Editor’s note: This article is based on an excerpt from “Boss Talk…A Manager's Guide to Exceptional Productivity and Innovation”¹. We have included it in our Ideas for Leaders series because of the concepts it espouses and not necessarily the methodology.

COMMITTED COMMUNICATION - The Art of Getting Things Done through Others

Have you ever wondered what you can do to get more done? To get your people to accept a commitment, follow through, complete their projects, and make decisions with the good of the team in mind? If so, Jim’s story may sound familiar.

 Jim’s People Had Him Wondering 

Some of Jim’s people made him wonder what a manager had to do to get results. From the external evidence, you wouldn’t think of Jim as having any doubts about his job or his ability to do it. At thirty-one he was already directing the development of software products that brought in 73 percent of the company’s annual sales. He was bright and energetic, possessed both technical and people skills, and liked his work. Yet, like many managers, he often found himself frustrated by a seeming inability to draw out the best from his co-workers and direct reports.

One of Jim’s managers, Phil, was assigned to produce the next release of the company’s popular software product. The job required a great deal of organizational support, and much depended on Phil’s getting the job done and doing it on time. Market share, reputation, and corporate profit were all riding on the outcome of Phil’s project management skills and his ability to get what he needed from the organization. Jim’s problem was that the results just weren’t coming in. And no amount of pushing, persuading, or manipulating on Jim’s part had much effect. Both the project and Phil were stuck.

Another of Jim’s project leaders, Hank, repeatedly got into trouble with his immediate boss and seemed unable to do anything that satisfied his department head. The result was frustration on all sides. Tension abounded throughout the department, and collaboration for this group seemed an unattainable goal.

Faced with these problems, Jim spent much too much time trying to mediate disputes, soothe feelings, and calm tempers. Still, nothing he did seemed to have any long-term effect. Disputes continued to arise, and taking a “hands-off” approach by asking the disputants to find a solution only seemed to intensify the problem and draw others into the emotion-filled atmosphere.

Committed Communication to the Rescue 

Realizing the need to increase his people’s productivity and, at the same time, fully aware that the situations with Phil and Hank stood in his way, Jim began searching for something—anything—that promised relief. When he learned about a system called Committed Communication, he recognized it at once as both a roadmap and the method he needed to resolve situations and increase productivity. (Note that this system is based on the work of author and consultant, Fernando Flores.)

Once Jim learned about how to apply this system, he set about using his new tools with his managers. As part of the process, he gradually passed on to them what he had learned about gaining results through conversations.

Because Jim had always had a problem getting Phil to do things, Phil seemed a good first candidate with whom to test the communication tools. “After my brief training ,” Jim said, “I was able to structure my communication to Phil in such a way that our talk focused on matters such as the commitments he was willing to make. As a result, his lack of commitment became apparent even to him.” In this case, once Phil recognized that he lacked a commitment to his job and his company, he chose to resign. Although this was not Jim’s intention, it did solve one of Jim’s problems—and perhaps Phil’s as well.

Jim now admits that before he learned how to apply Committed Communication, he waited months to ask Phil for specific commitments. “One of the results of this work is that I find it much easier to get people to commit themselves to specific results, complete with delivery dates. I’ve also been able to identify the points at which communication breaks down. This allows me to jump in quickly to get production back in action.”

Hank’s Breakdowns Shed Some Light 

Identifying breakdowns was a critical factor in the way Jim handled his other manager, Hank. Hank was supposed to work with a committee of people to choose a computer system for the company. Hank’s immediate boss was pushing for an answer and was unconcerned with the process Hank was attempting to set up to arrive at the decision. Hank needed support, but he had no idea how to ask for it or even what to ask for. Jim explained, “As we talked about what was going wrong, Hank realized he didn’t have a structure for his communications to either the committee or his boss.”

As a result of this interaction with Hank, Jim was able to grasp Hank’s problems and guide the project back on track. Hank and his committee, as well as his boss, were satisfied with subsequent progress in selecting the computer system. By identifying and communicating what he needed in order to proceed, Hank was able to move ahead with the project and make meaningful recommendations that led to solid decisions.

For his part, Hank said later that his understanding of this new approach gave him the tools to listen better—to listen for commitments or the lack of them, rather than for arguments or emotions. “This work is about a fundamental and far-reaching shift in the way we look at communication in our organizations,” he wrote in a follow-up report. “People have a strongly held misconception that communication is about talking. I began to see in this work that if we want to compete, we must recognize an essential power—the power to create through language. Now I see that the root of communication is intention. We normally speak about information and data, about things people said, about words, statements, and documents as things that represent intentions. In other words, we speak of people saying things and then taking responsibility for the results, but not of people taking responsibility by the act of speaking. In this work I began to see that language is a tool for commitment. The Committed Communication model makes it simple.”

 Work Is a Network of Commitments 

Let’s look briefly at how a network of commitments works.

 When you are in charge of a project, you typically make requests of your people. They, in turn, can respond in three primary ways. They can take responsibility for the request by making a commitment to complete it, they can refuse for whatever reason, or they can suggest an alternative action. In the same way, you make commitments to your boss that will become the guides for how you report progress or problems.

Organizing work around commitments can provide some valuable benefits and opportunities. For one, by taking your own commitments to heart and by communicating all the information people need in order to commit to and complete your requests, you model the behavior you want your employees to follow. For another, when your people experience breakdowns in making and keeping their commitments, you learn about them firsthand because your people keep you apprised. When they don’t, you know that, too. This kind of knowledge can help you determine when and how to use coaching techniques to help people be accountable, solve problems and improve performance.

Managing Commitments: Make It Easy on Yourself  

To make all this work, we recommend that instead of managing people’s actions, you focus on and manage their commitments to you. The Committed Communication model provides a way for you to do just that. Let’s look at one aspect of this system, a component we call "language actions". Essential to any work in Committed Communication is the ability to distinguish between the “language actions” that occur during different moments of speaking and listening. Here is a brief overview by way of definition.

Becoming Aware of “Language Actions” 

We are all aware of what an action is. Now I would like to introduce the notion of a language action. A language action refers to the different moves or types of statements people make in conversations that are intended to move a project toward completion. For example, a request is a language action. When Jim asks (or requests) that his people attend a meeting at 3:00 p.m., he is talking in the realm of action. If he asks Mary, his Field Services manager, how her weekend went, he is not speaking in what we call action mode, but is simply making casual conversation. Mary understands that he doesn’t expect her to take any project-related action as a result of the conversation.

Language actions involve issues related to productivity. When communication lacks action elements, productivity suffers. Language actions, for example, can tell people what should be done, who should do it, and when it’s due.

Too often, however, we have observed that when people are working in action mode—planning a forthcoming project, for example, during a staff meeting—requests for specific actions may be missing. Following such planning sessions, we often hear people complain, “Well, nothing came of that meeting. What a waste of time.” Understanding the concept of language actions and knowing how to make and manage requests can usually prevent these kinds of scenarios.

Another language action, one Jim could have taken with Hank, is to make an offer. An offer implies a commitment to take some action in the future. For example, a manager might tell a project leader, “I would like you to have access to my schedule, so I’m having Joan, my assistant, set up a scheduling program on the computer network that will allow you to check my schedule from your office. This will be in effect by Tuesday at the end of the day.”

Another language action is what we call a declaration. When Jim announces that the group will seek ISO 9001 certification, he has made a declaration. Something that did not exist prior to his statement now exists, regardless of whether or not people resist the new requirement. Given his role and job title, Jim has the power to make such declarations.

The Benefits of Language Actions 

Our anecdotal research into coordination of action and language indicates that when groups are working smoothly, productively, and harmoniously, their members are using language actions in their conversations, although often unwittingly. Also, we have found in most cases that because people have little conscious understanding of what makes up a language action, they can’t explain why a given group sometimes functions well and at other times does not.

With the Committed Communication model, the manager learns specific language actions and how to listen for these actions, or the lack of them, in verbal exchanges. Armed with knowledge that helps in understanding and identifying language actions, a manager is prepared to more effectively produce through the efforts of others and troubleshoot when things don’t go well.

Robert W. Lauridsen, Ph.D. is an organizational consultant, speaker and author. If you would like to learn more about Committed Communication you can read his book below or reach him at 408-358-9821; roblaur@lauridsengroup.com or visit http//:www.lauridsengroup.com.

1“Boss Talk…A Manager's Guide to Exceptional Productivity and Innovation”, Robert W. Lauridsen, Steven S. Sherman, London/Warner Publishing, 2000.