So you know my cousin Margot too, eh?

You seem to have two problems.
The first seems to be your people have been driven to silence.

To fix that, you have to make them comfortable to bring up issues again. Perhaps a way you could do that is to ask people publicly “Is there anything on your project you need help with, or you are stuck with?” They go quiet and listen. Don’t jump in and “prime the pump.” Just stay quiet. It will take a few minutes, but someone will start.

THANK THEM for their input. Then do something with it – how can you help them get past where they are stuck? If you can show people you listen and then follow up and help them, that will go a long way towards breaking down the barriers.

Now the second issue – it seems like you are judging a bit here by saying “yap yap yap.”

Are they talking about company issues? Concerns with the company?

Talking isn’t a bad thing if it’s related to the business.

If it’s not related to the business, it would be a good place to have a crucial conversation. Ask people “What are you talking about?” Then again, LISTEN to what they say. If they say they are talking about something non-business related, it’s an opportunity to share.

For example: “You may not know this, but the VP was walking through the area the other day. I had just made a presentation on why we missed a deadline last week, and explained that the team is overloaded. When he walked through, I got feedback that it didn’t seem the team was very overloaded since they were talking about non-business related things for quite a while.”

Don’t make anything up. It comes down to we’re a business, and we are here to make money. You don’t mind some occasional side discussions, but the level of these non-business discussions are affecting our profitability as a division. Let’s work together and try to cut these side discussions down.

Good luck. It’s a challenging problem – I’m sure if you use your Crucial Conversation skills, you’ll be successful in changing the behaviors. Just stay curious.

I don’t see it as being “overly sensitive”, I see it as balancing respect and candor (elements of crucial conversations) to see the employee as a human being. There are so many “reasons” this person may be talking more than I prefer and if I just tell them to stop I don’t get to hear their perspective and I risk them not sharing important things in the future.

Dialogue is a two-way conversation where we both add to the pool of shared meaning and figure out how to move forward and saying “you talk to much” feels (to me) like a monologue with a hard stop of no understanding.

I would think the answer is the same – a direct approach has merit, and in a trusting relationship with a supervisor or co-worker, this level of direct communication can be valuable.

If you have that same trusting relationship with the president, then be direct.

My wonder is why do we see being “direct” with our employees as okay, but then when it’s our “leader/manager” the rules change.

I actually think that Scott’s direct approach has merit, and in a trusting relationship with a supervisor or co-worker, this level of direct communication can be valuable.

My issue: the individual in my org who needs to be reigned in is the president of the entire organization, who talks/pontificates ad nauseum in meetings, regardless of whether the meeting is one of the leadership team, department staff, or external partners, and even when he takes a breath and others try to intervene, he uses the exhale to add “one more thing…”

Would love any thoughts when the power dynamic is reversed from the example above!