ATD Footer Logo

Communication in Training and Development

The latest on sharing ideas, information, and feedback in an engaging, effective way.

business illustration. small people characters develop creative business idea. Isometric big light bulb as metaphor idea. Graphics design Generative AI

Adobe Stock 580123016.jpg

Communication

Get a bi-monthly dose of the latest Organization Development and Talent Management content, tools and templates, best practices, events, and more.

Run successful email marketing campaign for online business, newsletter promotion, personalized message concept. Flat design vector banner template.

Adobe Stock 288458961.ai

The Organization Development and Talent Management Newsletter

Communication Skills Training offers the crucial tools you’ll need to help your workshop participants master the skills that drive performance. 

Book

111420_Communication Skills Training_Cover

Communication Skills Training

TD Magazine Article

The Fine Art of Conversation

Communication  Link 1

ATD Blog

Communicating Effectively Through Repetition and Channels 

Communication Link 2

TD at Work Guide

251704_Listen Up!

Listen Up!

Communication Link 3

0000015b-abbe-dcc7-ab5b-bffe5e4c0000-content

performance-consulting-tips-putting-the-pause-button-on-training-requests.jpg

Master Series Logo

Master Program

ATD Master Performance Consultant™ Program

Communication Link 4

BRAND-Communication-Spotlight Card

Google Ad #1 - desktop - 970x90

Google Ad #1 - mobile - 300x200

Ad #1 for Generic Pages

The Latest

Google Ad #2 - desktop - 970x90

Google Ad #2 -  mobile - 300x200

Ad #2 for Generic pages

Here are four ways in which managers can let personality differences get in the way of performance—and what they can do about it.

Don't Let Personality Differences Get in the Way of Performance

Would you say leaders in your organization tend to be more bold or more cautious when they make important decisions? Not sure? Here are a couple case studies for comparison.Case Study 1:A new CEO took the helm at a technology company and quickly eliminated 70 percent of the product line and announced a partnership with the company’s biggest rival.Case Study 2:At a different technology company, a new CEO was promoted from within, and instead of making bold changes, the CEO began methodically tuning the company culture and carefully analyzing trends and opportunities to refine the directional focus.AnalysisOn the surface, these case studies represent opposite leadership styles, one bold and one cautious. Which would you want to train for in your organization? Is it better to train leaders to measure twice or to teach them that fortune favors the bold?While they appear to be in conflict, caution and courage are both virtues. Knowing the outcomes of each case study adds some useful context.Case Study 1 describes the return of Steve Jobs to Apple in 1997. Jobs made the risky decision to focus on a few products like the iMac and formed a partnership with Microsoft to bring Microsoft Office software to Mac machines. Apple experienced extraordinary growth under Jobs’ second tenure.Case Study 2 describes the promotion of Satya Nadella to the top job at Microsoft. The company was struggling when he took over in 2014 and seemed to be on the fast track to irrelevance. Under his leadership, though, Microsoft has traded places with Apple as the world’s most valuable technology company.Effective Leaders Need Both Caution and CourageThe apparent contrast between courage and caution in these examples reveals a paradox, a tension between two necessary principles that on the surface appear to be contradictory. It’s tempting to dumb down the contrast and talk about different “leadership styles”—one bold, and one cautious, either of which can be effective. This explanation ignores the important reality that every effective leader needs both caution and courage. The traits are like two posts on a suspension bridge pulling in opposite directions. The tension between them is what keeps the bridge in place. For all his caution, Nadela placed big bets on AI, cloud services, mixed reality, and quantum computing. Some of those bets have not yet paid off. For all his boldness, Jobs was intensely data-driven in his obsession with the user experience, not just measuring twice, but hundreds of times and from multiple angles.Both Nadela and Jobs had big aspirational goals that, like a compass, pointed them in the direction they wanted to go. Jobs wanted to fundamentally reshape the way people use technology to create, interact, and find meaning. Nadela has a similar vision for Microsoft that is about empowering every individual and organization to achieve more by leveraging technology. Both leaders also knew they needed short-term achievable goals to measure progress toward those aspirational compass points.The Balance of Courage and CautionTo train effective leaders, you need to help them understand the balance between aspirational goals and achievable goals. They need to understand that all lasting progress is the result of an iterative process of goal setting, barrier analysis, behavior changing, and results evaluation. At Niche Academy, we call this the Progress Cycle.Effective leaders are not born. They are ordinary people who have come to understand and value paradoxes like the tension between courage and caution. Chances are that your team already has people ready to learn and implement the patterns that will move their team forward.

Bold vs. Cautious Leadership—Which Is the Best for Growth?

When COVID-19 arrived in the United States in early 2020 and the country was awash in questions about its origins, a relative of mine was certain that the virus was not what officials said it was, wasn’t dangerous, and probably wasn’t even real. I shared a different perspective, citing information that I believed was reliable, but she was firm in her stance. Feeling indignant, I determined I would do what most of us do when another person is skeptical of what we deem to be facts: I would bludgeon her with more facts! Being a writer, I decided to do this by letter. I began by expressing what I believed in my self-righteous stupor to be good intent: to keep her safe. Then I proceeded to school her in “The Philosophy of Logic,” “The Psychology of Belief,” and “Coincidence and Conspiracy.” These and other subheadings eventually became chapter headings, complete with bulleted lists, hyperlinks, and citations. A week later, the letter exceeded 4,000 words! I read and reread the letter aloud, trying to imagine how she might receive it. I tweaked the words over and over, hoping to tame the screed. But no matter how hard I tried, I couldn’t imagine her receiving it with anything other than total irritation. The way I wanted to handle that disagreement is perhaps best represented by a quote by James F. Welles, who wrote, “We cannot really understand ourselves without understanding stupidity; and if we understand stupidity, we will understand ourselves.” Notice that Welles does not say “We cannot really understand other people without understanding stupidity.” Yet when it comes to our disagreements, that’s always how we imagine it—it’s only others who are capable of being so stupid. In the Crucial Conversations courses, we learn about our reptilian brain. Because we associate facts with truth, when it appears to us that someone is willing to disregard them, we experience conflict. When we experience conflict, the reptilian brain lights up, we tell ourselves convenient stories, and we (often) foolishly resort to either silence or verbal violence. So, whattayado? First, check to see if you feel indignant. If you feel some sense of disgust, you’ve most likely concluded the other person is ignorant and you’re not. While you may not be wrong in your assessment of the other person, you’ve probably overlooked your own fallibility. One lesson of Crucial Conversations, and of life in general, is that when we judge only others to be fools, we are more likely to act like a fool in our interactions with them. Next, seek mutual purpose. You may need to explore motives to find some common ground, but it might be as simple as listening or suggesting an alternative. “I appreciate what you’re saying. I’ll keep that in mind as I do my shopping.” Or, “Thanks for your input. I don’t feel comfortable revising our lessons completely without more research and discussion, but how would you feel if we took such-and-such approach for now?” Also, talk tentatively. Don’t misinterpret the alliteration—there’s no need to be timid. To forward your ideas tentatively simply means to make it clear they’re your perspective. Share the events or experiences that have led you to your conclusions. About a week after I tucked that unfinished letter away, my relative and I decided to meet for coffee and openly discuss our beliefs about Covid. I felt very vulnerable. But instead of trying to teach her everything I think I know about logic and science, I listened to her viewpoint, and then I shared mine—as a viewpoint. “Based on my experiences, this is what I think.” That was far more effective than “Well, this is just how the world is.” We didn’t see eye to eye, but we maintained our respect for each other, and we gained new appreciation for each other’s viewpoint, which is all I wanted in the first place. In time, our perspectives shifted, and in hindsight I can see it would have been futile to fight each other with facts. 

TD MAGAZINE

ATD BLOG

BOOK

MASTER PROGRAM