Pt.10 Navigating Courage Conversations (All Roads Lead to Rome)

The Tale of Sandra Continues...

“Why haven’t I heard this before?!?” exclaimed Sandra. “Just the BISC model alone could potentially?have?sorted out this issue with Daniel months and months ago!”?

“That’s exactly why I created?it” replied the?Coach. “I was amazed at how ill-equipped so many managers and supervisors are in the workplace to deal with the issue of courageous conversations”.?

?“And for so many people?in?team leadership roles that I’ve talked to,” continued Sandra “this challenge of having to have courageous conversations with team members seems to be their biggest pain point. And what I really like about the model is that the navigation and the routes?that?you would take through the four steps depend on an understanding of how Daniel responds in either an above or below the line fashion. I can see now why you taught me the above the line model first and I now realise that every conversation I have with Daniel about his attitude needs to be filtered through the lens of?whether or not?he’s accepting responsibility. But here’s a question for you?Coach?-?what happens when Daniel is sitting on the?fence?and I can’t work out whether he is above the line or below the line?”?

If you're in any doubt about Daniel being Above the Line, then you have to give him the benefit of the doubt

“It’s actually quite simple,” said the?Coach?in reply. “If you’re in doubt then you give Daniel the benefit of the doubt. If you’re unsure whether he is above or below the?line?then you treat him as if he is above the line?-?you only alter your tone or the direction of the conversation if it is obvious that Daniel is below the line.?That being said, your?job is to clearly offer him the opportunity to indicate that he is accepting ownership or responsibility for the issue. If you make that clear, and?yet?his tone and manner?suggest?that he isn’t?picking up on that ownership,?then you are safe to assume that he is stuck below the line”.?

How on earth can you guarantee a positive outcome to almost any courageous conversation?!?

“Okay, I feel like I’m armed to do the very best that I can to have a constructive conversation with Daniel. But to be honest I’m still really concerned about making matters worse.?I’m?nervous that he may respond in an agreeable fashion in the meeting, but I may not realise until further down the track that he?actually hasn’t?been on board with accepting responsibility. I’ve seen it before where I have thought I’ve had agreement from Daniel and then two weeks later I realise that he has been going?behind my back and undermining my leadership and creating division?in?the team?- I just don’t think that I could cope with that kind of result again even though I conduct the conversation effectively from my side”.?

“I can guarantee you that you’re going to have a positive outcome” claimed the?Coach, much to Sandra’s scepticism.?

“You can’t do that!” exclaimed Sandra. “How on earth can you guarantee a positive outcome?!? You certainly can’t guarantee Daniel’s attitude being positive, so if he goes below the line which I’m concerned he will, then how on earth can you suggest that that in any way?is a positive outcome?”

“There are really only three possible outcomes” answered the?Coach, “and all three can be seen to be beneficial over the long-term. Let me explain the ‘Three Predictable Outcomes Model’ which gives anyone embarking on a courageous conversation the confidence that a constructive?final result?is always possible…”?

The Predictable Outcomes Model?

"Change the Person or Change the Person"

One of the reasons often cited for a reticence to have courageous conversations in the workplace is the fear?it?that will make things worse or that the status quo is somehow palatable or a justifiable alternative to broaching the issue. This whole book is written on the premise that a courageous conversation is the response to an issue that needs to be addressed for the sake of the business and/or the team. In other words, it is a given that this is a conversation?that?really ought to be happening because “It’s the right thing to do!” (as?stated?by a member of a senior leadership team opening one of my courageous conversations workshops). This chapter aims to make it clear that there are three main outcomes to a courageous conversation, and all three can be seen in a positive, long-term light as far as the business and the team are concerned.?

The majority of workplace courageous conversations go well - a decidedly higher percentage than people in early leadership roles anticipate

Positive Outcome

The first outcome is positive,?with some or?all of?the aspects of the issue raised being positively addressed. The recipient takes the salient points on board, their attitude doesn’t worsen, but improves markedly. In my experience?the majority of?conversations go this way for people in the workplace, a decidedly higher percentage than people anticipate early on in leadership roles.?When?you?are?confident that?the majority of?conversations?will?have a positive outcome, or at least more positive than you?might?expect, then no doubt you?will?be more inclined to instigate the conversations that need to be had.?

Negative Outcome

The second outcome, and the one that is probably the most feared, is the situation deteriorating. What we were concerned about has come to pass, possibly even worse than we were expecting. The issue grows rather than gets?sorted, performance slumps, the person’s attitude worsens, and it seems like there is a large wedge between you both. As painful as this outcome might be,?and as much as the instigator might be tempted to say, “I told you so!”,?this short-term pain is only one step along the journey to a long-term gain. If your attitude was constructive towards the business, the team, and the issue,?and you conducted the conversation in a reasonably competent fashion with good intent, then the person’s negative reaction both during the conversation and/or after is an indication that you are entirely justified to raise the issue in the first place.??

If your aim and process have been constructive then it's not your responsibility that the other person has reacted adversely

If your?aim and process have been constructive then it’s not your responsibility that the other person has reacted adversely, and this adverse reaction now gives rise to justifiably escalating the conversation to the point where things must come to a head- either the person/issue dramatically improves, or meaningful consequences come into play to determine?whether or not?they are going to be part of the team long-term.?

Status Quo Outcome

The third possible outcome seems midway between the former two, but in fact over time it’s more like the second outcome.?No significant change is akin to deterioration. In this case,?an issue was raised, possibly more than once, and the outcome remains unaltered despite the conversation(s). The onus is on the courageous conversation instigator to continue to raise the issue (having been confident in the first place that it was the “right thing to do”). If nothing changes with sufficient notice and support, then you are within your rights to escalate the situation because the required shift?hasn’t?been delivered.??

With escalation and increased pressure on the recipient to change you will eventually get one of the two clear outcomes

With escalation and increased pressure on the recipient to change you will eventually get one of two clear outcomes- improvement or deterioration, and then you’ll be in the driver’s seat to either congratulate the positive modification (change the person) or eventually shift them out of your team (change the person). So ultimately every short-term outcome, with the appropriate response, becomes?a positive long-term result.?