These are the words that I once scribbled on a flip chart when welcoming participants to a two-day work session. The mission for the two days was to find a way to rescue their company from suffocating financial issues. Upon seeing these words, participants were immediately confronted by my assertion.

Likely, they understood the words to be an accusation. Some were quick to point out how the competition copied their products and underpriced them that their loss of market share was fuelling their financial issues. The finance person blamed the increasing cost of capital. The engineers complained about unreliable suppliers and the increased cost of production. The HR person added that it was getting more expensive to attract top talent. Of course, all of these explanations were valid reasons for why they had fallen behind on revenue and why their costs were rising. Fix these external problems and we’ll get back on track was the unspoken expectation they placed me, the consultant, for the next two days. 

However, before we got to work fixing the problems, I asked them to grant me their patience as I provided a different perspective on their challenges.

I first asked them, what is a company? A collection of people, said the HR person. A system of using inputs to create a set of outputs, said the engineers. To create economic value, added the finance person. An entity that solves problems for paying customers, said the marketing team. Something that generates a profit, said the finance person, getting some laughs.

I then asked, what is the difference between Ford and GM? Each have thousands of people. Each have networks of factories and supply chains that usher inputs through a process of producing a car. Each have dealer networks. Each have great histories, logos and commercials. What really distinguishes one from the other? While they may look alike, they are vastly different. No matter how similar, no company is the same. What is the difference?

Silence.

I tried a different approach - If I followed you around all day watching you using inputs to create outputs or to solve problems for paying customers, what would I see you do?

Finally, some responses: Attend meetings. Read and write emails. Talk on the phone. Visit customers.

Right. So, I would see you communicate. As we work through the issues over the next few days, let’s use a uniquely powerful perspective to look at your company. Consider that an organization is fundamentally, at its core, a linguistic entity. An organization’s ability to get things accomplished exists in how well it uses language.

From this vantage point, conversation is the primary organizing medium to get useful work done. By conversation, I mean any linguistic means of communication, ranging from speaking and listening, to writing and images.

Put simply, a company is the sum of all corporate dialogues, or what I call a network of conversations. The network of conversations is more than what leaders say. It’s about, at all levels, what is being said in an organization, what is not being said that probably should be said, and most importantly, what is being heard that was not said.

I drew attention back to the flip chart:

High performing teams engage in high quality conversations. Teams that perform poorly engage in poor quality conversations.

The difference between Ford and GM, or Air Canada and West Jet is the quality of the conversations that take place at all levels inside and outside the company.   

I asked the group to map out their own network of people (internally and externally) on whom they depend and who depend on them to get things done. I asked them to look at the network diagram and look for areas where their speaking was not as clear or not as aligned as it could be. I asked about the quality of listening that existed throughout their network. I asked where the loop was not being closed, or where surprises sabotaged trust. What became apparent was that the source of poor performance was low quality conversations, and where the results were good, there were more effective conversations.

I asked them to look again at their network of conversations. This time, I asked if the dialogues centered on what was needed in the present in order to express the future needs of the company.  How aligned were their conversations with the core values, strategy and direction of the company? In these conversations, did they fact check their assumptions? Did they assign blame to outside factors? Do they explain away areas of weak performance?

As sobering as this is, said the finance person, I can see that this is good news for us. Our work over the next few days is to elevate the quality of our conversations with each other, with our suppliers, and with our customers. All of which is in our control…and I like control. 

The most senior engineer observed, and the way we spoke about why we were in this mess was not powerful. We spoke about the issues like they were elsewhere and that we were not responsible for any of it. That is not, in my definition, high quality. 

The president drew the most impactful conclusion. She walked to where the flip chart was, and on a clean sheet wrote: