired a new set of skills that increased our capacity to tackle governance, interpersonal relationships, and the future in a dynamic and changing economy. Don't miss this opportunity to learn from a master the tools required to elevate awareness, skill, and discipline to achieve desired--and amazing--results." -- Jane Soderquist, Board Chair of the Upper Valley Waldorf School

About this title

About the Author

Craig Weber is an international consultant specializing in team and leadership development. His clients include Boeing, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, the Royal Bank of Canada, NASA, and the Centers for Disease Control.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

CONVERSATIONAL CAPACITY

The Secret to Building Successful Teams That Perform When the Pressure Is On

By CRAIG WEBER

The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Copyright © 2013 Craig Weber. Inc.
All rights reserved.

ISBN: 978-0-07-180712-8

Contents

Acknowledgments
Introduction: Standing on the Shoulders of Giants
Chapter 1: Conversational Capacity: The Missing Piece of the Puzzle
Chapter 2: Intentional Conflict: Why Good Intentions Are Never Enough
Chapter 3: Beyond Fight and Flight: A More Intentional Mindset
Chapter 4: Intentional Dialogue: Skills for Balancing Candor and 
Curiosity
Chapter 5: Cultivating Our Better Angels
Chapter 6: Conversational Capacity and the Value of Conflict
Chapter 7: Conversational Capacity and Adaptive Learning
Chapter 8: The Work of Building a Disciplined Team
Chapter 9: Conversational Capacity and the Challenge of Team Leadership
Conclusion: The Road Less Traveled
Notes
Index

Excerpt

CHAPTER 1

Conversational Capacity

THE MISSING PIECE OF THE PUZZLE

Management's business isbuilding organizations that work

JOAN MAGRETTA

In elementary school I had a friend named David. One sunny day at recess, David,an epileptic, fell to the ground in the grips of a violent seizure. By the timeI noticed what was happening, not only was David in physical distress, he wasalso surrounded by a group of students who were laughing at him, calling himnames, and making fun. It was an ugly scene.

Shocked, I raced over with the clearest of intentions—to help David getthrough the seizure without injuring himself and to defend him from those kidsgiving him grief. I knew what to do and I had every intention of doing it, butas I reached my friend, a disturbing thing happened: I froze in my tracks. Ididn't say a word. I didn't help my friend.

I didn't know it then, but I had fallen victim to a powerful dilemma that oftencauses our intentions and our behavior to part ways. On the one hand, my goalwas to help my friend, but on the other, it was to avoid being ridiculed andcriticized. I wanted to speak up and help, but I also wanted to remain safe andsecure. It's clear now that the latter intention was the more powerful of thetwo, and that there were two seizures on the playground that day—David'sepileptic seizure and my intentional seizure.

At the time I thought it was just me, that I suffered from some unrecognizeddisability with which most people are unencumbered. Or even worse, I worriedthat I was simply a coward, too afraid to take a stand for my friend when itcounted most. I've since learned that my painful episode on the playgroundreflects a nearly universal human experience. And, after years of academic studyand in-depth work with a wide variety of organizations, I realize my reactionthat day was a symptom of a problem affecting all manner of teams and workrelationships.

This problem is not just a minor trifle causing mere inconvenience orembarrassment on playgrounds. Its significance is evident in the experience ofColonel Mike Mullane, a weapons and navigational systems officer on a U.S. AirForce F-111 "Aardvark," a fighter-bomber. Early in his career he was on amission with a pilot with thousands of hours of experience flying this aircraft.When they reached "bingo fuel," the critical point at which there is just enoughfuel to return to base, Mullane saw no response from the pilot. Mullane's firstinstinct was to speak up, to point out that they needed to turn the aircraftaround and head home. At risk, after all, was not just their mission and theirplane, but also their lives.

But then, like me on the playground, he experienced an intentional conflict. Onthe one hand, a "little voice" in the back of his brain urged him to raise hisconcern; on the other hand, he didn't want to be labeled a troublemaker, anon–team player, or a "high-maintenance" flight operations officer. Evenworse, what if he had been misreading the situation and it was not actuallybingo fuel? He might've looked ignorant or incompetent. So despite the obviousdanger, Mullane covered up his concern and said nothing. The consequences weresevere. Running out of fuel on their way back to base, they ejected from the F-111. Rather than end their mission by landing on a runway as they intended, theyinstead found themselves swinging under the canopy of a parachute as theirmultimillion-dollar aircraft crashed into the ground.

Building Teams That Work

These experiences provide a clue to a major problem affecting teams, teammembers, and teamwork, a problem that is routinely overlooked, underappreciated,and, therefore, undermanaged. This lack of awareness costs us dearly. In ourworld of mounting complexity and rapid-fire change, there's a growing demand forteams that work well when the pressure is on. But while we're good at buildingteams that perform when facing routine problems, building teams that performwhen things get tough remains an elusive and frustrating goal.

It's not that we haven't been trying. We've been systematically studying how tobuild more effective and efficient organizations since the late nineteenthcentury when Frederick Taylor broke new ground with his time and motion studies,ushering in a new era of scientific management. But Taylor would barelyrecognize the world in which we're working today. Vastly more complex andinterconnected, our world moves in chaotic and unpredictable ways. A torrent ofchange—technological, economic, political, and environmental—roarsat us with increasing volume and velocity.

But, while it's more vital than ever to build teams that can thrive in thesedifficult circumstances, it's clear we're missing something important. Despitethe billions of dollars spent every year on strategy formulation, training,restructuring, personality assessments, off-sites, workshops, and all manner ofteam and organizational development, only 15 percent of mergers and acquisitiondeals succeed, and executives report a rapidly growing gap between the need forchange in their organizations and their ability to effectively orchestrate thatchange. Research shows that 9 out of 10 strategic initiatives fail to delivertheir intended results, and among executives who believe they have the rightstrategies in place, only a small fraction feel they are implementing themeffectively. As Lawrence Hrebiniak puts it, "making strategy work is moredifficult than strategy making."

Not only are our teams routinely ineffective, they're often inhumane. Researchshows that working and getting ahead in a wide range of teams and organizationsresults in "various disturbances—genuine emotional conflicts—thatrange from mild distress to feelings of self-betrayal, to stress and burnout, toacute psychiatric symptoms and irrationality." Teamwork, it turns out, can behazardous to our health.

Our efforts to build reliably effective teams yield such poor results becauseour focus is overly technical. While we espouse our allegiance to the human sideof the enterprise, our actions reveal different priorities. We're far morelikely to focus our attention and resources on strategy, structure, systems,policy, process, and procedure, delegating the "softer" people stuff to HR,training, or outside consultants. But this overly technical focus is a costlymistake. If we want to build reliably effective teams and working relationships,we need to manage the human side of the enterprise with the same level of rigorand discipline with which we manage the technical.

Conversational Capacity

If we want to build healthier, more capable teams we must pay far more attentionto a key piece of the puzzle on which every other aspect of teamwork depends. Irefer to it as conversational capacity. Put simply, conversational capacity isthe ability to have open, balanced, nondefensive dialogue about tough subjectsand in challenging circumstances. A team with high conversational capacity cankeep its performance on track, productively addressing even its most difficultand contentious issues. But when a team has low conversational capacity, even apetty disagreement can throw team members off balance and derail theirperformance.

I use the term balance to describe a team with high conversational capacitybecause it provides a useful way to think about the concept. There is a "sweetspot" in any meeting or conversation where the dialogue is open, balanced, andnondefensive. Good work gets done here. While it's easy to remain balanced whentalking about routine and comfortable issues, when a difficult subject hits thetable, our tendency is to move out of the sweet spot toward the extreme ends ofthe behavioral spectrum. Some people shut down. Others heat up.

We can define conversational capacity, therefore, as the ability to work in thesweet spot in difficult circumstances that would send most people and teamsflying out of it. A team with high conversational capacity can stay focused onlearning, and do good work, even in difficult situations, because team membersdon't allow their emotional reactions to pull them off center.

We know we're communicating in an open, balanced, nondefensive way when there isbalance between candor and curiosity. We don't mind sharing our ideas andperspectives, and we're equally interested in exploring the ideas andperspectives of others. When we're talking about easy subjects, such as how wespent our weekend or a movie we recently watched, it's easy to maintain thisbalance. But when there's a conflict, a hard decision, a personality clash, or adifference of opinion, it's easy to lose balance by letting go of one attributeor the other.

If we let our candor drop, for instance, our behavior becomes morecautious—we shut down, cover up our views, water down our concerns, changethe subject, or feign agreement. On the other side of the spectrum, when we letgo of curiosity, our behavior grows more arrogant and aggressive—we heatup, argue our point, stop listening, and push our perspective at the expense ofothers. So when I say a team has high conversational capacity, I'm saying it hasthe discipline to balance candor and curiosity in challenging circumstances thatthrow less disciplined teams off center.

Where's the Line?

To make this more personal, think about your team. Imagine, for a minute, youand your colleagues have created a prioritized list of the toughest issuesyou're currently facing—the most unwelcome issue at the top and the leastunwelcome at the bottom. Whether you realize it or not, somewhere in that listis a line. It represents the conversational capacity of your team.

Below the line, where the capacity is sufficient, you can remain balanced and dogood work. That doesn't mean there isn't conflict or tension. It means thatdespite it, you're able to explore the issues, make informed decisions, andimplement them. Because you're able to maintain balance between candor andcuriosity, your conversations and meetings are productive. Your team's ROC, orreturn on conversation, is high.

When your team tries to address an issue above the line, where itsconversational capacity is inadequate, teamwork starts to break down. How couldit not? If you try to engage a problem for which you lack the capacity forbalanced dialogue, you're in trouble as soon as you start talking. Unable tocommunicate in the sweet spot, your ROC nosedives in the very circumstances inwhich you need it to go up.

The tougher the challenge we're up against, the higher the conversationalcapacity needed to deal with it. So, just as we rate a truck's capacity forcarrying a load, we should also pay attention to a team's capacity for dealingwith its challenges. If its conversational capacity is too weak given the issuesit needs to address, it is, by definition, dysfunctional. The wider the gapbetween the problems it's facing and its capacity for dealing with them, thegreater their incompetence.

Teams and their leaders, therefore, should consider a few vital questions:Where's the "line" in our list of challenges? Is it high enough? And how can weeven tell? What are the warning signs when our capacity for balanced dialogue islow?

Two Basic Symptoms

When conversational capacity is lacking, there are two telltale symptoms:undiscussable issues and unproductively discussable issues. Almost every teamhas undiscussable issues everyone knows to avoid. They're openly discussed inthe hallway or with a like-minded colleague over lunch, but never in a meeting.They're off limits. They're taboo.

But sometimes the problem isn't that an issue is undiscussable, it's that it'sunproductively discussable. While the issue is raised, the ensuing discussionproduces little more than closed-minded arguments, positional posturing, andinterpersonal conflict. Because such conversations produce more heat than light,the problem isn't solved, an effective decision isn't reached, and littleprogress is made. This means the issue is raised again in a subsequent meeting,or it merely changes status, becoming the newest item on the team's list ofundiscussables—another taboo subject everyone knows to avoid.

Nothing Else Compensates for Low Conversational Capacity

These symptoms—undiscussable and unproductively discussableissues—provide a clear signal that the conversational capacity of a teamis inadequate. They're important signals to recognize because, as we're about tosee, no amount of technical sophistication or good intentions will compensatefor a team's inability to balance candor and curiosity under pressure. Even if ateam is staffed with skilled people who trust, like, and respect one another,and even if they have all the technical pieces in perfect place—strategy,structure, processes, and policies—the team still won't perform if itsconversational capacity is too low.

This is a bold claim, so let me provide a few examples to illustrate the point.As you read them, see if you recognize anything that relates to your pastexperience, or even to something you're in the middle of right now.

Proper Structure Is Never Enough

The research of Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, an expert on corporate governance and adistinguished professor at the Yale School of Management, shows that mostspectacular board failings, including Enron, Tyco, and WorldCom, were not causedby the lack of structure, process, or policy. In fact, these boards hadconformed to "most of the accepted standards for board operations," saysSonnenfeld. "Members showed up for meetings; they had lots of personal moneyinvested in the company; audit committees, compensation committees, and code ofethics were in place; the boards weren't too small, too big, too old or tooyoung," he points out. "In other words, they passed the tests that wouldnormally be applied to ascertain whether a board of directors was likely to do agood job." Despite having all these technical aspects in place, however, manyboards still fail miserably.

Now, to be fair, it's not an easy role to perform. Among other things, a boarddefines a high-level mission and purpose; hires a CEO and holds her accountablefor performance; maintains fiscal accountability; questions and approvesbudgets; and governs the organization through high-level policies, guidelines,and objectives.

In order to perform this role well, productive conflict and a willingness todisagree, publicly and rigorously, need to be an integral part of a board'soperating culture. "Bonds among board members," says Sonnenfeld, need to be"strong enough to withstand clashing viewpoints and challenging questions." Thelevels of trust, respect, and candor should be high. The list of undiscussablesshould be low.

But, in an alarming number of boards he's studied, Sonnenfeld finds just theopposite; a range of defensive dynamics driven by board members' inability todeal with the tough issues they're facing. Some boards go tribal, breaking into"divisive, seemingly intractable cliques." In a clear sign that candor islacking, some board members use back channels and hallway conversations tobypass the CEO, while others obsessively avoid conflict by steering clear ofcontentious subjects, feigning agreement, and deferring decisions to other boardmembers. "I'm always amazed at how common group-think is in corporateboardrooms," says Sonnenfeld. "Directors are almost without exceptionintelligent, accomplished, and comfortable with power—but if you put theminto a group that discourages dissent, they nearly always start to conform."

The solution is not technical. "Over time, good-governance advocates havedeveloped no shortage of remedies for failures of governance," he says, but"most of these remedies are structural: They're concerned with rules,procedures, composition of committees, and the like, and together they'resupposed to produce vigilant, involved boards. However, good and bad companiesalike have already adopted most of those practices." So, if getting thetechnical aspects of a board in place isn't the answer, what is? "We need toconsider not only how we structure the work of a board," argues Sonnenfeld, "butalso how we manage the social system a board actually is." When it comes toeffective board governance, improving how members communicate and interact isthe decisive variable. "The key isn't structural," says Sonnenfeld, "it'ssocial."

Good Relationships Are Never Enough

Relationships based on trust, loyalty, and respect—the holy grail of mostteam building endeavors—are no guarantee of high conversational capacity,and, perhaps more surprisingly, they can actually harm it. In fact, if theircapacity is high, a team can work effectively in the sweet spot even if itsmembers don't like one another personally. A team with weak capacity, on theother hand, will often fly out of the sweet spot under stress even when itsmembers like, trust, and respect one another.

An executive team at a high-tech firm in Silicon Valley learned this lesson thehard way. Growing rapidly and gearing up for a highprofile initial publicoffering, the executive team needed open, balanced, nondefensive conversationsto manage the onslaught of change besetting the business. The team members knewthat their casual, "solve problems in the hallway" culture wouldn't scale, andthey openly acknowledged the need to build a more mature, sophisticatedenterprise.

Their lack of conversational capacity, however, made the transition difficult.The main problem: the place was just too nice. Warm, close relationships hadbeen established in the early years of the firm, and the organization's laid-back, friendly culture made disagreement and conflict unwelcome.

In a series of interviews I conducted for their new CEO, every executive ravedabout how well the team members got along. They all genuinely liked each other.Trust was high. In addition to being nice people, they each brought animpressive depth of knowledge and experience to the team, so the personal andprofessional respect they had for one another was abundant. The vice presidentof human resources described the team's "collegial atmosphere." The plain-speaking vice president of marketing summed it up less formally: "The thing Ilike most about this team," he said, "is that there isn't a single asshole onit."

(Continues...)

Excerpted from CONVERSATIONAL CAPACITY by CRAIG WEBER. Copyright © 2013 by Craig Weber. Inc.. Excerpted by permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc..
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Edition details

• Publisher: McGraw-Hill Education
• Publication date: 2013
• Language: English
• ISBN 10: 0071807128
• ISBN 13: 9780071807128
• Binding: Paperback
• Number of pages: 240