Nice piece, Andrea. Several of the problematic behaviors you describe actually mimic how we're taught to present upward to a board or VP. Lead with the conclusion, summarize, steer the discussion, and get to the recommendation. That makes me wonder how much power and direction matter. Going upward, we often deliberately compress and constrain information, but when a boss is trying to understand what is happening below them, those same behaviors can restrict the information they need coming back up. Maybe the question isn't simply whether these behaviors are good or bad, but which direction the information needs to flow and how the power relationship affects it?
That’s a fantastic observation, Andrew! I have definitely seen what you describe, and the direction of the conversation does make a huge difference. Compressing and streamlining when communicating at the same level of upwards works because there’s enough shared context and understanding. Communicating downwards doesn’t benefit from the same so it just makes sense that the same techniques and instincts often fail 👌🏼
Such fantastic tips on how to be a true conversation partner, especially when the power dynamics are uneven.
My go-to’s are, “Check me on this,” and “That is a good point.”
I notice that when I forget to confirm that their point came through to me, people think I’m countering their point when I contribute to the conversation.
That’s a good point. 🤣 But jokes aside I completely agree. The other day I was having a rant with a colleague about the state of our business intelligence data and made it a point to say: this is not at all about the work you have done, I am only talking about how we as a company keep our data. It’s so easy for our intentions to be misread!
The earliest observable signal isn't in the conversation itself, it's in the next one: someone who used to contribute stops trying. In tightly timed project reviews, premature summarising gets rewarded as efficiency, so the agenda can institutionalise talking at people before anyone names it. Tracking whose voice disappears probably tells you more than another round of self-assessment.
I've volunteered as a crisis counselor on non-profit hotlines, and these recommendations are very much in line with how I've been trained to approach those calls. I think trauma-informed training could be very beneficial in corporate environments.
That’s such a good insight! I keep finding that completely different sectors have a lot more in common than they like to think. As in everyone has their own 100% tailored best practice, but the reality remains that we’re all humans dealing with other humans.
This advice made me question the 'advantage' of hierarchies in this age of change. It's likely there is no 'one' answer and even the strategy may have aged-out? Perhaps a participatory learning network would better assess and respond to changing aspects of business with collective decision making as part of a resilience plan? This may also suggest a new role for a Board?
Yes I do think that we need to rethink decision marking at least to an extent. The fact we can’t seem to build serious governance for AI is a good example of that. Tech bros are the wrong people to make those decisions, and our other decisions making mechanisms that we have are not helping…!
Nice piece, Andrea. Several of the problematic behaviors you describe actually mimic how we're taught to present upward to a board or VP. Lead with the conclusion, summarize, steer the discussion, and get to the recommendation. That makes me wonder how much power and direction matter. Going upward, we often deliberately compress and constrain information, but when a boss is trying to understand what is happening below them, those same behaviors can restrict the information they need coming back up. Maybe the question isn't simply whether these behaviors are good or bad, but which direction the information needs to flow and how the power relationship affects it?
That’s a fantastic observation, Andrew! I have definitely seen what you describe, and the direction of the conversation does make a huge difference. Compressing and streamlining when communicating at the same level of upwards works because there’s enough shared context and understanding. Communicating downwards doesn’t benefit from the same so it just makes sense that the same techniques and instincts often fail 👌🏼
Such fantastic tips on how to be a true conversation partner, especially when the power dynamics are uneven.
My go-to’s are, “Check me on this,” and “That is a good point.”
I notice that when I forget to confirm that their point came through to me, people think I’m countering their point when I contribute to the conversation.
That’s a good point. 🤣 But jokes aside I completely agree. The other day I was having a rant with a colleague about the state of our business intelligence data and made it a point to say: this is not at all about the work you have done, I am only talking about how we as a company keep our data. It’s so easy for our intentions to be misread!
Yes! That is a great point, Andrea. 😂
The Strategic Linguist will appreciate the “framing” you did with your colleague!
The earliest observable signal isn't in the conversation itself, it's in the next one: someone who used to contribute stops trying. In tightly timed project reviews, premature summarising gets rewarded as efficiency, so the agenda can institutionalise talking at people before anyone names it. Tracking whose voice disappears probably tells you more than another round of self-assessment.
Absolutely - and it’s so easy to check who’s silent, so there’s no excuse for not doing it.
I've volunteered as a crisis counselor on non-profit hotlines, and these recommendations are very much in line with how I've been trained to approach those calls. I think trauma-informed training could be very beneficial in corporate environments.
That’s such a good insight! I keep finding that completely different sectors have a lot more in common than they like to think. As in everyone has their own 100% tailored best practice, but the reality remains that we’re all humans dealing with other humans.
This advice made me question the 'advantage' of hierarchies in this age of change. It's likely there is no 'one' answer and even the strategy may have aged-out? Perhaps a participatory learning network would better assess and respond to changing aspects of business with collective decision making as part of a resilience plan? This may also suggest a new role for a Board?
Yes I do think that we need to rethink decision marking at least to an extent. The fact we can’t seem to build serious governance for AI is a good example of that. Tech bros are the wrong people to make those decisions, and our other decisions making mechanisms that we have are not helping…!
Totally agree!