Article 18 Conversations for Commitment to Action

This is the eighteenth in a series of articles based on my 'Redesigning Conversations A Workbook: Self-Coaching Questions for Parents, Leaders, Teachers, and Coaches'.

Figures, exercises, question sets, tables, and case studies are numbered sequentially.

As noted in Article 14, naming a conversation is a powerful tool for having better conversations to address our and others’ concerns and to create possibilities.

In this article, I discuss conversations for commitment to action.

Taking action to get things done and create possibilities

We can only be the best versions of ourselves for our sake and the sake of our loved ones, friends, and colleagues by taking action. I have discussed how we can become trapped in our conversations for clarity, conversations for stories and personal opinions, and conversations for possible actions.

To assist us in making a commitment to action, Ontological Coaching and learning offer the linguistic act of making a declaration (Figure 6, Article 5). At the core of our commitments is understanding what we are committing to. Where we are committing to tasks, this requires a conversation for clarity around the requests and offers that underpin the commitment (Question Set 2, Article 5). This is crucial to maintaining trust.

We must be alive to:

• committing to actions that are inconsistent with our workplace and family culture (Article 12)
• overcommitting
• taking into account support we may need to carry out the commitment, a question I use in many exercises).

When overlooked, these factors can cause unhelpful moods and emotions in all parties.

Case Study 6: Can I carry out the commitment alone?

Let’s say, on a Monday, I have promised my boss (who is based in another city) to complete a project by their deadline of close of business this Thursday. I was keen to take on this work, which is usually given to another team member. I am concerned I do not have enough time to complete it without the support of a colleague (Paula), who is more experienced in one aspect of the project. I am also unclear as to what will be involved in another aspect of the project.

After the Zoom call with my boss when I made the promise, I realise Paula is on vacation. There is another team member who can help me, but we do not get along.

As I reflect more on the project, it becomes clear that Paula is the only team member familiar with that aspect. I will need to seek help from a consultant, which requires permission from my boss.

When I call my boss, they are furious with me, thinking I had the task in hand without having to call on anyone.

Discussion of Case Study 6

When there is a commitment to action, we must be clear as to the Who of the task. This may involve engaging colleagues within and outside your team, and consultants. I have been involved in projects where if we had focused on the Who up-front, we may not have started the task, as it went well beyond our expectations about the employees needed to be involved. Costs blew out through engaging consultants to plug gaps in expertise and to enable the tasks to be completed on time.

When a person commits to a task, we trust their sincerity, competence, involvement, and reliability, four core elements of trust. I have seen many leaders assume too much in an employee, and an employee encouraging their boss to believe in them way beyond their competence and reliability.

In Case Study 3 (Article 15), I pondered whether the advice requested was for assistance of the person requesting it or to be given as written to the CEO or board. This is another overlooked factor when a request is made.

Case Study 7: Who’s behind making the request, and whose deadline is it?

Frances, a long-term employee of a client, has recently been promoted to the chief marketing role reporting directly to the CEO. I have worked with Frances in her more junior roles.

In my role as the company’s principal outside lawyer, Frances asks me to do an opinion regarding whether they can get out of a long-term supply contract. I am familiar with the contract and the adverse effect it has on their bottom line. They cannot take advantage of the steep increase in the market price of the product since entering the contract.

While the issues are complex, I am confident I can put together a written advice to meet Frances’ deadline of three days. Frances is a detail person and likes opinions to cover all aspects. I deliver a twenty-page advice on time.

Frances is angry. She says she does not have time to produce a written advice suitable for inclusion in the board papers that go out that evening.

When asked to do an advice that is intended for the board, I would normally suggest a PowerPoint presentation, with brief speaking notes. However, this time I did not think to ask who is really making the request and whose deadline it is.

Discussion of Case Study 7

Different skills are utilised as we move into more senior roles. In the chief marketing role, Frances would be expected to get out of the detail and be more strategic. It is not her role to ask for a legal opinion and then make it more readable for a board. In a sense, I failed Frances by not having a conversation for clarity about the context and purpose for the opinion. This was normally second nature to me. My role was to help senior corporate leaders perform their roles to the best of their abilities and to look good with those they reported to. I was alerted to this early in my career as an in-house lawyer when a consultant asked me these questions. They produced a one-page slide highlighting in a practical manner their fifteen-page opinion. The board was impressed with my presentation.

I could have done the same for Frances had I taken time to ask questions along the lines of Question Set 2 (Article 5).

We are ready to act

All parties have taken time to get onto the same page as to the action to be taken. In most cases, it is prudent to have at least a dot point action list with a designated person responsible, and accountable, for that action, with timelines. This can be done through meeting notes circulated to all parties. In a simple case, a follow-up email would suffice. For example, if I am a junior lawyer in a law firm and asked by a partner to draft an opinion, I could do a follow-up email as simple as ‘I confirm I will deliver the draft opinion [in the form of our precedent] dealing with the five questions set out below by 5 pm this Friday’. In this case, the format of the opinion is part of the precedents of the team, though I make this clear in the email.

Having a record of the commitment for action that each party signs off on not only ensures everyone is on the same page but enables clarity around conversations for progress and completion I will discuss in Article 19..

Exercise 53: Conversations for commitment to action

• Is there a key takeaway for you in this article?
• How could you apply that?
• Are there any declarations you wish to make?

??

***

Speak soon in Article 19: Conversations for Progress and Completion

?

Previous articles:

Article 1: Your Way of Being and Conversational Interplay

Article 2: Taking care of our and others’ concerns

Article 3: Your Listening and Speaking from your Listening; and Linguistic Acts

Article 4: Linguistic Acts: Facts or opinions, and Testing your Opinions

Article 5: Linguistic Acts: Declarations, Promises, and Requests

Article 6: “Breakdowns” in our lives

Article 7: Your Moods and Emotions: your greatest teachers

Article 8: Your body’s role in your conversations

Article 9: The role of your scripts in your conversations

Article 10 Your Enemies and Allies of Learning

Article 11: Your Conversational Interplay (a recap) and Conversation Enhancers, including for Meetings

Article 12:? Our Conversations are the Foundation of our Family and Work Cultures

Article 13: Questions for Self-Coaching using Ontological Terms and Concepts

Article 14: The Power of Naming Our Conversations

Article 15: Conversations for Clarity

Article 16: Conversations for Stories and Personal Opinions

Article 17 Conversation for Possible Actions (Speculative Conversations)