When ‘difficult conversations’ are just….conversations

3 May 2019
Errol Amerasekera

Most leaders and coaches would agree that having a culture of accountability is a key ingredient in a high performance team. And while this element of culture is imperative across a variety of business and community sectors, it is of particular importance within elite sport. One of the reasons for this is that sport often has to contend with very short performance cycles. This requires teams to make cultural and tactical corrections very quickly; frequently mid-game, but almost always within a seven day turnaround i.e. prior to next week’s game. A team culture which enables a high degree of personal accountability is a prerequisite for this to occur in a consistent and efficient manner.

There are numerous philosophical and practical approaches designed to foster a culture of accountability within a team. One which has come into vogue in recent times is the concept of ‘difficult conversations’. The premise is simple – high performance teams need to be able to have these kind of conversations to ensure that difficult to talk about or taboo subjects are not being avoided. Additionally, within the context of elite sport, optimal performance cannot occur unless individuals are able to hold their teammates accountable to the performance, cultural and behavioural expectations related to their role. And while on the surface this appears to be an effective strategy, more and more I am seeing (and hearing) evidence that while these ‘honesty sessions’ have beneficial aspects to them, they also have the potential to undermine the sense of safety and trust, which in turn can adversely impact the feeling of connection and relationships within a team. As a result team cultures can rupture, or at least form cracks which then become chasms under the pressure and scrutiny of ‘game day’. Clearly this is not supportive of sustained high performance.

What determines the success of these ‘honesty sessions’ or at least minimises their risk comes down to an aspect that most leaders, coaches and consultants might not consider – the strength of the cultural container. I call it a “container” because it holds the team not only through the process of having a difficult conversation, but also in their day-to-day interactions. From this perspective, the cultural container can itself be viewed as a key cultural element.

The cultural container represents the degree of safety and trust within a team. It reflects the extent to which individuals feel free and able to speak up about their ideas, concerns or even their mistakes without fear of retribution or humiliation. The strength of the cultural container is therefore a key determinant of how accountability is created within teams and how feedback, especially ‘constructive’ feedback, is given and received.

When the cultural container is robust, team members are able to hold each other accountable through feedback processes in a way that is direct and to the point. But more importantly it enables them to do this with compassion, connection, a generosity of spirit and dare I say it – love. It permits a depth and an authenticity of interactions which allows complex dynamics and difficult to talk about subjects to be explored with safety. When this happens ‘accountability’ and feedback are not seen as a personal attack or a judgement on the totality of someone’s inherent character or their value, but rather as a developmental opportunity that highlights a gap in a particular skill or behaviour.

In contrast, when difficult conversations are had within a flimsy cultural container there is less of a sense of safety, trust and compassion. Therefore, team members are far more likely to perceive feedback as a personal attack. Once this commences we are precariously placed atop of a slippery slope as the situation has the potential to deteriorate rapidly. In these situations team members will often become defensive (which is only natural in the face of a perceived attack); they may feel undervalued; not seen as a human being as well as an athlete; and the dedication, sacrifice and commitment they have previously made to their teammates appears to have been suddenly forgotten. This can quickly erode trust that has taken much time to build; it can do irreparable damage to relationships; and it can fracture a team culture to the point where it is very difficult to bring it back from (at least in the short term).

It is important to remember that the strength of the cultural container is not fixed. It is a fluid dynamic, and therefore constantly changing. There are numerous behavioural elements, which when demonstrated consistently, will work to strengthen the cultural container. I will elaborate further on these in a future post (stay tuned). The key message here however is that when teams have a cultural container that has been actively and intentionally strengthened over time, ‘difficult conversations’ are simply just…. conversations.

So if a conversation feels particularly difficult it might be symptomatic of a weak cultural container. In other words, part of what makes a conversation feel difficult, perhaps even clunky or awkward, is there is not enough ‘holding’ which in turn creates the safety and trust required for these kind of conversations to flow with a relative degree of ease, goodwill and collaboration. If this happens frequently, it may well be an indicator that as a team we need to re-evaluate those elements that reinforce the strength of the cultural container.

So how strong is the cultural container in your team? If you are not sure, examine the depth, vulnerability and authenticity with which conversations are had within the group? Are ‘honesty sessions’ and feedback perceived as personal attacks resulting in defensiveness, disengagement and/or hurt feelings? Or are they experienced as more a checking in process and done in the spirit of trust, safety and friendship?