Our working lives are consumed by conversations:

• we have various one to one conversations with colleagues, peers, customers, senior managers, staff and more;
• we have range of group conversations with some or all of these people in the same place at the same time;
• we even have conversations with ourselves!

Our working week is wall to wall conversations.

Given the significant time given in any week to these various ‘conversations’ the way we talk as well as what we talk about emerges as a very important factor in organisational effectiveness. Some recent research (Losada & Heaphy, 2004) sheds some light on how the what and how of conversations is a key indicator of success. What emerged from the study was how the pattern of language in high performing, average performing and low performing teams was strikingly different.

Positive v Negative

In essence the study found that high performing teams had a ratio of 5 to 1 positive statement to negative statement ratio. (Positive comments were supportive, encouraging complimentary and expressed appreciation; negative comments were critical, disapproving, and cynical). Average performing teams had a 1.8 to 1 while low performing teams had a 0.3 to 1 ratio of positive to negative comments.

Questions v Statements

In addition it emerged that that high performing teams had a balanced Inquiry to Advocacy ratio.

They asked questions and made statements in balance where less well performing teams asked less questions and made more assertions.

It seems that these measures have an important influence on building ‘connectivity’ within teams and within the broader organisation. When these kinds of communication patterns are present people are more likely to engage with each other, to participate rather than withdraw and to open up information flows so that things get done and issues move forward.

Other v Self focus

High performing teams also demonstrated a balanced outward focus toward others and towards other sections of the organisation, compared with less well performed teams that focused more internally on their own issues at the expense of keeping the broader focus in mind.

Good coaching conversations have long provided a model for these ‘ways of talking’. Maintaining positive focus and positive emotion is a way of building resourcefulness and energy and has always been central to the gci coaching approach. And of course ‘asking questions’ and helping coachees explore and discover their own solutions is widely advocated by many coaching practitioners as a foundation coaching skill.

Now it seems that these practices have relevance beyond the coaching context.
How would your team rate on these measures?

Reference: Losada,M.& Heaphy,E.D (2004).Positivity and connectivity. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6):740-765

John Campbell