If AI Can Help My Boss Communicate - I'm In!

Have you ever wondered what most leaders and managers spend their coaching hours talking about?

Most companies invest in executive coaching to help the leader or manager “improve through professional development”. Accordingly, the intake session is focused on clarifying goals and outcomes for success. So, what are the big winner goals for leaders and managers? 

1. Public speaking
2. Influencing (especially without authority)
3. Improving executive presence
4. Promotion strategies
5. Managing conflict
6. Managing time
7. Managing performance

Once coaching begins, there is inevitably one subject that overshadows all those development goals in the real world of working with human beings (whether in person or virtually). That is of course, communication. Simple day-to-day communication. And I’m sorry, AI has not yet mastered this one when it comes to communicating with human beings, in real time.

At work, we deal in the currency of relationships, and they are no different than many of our personal relationships when it comes to communication. What we communicate is not always received as intended. In fact, most often, it is not. (Are you married? Do you have children? If so, you can relate!)

That is because our words are spoken by the listener. We may provide the words, but the listener provides the meaning. We often get upset because other people misunderstand us. The problem is that we assume that whatever we say is perfectly understood the way we intended it.

Recently, I was coaching a Marketing Director, Angie, who was feeling deflated after presenting in a meeting with her boss, Joe. As we explored the communication leading up to and following the presentation, the issue became clear. Two different “languages” were being spoken and two different listeners were creating meaning.

As you follow the scenario, notice which communication style most resonates for you, and reflect on how you would have interpreted or responded if this were your boss (or maybe you are that boss…).

As a starting point, the overarching agreed-upon goal was clear:

Increase and diversify revenue streams (to a specific number), including branding and content channel revitalization, in the current year.

Angie brought deep subject matter expertise, and Joe entrusted and empowered her to use that expertise unreservedly. Most people in the workplace yearn for this level of trust and freedom from their boss! However, when the language or communication style preferences are different, confusion, disappointment, and often relationship friction result.

Angie had been tasked to lead a strategic branding refresh for the organization. Joe assumed she would know exactly what to do and come back with a solid and comprehensive recommendation. Angie delivered as expected. She provided a thorough brand assessment report and resulting brand strategy recommendations for review by Joe. She also scheduled a one-hour meeting to walk him through the findings, answer questions, and agree to next steps.

The meeting commenced as scheduled; however, Joe came with additional topics to discuss which absorbed half the meeting time. He also had not yet reviewed the information. Angie pivoted quickly, sharing key highlights and suggesting a follow up meeting.

Several days later, Joe sent back comments on the first half of the branding presentation. His notes were informal, including reactions, ideas, and many highlights of bullet points that were personally important to him. He did not provide direction, prioritization or feedback on the overall project to date, but stated that he would send input on the remaining presentation slides "soon".

A week passed without input, so Angie asked for guidance on how to proceed. She offered to incorporate Joe’s initial comments for a V2 version to review. She also suggested revisiting the overarching business objectives to ensure plan viability. (She was responding to the urgency of the project and desired outcomes and attempting to move things forward with the input she had received.)

At the second meeting, the first half was again focused on ad hoc topics that were on the Joe’s mind. The topics were pertinent to Angie, but not planned agenda items and not on previous priority lists. (He had also not yet had time to review the remainder of the brand assessment report.)

Angie again pivoted to meet Joe. In a calm, cool, moderately paced manner, she reviewed data targets, KPI’s, and detailed, multi-level lead conversion requirements to achieve the originally stated revenue goals for the year. She then provided a breakdown of weekly sales activity requirements and a suggested 6-step priority list for the upcoming 2 weeks.

Joe (who had been jotting notes throughout the meeting) responded with high energy, fast pace, and an animated yet directive tone. He acknowledged her input with, “okay, that’s awesome, but let me just tell you my gut feel on what needs to be the highest priority”.

Angie remained calm and cool. While typing Joe's inputs into the master strategy spreadsheet, she restated a higher-level monthly sales target, along with what she believed to be the most critical project items necessary to generate results and achieve the stated goals.

Joe acknowledged the input again, and with the same high energy tone, affirmed Angie moving ahead with her clear and methodical roadmap without delay. However, at the same time, he wanted to push some immediate actions, especially those he could influence to generate fast results, to the top of the list. This was of course in conflict with the methodical roadmap.

As the meeting time was coming to an end, Angie responded one final time in a centered, open, and warm manner. She recapped the new short-term focus areas, committed to reprioritizing components from her list, and offered to outline thoughts and draft requested content for his approval.

While Angie was resilient, responsive, eager to please, and unpretentious, she was also frustrated, disappointed, and concerned about the potential for a successful outcome. As we unpacked this chain of events in one of Angie’s coaching sessions, it became clear that the problem was not the work that she was doing, nor the informational input from Joe. The problem was that their communication and workstyle preferences were nearly opposite of one another. Remember the adage, opposites attract? That can be true in work as well as in personal life!

Angie brought a style that was introverted, measured, data-oriented, logical, rational, risk-averse, down-to-earth, pleasing, and unflappable. Angie was a “think-to-speak” type and pragmatic. At the same time, she brought creativity, marketing experience, strategic thinking, leadership, and director level project management skills. This was a perfect package for the organizational goals at hand. That is why Joe hired her with such confidence and commitment. Joe never doubted Angie’s value, intelligence, or even recommendations. He was never dissatisfied with her performance.

Joe brought a style that was extroverted, visionary, passionate, spontaneous, strategic and confident. Joe was a “speak-to-think” type and conceptual. He often communicated what he wanted as an outcome, but not the vision he had for that outcome or the progress to support it. Sometimes, he didn’t even know exactly what he wanted until he was presented with something that he didn’t. This led to his direct reports, including Angie, moving into action to work on the goal, and then receiving feedback that the product wasn’t exactly what Joe had in mind. A clear recipe for frustration. And neither person nor style was right or wrong. The indication was NOT that either person needed to change. But the communication pathways did.

With this information crystallized, building bridges of communication was straightforward. Angie was able to adapt her approach and provide the same information, but in executive summary form, more easily digested by Joe. She was able to ask the questions of Joe up front to clarify the context of his requests and his ideal descriptions of successful deliverables. She was also able to anticipate and build space in their meetings to receive his spontaneous input and ideas. And she knew to pause before acting on Joe’s requests, allowing time for potential adjustments to materialize.

Joe was able to understand the potential impact of his enthusiasm and vocalization of his thoughts and ideas from his position of power. His senior position generated the desire for those reporting to him to respond and drive for success quickly. With this awareness, Joe was able to genuinely invite his direct reports and colleagues at large to ask clarifying questions, confirm desired actions, and challenge unexpected shifts in direction, respectfully.

Most of our breakdowns in communication are innocent and unintentional. We are simply unique and individual people, and our communication and workstyle operating guides vary. The key is simply to increase self-awareness and understanding of others to move in the direction of unity. If we bring positive intent AND assume positive intent from others, the rest comes easily.

Think about a recent communication challenge or breakdown that you have experienced:

• What happened? What style characteristics can you identify?
• Where were the breakdowns?
• What was the impact?
• What conversation (specific questions) could help to avoid breakdowns in the future?

Remember…” Words are spoken by the listener”. How are you listening?