<\/p>\n
ADI IGNATIUS: I\u2019m Adi Ignatius.<\/p>\n
ALISON BEARD: I\u2019m Alison Beard and this is the HBR IdeaCast<\/em>.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: So I\u2019m sure every manager has experienced this at some time or another. You sincerely encourage your employees to speak up truthfully, to give their unvarnished opinions about what\u2019s happening at work without fear of retribution. You try to set up a psychologically safe environment, but guess what? No one speaks up.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: Yes, I\u2019ve seen that happen all the time. And even me, I\u2019m a pretty forthright person, but sometimes I don\u2019t always say exactly what\u2019s on my mind, especially to higher level leaders. And I guess that just reflects an anxiety that many of us have that total candor won\u2019t actually be appreciated.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: Well, exactly. And I think, look, I think smart leaders know that the ideal scenario where you get people to talk openly and fearlessly about what\u2019s working, about what\u2019s not working at the company, can be a real gift. You really want your people on the front line who are developing and selling your products and engaging with customers to tell you how it\u2019s all really going.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: So how do we get from those good intentions to actually getting people to tell you the truth?<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: Well, so it depends on building a credible pattern of trust, of course, but it also boils down in many ways to the art of communication. So today\u2019s guest, Charles Duhigg, is an expert in that field and author of several books, including Supercommunicators: How to Unlock the Secret Language of Connection. So he offers a lot of research-backed advice on how to speak, how to ask questions, how to respond to challenges, all of which can help executives open up the culture in healthy ways. Here\u2019s our conversation.<\/p>\n So your book, Supercommunicators, analyzed things like conversation, like influence, like communication. I want to focus on one part of that, which I think is relevant to our audience, and that is on what you\u2019ve learned about how leaders can create and sustain a culture where people will actually speak up, because we\u2019ve all been there. Leaders say they want candor, but their organizations too often default to silence. So what are we doing wrong?<\/p>\n CHARLES DUHIGG: So I think there\u2019s two things that are going wrong there. Number one is we can say that we want candor, but unless we reward people for being candid, then they won\u2019t do it. And the truth of the matter is, if you go into a meeting with your senior VP and you\u2019re the one who\u2019s second guessing him and offering all these different alternatives about other plans we should use, you\u2019re probably not going to get rewarded for it.<\/p>\n Unless that SVP takes a step back and says, \u201cLook, just want to say at the end of this meeting, thank you so much, Charles, for bringing up all those issues because the more we question ourselves, the better we\u2019re going to get at doing this job.\u201d So we have to reward candor rather than punish it, which is what happens most of the time.<\/p>\n But the second thing is that in order for people to feel like they can be candid, we need to have psychological safety. And psychological safety is this thing that\u2019s been studied extensively. There was a huge experiment that was done by Google trying to figure out how to build the perfect team. And they found that psychological safety is the single most important element in helping a team come together.<\/p>\n And there\u2019s lots of techniques to develop psychological safety that we can talk about, but at its core, psychological safety is, I believe that I can speak up during a meeting or speak up to a colleague and what I say won\u2019t be held against me. When we have that, then we have the environment for people to say things that maybe everyone else doesn\u2019t want to hear right now, but that need to be said.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: So psychological safety, we\u2019ve had Amy Edmondson on the program and hats off to her for her work in the field. So what is it then that leaders misunderstand about how that psychological safety is created and is maintained in practice?<\/p>\n CHARLES DUHIGG: The number one thing that they misunderstand is that it\u2019s tactical. There are a set of steps that you can use to create psychological safety. It\u2019s not about being warm and fuzzy and friendly to everyone. Rather, it\u2019s about doing things like, first of all, ensuring equality in conversational turn-taking. Basically what it means is in a meeting, everyone should speak up and roughly an equal measure. Now that doesn\u2019t mean that everyone\u2019s going to say the same number of words or speak for the same number of minutes. What\u2019s important is that everyone in that room feels like they have spoken up at least once and roughly on par with their colleagues. And sometimes that means if you\u2019re the leader of a meeting saying, \u201cHey, Susie, I haven\u2019t heard from you for a little while. Tell me what you\u2019re thinking about,\u201d inviting people into the dialogue.<\/p>\n The second thing tactically that creates psychological safety is ostentatious listening, because it\u2019s not enough to believe that you can speak up, to be invited to speak up, it\u2019s that you have to believe that other people are listening to you. This is where leaders have a huge amount of influence because if the leader engages in ostentatious listening, if they say things like, \u201cThat\u2019s a great point. Let me repeat back what I just heard you say to make sure I got it right.\u201d Or, \u201cJim, you brought up a point about 10 minutes ago that I want to resurface now because I think it\u2019s really important.\u201d In those examples, I\u2019m ostentatiously showing you that I am paying attention to what you have to say. And when we feel like we can speak up and we feel like we are listened to, that is when we start to create psychological safety.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: So again, this all sounds great on paper and I don\u2019t think anybody would disagree with the principles, but obviously in practice it\u2019s tricky. I guess part of it is how can leaders signal that it\u2019s safe to challenge authority without losing accountability in the moment and without losing decision velocity. I mean, there are two things. There could be, I want to hear from everybody that\u2019s performative versus we need to make a decision. There\u2019s a certain velocity to this. So I think that\u2019s probably where it goes off the rails in practice because those are the important considerations.<\/p>\n CHARLES DUHIGG: If a decision has to be made right now in the next five minutes, we shouldn\u2019t have second guessing and back and forthing unless someone feels really, really strongly about it. What it does mean is it means creating the environment and messaging to your team or your company what the environment is where second guessing or challenging each other is welcome.<\/p>\n A great example of this is Netflix. Netflix is a company that is constantly making decisions in very high-pressure situations because it\u2019s a streaming company and everything\u2019s moving so fast. And one of the things that they\u2019ve done is they\u2019ve essentially created a rule that people have to argue with each other, not all the time, not when it\u2019s time to make the choice. But in the lead up to that, when we\u2019re having dinner together, when we\u2019re having a meeting where the come away from the meeting isn\u2019t that we have to absolutely have made a choice together, but we want to know what our options are.<\/p>\n In that environment, people are rewarded for second guessing, for challenging each other, for bringing up alternatives. The same thing happens at Amazon, right? Amazon has 1 of their 14 principles that we\u2019re going to disagree with each other and then commit, which means I\u2019m going to walk into a meeting and I\u2019m going to tell my boss all the reasons he\u2019s wrong. And when my boss makes a decision, I\u2019m going to commit to his decision regardless of whether it was the decision I would\u2019ve made. There are ways of managing through these tensions, but at the core of it is this basic belief you have to have as an employee, which is, if I open my mouth, it\u2019s not going to result in me getting punished.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: So if people in your company aren\u2019t speaking up, then is it a cultural problem or is the leadership failure?<\/p>\n CHARLES DUHIGG: I actually think they\u2019re synonymous. I don\u2019t think you can have a culture problem without leadership failure. And if you\u2019re having leadership failure, you\u2019re probably going to have a culture problem. I would suggest to you that they\u2019re joined at the hip.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: How do you measure then whether your speak out, safe space culture is actually working? Is it just you know it when you see it or is it actually measurable?<\/p>\n CHARLES DUHIGG: Well, I think it\u2019s definitely measurable, right? We know that you can do surveys where you ask people, do you feel like you can speak up? Is it a safe place to speak up? But the other way is to really listen to what people are saying. In Supercommunicators, there\u2019s this core idea, and this is based on a lot of advances in neuroscience, when we are having discussions, we think we know what that discussion is about, but actually there are many different kinds of conversations all happening at the same time. And those conversations tend to fall into one of three buckets. There\u2019s these practical conversations where we\u2019re making plans together or solving problems, but then there\u2019s emotional conversations where I tell you what I\u2019m feeling and I don\u2019t want you to solve my feelings. I want you to empathize.<\/p>\n And then finally, there\u2019s social conversations about how we relate to each other, how we relate to the outside world, the identities that are important to us. And what researchers have found is that supercommunicators, the people who communicate best, they really focus on having the same kind of conversation as the person they\u2019re talking to at the same moment. In fact, this has become known as the matching principle in psychology, that successful communication requires having the same kind of conversation at the same time.<\/p>\n And the way that this translates into the workplace setting that we\u2019re talking about and creating psychological safety is if I\u2019m in a meeting and I have a direct report and they say, \u201cLook, we got to talk about next week\u2019s budget. And I have all the numbers here. I want to run through them because I\u2019m feeling really, really anxious because if we don\u2019t get this budget right, we\u2019re going to have to do layoffs and I do not want to lay anyone off. That\u2019s something that keeps me up at night.\u201d A good leader is listening to that conversation and they\u2019re saying, \u201cThis person has presented a practical problem, a budget, but all the language that they\u2019re using is emotional. They\u2019re talking about anxiety. They\u2019re talking about not being able to sleep at night. They\u2019re talking about what they\u2019re worried about.\u201d<\/p>\n So before I jump in to the practicalities of that budget, I need to match them on the emotional level. I need to empathize. I need to say something like, \u201cI hear what you\u2019re saying. I feel exactly the same way. We got to get this right because our first priority is to protect our people. And if we don\u2019t get the budget right, we\u2019re not going to do that. And I feel that responsibility and I know you do too. With your permission, can we look at the budget and start going through the numbers to see how we\u2019re going to do that?\u201d<\/p>\n In other words, with your permission, can we move from an emotional conversation to a practical conversation together? When we do that, we are creating and seeing psychological safety because what we\u2019re seeing is that this person voiced something important to them and the other person heard it and responded to it.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: So picking up on that, if leaders say, \u201cLook, my door is open, I\u2019m open to dissent,\u201d what signal are leaders sending without realizing it that despite saying those words, it\u2019s not being absorbed?<\/p>\n CHARLES DUHIGG: If it\u2019s not being absorbed, nobody\u2019s showing up and second guessing them, right? The people who report to you should be telling you you\u2019re making a mistake at least 15% of the time, because I guarantee you, you\u2019re probably making at least 15% of mistakes, right? So you want to be surrounded by people who are actually warning you about that. But I think the other thing that happens is that when someone shows up to give that feedback, the response matters a lot, not just rewarding them for speaking up, but also giving them honest feedback.<\/p>\n If someone comes in and they say, \u201cLook, the biggest problem with this company is that you don\u2019t serve enough Skittles in the break rooms, and I\u2019m going to strike if I don\u2019t get Skittles in the break room.\u201d I would say, \u201cThank you for bringing this up. This is clearly something important to you. I want to take it seriously. That being said, I just want to give you some honest feedback. When we look at what determines our profitability, Skittles in the break room is not one of the things that ranks high. And so I promise you, I\u2019m going to look at this again and I appreciate you bringing it to me, but in order for us this to be something we action on, I have to have evidence that it matters.\u201d<\/p>\n So what I\u2019m doing there is I\u2019m saying to someone, \u201cThank you for bringing this. I\u2019m probably not going to do anything with it.\u201d Now, the alternative is that you come in and you say, \u201cHey, I want more Skittles.\u201d And the boss says, \u201cOkay, great. Thanks. Love getting that feedback.\u201d And then weeks later, there\u2019s no new Skittles in the break room. And you think, \u201cOh, that jerk, all he does is say that he wants feedback, he doesn\u2019t actually want it.\u201d So I think that the way that we react and the way that we authentically react to people\u2019s suggestions matters a lot as to whether they feel like those suggestions have any agency.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: So I have a feeling some leaders would say, \u201cYeah, I don\u2019t suffer fools.\u201d Right? And I consider that a strength.<\/p>\n CHARLES DUHIGG: Sure.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: Is that attitude okay and the construct?<\/p>\n CHARLES DUHIGG: If you can populate your entire company without any fools, then it\u2019s a great attitude, right? But if you\u2019re running a large company, I guarantee you there\u2019s going to be some fools. You need people who might appear to be fools. Let\u2019s take software engineering. You go into software engineering, many of the people who work in software engineering, they have very difficult\u2026 Not many, some. Some are socially awkward. They have difficult times having hard conversations with their employers. They bring up crazy ideas because they\u2019re super into their own thing. That person might appear a fool, but they\u2019re a software engineer that you hired because they\u2019re doing a job for you and you might need to suffer a part of their personality that is foolish in order to get the part of their personality that\u2019s really valuable to you.<\/p>\n The truth of the matter is, and everyone knows this, if you feel disrespected by your company, you will do nothing to make that company succeed. And so, sometimes respect is as simple as saying, \u201cI hear what you\u2019re saying. I don\u2019t totally agree with you, but I promise we\u2019ll look at this. But if we find that it doesn\u2019t align with our priorities, we\u2019re not going to act on it.\u201d All that people are asking for is they\u2019re asking for acknowledgement of what they\u2019ve said. They\u2019re not necessarily asking for action. And so, not suffering fools might be to say, \u201cI\u2019m going to ignore this Skittles request, but I\u2019m going to let this person know that I heard them and that what they have to say is important to me, even if it\u2019s not enough of a priority for me to act on.\u201d<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: So it takes a little time, but at very little actual cost to the leader.<\/p>\n CHARLES DUHIGG: Yeah, absolutely, absolutely.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: So on a tactical basis, if somebody challenges you publicly, let\u2019s say around a table as a leader, what\u2019s the one response that in response you build up that culture that we\u2019re talking about and what\u2019s the response that could just destroy it?<\/p>\n CHARLES DUHIGG: Okay. So let\u2019s try. I\u2019ll try with you, Adi. So let\u2019s say I\u2019m one of your direct reports at HBR and I come to you and I say, \u201cHey, Adi, I just wanted to let you know, I was thinking about the last issue that we put out and I just thought the cover art was really off. It didn\u2019t tell me anything about what was going on and it wasn\u2019t very attractive.\u201d So what do you say to me?<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: You\u2019re fired. So wasn\u2019t so hard, was it? Yeah. So I would say, \u201cLook, thanks. This is subjective.\u201d Forgetting the actual answer, I\u2019ve learned you don\u2019t want to be defensive. I mean, there\u2019s no value in being defensive. So you want to say, \u201cLook, that\u2019s a good point, wish I thought of that. And think about a structure where we could have this conversation before it\u2019s too late. If you feel strongly about this, let\u2019s find a way to get you into that conversation.\u201d<\/p>\n CHARLES DUHIGG: I mean, I think that\u2019s a great answer, right? Because what you\u2019re telling me is you\u2019re telling me you heard what I have to say, you actually had your own reasons that I might not be aware of for choosing that cover. You appreciate me coming forward. And if I have suggestions that are helpful going forward, meaning I\u2019m giving you this feedback before the cover actually hits the news stands, then let\u2019s find a way to do that. I think that\u2019s a great answer. And it doesn\u2019t mean that you\u2019re going to agree with me. It doesn\u2019t mean that you have to agree with me.<\/p>\n This is the thing about communication. Great communication does not require that we agree with each other. Great communication requires that we feel some sense of connection to one another, even if we disagree. And if I believe that you are hearing me and that you value my opinion and you know that I care about this company enough that I\u2019m bringing up this cover issue to you, we feel connected to each other. And at that point we don\u2019t have to agree. We can peacefully coexist.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: You had talked earlier about incentives to be candid, what would seem in some cultures irrationally critical of leadership. So talk more about incentives. What are the incentives around candor that can work?<\/p>\n CHARLES DUHIGG: I think the incentives around candor are in two categories. The first is that there is an incentive that just comes from feeling like you can speak your truth. Nobody wants to be in a job where they\u2019re biting their tongue and they\u2019re thinking to themselves, \u201cThis is the dumbest plan I\u2019ve ever heard in my entire life, but I can\u2019t say anything because I\u2019m going to get fired.\u201d That\u2019s not a fun job. Nobody feels good.<\/p>\n Everyone shows up to work every day wanting to contribute to success. And when you can\u2019t speak up because you\u2019re afraid to do so, it means you\u2019re not contributing to success the way that you hope to. So that\u2019s the first incentive is that you recognize that everybody does want to speak up. Everybody does want to be a part of the solution. When someone comes to you and they\u2019re second guessing you or they\u2019re offering you criticism, it\u2019s not because they want you to fail, it\u2019s because they want to help you succeed.<\/p>\n Then the second thing is the incentives that we create, the most powerful ones are emotional. So there\u2019s lots of companies that offer, for instance, bonuses or higher salaries if you find a problem and you solve it. And that works, right? People will definitely do things for money. But what research shows is that the most powerful types of incentives are emotional incentives, such as giving someone praise and esteem and raising their social esteem within a group.<\/p>\n So if I\u2019m in the middle of a meeting and I say, \u201cHey, look, I just want to take a second to, Jim is sitting in the back. Three weeks ago, he came in and he told me that he thought we were making a bad choice with the cover of this issue of HBR. I just want to thank him for doing so because that was really helpful, Jim, and it made a big difference.\u201d You\u2019re giving him more social esteem within this crowd of people that he cares about, and that\u2019s going to be enormously powerful. That\u2019s a great incentive. Now you might also say, \u201cHey, and by the way, Jim, I\u2019m giving you a $5,000 bonus.\u201d And that\u2019s fantastic. It\u2019s certainly not going to discourage him and it might encourage other people, but that praise is probably going to be remembered longer than the $5,000 is.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: Most of the arguments you\u2019re making seem to be for building up the confidence, security, safety, self-esteem of an employee. What\u2019s the evidence? What\u2019s the science that encouraging this kind of candor helps a company, helps the bottom line from that other point of view?<\/p>\n CHARLES DUHIGG: It\u2019s really interesting because simply ensuring candor does not necessarily mean your company\u2019s going to improve. We\u2019ve all been at companies where people are disagreeing with each other, where there\u2019s political battles, and so people are trying to undermine each other. That clearly does not work. What does work is being in a company where you are encouraged to speak up and then you are encouraged to commit to the decision that\u2019s made.<\/p>\n And again, I\u2019ll mention this Amazon example of debate and commit, which is basically what they say is go into that meeting and fight viciously. In fact, we\u2019re only going to promote the people who prove that they\u2019re willing and able of second guessing their bosses. But when a decision gets made, even if it\u2019s not a decision you would\u2019ve made, you need to be behind it 100%. You need to be completely committed. The debate is over now. Your boss has decided, now we end the second guessing and now we all work together.<\/p>\n And that we find is the type of thing that really creates this culture that helps us get the best of both worlds because we can\u2019t have something where people are constantly sniping at each other, but we can\u2019t have something where everyone is a bunch of yes man. And so, what often works is delineating where a particular skillset or a particular attitude is most helpful.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: You know companies, all companies probably install alternate channels, the anonymous hotlines, surveys, and even then don\u2019t hear the truth. Do you have any sense as to why those systems\u2026 I mean, I\u2019ve certainly heard that, why those systems often don\u2019t work.<\/p>\n CHARLES DUHIGG: I\u2019m going to push back on that. If a CEO of a large company comes and says, \u201cI\u2019ve done all this polling and we\u2019ve got anonymous lines and X, Y, and Z, and I\u2019m not hearing the truth,\u201d that doesn\u2019t mean that people aren\u2019t saying the truth, that means that person isn\u2019t listening to the truth, right? We\u2019ve both worked in large companies and small companies. We know that if you give people a chance to complain, they\u2019re going to complain. They\u2019re going to tell you what they think is wrong. And you might say, \u201cThat\u2019s Jim. He always gets on the line and he always complains nothing makes that guy happy.\u201d But it\u2019s not the problem that you\u2019re not getting the truth. The problem is you\u2019re probably not listening to the truth.<\/p>\n It might also be that you\u2019re not asking the right questions, right? Because again, are you happy is not a great question for a company because a company\u2019s job is not to make its workers happy. A better question is, do you think you\u2019re able to do the best work possible here? When you see something that you think is going awry, do you have the capacity to speak up and say something? Do you think people will listen to you? We have to ask the questions that we actually want the answers to, and the general polls usually don\u2019t do that.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: Well, and I think if you\u2019re not getting candor through those channels, you have a big trust problem because basically people are saying, \u201cI don\u2019t trust that this is anonymous.\u201d<\/p>\n CHARLES DUHIGG: Or they\u2019re saying, \u201cI honestly don\u2019t think you\u2019re going to listen to what I have to say, so it\u2019s not worth\u2026\u201d So why take the risk of saying it? And I think at that point, if you have lost that trust, you as a leader have to do something to regain it.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: Now, do you have a different view in terms of the way a conversation should go around the room? We talked about this a little bit about urgency, but in a really high stakes environment, a crisis response or something like that. I mean, do the rules go out the window at moments like this?<\/p>\n CHARLES DUHIGG: No, but what is really important is having the right habits in place. Psychologists refer to these as cognitive routines. The things that I can do that allow me to think more deeply when thinking deeply is hardest, such as in the moment of a crisis. Because in a moment of a crisis, my instinct is just to become reactive, to start acting right away. But what you find among really good executives is that they have this cognitive routine. They say, \u201cOkay, look, this is a real problem. We need to act on this. Before we act, let\u2019s take three minutes just to think about what are the consequences of these different actions.\u201d Or they say, \u201cOkay, this is a real problem. My rule is we are not going to tweet anything. We\u2019re not going to send out any emails about this until we\u2019ve gotten a chance to sit down and look at the wording together before we send it out.\u201d<\/p>\n Those are little cognitive routines, what are known as implementation intentions, that in the moment of a crisis, instead of following my instinct to act, I\u2019m going to create a requirement for myself that I pause to think. And you\u2019re right, these high pressure moments, they come, but usually it\u2019s not that if I have the answer in two minutes, it\u2019s okay. And if I have the answer in five minutes, it\u2019s not. Usually even in high pressure moments, it\u2019s not about split second choices. It\u2019s about choices over the next 10 or 15 or 20 or 30 minutes. And so, if I start thinking in that timeline, that definitely means I have enough time to take a minute and just take a beat and think about what we actually want to get done here rather than are we just reacting to some fire because we want to put it out.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: So you haven\u2019t mentioned, and maybe because it\u2019s too obvious, but to me, the most reliable way to shut down conversation is if the highest ranking person there, the person who\u2019s chairing the meeting says, \u201cAll right, we have to decide on X. I think we should do this, but what do the rest of you think?\u201d It\u2019s over, right?<\/p>\n CHARLES DUHIGG: No, no, that\u2019s terrible. That\u2019s terrible. So again, to go back to Amazon, what\u2019s really interesting is I sat in on a number of meetings at Amazon, including with Bezos when he was still at the company. And the same thing would happen every single time. There\u2019s a memo that whoever has called the meeting has prepared. The meeting starts with everyone reading the memo. And the memo is very formalized. It can\u2019t be more than, I think, at most three pages and usually it\u2019s supposed to be about a page long and it\u2019s supposed to lay out the problem, lay out how the decision ought to be made, et cetera.<\/p>\n So the meeting starts with everyone sitting down and reading that memo. You\u2019re not expected to have read it ahead of time. If you have read it ahead of time, you\u2019re expected to reread it. And then Bezos or whoever\u2019s leading the meeting turns to the most junior person in the room and says, \u201cWhat do you think?\u201d Sometimes, including in meetings I\u2019ve sat in on, this is like him turning to a 27-year-old and saying, \u201cTell me your take on this.\u201d And the 27-year-old is probably not going to have anything really great to say, but they might. And he\u2019s going to be honest and give feedback, say, \u201cThat\u2019s a good idea. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s practical. Let\u2019s see what ideas other people have.\u201d And you work your way up the chain so that the most junior people are the ones who are speaking first. That\u2019s how you get people feeling empowered because you\u2019re exactly right. If you start with senior people, nobody\u2019s going to fall out of line with what their boss says or they do at their own risk.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: So if somebody\u2019s listening to this and says, \u201cYeah, I would like to have a culture that is more candid, that actually delivers on what we\u2019ve been trying to do unsuccessfully for a while.\u201d What\u2019s an intervention somebody could make tomorrow with their team?<\/p>\n CHARLES DUHIGG: Number one is ask more questions yourself and tell your senior leaders to ask more questions. There\u2019s this expression I love that goes, \u201cWhen you\u2019re feeling furious, get curious.\u201d Because this is, again, a cognitive routine. When I\u2019m feeling really upset, when I\u2019m feeling overworked, when I\u2019m feeling like my back is against the wall or defensive, at that moment, what I should do is I should get curious and just ask a question. Because oftentimes, not only does it give me a break to start emotionally regulating myself, but it also gives the other person a chance to clarify what they\u2019re actually saying, because it might not be the attack that I perceive it to be. It might be that they\u2019re actually trying to help me. That\u2019s the first and most important thing that we can do to create a culture of candor is that we can start asking more questions.<\/p>\n We\u2019ve talked about rewarding people for bringing up challenges for second guessing us, but then on top of that, I think is something that\u2019s important, which is we have to talk about who we are as a company in ways that reinforce what behaviors are most important. There\u2019s a lot of interesting research that\u2019s looked at on office gossip, and it\u2019s found that office gossip is actually the most important type of communication that happens within an office place because it\u2019s through office gossip that we basically tell you what the norms are, how you ought to behave, the things that we can\u2019t write down in some book.<\/p>\n So I would say what\u2019s really important is as a leader, something that we can do tomorrow, is to spend a little bit of time saying, let me tell you what the values of this company are. Not necessarily the values that we have written in our mission statement because nobody pays attention to the mission statement, but let me tell you what I really value in my coworkers. I value people who when they see something going wrong, they come and they tell me about it, even though they know that there might be some risk to them in doing so. And I promise you, I\u2019m going to try and work hard to make sure that they don\u2019t suffer as a result of that. I value people who, even if they don\u2019t agree with the decision is made, once the decision is made, they get behind it and they commit to it 100%.<\/p>\n Oftentimes we have an identity as a company, we have an identity as a worker, and we don\u2019t know what that identity fully is until people start voicing it. So in addition to asking questions, the second thing people can do, leaders can do, is they can just have conversations about what does it mean to be an HBR employee? What does it mean to be an Apple executive? How are Apple executives different from other executives? The more conversations we have about that, the more we clarify who we want to be.<\/p>\n And then finally, the third thing is we just try and connect. Matching the kind of conversations that people are having, proving to them that we\u2019re listening, this ostentatious listening, inviting people into discussions. These are all things that exist to help us connect with one another. And the thing about connection is, Adi, I am absolutely certain that you don\u2019t agree 100% with your spouse or your best friend or your kids or your boss about everything, but you\u2019re probably able to get along with them pretty well, right? Because agreeing is not the thing that creates the glue for that relationship. It\u2019s the sense of being connected to each other. And so, the more that we can really emphasize on trying to connect with others, the more that we\u2019re going to be able to navigate through situations where we disagree.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: And what do you tell people who feel like it\u2019s hard? I\u2019m trying to project authority. I know that empathy is a part of leadership and vulnerability is a part of leadership, but I\u2019m new to my job. I need to show that I\u2019m capable of smart decision making. I mean, how do I balance that?<\/p>\n CHARLES DUHIGG: That\u2019s a totally normal instinct. It\u2019s an absolutely normal instinct. And every single study shows it\u2019s the wrong instinct. Scientifically, if we go out and we ask people who are the best leaders, they inevitably point to people who are vulnerable, who admit their vulnerabilities. And we tend to misunderstand what vulnerability means. Vulnerability is not crying in front of each other. It\u2019s not saying, \u201cLet me tell you this sad story about my mom.\u201d Vulnerability is being honest, is saying something that you could judge.<\/p>\n When I say something that you could judge, it sets off a neural cascade within my brain that creates a sense of vulnerability. And at that moment, I pay very close attention to how you react. And if instead of judging me, if you withhold judgment, and even better, if you share something about yourself or your thinking or what\u2019s going on in your life that I could judge in return, then we will feel closer to each other.<\/p>\n So you\u2019re exactly right. A new leader coming into a company, they can\u2019t walk up and say, \u201cI have no idea what I\u2019m doing. I make all the wrong choices.\u201d But what they can do is they can walk up and they say, \u201cLook, I have this plan. Let me explain it to you. If you think that there\u2019s gaps in this plan, I want to hear them and we\u2019re going to work through them if I agree that these are gaps that need to be handled. And then once this plan is underway, I need everyone to fall in line behind it. I need all of you to commit to it because it\u2019s the product of all of our thinking.\u201d That\u2019s a leader who no one is going to say that person isn\u2019t decisive, but they\u2019re also going to say, \u201cThat\u2019s a person who wants to hear from me, who\u2019s admitting, I have this plan. I\u2019m not sure it\u2019s perfect yet. I need your help to make it perfect.\u201d That\u2019s a pretty healthy environment.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: This is all fascinating. I want to thank you for being on HBR IdeaCast.<\/em><\/p>\n CHARLES DUHIGG: Thank you so much for having me.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: That was Charles Duhigg, author of Supercommunicators: How to Unlock the Secret Language of Connection.<\/p>\n Next week, Alison speaks with Nilofer Merchant about rethinking the status quo without losing what has made you great. If you found this episode helpful, share it with a colleague and be sure to subscribe and rate IdeaCast in Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. If you want to help leaders move the world forward, please consider subscribing to Harvard Business Review. You\u2019ll get access to the HPR mobile app, the weekly exclusive insider newsletter, and unlimited access to HBR online. Just head to hbr.org\/subscribe.<\/p>\n And thanks to our team, senior producer Mary Dooe, audio product manager, Ian Fox, and senior production specialist, Rob Eckhardt. And thanks to you for listening to the HBR IdeaCast.<\/em> We\u2019ll be back with a new episode on Tuesday. I\u2019m Adi Ignatius.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n #Team #Wont #Speak #Fix<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" ADI IGNATIUS: I\u2019m Adi Ignatius. ALISON BEARD: I\u2019m Alison Beard and this is the HBR IdeaCast. ADI IGNATIUS: So I\u2019m sure every manager has experienced this at some time or another. You sincerely encourage your employees to speak up truthfully, to give their unvarnished opinions about what\u2019s happening at work without fear of retribution. You […]<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3277,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7108","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-management"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n