Language Leaders (Part Two)

As equally daunting as exams... self-examination...

In the first part of this series, we explored how to guide complaints into courageous commitment conversations - translating grievances into passions. Harvard scholars Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey argue this first transformative language reveals the values and aspirations fueling frustrations. Peeling those layers helps teams channel previously obstructed energy into shared goals.

But realizing commitments requires more than surfacing them – it demands undertaking uncomfortable self-examination. Their second proposed language flips focus from blaming external forces to embracing personal responsibility. Rather than indict others, we ask: What am I doing or not doing to live my values? This mirrors Stephen Covey’s counsel on controlling the controllable – first understanding how we contribute to circumstances before working to change them.

(the follow chart is from page 45 of their book, "How The Way We Talk Can Change The Way We Work")

Leaders reflexively react to complaints by explaining them away, immediately resolving acute tensions. But quick fixes rarely enable enduring change. A linguistic gap persists between languishing as victims and owning power to shape outcomes. Short-circuiting this process obstructs transformation.?

What if we could guide people beyond surface complaints to identity their role in lagging results? This takes humility, courage and trust – holding space for perspectives to percolate without rushing to react. Sitting with discomfort opens space for innovation. Rewarding candor and psychological safety, groups can elucidate how competing commitments cause friction that inhibits performance.

Imagine a scenario where a new VP of Sales inherited a team built for former transactional approaches rather than consultative partnering now required. Despite investing in skills training, sales remain stagnant. The temptation is blaming the team for resisting evolution rather than examining conditions enabling inertia.

This VP could have easily leaned on excuses – the organization still incentivizes quantity over quality commitments; other divisions don’t fully support consultative capability building. Those factors assuredly play a role. But transformation demands questioning personal responsibility first. Where had he not set proper vision or accountability for the cultural shift required

In a commitment conversation, the VP might share openly: “While we’ve trained on competencies needed for consultative partnering, results show our clients aren’t perceiving the value promised. Blaming the team is easy. But I must thoughtfully examine my own actions or inactions first.”

What conditions had he allowed that de-motivate rather than inspire excellence? What communication gaps exist between espoused vision and actual incentives or development support? Where is he personally still attached to past transactional assumptions that require realignment? What creative ways might the team help him see his own blind spots? psychologist Edwin Friedman reminded leaders, “We cannot transform what we refuse to confront within ourselves.”

This self-reckoning is courageous rather than comfortable. But modeling humble inquiry into personal responsibility inspires others to do the same in a spirit of shared commitment rather than shame. Again, Kegan and Lahey propose exploration through a 4-column format:

1. Our commitment: Building a consultative sales culture
2. What I’m doing or not doing: Aligning processes/incentives to professed vision
3. Competing commitments: Desire for immediate results/revenue vs longer-term investment
4. Assumptions: Total buy-in to change exists across organization

Note column #2. Rather than listing others’ shortcomings, the VP takes ownership first. And column #3 reveals potential inner conflicts materializing through mixed signals to the team. Finally, column #4 unearths assumptions that may require readjustment for plans to succeed. This isn’t about accepting undue blame – it simply provides fuller context to then adjust course. The team can then reflect on their own responsibility with less defensiveness.

Responsibility conversations build accountability through transparency rather than accusation. The linguist asks, “What am I contributing?” not “Who is to blame?” Such honest “above and below the line” inquiry ripples into healthier cultures where excuses lose oxygen. But leaders must model the path by taking first steps.

As with any transformative language, patience and practice make courageous responsibility conversations comfortable over time. Leaders might even establish roundtable forums where groups can regularly surface assumptions, competing commitments and ownership gaps undermining performance. The goal remains unlocking potential, not ascribing fault. But first we must find the keys within ourselves.