Lemanskills.com

Artykuły

Leadership

What Does a Communication Debt Really Cost Us?

We talk a lot about communication. In fact, I am the person who teach and preach the whole idea of Communication Intelligence. And yet, we don’t talk strategically enough about one thing that is a phenomenon in many organizations: Communication Debt. I see and hear during workshops and one-on-one mentoring leadership sessions that I run a lot of thoughts, problems connected with that, and I wonder why we talk about it so much, and not doing a lot? So, I’ve decided to spend time today and unpack a little bit this subject. Let’s see what the communication debt is, when it appears in organizations and what we can do to address it, before it’s too late.     What is Communication Debt?   When we’re thinking about debt in overall, the first thing that comes to our mind is money. Then a lot of organizations, especially tech-oriented, are talking about technology debt (we didn’t invest in the past in the infrastructure or software, integrations, architecture: So, we have a technology debt). And the same thing is with the communication debt for me. The root cause is a lack of investment in communication processes. Lack of investment and/or lack of priority on all the communication processes that are in the organization on individual, team and organizational level. The communication debt is a gap between the level of understanding, data and information and contracts people should have and we actually have in a certain moment of time in the organization. And it can appear in many different setups: Between employees, peer-to-peer; between employee and manager, a manager and their manager; between the executive team and board or board of directors outside of them; including investors, stakeholders, shareholders, you name it. Again: This is a gap that is between what we should have in the organization and what we actually have. And not many people have awareness that they have a communication debt because… there is a lot of assumptions around. And many companies that I work with right now, and I worked with in the past, have on board people who are assuming that others know what they need, what they should or what they want. So, if we base our communication strategy on assumptions… It is not a huge surprise that people are not happy, their engagement is dropping dramatically. Gallup Institute “State of the Global Workplace 2025” Report shows that employees’ and managers’ engagement level is lower and lower. And the interesting thing is that it is even lower in the management basket than the employee basket. Of course, the differences are not very big, but they’re visible. I’m not surprised when I see that kind of results: People are less and less engaged. They are less motivated intrinsically. They look for a new work more often than 10 years ago, or even 3 years ago. And yes, you can say that this is connected to the generational change. But what the important thing is that the younger the generation is, the better they are in setting boundaries and a need for information. Transparency is one of the biggest values Gen Z has. So, this is something that for me, personally and professionally, as a leader is important to understand. Because I’m asked to support organizations, teams, a specific leader when there’s already a fire, when there’s already a drop in engagement, in efficiency, that the team doesn’t deliver tasks on time or value or projects on time. When people are quitting the team, especially tech talents that are hard and expensive to replace. And most of the time it’s too late.   When the Communication Debt Appears?   From everything I’ve observed for the last 10 years, working in different organizations and different teams, especially IT and tech, I can tell that the communication debt appears when there is no prior or very little priority on communication in overall. We’re not learning how to tailor our communication, we’re not investing in communication intelligence (CQ), because there is a lot of different items (more important in our brain) on the list to cover on a daily basis. And this is totally okay that tech teams need to focus on tech, because this is your genius; as well as HR people should focus on HR, and finance people should focus on finance. Every single person has a genius zone. But there is also a thing named “transferable skills”. And transferable skills relate to every single position, every single job that you are going to have in your future because you can copy and paste them and basically start using them right away. When you join a new team, organization or a new setup, business-wise and private-wise. And another thing is those skills are the umbrella (The Umbrella Skills, I call them that way). You can have your specific Subject Matter Expert skills and competencies, pieces of knowledge, but you also have the umbrella skills that like a real umbrella, are on the top of everything that you do, regardless of the situation, or the context. And this is something that I treat like the ultimate set of skills, like the power skills. Because if you don’t have them, you can have the most beautiful tech skills in the planet, but they will be useless. And now it’s hurtful. You need to have strong algorithmical communication skills, because it is a part of your intelligence. Communication intelligence is a real thing. And I can’t emphasize that enough. So, when there’s a very low or no priority on communication, when we assume that people know more than we ask, or we provide information, even if they appear for us as boring, repetitive, you name it. When you don’t invest your time and effort and energy and money in learning how to communicate better, there will always be a debt, no doubt about it. The culture of the organization determines what kind of communication, what channels of communication, what frequency of communication people

Read More »
Leadership

Do I Even Want to Be a Leader?

Why people accept being leaders? Is this something we dream about as kids? When we get the question: “Who you would like to be when you grow up?”, do we answer: “A middle manager in the huge, global organization”? Is it a matter of a “natural talent” we have and show as children to lead or maybe a set of skills that every person can learn and then use quite successfully? Why is that some people are great leaders for their teams and the others (statistically bigger representation) are making people miserable and in consequence: quitting? Let’s unpack this subject today.   The Story of One Tech Leader…   I work a lot with First Time Managers. Those are people who are fresh in leadership positions, statistically up to 3 years in the role. Most of the time there were great SMEs (Subject Matter Experts) and a natural move for them to grow was to be offered with a Team Leader role of the team there work in. I remember very well one story that relate to a Tech Leader I worked with in the mentoring process a couple years back. He was a very skilled expert in one of the leading technologies that was used in the core product of the company. He started as a junior, but learned very quickly, constantly participating in trainings, conferences and projects, working on different implementations and most of the time building functionalities from scratch. When he grew to the expert position, he also got the task of teaching others, onboarding new team members and acting as a technical mentor to them. He was doing great. Then, as an obvious offer for the organization he got a proposition to become a Team Lead of the team: the same one that he was an expert within. He took the job: the money wasn’t extremely bigger, but potentially more organizational and strategic impact was an argument that he was sold to. He thought: “I know everything about the scope of the team’s work, what else can there possibly be?” A few weeks later in the role showed him otherwise. He started to be a completely different person: like he had some hidden personality that was there, waiting to be awaken for so long. He started to be mean to team members, getting angry and mad very quickly when he saw any mistakes or imperfections in what the team delivered. He even got constructive feedback, by name on team daily meetings: what was unacceptable and never happened before. The team engagement started to drop; first people made decisions about leaving the area that they loved working within. That was the moment when he was redirected to me, so I support him in this situation.   Why People Accepting Leadership Roles?   This story shows us a few aspects of why we accept those roles connected to People Management when they are on the table. What I see from working with different cases and circumstances, there are 5 reasons that are the most common: I would say they cover 80% of all decision about choosing this career path: 1. The only way to grow. Sometimes people don’t see other options. They think that accepting leadership position is the only way they can be promoted or have possibilities to learn. Either is their strong belief that can have a root even in childhood (if it was a home conviction, being expressed loudly so we picked it up as children and we took it for life) or an experience from different organizations from the past. Sometimes it is true that organizations offer more, i.e. trainings, workshops, mentorship opportunities for leaders. It shouldn’t take place, so if you see if, I would advise to reach out your supervisor or HR person to take a closer look on that. 2. Fancy position name. Team Lead, Manager, Director, Head: the higher in the structure, the fancier it sounds. And the better it looks on LinkedIn or the resume. Potentially of course. The question is: do you want to grow in the leadership space in your current and different organizations on the market in the future? If yes, ok: the name of the positions matters, since recruitment process is marketing process (for both sides). If not: it doesn’t really matter. So, first: go and answer this question. 3. More potential influence / power. Sometimes we take leadership positions because we believe that’s the only way to make a real change. To get a seat at the table, to have opportunities to say things out loud, to be an advocate of what we say as a team. To have more positive influence or power to reshape a work environment, even if it’s just a small piece of it. The question is: is it a really a truth that by changing the role to be a leader, you will have this influence, more than you have as an expert? 4. Better visibility. I hear this one a lot. And it’s connected with the more influence and power element described above, sometimes treated as one thing. “If I’m a leader, I’ll be more visible = I’ll have more credibility to make a real change.” It also comes with the visibility on the market or in the specific part of the industry: when I’m a leader, I will be more reliable, my LinkedIn will blow out and I will have countless invites as an expert / speaker / podcast guest etc. Is it really a truth? Can’t you be all of these as a real expert in your area? 5. More money. Here comes a catch. The money part most of the time comes at the very beginning of the list of reasons on why to accept the leader role. And you know what? It’s not always the case. I saw multiple examples of extremely skilled, well-known experts that earned way more money than their supervisors. Because their skillset was super niched out, and there were

Read More »