We have to contribute to society with our daily performance, and that capacity comes from what we know, what we think, what we feel and what we talk about with others. Sometimes and without awareness of it, we may lack knowledge, cognitive and emotional skills, perception of realities and - it should be noted - a decisive plus of conversational ability. No, we are not always good enough at conversing; The determining factors are numerous and diverse, including, of course, the disparity of interests at stake.
When talking, it is necessary to empathize and listen, but also more things; With all of them present in synergy, we would elevate the conversation to a level of effectiveness that could be considered artistic. In truth there are people who dialogue in an exemplary way, although they do not always do so with people who are equally skilled and interested in the results. There are, we know, different types of conversations - let's think about the purposes - but in all cases, effectiveness and satisfaction from development can be desired. Conversation is the image of coexistence and, professionally, it can be seen as the catalyst of productivity.
Continuing professionally and in the specific case of negotiation (perhaps the most difficult conversation, if we put aside special occasions or moments), we should surely be more self-critical with our way of seeing things, with our mentality of beliefs and values; This would not always force you to give in, but it would help you better understand others and perhaps reach more celebrated results. Of course, it must be said, since we are not in conversation whenever we speak, nor fortunately do all conversations imply negotiation… So far the isagoge, but the reflection will necessarily remain general.
Some time ago I read a tweet that referred to the conversation as a "leadership tool," and pointed out the need for it to be "sincere and two-way." It came to me as a retweet launched by a prestigious consultant whom I follow, and I understood that he was referring to a conception of leadership more aligned with the idea of human capital than with the so generalized label of “human resources”. Yes, on Twitter you have to reduce-limit the message; but I took the opportunity to add that the conversation should also be "generative, enriching, leading to the best conclusions." My entry was accepted and I kept thinking about the importance of conversation in general, inside and outside the exercise of leadership.
Conversation is a cardinal tool for coexistence in general, and of course for mutual knowledge, for collaboration, for learning… In the professional field, talk in a generative way, with a purpose and high performance, with satisfaction for the result, it seems like an art. Sometimes we show satisfaction, but we leave loose ends that end up being noticed. No, we are not talking about the art of speaking a lot and well (which would be another art), but of contributing as much as possible to the objective, through direct, enriching and well-measured interventions.
Meetings (professional setting for formal conversations) are not always fruitful, even with sufficient mastery of the topic discussed and good verbal expression. It seems that a sensitive dose of intra and interpersonal intelligence is required to catalyze fluidity in development, as well as the participants must display balance, objectivity, systemic perspective, open-mindedness, alignment with the ends or objectives and, in general, agility and quality in thought (conceptual, inquisitive, analytical, synthetic, connective, critical, inferential, convergent, creative…), without forgetting intuition. Many courses on meeting participation have been orchestrated, but I do not know if they have served their supposed purpose.
Many reflections fit; both about conversations at work (including the merely exploratory ones), as well as those that, autotelic or not, we develop in front of family or friends. To begin with, we should avoid grossly widespread defects and excesses. That tweet underscored the need for the conversation to be two-way. Obviously, because if we just talk or just listen, that is no longer a conversation; it will be something else, perhaps also necessary depending on the case, but it will not be a conversation.
There are some people with a certain verbal incontinence, inveterate or occasional, almost unhealthy, who, in the most striking degree, seem to insist on saying everything they have inside without wondering if it interests others, without leaving pauses and even repeating things. This may be considered infrequent in the work environment, but it is that, without reaching this extreme, we do find those who frequently abuse digressions, personal experiences, repetitions, excessive effort to be right, desire to persuade (if not to manipulate), etc..
It is said that we do not listen to a sufficient degree and it must surely be so. Of course, it tends to be annoying to hear what is not interesting, what does not convince, what is superfluous…, especially when you have other concerns in your head, or when you have something opportune to say and they do not give way. So no one should abuse the word (or anything, of course) at the cost of patience or resignation of others, under pain or risk of generating prevention and losing interlocutors, exhausted their patience-indulgence. A truism, this one, which the reader will excuse.
That tweet also alluded, yes, to sincerity. I do not know if it is always good to say what you think, although in principle there would be no room for lying wherever, depending on the case, friendship or professionalism prevailed. But in my tweet response I pointed to the effectiveness of the conversation and there I go back. This requires us to be well aware of what we are pursuing, especially if it is more than just having a good time, exploring possibilities or establishing trusting relationships. Of course, if someone came with particular and perhaps spurious interests or objectives, we would be talking about bad arts, among which we certainly include the aforementioned manipulation.
All of this is complex and what follows seems to sound naive, but the collective good should prevail over the individual. We should not incur defensive routines, daring inferences, fragmentary approaches, damage or no third parties, battles behind dialectical superiority, untimely contributions or that involve unnecessary setbacks, etc. Certainly the boss talks to his subordinates, or the leader talks to his followers; But we may not always be, in these cases of hierarchical relationship, before an ideal, two-way, balanced conversation, of common interests and shared goals. It depends on the particular manifestation of leadership.
It must be accepted that, in organizations and often, the manager has been inspired by a kind of Grace intelligence and has manipulated his subordinates after the objectives pursued (not always communicated-shared). There will be no shortage of people who will see in the manipulation, and not so much in the conversation, the authentic tool of the leader, especially knowing that, in the company, leadership aims more at the positional than at the relational, and the manager owes more to the business than to, so generally called, human resources.
Perhaps not so much anymore, but it has been frequent for the hierarchical superior to deploy some well-known practices on the subordinate: motivational proclamations, promises, gratitude debts, biased or fallacious interpretations of the facts, public pigeonhole in some stereotype, cheating commissions, Smoke screens, contrived accusations… Now these operations are not so common, also because the worker usually perceives them clearly as such, no matter how much the management literature sometimes draws the leader with a nimbus and the follower in limbo.
Yes, perhaps it would be realistic to place the two-way and balanced conversation closer to teamwork than to leadership, without ruling out such an exercise in the style of, for example, servant leadership. Of course, in the boss-subordinate relationship, authentic, synergetic and empathetic conversation is more necessary every day, with a technical, holistic and systemic perspective, as our playwright Pedro Muñoz Seca would perhaps say in his astracane language. The truth is that there is greater hierarchical understanding and, in addition to being listened to, the boss would have to listen to his collaborators for decision-making. Of balanced inquiry and allegation, Peter Senge spoke to us a long time ago.
In any kind of conversation, we would have to present our arguments skillfully - which means, at the very least, clarity and conciseness - to make ourselves understood easily, and without over-acting. It would seem that those who do so shine; but above all it is possible to attribute their contribution to the best result. As for the inquiry, this involves collecting the precise information, through the appropriate questions and keeping the cognitive and emotional harmony that the moment requires. All this is known and the reader may have already tired of these paragraphs; But, without a doubt and because everything is perfectible, we can be better conversationalists on many occasions: do we try?
Jose Enebral Fernandez
