There are libraries full of self-help books about professional-improvement, showing how one should behave to get ahead. This blog produces a shortcut on how to assess the generic contribution of oneself but also of other people.

The most basic indication is the degree to which a counterpart focuses on listening or speaking. In a typical conversation the inept only speak, the capable mainly listen and ask. Bad sales people dwell on product features, good sales people ask for identifying customer needs. Or, as the Germans say “Wer fragt, führt”.

Typically, some counterproductives are also very persistent in their sending on content level only. They repeat topics over and over, sometimes from different angles but not always. In case another speaker tries to intervene at a process level, they refuse to get out of the content. There is a very fundamental reason why in formal discussions like in parliaments a ‘point of order’ takes precedence over a ‘point of content’. (Again, the Germans: “Störungen haben Vorrang”.)

On top of it all, a typical counterproductive counterpart is very emotional, which not only prevents himself from being rational and to the point, but also invites others to become emotional and divert from the topic on hand.

One of the clearest indications that somebody has little value to add to a conversation is when the contribution focuses on the history of how a situation came about: ‘He said this and then I responded that’ and variations thereof. In principle these descriptions focus on Information only, whereas often the Analysis or Action part are more relevant. (See also my blog on the ida-ly-cycle.)

As a summary, the (usually non-) succinctness of a counterpart indicates the level to which she can get to the essence of a situation. A speaker who is to-the-point allows the listener to both save effort to sift through the details and time to discuss the topic. Einstein’s quote about simplicity and genius may be considered to be well-known, and definitely applies here. The higher one gets into the organizational hierarchy, the higher the time pressure on agenda’s, so if one participant is too verbose she not only does not add value in a discussion of a certain level (‘belong there’) but also her contributions become obstructive to progress on other topics.

How do you score on these points?