COMMITTED COMMUNICATION: THE ART OF GETTING THINGS DONE THROUGH OTHERS

Have you ever wondered what you can do to get more done? To get your people to accept a commitment, follow through, complete their projects, and make decisions with the good of the team in mind? If so, Jim's story may sound familiar.

Jim's People Had Him Wondering

Some of Jim's people made him wonder what a manager had to do to get results. From the external evidence, you wouldn't think of Jim as having any doubts about his job or his ability to do it. At thirty-one he was already directing the development of software products that brought in 73 percent of the company's annual sales. He was bright and energetic, possessed both technical and people skills, and liked his work. Yet, like many managers, he often found himself frustrated by a seeming inability to draw out the best from his co-workers and direct reports.

One of Jim's managers, Phil, was assigned to produce the next release of the company's popular software product. The job required a great deal of organizational support, and much depended on Phil's getting the job done and doing it on time. Market share, reputation, and corporate profit were all riding on the outcome of Phil's project management skills and his ability to get what he needed from the organization. Jim's problem was that the results just weren't coming in. And no amount of pushing, persuading, or manipulating on Jim's part had much effect. Both the project and Phil were stuck.

Another of Jim's project leaders, Hank, repeatedly got into trouble with his immediate boss and seemed unable to do anything that satisfied his department head. The result was frustration on all sides. Tension abounded throughout the department, and collaboration for this group seemed an unattainable goal.

Faced with these problems, Jim spent much too much time trying to mediate disputes, soothe feelings, and calm tempers. Still, nothing he did seemed to have any long-term effect. Disputes continued to arise, and taking a "hands-off" approach by asking the disputants to find a solution only seemed to intensify the problem and draw others into the emotion-filled atmosphere.

Committed Communication to the Rescue

Realizing the need to increase his people's productivity and, at the same time, fully aware that the situations with Phil and Hank stood in his way, Jim began searching for something&emdash;anything&emdash;that promised relief. When he learned about a system called Committed Communication, he recognized it at once as both a roadmap and the method he needed to resolve situations and increase productivity.

Jim made sure he received training in how to apply Committed Communication. Then he set about using his new tools with his managers. As part of the process, he gradually passed on to them what he had learned about gaining results through conversations.

Because Jim had always had a problem getting Phil to do things, Phil seemed a good first candidate with whom to test the communication tools. "After my brief training in Committed Communication," Jim said, "I was able to structure my communication to Phil in such a way that our talk focused on matters such as the commitments he was willing to make. As a result, his lack of commitment became apparent even to him." In this case, once Phil recognized that he lacked a commitment to his job and his company, he chose to resign. Although this was not Jim's intention, it did solve one of Jim's problems&emdash;and perhaps Phil's as well.

Jim now admits that before he learned how to apply Committed Communication, he waited months to ask Phil for specific commitments. "One of the results of this work is that I find it much easier to get people to commit themselves to specific results, complete with delivery dates. I've also been able to identify the points at which communication breaks down. This allows me to jump in quickly to get production back in action."

Hank's Breakdowns Shed Some Light

Identifying breakdowns was a critical factor in the way Jim handled his other manager, Hank. Hank was supposed to work with a committee of people to choose a computer system for the company. Hank's immediate boss was pushing for an answer and was unconcerned with the process Hank was attempting to set up to arrive at the decision. Hank needed support, but he had no idea how to ask for it or even what to ask for. Jim explained, "As we talked about what was going wrong, Hank realized he didn't have a structure for his communications to either the committee or his boss."

As a result of this interaction with Hank, Jim was able to grasp Hank's problems and guide the project back on track. Hank and his committee, as well as his boss, were satisfied with subsequent progress in selecting the computer system. By identifying and communicating what he needed in order to proceed, Hank was able to move ahead with the project and make meaningful recommendations that led to solid decisions.

For his part, Hank said later that his understanding of Committed Communication gave him the tools to listen better&emdash;to listen for commitments or the lack of them, rather than for arguments or emotions. "This work is about a fundamental and far-reaching shift in the way we look at communication in our organizations," he wrote in a follow-up report. "People have a strongly held misconception that communication is about talking. I began to see in this work that if we want to compete, we must recognize an essential power&emdash;the power to create through language. Now I see that the root of communication is intention. We normally speak about information and data, about things people said, about words, statements, and documents as things that represent intentions. In other words, we speak of people saying things and then taking responsibility for the results, but not of people taking responsibility by the act of speaking. In this work I began to see that language is a tool for commitment. The Committed Communication model makes it simple."

In our next letter we will share more about the Committed Communication process with you.