You want agreement, not agreeableness

One of the most frequent challenges that executives share with me is their frustration that people aren’t following through on their commitments. 

A typical dialogue goes like this. “This is the fifth conversation I’ve had with J_ and he still doesn’t get it. He’s not following through. He’s not accountable,” says the executive.

So I ask, “Do you have an agreement with them?”.

There’s a pause, and then the executive says, “well, yes, I’ve told them several times…”. 

“Told them?” I say. “So did they then agree to what you told them to do?”. “Well yes,” they say, with a trace of irritation, “They nodded”. 

“Nodded?”.

Uh oh. “So does a nod constitute an agreement for you?” I ask.

And that’s when we get into one of the biggest problems with communication—best stated by George Bernard Shaw: “The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion it has taken place.”

Thinking that someone’s made a commitment to you by seeing them make a vaguely affirmative gesture reminds me of an old Peanuts cartoon. Charlie Brown is sitting in class pretending to listen to the teacher and all he really hears is “blah blah blah.” That’s what you may sound like when you keep telling someone what you want done without investigating whether they have the will or the ability to do it.

Head nods and other vague utterances such as “Sure! I’d be happy to!”—signal agreeableness, but they do not signal agreement.

Agreeableness is a bid to be liked. People often reflexively cope with their fears by acting to please you, especially if they’re a little intimidated by you. I’ve found that most executives, especially Chief ones, underestimate the degree to which people fear them because of the inherent status dynamic in hierarchical organizations. That fear increases the desire to please, and inhibits people from clarifying your request or making a firm commitment.

Agreement, by contrast, is a clear result of communication. It’s arrived at through a back and forth of investigation and dialogue to align both parties’ will and ability. It often involves the word “will” in it. As in “yes, I will do such and such for you by this date”. 

It takes more work upfront to produce real agreement. For the initiating executive it means making a good request, with a clear, specific, measurable outcome. Then investigating whether the other person is able and willing to follow through. That investment pays off handsomely for both parties—with increased accountability, less anxiety, and less misunderstanding.

Pro tip: this dynamic plays out at home too. If you’re a parent, do you ever find yourself telling your kids to do a chore, and then finding you have to keep nagging them? How’s that working?! I didn’t find it that useful, personally. Next time, how about sitting down with them to make a real agreement—investigating what might hold them back. And then if they break it, you’ve got an opportunity to communicate about the power of agreement and responsibility.

Here’s to less blah blah blah and to more effective communication,

Tom