CHAPTER 3 Make Sure the Team Knows the Deliverables

The two words "information" and "communication" are often used interchangeably, but they signify quite different things. Information is giving out; communication is getting through.

—SYDNEY J. HARRIS, HUMORIST

It's not enough that you can answer the one question about what you're "working on." Are you sure your own team knows the outcomes they're responsible to deliver?

In survey after survey, managers report that their team understands organizational goals and initiatives. Yet team members themselves say they do not. In a recent worldwide Gallup poll among 550 organizations and 2.2 million employees, only 50 percent of employees "strongly agreed" that they knew what was expected of them at work. Obviously, there's a disconnection here.

Consider this all-too-likely scenario: A dad says to a disappointed teen after his prom plans with friends fall through because of transportation costs, "Don't worry, son. I'll see that you have transportation to the prom." Overhearing the conversation, the mom expects the dad to offer their son the family Lexus. The son walks away thinking, "Great. Dad's going to pay for a limo." On prom weekend, when his dad arranges his work schedule to be home to drive his son and his date to the prom in the family car, somebody's sure to be disappointed.

The same happens with staff at work. Expectations and outcomes don't always align. For example: The vice president expects the social marketing campaign to generate 500 inquiries on the new product within the two-week launch period. The actual outcome from the social media team's effort results in a 60 percent increase in visits to the company website but only 52 inquiries on the new product.

Leadership demands communicating a clear vision and goals, encouraging your team to collaborate on the strategic plan, and then inspiring followers to deliver specific outcomes. But let's face it: As the Gallup survey suggests, many leaders fall flat on their face when it comes to communicating the expected outcomes clearly. And the more times and the more layers of the organization that those goals need to travel through, the more chances that things get "lost in translation."

The following attitudes and practices signal danger. Consider the accompanying safeguards.

INCONSISTENCY VERSUS CONSISTENCY

Ineffective leaders fear that others will "catch them" in inconsistencies. As much as possible, these leaders stay behind closed doors.

Effective leaders say what they mean and mean what they say. They never fear that others will find a mismatch between words and action—between values they communicated in an all-hands meeting, for example, and what they're planning to do at an executive retreat. They don't have to remember what they told Rudy to make sure it "syncs" with how they told Gabriella to handle a similar issue. They practice consistency.

UNWILLINGNESS TO ADMIT MISTAKES VERSUS ACCOUNTABILITY

Leaders expect their team members to own a problem, a task, a project—to take responsibility and see it through to completion. That's why it's devastating to their own credibility and to team morale when leaders refuse to clearly communicate, "I made a mistake." "I misjudged the situation in that I should have considered X." "I didn't react appropriately." Failure to "own up" sets up a mindset for failure to deliver.

Effective leaders shoulder responsibility and accept accountability as a visible part of their role.

THE ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL PERSPECTIVE VERSUS PERSONALIZATION

Struggling communicators plan their messages (emails, speeches, briefings, announcements, webcasts) with a one-size-fits-all mentality: to "the team," "their staff," "the company." That is, struggling leaders think of the universality of what they need to communicate; as a result, their comments become vague and general.

Effective leaders, as they communicate, consider their team of individual performers—not a group that acts and responds collectively. Why will Janet, Barry, Haroon, and Eduardo care about this? In what ways does the message apply specifically to how these people do their jobs? If you're encouraging your team to find ways to cut costs during the next quarter, use an example of saving $8,000 on paper supplies that Barry might identify with, along with the cost-cutting example of saving $100,000 by using temporary rather than full-time employees—an example that Janet would identify with as manager of a much larger division. These two very specific case studies would communicate to the entire team that you're familiar with how they individually contribute to the team.

Rather than babbling about diluted abstractions, strong leaders provide specifics. Their conversations, briefings, and emails are focused, practical, and relevant.

Such personalized communication elicits individual engagement and commitment—in much the same way a personal invitation to a party gets an answer and a Facebook post to a group of 80 may or may not.

WAR STORIES AND VICTORY LAPS VERSUS HERO HIGHLIGHTS

Struggling leaders typically tell a lot of this-is-how-I-did-it war stories as they share initiatives and launch new projects. People learn from the past, of course, and you want the past to serve you well. But taking victory laps rather than forging on to the future weakens you in the eyes of your followers.

Stronger communicators more often tell this-is-how-they-did-it hero stories that showcase other employees' successes on the job. Consider the strategic difference in morale in making others the heroes in your stories. You've seen many companies use this approach in their TV commercials. A video highlights key employees, who relate why they became an engineer, a scientist, or a physicist at XYZ corporation. These featured employees become the "face" for the big corporation.

You can do the same as a leader to build your team members' morale. When you celebrate wins, tell their individual stories and contributions—not just yours and not just the stories of the collective team.

DON'T-MAKE-ME DEMEANOR VERSUS OPEN BODY LANGUAGE

As a parent, have you ever warned your quarreling kids, "Don't make me have to come to your room to settle this"? Or maybe you remember your own parent's dire warning: "Don't make me stop this car to see what this is all about!" Or, "Don't make me send you away from the table without dinner!" All said with the appropriate scowl, tone of voice, and wagging finger.

Struggling leaders often appear to be in similar pain as they communicate a challenging new mission: negative words, nervous gestures, fatigued expression, angry tone, glaring eyes, frustrated frown, doubtful shrug, slumped shoulders, and defeated stare. All of this negative body language stands in the way of communicating clearly with your staff. Consider it a blockade to delivering anything of value—internally or externally.

By contrast, effective communicators know that their body language and behavior trump their words at this strategic time. Rather than a gloom-and-doom-delivery, their facial expression and gestures are positive, open, energetic, warm, and affirming. Their body language shows excitement about the vision and confidence in the team to deliver the desired outcome. They smile sincerely. They often ditch the desk barrier in favor of sitting side by side with the other person. If speaking to a larger group, they approach them rather than stand behind the barrier of a lectern. They extend their hands and arms, greeting others and welcoming questions rather than pulling back or standing rigidly in place as if expecting to be the target for darts.

Your "visual" counts. Check a mirror occasionally—particularly on tense days in tough situations.

INEFFECTIVE VERSUS EFFECTIVE VERIFICATION QUESTIONS

Great leaders understand the strategic importance of continually verifying that team members understand the expected outcomes for the internal or external client—annual, quarterly, or project deliverables, along with the metrics used to track performance.

So what's the least effective way to verify with your staff or a peer? By asking, "Do you understand?" Confident team members invariably say yes. They want to please.

But the most effective leaders verify for themselves strategic steps. They test understanding by asking thoughtful questions and listening carefully to the responses. Depending on the project, you might ask one or several of these questions:

•What kind of pushback do you think we might get on this idea from those directly affected?

•What will be key steps in your process to roll out this project next quarter?

•What's a realistic date to complete a project like this?

•What suppliers do you think we should involve?

•Do you anticipate any delays along the way as we work on this initiative?

•The budget I've set aside is $X. Does that amount seem sufficient?

•What concerns do you have at this point?

As staff members respond to your questions, you can verify for yourself their understanding of your goals and their expected deliverables—while there's still time to make a course correction or amplify.

Leaving this strategic alignment of goals and expectations to chance can sink your ship before it leaves the harbor.