just talk about your business

A tiny but pivotal moment in IBM's legendary turnaround reveals a better approach. Lou Gerstner was new to his post as CEO and had invited Nick Donofrio, one of his executive leaders, to speak at a state-of-the-company meeting. Gerstner recalls, "At that time, the standard format of any important IBM meeting was a presentation using overhead projectors and graphics on transparencies that IBMers called - and no one remembers why - 'foils.' Nick was on his second foil when I stepped to the table and, as politely as I could in front of his team, switched off the projector. After a long moment of awkward silence, I simply said, 'Let's just talk about your business.'"

That's what the goal for most presentations is supposed to be: to "just talk about your business." So the next time you have to write a report, give a presentation, or make a sales pitch, resist the temptation to add unnecessary extras. They aren't just a distraction for you; they're also a distraction for your audience. That's why, when I do presentations, I use six slides, with fewer than ten words total. 

There is rarely a need to go that second mile beyond what's essential. It's better to go just the first mile than to not go anywhere at all.

Greg McKeown

Effortless: Make it Easier to do what Matters Most. Random House. 2021. p. 120, 121

get inside their minds

Practice really hearing what people say. Do your best to get inside their minds.

Marcus Aurelius

Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. Modern Library. 2003. P.81, Book 6, #53 Also see The Internet Classics Archive | The Meditations by Marcus Aurelius (mit.edu)

expanded self-awareness

Expanded self-awareness... is one of the most important outcomes of any feedback process. People with little self-awareness are often puzzled by the behavior of others toward them. They might wonder, “Why do people not include me in their casual conversations?” “Why do I end up in heated arguments?” “Why was I not chosen to lead this project? I know more than the person they selected.” When a 360-assessment is carried out as described above, the leader is able to compare their self-ratings to the ratings from others. Having ratings from multiple people (we recommend at least a dozen) provides greater evidence that this is much more than just one person’s opinion. Combined with accountability, this evidence serves as a strong impetus to change.

Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman

"What Makes a 360-Degree Review Successful?" Harvard Business Review. December 23, 2020

suspend your assumption

 

Test your assumption that the meeting is getting derailed. If the team has agreed on the topic to discuss and you still think that someone is off-track, say something like, “Lee, I’m not seeing how your point about outsourcing is related to the topic of our planning process. Help me understand, how are they related?” When Lee responds, you and other team members might learn about a connection between the two topics that you hadn’t considered. For example, Lee might say that outsourcing will free up internal resources so that the team can complete the planning process in less time. If there is a connection, the team can decide whether it makes more sense to explore Lee’s idea now or later. If it turns out that Lee’s comment isn’t related but is still relevant for the team, you can suggest placing it on a future agenda. One caveat: there are times when it is critical to address team members’ issues immediately, even if they are off-track. If team members raise highly emotional issues about how the team is working together, it is important to acknowledge the issue’s importance and then decide whether it is more important to address than the current agenda topic. Sometimes focusing on how the team works together is more critical than focusing on the team’s substantive topics.

This isn’t simply a polite way of dealing with people who are off-track. It’s a way to suspend your assumption that you understand the situation and others don’t, to be curious about others’ views, and to ask people to be accountable for their own contributions so that the team can make an informed choice about how best to move forward. For this approach to work you can’t just say the words; you have to believe that Lee might be on-track and that you don’t see the connection.

Roger Schwarz

“Dealing with Team Members Who Derail Meetings,” Harvard Business Review. September 20, 2013 as quoted in HBR Guide to Making Every Meeting Matter. Harvard Business Review Press. 2016.

a time suck

Dave, a senior VP at a large U.S. bank, was a strong one-on-one manager. However, 360-degree feedback revealed that he struggled in one critical area: leading effective meetings. Multiple employees described his meetings as “a time suck.” They complained that he asked them to meet too often, allowed a few people to dominate conversations, and failed to create an environment where attendees really wrestled with ideas and engaged in critical thinking. These comments took Dave by complete surprise. He’d thought he was doing a good job with meetings—better than most of his peers, anyway.

Dave is not the first manager to overestimate his abilities in this area. Research suggests that of the 23 hours that executives spend in meetings each week, on average, eight are unproductive. Some 90% of people report daydreaming in meetings, and 73% admit that they use meeting time to do other work. And yet research by myself and others shows that leaders consistently rate their own meetings very favorably—and much more positively than attendees do. For instance, a telephone survey of more than 1,300 managers found that while 79% of them said that meetings they initiated were extremely or very productive, only 56% said the same about meetings initiated by others—clear evidence of an “I’m not the problem” attitude. Additional research provides insight into why: In a study with Jiajin Tong of Peking University, I found that the attendees who are the most active are the ones who feel that meetings are the most effective and satisfying. And who typically talks the most? The leader.

Steven G. Rogelberg

“Why Your Meetings Stink—and What to Do About It,” Harvard Business Review. January-February 2019)

renaming meetings

Organizations are drowning in unproductive meetings, and part of the problem is the fact that we refer to them all in the same way. Vague and imprecise language obscures the true purpose of these gatherings, making it difficult to know how to optimize for their success. It also makes it harder to distinguish the worthwhile ones from the worthless.

In order to have fewer, more purposeful meetings, we need a more robust vocabulary to describe them. So let’s do some renaming, starting with three common “meetings” that you’ll soon realize aren’t really meetings at all.

• Meetings with just two people aren’t meetings. They’re conversations... 
• …sometimes people... huddle around a laptop or whiteboard to generate real work product together. Let’s call these group work sessions...
• ...meetings where the primary goal is to generate ideas… call it a brainstorm... 

Now let’s address a few types of meetings that are difficult to justify if you name them correctly.

• [Meetings] called primarily because managers have information to disseminate... These are convenience meetings  and almost always a bad idea. They’re typically convenient for the individual, and inconvenient for everyone else.
• Meetings called as a matter of tradition or habit — formality meetings — must also be banned... 
• Some meetings are called under the guise of collaboration or alignment, but it’s really connection we’re after. We can call these social meetings. 

Finally, we come to the decision-making meeting, a total misnomer as is it implies that the meeting itself is making the decision. But meetings don’t make decisions, leaders do. Group discussions can help support that process, of course, so let’s call them decision-supporting meetings to remind the leader that it’s her job, and hers alone, to make sure action follows...

Imagine a culture where people regularly talk about meetings using this kind of precise language. Picture someone pushing back on a meeting invitation by calling it a formality meeting... Better language isn’t the only step you must take to transform your meeting culture, but it’s a powerful start.

Al Pittampalli

“Stop Calling Every Conversation a “Meeting”,” Harvard Business Review. November 3, 2015 as quoted in HBR Guide to Making Every Meeting Matter. Harvard Business Review Press. 2016.

active and visible sponsorship

Too often executive sponsors engage early in projects and then move on to other business priorities. The role of sponsorship, however, is just as critical during implementation as it was during the launch of a project. Senior managers must be willing to interact on a personal level and be visible throughout the entire change process. 

A senior manager for a government agency scheduled a face-to-face meeting with her managers and supervisors to review a new organization structure and strategy for the upcoming year. Some members of the leadership team were surprised that the supervisors and managers in attendance were criticizing the new direction. Despite complete and concise communications sent out months before the meeting, resistance to change was evident among many managers. When it became clear that forward progress was stalled, the senior executive changed the agenda. She requested that the group split up and document their specific objections in breakout sessions. Later she candidly addressed each objection, head-on and face-to-face. The discussions were not rushed nor were any questions out of bounds. She actively and visibly engaged in sponsoring the change. She was present to address the hard questions. The leadership team was surprised to find that by the end of the second day, much of the conversation had shifted from "This is why we should not do this change" to "What do I need to do to get my group on board?" In this example, the senior executive demonstrated active and visible sponsorship of the change. 

Jeffrey M. Hiatt

ADKAR: A Model for Change in Business, Government and our Community. 2006. Prosci Research. p.81

the most disagreeable condition in the world

While we were at supper some of the boys went over to the agent's office and told of our arrival. They came back and said that the agent and clerk declared they intended to kill me on sight. 

I do not wish to be considered a boaster, in truth I leave many things untold that I might tell, only I despise a braggart and do not wish to appear as one. I was too hungry to let this report stop my eating. When I got through, I picked up my shot gun, putting a few extra navy balls into it and told the boys I was going over to the office. Some of them wanted to go with me, but I preferred going alone. 

Men often get the name of being brave and fearless from such occurrences, but in this case I will tell just how I felt and what my reasons were, and I think many others feel the same under similar circumstances. 

I consider suspense or uncertainty the most disagreeable condition in the world. I do not wish to be annoyed by fear or dread of being killed and I deemed it best to get that off my mind at once, as I was tired and wished to rest. Again, I wanted freedom to be at the agency unmolested. Then I did not much believe that the intention was to kill me, for men who really intend to kill scarcely ever send word of their intentions. All this passed in my mind, so it was not any great bravery on my part. 

On reaching the office I knocked, and was told to come in. I had my shot gun ready. Their pistols lay in front of them. I was asked what I wanted. I replied that I wanted to know whether it was to be war or peace. 

The agent answered, "I guess it had better be peace." 

"Peace it is then," I put my gun down and shook hands with both. 

I was kindly treated and accommodated in many ways by the agent, after this, while at the agency I got a team from him to bring in the sled and goods. 

Daniel W. Jones

Forty Years Among the Indians: A True Yet Thrilling Narrative of the Author's Experiences Among the Natives. By Daniel W. Jones. Juvenile Instructor, Salt Lake City, UT. 1890. Chapter XXVIII

go slow to go fast

Leaders should borrow an important concept from the project management world: Go slow to go fast. There is often a rush to dive in at the beginning of a project, to start getting things done quickly and to feel a sense of accomplishment. This desire backfires when stakeholders are overlooked, plans are not validated, and critical conversations are ignored. Instead, project managers are advised to go slow — to do the work needed up front to develop momentum and gain speed later in the project.

The same idea helps reframe notions about how to lead organizational change successfully. Instead of doing the conceptual work quickly and alone, leaders must slow down the initial planning stages, resist the temptation and endorphin rush of being a “heroic” leader solving the problem, and engage people in frank conversations about the trade-offs involved in change. This does not have to take long — even just a few days or weeks. The key is to build the capacity to think together and to get underlying assumptions out in the open.

Maya Townsend and Elizabeth Doty

"The road to successful change is lined with trade-offs," strategy+business. November 2, 2020.

crucial conversations

The ability to engage in crucial conversations, absent from the pervasive authoritarian leadership style of the past, is now recognized as an essential leadership skill. Because emotionally charged conversations can get messy, some leaders still prefer to avoid them, which creates a gap in leadership and can significantly impact employee morale, retention, and the company’s bottom line.

Jody Michael, Jody Michael Associates 

"13 Leadership Skills You Didn't Need A Decade Ago That Are Now Essential." Forbes. December 13, 2016

well-placed pauses

Research suggests that most conversational speech consists of short (0.20 seconds), medium (0.60 seconds), and long (over 1 second) pauses. Great public speakers often pause for two to three seconds or even longer. Our phonetic data shows that the average speaker only uses 3.5 pauses per minute, and that’s not enough.

This is understandable. Pauses aren’t easy to embrace. For many speakers, even the briefest pause can feel like an interminable silence. That’s because we tend to think faster than we speak. According to our research, the average professional speaks at a rate of 150 words per minute. Yet, according to research from Missouri University, we think at 400 words per minute (and depending on who you ask, the rate may be as high as 1,500 words per minute).

Because of this discrepancy, when you’re giving a speech, your perception of time is often distorted, and what feels like an eternity in your mind is actually a few short seconds for the audience.

Despite how they may feel at first, well-placed pauses make you sound calm and collected... Strategically placed silence can build suspense, emphasize a point, or give the audience time to absorb a key insight.

Noah Zandan

How to Stop Saying “Um,” “Ah,” and “You Know” Harvard Business Review. Aug. 1, 2018

life's too short for PowerPoint

Inspiring people is my job. I recognize I need to do this on multiple levels all the time. On an individual level, I try to enter most conversations thinking: How do I leave this person inspired to do amazing things — to believe in themselves and the work they are doing. I don’t always get it right, but I try. I believe being authentic is key, too. People want to feel a sense of belonging, safety and shared purpose. To really unlock that, you need to allow them to see the real you.

I also need to communicate, communicate, communicate. In theory, you could do everything on video these days. But I don’t think inspiration works that way. So when I travel to a market, I try to connect with as many people as possible through town halls and “working the work.” I don’t come to judge what people are doing. I roll up my sleeves and help them solve their biggest problems. Life’s too short for PowerPoint presentations — there are real problems to solve!

Syl Saller

"'Life's Too Short For PowerPoint': CMO Leadership Talk With Diageo's Syl Saller" by Thomas Barta.  Forbes.  Feb. 24, 2017.

a leadership role may not be right for you

If you can’t find a few extra hours to mentor and develop your direct reports, a leadership role may not be right for you. Time spent in team meetings is not the same. One-on-one meetings are a significant way for leaders to demonstrate they care. These interactions deepen relationships, build partnerships, and create loyalty.

When a servant leader takes the time to connect with a direct report, it lets that person know their work is important and they are a valued member of the team. One-on-one conversations are the foundation for strong, productive relationships that align people with each other and with the organization in a satisfying, meaningful way.

Ken Blanchard

"The Best Leaders Serve Their People One at a Time". Berrett-Koehler Publishers.  February 13, 2018. 

talk to your people

Hearing the phrase “you need to talk to your people” can invoke a feeling of dread in any manager. But when managers have frequent one-on-one conversations with their direct reports, it improves not only leadership skills but also job satisfaction. Our company’s research shows that employees want to have more time with their leaders. One survey found gaps of 10 to 16 percent between how often people want to meet with their managers and how often they actually meet.

Several years ago when my wife, Margie, was working with a fast food chain, she found out its turnover rate was much lower than average. She asked a manager what he did to keep the rate so low. The manager said he made sure to take at least ten minutes every week to talk to each employee. These conversations weren’t necessarily about job performance; they were simply an opportunity for the manager to check in with each person to see how things were going in their life.

After learning this, Margie talked to the staff and asked why they stayed. They all mentioned their manager and said they liked working for someone who cared about them. A few individuals said they knew they could go to another place and make a few more cents an hour, but they wanted to continue working for this manager. He made time for them, which in turn made them feel like a respected part of the team.

Margie was so enthusiastic about this concept that she shared it with our leadership team and went on to develop a process for one-on-one meetings. This process requires managers to meet with each of their direct reports for 15 to 30 minutes at least every two weeks. These meetings are not for discussing performance—they are meant to enhance the relationship between manager and employee.

The leader schedules the meeting but the employee sets the agenda. It’s a chance for the direct report to talk about their goals, share personal information, learn more about the company, or ask for help to solve a problem. These kinds of conversations allow managers and employees to get to know each other as human beings. When people are not just allowed but encouraged to talk with their managers about their everyday lives, relationships flourish because a new level of trust is created. And trusted working relationships improve performance on all sides.

Ken Blanchard

"The Best Leaders Serve Their People One at a Time". Berrett-Koehler Publishers.  February 13, 2018. 

the hallmarks of great listening

We hope all will see that the highest and best form of listening comes in playing the same role for the other person that a trampoline plays for a child. It gives energy, acceleration, height and amplification. These are the hallmarks of great listening.

Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman

"What Great Listeners Actually Do". Harvard Business Review. July 14, 2016.

levels of listening

There are different levels of listening. Not every conversation requires the highest levels of listening, but many conversations would benefit from greater focus and listening skill. Consider which level of listening you’d like to aim for:

Level 1: The listener creates a safe environment in which difficult, complex, or emotional issues can be discussed.

Level 2: The listener clears away distractions like phones and laptops, focusing attention on the other person and making appropriate eye-contact.  (This  behavior not only affects how you are perceived as the listener; it immediately influences the listener’s own attitudes and inner feelings.  Acting the part changes how you feel inside. This in turn makes you a better listener.)

Level 3: The listener seeks to understand the substance of what the other person is saying.  They capture ideas, ask questions, and restate issues to confirm that their understanding is correct.

Level 4: The listener observes non-verbal cues, such as facial expressions, perspiration, respiration rates, gestures, posture, and numerous other subtle body language signals.  It is estimated that 80% of what we communicate comes from these signals. It sounds strange to some, but you listen with your eyes as well as your ears.

Level 5: The listener increasingly understands the other person’s emotions and feelings about the topic at hand, and identifies and acknowledges them. The listener empathizes with and validates those feelings in a supportive, nonjudgmental way.

Level 6: The listener asks questions that clarify assumptions the other person holds and helps the other person to see the issue in a new light.  This could include the listener injecting some thoughts and ideas about the topic that could be useful to the other person.  However, good listeners never highjack the conversation so that they or their issues become the subject of the discussion.

Each of the levels builds on the others; thus, if you’ve been criticized (for example) for offering solutions rather than listening, it may mean you need to attend to some of the other levels (such as clearing away distractions or empathizing) before your proffered suggestions can be appreciated.

Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman

"What Great Listeners Actually Do". Harvard Business Review. July 14, 2016.

make suggestions

Good listeners tended to make suggestions. Good listening invariably included some feedback provided in a way others would accept and that opened up alternative paths to consider. This finding somewhat surprised us, since it’s not uncommon to hear complaints that “So-and-so didn’t listen, he just jumped in and tried to solve the problem.” Perhaps what the data is telling us is that making suggestions is not itself the problem; it may be the skill with which those suggestions are made. Another possibility is that we’re more likely to accept suggestions from people we already think are good listeners. (Someone who is silent for the whole conversation and then jumps in with a suggestion may not be seen as credible. Someone who seems combative or critical and then tries to give advice may not be seen as trustworthy.)

Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman

"What Great Listeners Actually Do". Harvard Business Review. July 14, 2016.

a cooperative conversation.

Good listening was seen as a cooperative conversation. In these interactions, feedback flowed smoothly in both directions with neither party becoming defensive about comments the other made. By contrast, poor listeners were seen as competitive — as listening only to identify errors in reasoning or logic, using their silence as a chance to prepare their next response. That might make you an excellent debater, but it doesn’t make you a good listener. Good listeners may challenge assumptions and disagree, but the person being listened to feels the listener is trying to help, not wanting to win an argument.

Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman

"What Great Listeners Actually Do". Harvard Business Review. July 14, 2016.

feel supported

Good listening included interactions that build a person’s self-esteem. The best listeners made the conversation a positive experience for the other party, which doesn’t happen when the listener is passive (or, for that matter, critical!). Good listeners made the other person feel supported and conveyed confidence in them. Good listening was characterized by the creation of a safe environment in which issues and differences could be discussed openly.

Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman

"What Great Listeners Actually Do". Harvard Business Review. July 14, 2016.

let you talk about it

Quora user Rajesh Setty says it's important to allow your conversation partner to reveal what interests them.

"You will be tempted to interrupt and share what you care about every now and then," he says. "The trick is to hold off and focus on the other person first. You will get your chance."

In fact, recent research suggests that talking about yourself is inherently pleasurable; it stimulates the same reward centers in the brain that are lit up by sex, cocaine, and good food. So it makes sense that people would feel positively about a conversation in which they held the spotlight.

Shana Lebowitz

"7 behaviors of people who are easy to talk to." Business Insider. 6/2/2016