Hard conversations and ensuring success

In the bubble

As Paul Wolfowitz stepped out of his suburban Washington home one spring morning in 2007, he was greeted by the unusual sight of journalists camped out on the curb. The past weeks had seen intensifying scrutiny of Wolfowitz and the actions he had taken shortly after assuming the presidency of the World Bank in 2005. Politicians and leaders from civil society had begun to weigh in on the situation, and it was unclear how the institution’s Board would respond.

Established in the aftermath of World War II, the Bank was designed to finance the rebuilding of countries devastated by the conflict, only later evolving to take on its current broad anti-poverty mission.1  From the beginning, tradition held that the government of the United States would choose its leader. When Wolfowitz was nominated by President George W. Bush it was expected that he would serve at least one standard five-year term, if not two.

But less than two years after he began, engulfed in ethical and policy controversies and facing mutinous sentiment from the Bank’s staff, Wolfowitz was forced to negotiate his resignation, bringing his tenure to an abrupt and inglorious end.

Although Wolfowitz’s presidency was brought down by several factors, underlying them was the choice of outsiders he surrounded himself with as advisers. They had few ties to the broader institution and were dependent on remaining in his favor for their employment, making it difficult to deliver the honest feedback that could have redirected his tenure.

As an architect of the Iraq war, Wolfowitz already faced an uphill battle in winning over the large faction of the Bank opposed to his politics.1 Instead of outreach and openness, his office adopted a contentious and defensive posture that complicated working relationships with staff. Viewed as aloof, he gained few advocates among those with influence. The effects of his leadership style were not communicated back in time for him to adapt and respond in more constructive ways.

As a result, negative sentiment gained steam as people sought confirmation of what they already believed to be true.3 The tipping point was crossed when terms surfaced of a deal that Wolfowitz had negotiated, in which a subordinate was reassigned due to a personal relationship. It was viewed as suspiciously generous by an institution already hardened in opposition, making the situation untenable and solidifying calls for his ouster.

A better way

Many leaders have been brought down when they create cultures that dissuade hard conversations and honesty. With limited understanding of how their decisions are being received, they continue stumbling along without correction, unaware of how trust is eroding and the mission undermined. Necessary feedback may be deflected yet the underlying issues remain, festering until they break out in unmanageable ways.

Better leaders regularly seek out input from those whose opinions differ, especially when those conflicts are uncomfortable. Healthy organizations foster regular interactions that encourage these connections. In the vacuum of regular engagement, assumptions fill the void, and these often prove to be misleading. Good leaders insist that their plans be prospectively critiqued, and get rid of advisers who never have any substantive disagreement with their decisions.

Noble intentions are not enough, simply because others are not positioned to read them accurately. What they observe are actions, and these have personal impact that must be understood. Wolfowitz asserted that his intentions were good when resigning, claiming he behaved “ethically and in good faith”. This made no difference to the outcome because his actions were perceived differently. When a leader fails to seek out and understand these perceptions, they can lead to responses that are harder to control.

Great leaders further remember the surprising truth that feedback is always true, at least in one specific way. Although it may not fully capture reality, it is always an accurate reflection on the person giving it. The facts may be incomplete, statements may be misinterpreted, and actions can be misunderstood, but feedback accurately reflects impact on and emotions of the giver.4

Make it personal

A culture of hard conversations does not imply unfiltered or thoughtless reaction, and the same principles apply whether they take place with peers, managers, or subordinates. Good feedback:

• Is genuinely oriented to the good of the recipient. The giver may have hurts or frustrations, but honest conversations are not a mechanism to vent or seek to inflict corresponding damage. Good feedback is about helping the other be as successful as possible, in the ways demanded by the professional context. If this is not your motivation, reconsider what you are about to say.
• Draws from external actions to give a glimpse of internal impact. It seeks to move from a rehashing of behaviors to understanding the effects of actions and their motivations. Although actions are externally observable, the impact on people cannot be directly experienced. However it can be shared and understood vicariously. Two conditions should be true for this to happen: the giver is willing to be open, and the receiver can hear it with empathy.
• Is specific enough to act upon. Telling someone they did a great job or something similarly vague can lead to warm feelings, but such statements are not particularly helpful. What should the recipient continue to do? How exactly was she effective? What actions led to good performance, and how can those be sustained and amplified? Conversely, what specific actions are causing negative impact, and how can they be adjusted?
• Balances the absolute with the relative. Everyone is on a growth path, which can be evaluated both relative to external standards but also to one’s own trajectory. Specifically, feedback helps someone anchor his performance against that of others, but also against his own past. Expecting a novice employee (or leader) to behave like a seasoned one can be unreasonable and frustrating, but it is appropriate to expect better performance than in the prior year.

If you have not at least once in recent memory delivered or received a thought-provoking or discomforting message, consider how dangerous your situation is. This means either that you and everyone around you have reached a previously-unknown level of perfection or, more plausibly, that difficult but valuable developmental interactions are not happening.

Whether you are just starting out or very senior in your role, allowing this to persist for long is a recipe for missed opportunities in the best case, and sudden breakdown in the worst. For leaders, ensuring that hard conversations break through the walls around them is critical. It could even change the course of a career.

How are you ensuring that you embrace difficult conversations to develop those around you? More importantly, what are you doing to ensure that challenging messages reach you?

References

As an employee of the World Bank, my employment overlapped almost exactly with that of Wolfowitz, providing a front-row seat for his rise and fall.