Introduction:
The Rules of Engagement
To make employee turnarounds and epiphanies successful, there are a few key rules of communication to follow: First, remember that it’s not what you say but how you say it that counts. That may sound like an old saying that your grandparents taught you, but in the world of work, people tend to respond in kind: If you demonstrate respect and compassion, you’re likely to receive a similar response, even when dealing with the most uncomfortable and confrontational workplace situations.
Second, your greatest asset when dealing with others is guilt, not anger. Anger is an external response: When people are mad at another person, they look outward to voice their frustration. Guilt, on the other hand, is internal: When people feel guilty, they look inward and tend to assume responsibility for the problem at hand. That’s the Golden Rule of Workplace Leadership: Allow people to assume responsibility for their actions, and you’ll “pierce their heart” and get them to want to change things for themselves. Try to force them to do something by making them mad or by challenging or embarrassing them, and they’ll resist the change that’s being forced on them. We’ll discuss strategies for invoking guilt rather than anger responses throughout the book, and psst … this works just as effectively in your personal life as well!
Third, remember that whatever you want for yourself, give to another. So many times people demand respect, open communication, and other forms of social acceptance without realizing that they don’t give those things to others. At a time when many demographers and sociologists are pointing to major shortages in the labor market because of the upcoming retirement of the baby boom generation, retention is vital. Yet people tend to join companies and leave managers: They initially see the value of the company, its reputation, and perception as a great place to work—only to flee from a manager whom they no longer trust or respect.
They also say that the difference between an active and a passive job seeker is one bad day in the office. When that proverbial straw breaks, sometimes over seemingly minor issues, the job change mechanism kicks into gear, and at best you’ll have a worker who has become mentally unemployed. Then you’re faced with the “employees who quit and leave” versus the “employees who quit and stay” syndrome, and it’s only a matter of time until something blows up.
Folks, life is too short! And if your company is anything like the typical company in corporate America, there’s usually enough work to sink a battleship. You certainly don’t need all the added angst and pressure that comes from walking on eggshells around people who you really don’t get along with. That’s simply too much for most people to bear, and yes, there’s a better way to manage your career as well as your subordinates.
Which leads us to the fourth rule of thumb: Honesty is the best policy. Now I know what you’re thinking: Oh please, that’s very easily said from the HR ivory tower, but I’ve got to work side by side with these people every day, so please spare me the hackneyed adages! Being open and honest is particularly difficult when you’re dealing with certain kinds of employees, and the confrontation just isn’t worth it.”
In reality, honesty has to be the basis of everything you do as a leader. Confrontation is tough for all of us. Just remember that differences in opinion are perfectly acceptable; however, confrontation in the negative sense is optional. Speaking with others in a respectful and thoughtful tone, regardless of the content of your message, will allow them to assume responsibility for their actions or, in the case of termination, get on with their lives. Try these on for size:
Janet, I appreciate all of your hard work and effort over the past three months, but we’re at the end of your probation period, and I’m sorry to say that this just isn’t working for us. I know how hard you’ve tried to improve in light of the discussions we’ve had, and I’d guess that you probably feel that it’s not a “love connection” on your end either, but I don’t believe this was a good match of your strengths to our needs, and I’m afraid we’ll have to separate your employment today. We’ll label this as a “probationary termination” in our records, and you’ll still be eligible for rehire with the company if some other opportunity surfaces in the future. In addition, we won’t contest your ability to get unemployment insurance.
Sam, through absolutely no fault of your own, our company is going through a restructuring, and we’re going to have to eliminate a number of positions. Yours is unfortunately one of them, and I’m so sorry. I wish it could be different, and we’ll do whatever we can to help you through this unexpected transition in your career, but please understand that these sorts of things do happen in people’s careers, and I’m afraid that your position is impacted as part of a larger restructuring. We’ll discuss a number of ways that we’d like to help you, but before we go much further with this discussion, I just want to check and make sure you’re okay….
No, these examples aren’t exactly fun messages to deliver, but they’re compassionate and understanding. You’ll more than likely find that people are willing to meet you halfway and become part of the solution any time you present issues that affect them personally—even terminations and layoffs—with kindness and concern.
In the first example, the probationary employee being terminated for cause will certainly feel remorseful—“I didn’t want to lose this job and I’ve tried so hard. I’m sorry if I disappointed you, and truth be told, I’ve disappointed myself”—but probably not litigious. Remorse and regret stem from guilt: “I was part of the problem and couldn’t increase my performance to a level that was acceptable to the company.” And guilt always looks internally for shared responsibility and accountability.
In the second example, the layoff was no one’s fault. These things simply happen, and the supervisor was very caring and willing to say, “I’m so sorry.” Those three words are critical and so underused! It costs nothing to say I’m sorry, as it costs nothing to say thank you, but few supervisors make consistent use of those magic words. When employees sue companies for wrongful termination, one of the first things they typically complain of is, “I can’t believe after all I had done for that company, they threw me out and never even said they were sorry!” That need to hear I’m sorry is a universally human trait, so don’t be shy about using those very words. It’s fair, humane, and fills a very important need in others’ lives.
In fact, a lawsuit is typically a tool of workplace revenge. When employees feel like they were stripped of their dignity, humiliated, or disrespected at the time when they were most vulnerable, they often feel a need to get back at the company. We all know about incidents of workplace violence and lawsuits that plague the workplace, but imagine how much easier it would be to treat people fairly and respectfully at the time of their greatest vulnerability and allow them to get on with their lives. Just think how you’d like to be treated under those same circumstances, and use yourself as a guide for handling the situation.
That being said, don’t manage by fear of a lawsuit, and don’t be afraid of being sued because that’s simply the cost of doing business from time to time in corporate America. You should be concerned, however, that you are being sued on your terms —not theirs. And that means that you should always be prepared to defend a termination or other adverse action by showing that you were a reasonable and responsible employer and that you accorded employees with workplace due process. In other words, the record should reflect that you listened to the employee’s side of the story, investigated the situation thoroughly and objectively, and reached a reasonable and timely conclusion before taking action. That may sound simple, but it can be difficult to avoid acting in the heat of the moment when something goes wrong in the office or on the shop floor.
Finally, the fifth and most important rule in this book is actually a word: perception. Perception is never right or wrong—it just is. And whenever you use the word perception, you’re not accusing anyone of anything or proclaiming to be stating facts. Instead, you’re simply relaying how you’re seeing things from your perspective or what you’re hearing from others.
Let’s look at the most common problem with people management in corporate America today: grade inflation during performance reviews. Performance reviews are often mandatory in many companies and needed to justify an employee’s annual merit increase. But because many supervisors don’t keep records of their employees’ performance throughout the year or meet with their staff members on a quarterly or interim basis, they have little information on which to justify the grades they give. They of course want to avoid upsetting the employee, whom they have to deal with for the entire upcoming year, so rather than providing an honest grade showing that the person doesn’t meet company expectations, they inflate the grade to show that the person is performing at an accept-able—albeit not stellar—level.
Well, this scenario goes on for several years, and low and behold, the company suddenly finds itself in dire straights and decides it must lay off a certain percentage of its workforce. The manager, of course, wants to lay off the marginal performer (i.e., the one who’s been “skating by” in a quasi-job that produces few results). However, not realizing that the paper record created over the past few years shows that this individual has consistently met expectations, the supervisor is shocked to find that he or she can’t simply lay off the true substandard performer.
Why not? Because more often than not, that particular employee is the longest tenured, the oldest, or otherwise the most protected person in the group. The fact that you gave this person an overall performance review score of 3—meeting expectations—while everyone else on the team got a 4 or a 5—exceeding expectations—means little in the grand scheme of things. That’s because the employee “heard” that she met company expectations for the entire year with an overall acceptable score. Whether she knew that her 3 was the lowest score in the group isn’t really at issue because overall performance review scores are absolute, not relative. In other words, if her overall score was a 3, then it doesn’t matter if that was the lowest score in the group: A score of 3 still “meets” company expectations, and that’s the only message that really counts in terms of the record your company has created.
At that point, human resources or your outside legal counsel becomes a barrier that’s standing in your way of getting done what you want and need done, and then you’re at odds with your own internal support team. It’s a lose-lose situation because you weren’t honest and upfront in your conversations with this subordinate all along, and now you’re kicking yourself (and anyone else in your path) for not allowing you to get your way. The end result? You have to lay off someone less tenured on your team (who happens to be your star performer) and now begin the progressive discipline process with the laggard employee from scratch—even though she should have been disciplined a long time back.
Now let’s look at it a different way: The substandard performer prepares a self-evaluation in preparation for her annual review. In her opinion, she’s just about the best thing since sliced bread. You, on the other hand, read her self-review, stop yourself from gagging, and scratch your head wondering how on earth this individual could have such an over-inflated picture of herself. Here’s what your revised conversation might sound like:
Nina, I’ve read the self-evaluation that you prepared in advance of our performance review discussion today, and I have to share with you that I have a different perception of your performance over the past year. I see that you wrote that you feel that your strengths include your consistency in feeding information up to me proactively along with your interpersonal and relationship-building skills. Share with me again why you feel those are your greatest strengths.
Again, Nina, I’m listening to what you’re saying, but my perception of those areas is actually quite different. I’ve found that I’ve had to come to you on multiple occasions to find out what was going on in your area, and I’ve felt on more than one occasion that you had left me “flying blind.” Similarly, I sense that there has been conflict and tension with your peers and coworkers, and I’ve overheard comments about your unwillingness to assume responsibility for problems and even to blame others when things in your area go wrong. What do you think might have caused that perception on my end?
And so goes the conversation. Notice the use of phrases like “I feel,” “I’ve felt,” and “I’ve found.” Those are very soft indictments that force the employee to look inward; yet they’re extremely honest and open and said with the individual’s best interests in mind. After all, if Nina isn’t made aware of these issues, she can’t necessarily be held accountable for fixing them. As you might guess, it’s not too far a jump to move this conversation in this ultimate direction:
Nina, I understand that we have some differences in perception here, and that’s fair—I could respect that. However, as the supervisor in the relationship, I have to tell you that your overall score for the performance period will show that you’re not meeting company expectations. I’m sorry if I haven’t been more communicative with you up to now, but truth be told, it’s often easier to work around you or simply do things myself. However, I’ll commit to you to reinvent our working relationship and share any concerns that arise from now on at the time they occur. I hope that you’ll meet me halfway so that we can move forward on a more positive foot and work toward strengthening our relationship during the upcoming performance period.
And there you have it: mission accomplished! You’ll have treated the individual honestly and with respect, you’ll have delivered a very confrontational message (i.e., “You don’t meet company expectations for the year and won’t be receiving much, if any, of a merit increase”), and you’ll have left the employee feeling at least partially responsible for the problem while inviting her to be part of the solution. It’s a wise approach to what could be a potentially explosive workplace situation.
And there’s one more important note here: As important as it is to use the right words and phraseologies to convey your message, it’s equally important that your conversations remain on solid, legally defensible ground. Although no book can replace qualified legal advice for situation-specific fact patterns, and while this book doesn’t purport to render formal legal advice, the strategy behind the answers in our examples is well tested and practical. You can feel confident that your conversational blueprint will lead you in the right direction both from a managerial as well as a legal standpoint.