Nobody really likes them. Yes, some are better than others in dealing with them, but they are likely not high on our most-favorite interactions list. Tough conversations make us uncomfortable. Maybe we even don’t know what to say or how to say it. We don’t always know how to handle them without either damaging a currently-positive relationship or escalating a crappy one.
Either one, our druthers are to not have to deal with them. Unfortunately, that’s seldom an option. Unlike fine wine, good scotches and well-kept cigars (I’m simply listing my relevant vices), the conflict behind the need for those conversations does not get better with age.
Unfortunately, until AI makes us all obsolete, people are in the mix; if people are in the mix, there will be conflict. If conflict is in the mix, we’ll be having difficult conversations.
So then, what to do? Books are written and workshops are held to address how best to have these discussions. Various glossy hardbacks are rife with advice on how to conduct these particularly onerous chats. What if, instead of getting better at them, we figured out how to not have them in the first place? Try this instead:
Avoid difficult conversations by having difficult conversations.
Say whaaat? Kevin, your aforementioned vices are causing you to say crazy things… if I don’t like having those conversations to begin with, why the hell would I intentionally create them??
Simply put: brief, preemptive discussions can prevent having to deal with those bigger, difficult conversations.
A story… I was doing a C-level 360 survey recently, and in following up on an earlier comment I asked the person I was interviewing “So, how well does this executive deal with really tough conversations—you know, serious conflict?” The person paused for several seconds, which is usually a precursor to something bad or negative. Instead, he surprised me…
“Actually, he does a really good job of avoiding having to have those difficult conversations.”
Well, I must say that caught me a bit off-guard. “So, he simply avoids having them altogether,” I asked?
“No, he avoids having to have them,” he replied.
Well, I’m just a public-school graduate from south Texas… I told him to please explain. He went on to explain to me, in thoughtful detail, how this executive has the near-term, immediate conversations with others that prevents things from escalating to unhealthy conflict or those dreaded difficult conversations.
“When performance or behavior is off, or some expectation is unmet, this executive deals with it then, while it’s simply feedback. Instead of waiting until things build up and emotions come into play, he just has those simple, brief conversations—positive and negative—on a regular basis.”
In doing so, he seldom must deal with what most people would call a difficult conversation.
He doesn’t avoid having them, per se… he avoids having to have them.
Hmmm, avoiding a problem instead of dealing with it after it’s created? That’s some cutting-edge thinking right there.
This is a question I frequently ask clients when discussing how best to approach someone in a (usually) tough conversation or conflict. As leaders, if we want to “win” the discussion, we simply flash our business card, tell ’em “because I said so” and to get back their butts back to work. Immediately solves the issue at hand.
But what problems does the jerk-boss approach create in its wake? Does it fix enough to overcome the negativity of the process? Does it actually change behavior?
Yeah, no. It certainly doesn’t change behavior. At best, it creates mindless drones, waiting for another direct order to determine what they should do. At worst, it creates a disgruntled malcontent, sowing discord and malice among peers and blindly adhering to your rules, even if they damage the outcome. A behavior I call malicious compliance. You’ve seen it before — it’s when an employee does something they clearly know was wrong, and when asked ‘why,’ quickly responds “Because you told me to.”
We know these people. Bad news, hoss; we likely created them.
If you want to win, you can. Instructions above (jerk). If you want to change behavior, it’s as simple, just a bit more involved. Direct communications are always fine, just remember that if you want someone to change their behavior willingly, you’ll need to communicate in a manner they can accept and internalize. In all likelihood, yelling, screaming and saying “because I said so” are not “…a manner they can accept and internalize.”
Remember, it’s a clear sign of weakness if you must rely solely on your position to get things done. We can pay someone a whole lot less for those same results.
A good manager never has to remind others of his or her position; a good subordinate never has to ask.
Coaching Slugs… the uncoachable. Also sometimes known as:
Light’s on, nobody’s home.
She just doesn’t get it.
How’d he slip through HR?
The 80/20 rule…
Or, my personal favorite…
A waste of time.
As egalitarian and “fair” as we sometimes hope to be, there’s no getting around it — some employees can be a waste of our development time, and we should stop doing that the instant we realize that condition. Make an effort, to be sure, but get better at knowing when it’s time to fish or cut bait.
Perhaps they were mis-hired to begin with; perhaps they were promoted well past their ability to grasp new concepts; perhaps they simply don’t want to do what’s required… I don’t know, and at this stage I wouldn’t spend a ton of your time digging into the “why.” The “what,” is “I’m spending my time for no return, when I could be spending it on someone else for recognizable value.”
Not really much of a choice, is it?
Quality guru Joseph Juran said (loosely paraphrased) that we tend to spend 80% of our time on those things that deliver 20% of our aggregate value. I would argue that, when discussing employee performance, motivation, and one-on-one development or coaching, that figure is much closer to 90/10. Maybe even higher.
Really, how much time do you spend with your highest performers… your top 5%? I’m not talking MBWA face-time, drinks after work, or breakfast forced-marches. Nor am I describing time spent at those infernal time-wasters called “staff meetings.” I’m talking about working with that A-player one-on-one, investing your personal time, counsel and expertise, and making sure that those “A’s” receive more emphasis than the “C’s.”
Let’s be clear: time spent growing top performers is never, ever wasted time. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for lesser beings.
I know this sounds harsh, and decidedly un-empathetic. I assure you it’s not. It’s simple pragmatism wrapped in what’s best for both organization and employee. Let’s face it, if you’re spending an untoward amount of time with an under-performing employee, it’s unlikely that same employee is “living the dream” at work.
Yes, we should do an appropriate amount of development for those employees who don’t quite “get it,” but seem to have both the wherewithal and the give-a-$h!t to grow significantly with some well-thought attention. But be wary, critical, and skeptical; prepare to cut the cord the instant you realize you are repeating yourself, notice issues of ethics or integrity, or that the employee’s “light” just hasn’t “turned on.”
Remember, development — coaching, training, appropriate responsibilities — are a vital part of growing our future leaders. But they must bring a few things to the table that you simply cannot coach in. You can’t train them to have a work ethic, for example. They must bring that with them when hired. You cannot train them to be honest or ethical — someone well before you influenced that past repair.
And most important: some people, no matter how much we want to believe the best, just don’t have the intellect to handle the work at hand. I don’t mean high IQ scores; they just need to have enough gray matter to learn and perform the job at hand.
To quote that master of pithy responses, comedian Ron White, “no matter how hard you try… you can’t fix stupid.”
CNNMoney.com recently reported the results of a surprising survey: Year-to-date CEO departures are up almost 10% from 2005.
Up almost 10%. That’s a big increase.
Ford Motor Company, HP (God, what a mess!), Viacom… all these are high profile organziations with recent chief executive changes; the truth is, however, that many of the almost-1,000 CEOs that left their jobs this year were from companies much like yours. Not necessarily a newsworthy event to CNNMoney.com, but significant nonetheless.
Why are these CEOs leaving, I wonder? The CEO job is, purportedly, the pinnacle — the crowning achievement of a management professional. Why, then, the departures? Is it disappointment? Apathy? Lack of motivation? Excessive oversight?
Hard to say, since it’s likely all this and still more. The attention on the CEO’s office has never been greater; the penalty for failures, even short term ‘blips,’ can be painful. New SEC oversight for publicly-traded companies has supported short-term positions in leadership — an unintended consequence of recent legislation.
During a recent CEO search, most candidates are sizing up my opportunity much more closely than I’ve ever seen in the past. they want details on the predecessor’s successes and failures, reasons for leaving, and detailed background on Boards of Directors. All this is good, of course, as it increases the likelihood of a solid match. It also, however, points out that the CEO position is no longer this “holy grail” of an opportunity; people are evaluating it much more for personal fit and likelihood of success, regardless of short-term financial value.
Regardless, it’s an issue we must contend with. Short-term results begats short-term leadership… no way around that. Should our focus really be so close-in, or should we create, manage, and lead our organizations for the longer haul??
Can we do that with frequent changes at the CEO chair?
A look at relevant leadership news this past week.
The government shutdown continues. The Libertarian in me says this should be great, since it means fewer government employees kicking around. The reality is, regardless of political persuasion, an emotional impasse like this represents an abject failure in leadership. All of the leadership.
Picture a for-profit company, with co-owners, each retaining exactly 50% ownership. Unable to agree on a specific, smaller strategy, they refuse to deliver anything to their customers until they each get what they want. Oh yeah, and they tell employees they won’t be paid, but it’s the other owner’s fault.
“BuzzFeed’s board recently agreed that the company needs to start turning profits…” Now that’s some cutting-edge thinking right there, Lou.
The very definition of lousy leadership? Nearly a decade in a services business (defiitely not a startup), $300M in revenue with double-digit annual growth, NEVER made a profit.
Wait! New strategy… let’s save our way to prosperity by laying off revenue machines, er, I mean “employees.” No one’s ever tried that before…
Sears continues its meteoric demise. Like a train wreck, this shit’s hard to watch. While unsecured creditors say they’ve been bamboozled, Eddie Lampert says he’s been an oasis in a desert, providing much-needed financing at critical times. It’s sorta like the illicit “fence” that gives you 10 cents on the dollar for your valuable stuff, so you can keep making dope buys. Both of you may be complicit, but the fence is the only one making all the money.
On a side note, having witnessed this myself, the only people that come out of a bankruptcy smelling like roses are the law firms. Keri Grant, a paralegal for Weil Gotshal & Manges (sounds like a punk rock band) on the Sears case, billed almost $175,000 in November at $405/hr. According to salary.com, a senior-level paralegal makes $33-41/hr. Not a shabby delta in rates for a punk rock band.
Client: How much for some of that newfangled #ethics consulting and training?
Consultant: I dunno, around $100k I suppose…
Client: What?!? Sorry, waaaay to rich for my blood… we’ll DIY.
As my granddaughter used to say, “okey-dokey artichokey…”
Oracle continues the Silicon Valley trend of tech companies. allegedly low-balling and under-promoting women and people of color. They stand to join an esteemed list of companies, including facebook, twitter, google, et al.
The part that amazes me… with all this alleged egregious behavior, these firms continue to win best-places-to-work and related awards. Oracle even has a specific webpage devoted to “Corporate Citizenship Awards,” which include (just a few):
Best Diversity Company by Diversity Careers magazine
Top 50 Employers for women engineers by readers of Woman Engineer magazine
Top 50 Employers for workforce diversity by readers of Workforce Diversity for Engineering and IT Professionals magazine
Top 50 Employers by readers of Equal Opportunity magazine
All the awards mentioned above occurred during the time period the Feds have alleged Oracle was systemically underpaying women, blacks, and Asians relative to their peers (to the tune of some $400M+)
Give me an old-fashioned, Houston-based oil & gas firm where – surprisingly to some – diversity is real.
On a more positive note, Ford Motor Company workers will receive profit-sharing bonuses of over $7,500 per worker. This even after Ford’s Q4 operating loss. All the while rival GM is laying off over 15% of its workforce and shuttering a half-dozen plants.
Not to confuse Ford’s CEO Jim Hackett of being a pushover; he’s made it clear that 2018 sucked big, and he wants everyone (employees) involved to “…bury the year (2018) in a deep grave, grieve over what might have been and become super focused on meeting, and, in fact, exceeding this year’s plan.”
