When a company is small, communication among employees is as simple as rolling a desk chair around the room to talk to the president, the admin, or the chief engineer. But as a company grows, communication becomes more difficult. And strategic direction can suffer as a result, even if those at the top assume otherwise.
“Having communication that goes bottom-up is just as important as having communication that goes top-down.”
"In many cases you have an executive team that's so sure about company strategy, but then you go inside the organization and find that nobody else has a clue," says Harvard Business School Professor Boris Groysberg. "Nobody knows what strategic conversations are actually unfolding."
For that reason, many CEOs are reconsidering the classic command-and-control structure in which a few people are sending all the directives from the top of the corporate hierarchy. Instead, they are adopting a conversational approach. In their new book, Talk, Inc.: How Trusted Leaders Use Conversation to Power Their Organizations, Groysberg and communication professional Michael Slind show how several global companies are adopting principles of face-to-face conversation, and why this approach positively affects a company's bottom line.
"In many ways the book is not about communication as much as it is about performance," Groysberg says. "In an economic environment where there is so much uncertainty, the senior management of a company might not know where the company should be going in three years. But your frontline customer-facing people might. Having communication that goes bottom-up is just as important as having communication that goes top-down."
To try to suss out best practices for communication, the authors interviewed communications directors and CEOs at more than 100 companies. "We were struck by how often that word 'conversation' kept popping up," Slind says. "CEOs, especially, expressed an aspiration to promote a conversation in their organization. They talked about wanting everyone to be on board with the conversation about what they want to do with the company."
Borne of those interviews, the book advocates an approach called "organizational conversation," which applies to all processes a company uses to circulate information across the organization, rather than just from the top down. "It's about creating a culture in which the communication function becomes something that more and more resembles the way that two friends would talk," Slind says.
The Properties Of A Good Organizational Conversation
The book divides good organizational conversation into four alliterative elements—intimacy, interactivity, inclusion, and intentionality—each of which applies to a particular attribute of an organization. "Intimacy is about leadership," Groysberg explains. "Interactivity is about channels. Inclusion is about content. And intentionality is about goals, vision, and the strategy of getting things done."
Read an excerpt from Talk Inc.
INTIMACY: The authors note that intimacy need not require physical proximity, which would be impossible in a multinational company where employees are separated by thousands of miles. Rather, it requires emotional or mental intimacy. "It's about trust, it's about being authentic, it's about communicating your vision but also at the same time listening to what employees have to say," Groysberg says.

A typical vision workshop included about 20 people and lasted three days. HPCL is a Fortune Global500 company employing more than 11,000 people, so it took years to complete the workshops. But by the end of the process, "almost every person felt that the company vision was his or her own vision," Groysberg says.
INTERACTIVITY: Once some intimacy is established, it's important to keep the conversation flowing. "It's not just that one person is both talking and listening, it means that there is a real sort of back and forth where the act of listening actually changes what you think and say," Slind explains. "As your company gets larger, that gets more difficult. But one of the ways to do it is by using technology."
The book provides a quick overview of the social technology that helps global corporate communication mimic personal conversation: internal blogs (in which leaders share their thoughts and employees have a chance to comment), wikis (which enable collaboration on corporate databases), online communities (which help far-flung employees find like-minded colleagues), Twitter (which lets employees broadcast information widely, both internally and externally), networks such as Facebook and LinkedIn (which enable information sharing among a particular group), video sharing (YouTube and the like), and web-enabled video chat (which help to mimic in-person communication).
Global computer networking giant Cisco Systems, for example, uses its own TelePresence videoconferencing technology to simulate in-person meetings among its ranks—more than 6,200 executives and some 72,000 employees in total. "You really forget that you're speaking across a fiber-optic cable," says Slind, who has observed videoconferences at the San Jose, California-based company. "You feel like you're sitting across from this person."
Slind hastens to add that technology is only as effective as those deploying it. "Interactivity isn't just about technology," he says. "It's equally important to build an interactive culture."
INCLUSION: In organizational conversation, inclusion means giving employees a chance to help tell a company's story. Ceding a measure of control over communication to employees comes with the obvious risk of uncontrolled messaging, but the authors report that the rewards of inclusion often outweigh the risks.
A traditional command-and-control company will filter a bunch of top-down messages through the communications department. But the book recommends a more organic approach. Sales teams can share success stories from the field via public video blogs, which journalists and customers may consider more authentic and more useful than slick marketing material. Furthermore, besides meeting with sales teams, customers might have a chance to meet with the no-nonsense engineers who actually created the technology.
Talk, Inc. discusses a project at EMC, a Hopkinton, Massachusetts-based storage networking company with more than 40,000 employees. In 2009, the company employees produced a book about the lives of working mothers at the company, gathering personal essays by 97 women at EMC (and one essay by a man). "It bubbled up organically," Groysberg says. "And in that way the message they created was more compelling than a marketing campaign. It's helping the company to recruit women, which creates a great competitive advantage. And internally, it has served to engage employees by letting them become content creators. That's an example of being inclusive and allowing people to have voice. And what we find is that that fundamentally will drive engagement. And engagement will drive more effort. And effort will drive individual performance, and subsequently that will drive organizational performance."
INTENTIONALITY: While the goal of organizational conversation is to draw on the characteristics of a talk between friends, it must always have an agenda—and a leader must always have a goal in mind. Otherwise it might take the form of talk just for the sake of talking. The goal may be to ensure that all the employees understand the company's competitive strategy, or it may be to ask every employee to help shape that strategy. But there must be a goal, and the leader should use conversation to achieve that goal.
"Even if you can't control everything anymore you still are the leader," Slind says. "You still have responsibility for setting the tone and setting the direction. And that's what intentionality is about. As you're planning a conversation, you need to make sure that it's in alignment with your company's strategic goals. And if it's done well, the power of communication can support those goals."
The authors note that establishing a culture of conversation won't always mean hitting each of the four "I's," but stress that these elements "tend to reinforce each other" to create a highly iterative process in which good ideas have a chance not only to be heard but to be developed as well.
"A productive conversation is a source of sustainable competitive advantage," Groysberg says. "We find that if you can have good conversations in a company, you can actually achieve a lot."
Not trying to tout other people's work and services, but in this context, the work of David Gurteen to employ conversation as a means of personalized, effective knowledge management in his Knowledge Cafes underlines this efficacy, even when not looking at it from a strategy point of view.
This also reminds me of the article "Do I dare say something" (Harvard Working Knowledge, http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5261.html). The article talks about "Latent Voice Episodes" - instances where people may not speak up, for fear of offending those higher up in the organization. In conventional top-down command-and-control structures, it's almost impossible for "bad news" conversations to swim upwards, against the currents of power.
For any sort of communication to be effective, it has to be almost always be two-way I believe and the art of management might lie in the effort behind creating that easy-space where people interact willingly and without much hurdles....
to those seated and working close by. This is an avoidable waste of energy and time. Moreover, the written material may miss some points.
Some important matters do need to be put in black and white and creation of records is called for.
As a further simplification more and more use of phones would also make life easier.
One can guess what is the fear about but are afraid to talk and that makes things even worst.
The big one is intentionality. We call it the commander's intent. Commander's intent is three parts--purpose, method, and the end state. Basically, why, how (without specifics) and what I want the battlefield to look like when the mission is accomplished. If this is clearly communicated then I can expect everything to be completed without any additional guidance. A failure to communicate this will result in a failure of the overall accomplishment of the mission.
The other stuff, intimacy, interactivity, and inclusion can be accomplished with our "conversations"--or, as we call them, "monthly counselings"-- and our leadership principles and traits that we carry with us and take very seriously.
Good read!
1. Team work
2. An environment of being appreciated
3. Creativity as new ideas of what ever form are welcome.
My view is that the informal talking -kind of -environment, necessitated by conversational leadership, creates an all rounder and continuous brainstorming exercises/sessions and everyone in the net work is kin to contribute their brains out because it is as interesting fora to be part to.
I wonder if we are as a society losing the ability to really listen and hold productive discussions simply because we are of the belief constantly we don't have time. When in fact the lack of conversation I estimate is losing some corporate millions due to lack of understanding and buy in through out the organisation. Thanks for sharing
John, I have a question. As you know, in the build up to the 2003 war on Iraq, America simulated the war in the biggest ever war games. Called the Millennium Challenge, these games were fought by the US forces on one side, and retired US marine Lt Gen Paul Van Riper and his small band of fighters on the other.
Incredibly, Van Riper's side won. Riper apparently didn't focus on command and control, but said he was "in command and out of control". He only stated the intent of what needed to be done, and subordinates were expected to take their own initiative and not depend on orders. This sounds very similar to what you spoke about, ie commander's intent.
Would you know if the change from "command-and-control" to "commander's intent" happened after the lessons of the Millennium Challenge were learnt?
Conversation is really urgent at all levels of human interactions. I look forward to reading Talk Inc. because I already like that the excerpt speaks to important subjects like inclusion, interactivity, and most of all, intentionality. Once we break things down and acknowledge that humanity should not be prohibitive, it can also be simplified by a saying that I love so much -- "There is a saying that people will forget what you said, they will forget what you did, but they will never forget how you made them feel." A good conversation feels so good, doesn't it? It validates.
Adjoa Acquaah-Harrison
As leadership is relational, conversation is its sine qua non - with no conversation there is no leadership - even self-leadership requires internal "conversations". Through conversations people make meaning together and create workable models of "reality". A principal function of leadership thus becomes - to varying degrees - the direction, control or influencing of conversations towards desired ends or new and more workable realities.
M.Poomalai M.S., PMP
Japan
So, about conversational hairdressing, if any hairdresser has to read a book to learn about the value of people talking to each other, then they are not going to be much good at hairdressing!
Carmen Nobel set out a framework with some brilliant examples and criteria and should be a mandatory read for leaders and managers in any kind of organization that is interested in improvement without a lot of dollars.
The vision example I have seen in some very good organizations where front line staff do reflect the values that their board and executive and marketing tell the public about.
The stories of the working mothers is an equally brilliant example. I recall some years back when working in the executive of an auto insurer in Canada and the marketing folks featured our real employees in the TV and print media to get out message to insureds. We ran differing ads in the local markets and the branch managers could not believe the change in the claimants and customers they were seeing nor in the staff who were on cloud 9.
I wish our African leaders will talk more to their people than send others to deliver such messages