In recent years, there has been widespread interest in books recommending “fierce” or “difficult” conversations. These provocatively named best-sellers offer many excellent communication tips. However, I worry that some of the books' most enthusiastic adherents can often seem more eager for the “fierce” (i.e., “confrontational”) part of the concept than the “conversation” (i.e., mutual, respectful exchange of ideas) part, as a brief anecdote involving two former colleagues will illustrate. When the true meanings of “fierce”/"difficult" (as defined in the books) are mis-understood and mis-applied, the result is often that "fierce" and “constructive” become quite different things.
A Tale of Two Colleagues
“Colleague A” is fiercely bright, passionate about a wide range of subjects, and eager to engage in stimulating debate to help focus and fine-tune his ideas and theories. He feels morally compelled to question approaches to problems until rigorous, high-quality answers and results are achieved – all to the good. Not surprisingly, he is a strong proponent of “fierce” conversations. Also not surprisingly, this can overwhelm those who don’t share exactly his same sensibilities (i.e., almost everyone else). He is known to open one-on-one meetings with the declaration, “We need to have a fierce conversation,” immediately putting the other party on the defensive.
When he oversaw a creative department for a short while, team members respected some of the individual results he helped them achieve – but rued the fact that his “fierce” approach included department meetings that felt like daily “public interrogations.” On the whole, whatever technical advances the department made under his leadership were, unfortunately, more than balanced out by heavy blows inflicted on individual and group morale and professional self-esteem.
“Colleague B” is equally bright, and shares the same thirst for excellence and passion for candid conversations as Colleague A. “It’s always about the work,” she fond of saying. The key difference is, she pursues these conversations while always remaining conscious of the emotional reaction of listeners and the state of her working relationship with them. Even while speaking directly, she communicates a caring for the individual and a concern for maintaining the relationship. The result is excellent work equal to that of Colleague A – but without the collateral damage unchecked “fierceness” (in the traditional definition) is want to bring. This has two important effects:
(I suspect that the above is much more aligned with the intent of the “fierce”/”difficult” authors’ intentions as opposed to Colleague A’s interpretation).
A Different Approach: Constructive Conversations
There is no doubt that having candid, direct dialogue with peers and direct reports is an important part of being an effective co-worker and manager. At the same time, a necessary “pre-requisite” to candor is establishing a credible, trust-based relationship with those you are speaking with, day by day by day. Conversation partners need to see you as someone who:
Interacting in this way – in conversations small and large, formal and informal — day in and day out, builds credibility, which serves as the platform for “constructive conversations.” By doing so, conditions will have been set for conversations that can address important issues without being sabotaged by concerns about motives, hidden agendas, harmful intentions, etc.
By establishing this base, candid conversations become a healthy, constructive mix of collaboration, knowledge-sharing, and support. They might not generate the adrenaline rush that “fierceness” brings to some … but I’ll take candid and constructive over difficult and divisive every time!
Add a Comment