2Effective Leadership and Outstanding Communication

GREAT LEADERS are great communicators. When you look at successful work teams and fully effective departments, you’ll typically find a leader at the top of the org chart who seems to understand intuitively how to talk to people and engage them to create rapport. Successful leaders simply get it—they know how to communicate effectively, practice MBWA (management by walking around), recognize and praise often, and know their employees personally. In comparison, it’s rare to find an effective leader who doesn’t follow certain Golden Rules of communication. The two concepts—successful leader and excellent communicator—seem to go hand in hand in many if not most cases of effective leadership.

But how do you get there? Communication skills are relative, meaning they’re viewed differently by different people and can always be improved. And even the strongest natural communicators among us could arguably strengthen their talents and skills in this critical leadership area at any given time. More than knowing what to say, effective leaders know how to say it—not because they’re politicians but because they care, and not because they’re trying to manipulate but because they want to motivate. Simply stated, their values shine through in terms of what and how they communicate. So communication doesn’t stem so much from what you do as from who you are. Yet there are ways and opportunities to communicate that allow you to motivate others and create an engaged work team and also address problematic situations openly, while setting and maintaining high expectations. It’s in these common workplace challenges that you can hone your communication skills and demonstrate your true value as a leader and caring human being.

The Nature of Positive, Constructive Communication

What are the top three attributes associated with strong leaders? If you responded great communication, the ability to build strong teams, and consistency in turning talent into performance, then you’re well on the way to appreciating the importance of excellent leadership and communication. What most studies will show, and what many organizational feedback tools such as employee opinion surveys and exit interviews will tell you, is that communication typically ranks number one when it comes to how employees grade their leaders and what employees want more of.

It’s particularly challenging to provide constant and immediate communication in an environment that operates at the speed of the Internet. Thanks to smart phones and tablets of all sorts, we’re all used to real-time updates, constant stimulation, and immediate gratification when we need to know something. Clearly human beings can’t respond quite that quickly, no matter how well intentioned or how tech savvy. Corporate America is undergoing a tremendous shift in information sharing and change management; we’re experiencing evolutionary change at revolutionary speed. So what’s realistic in terms of expectations for leader communication? What makes certain leaders great communicators while others fall behind significantly in this mission-critical area?

First, no one is expecting leaders to provide constant, real-time information as on the Internet. No one can be “in the know” to that degree on a constant and ongoing basis, especially while companies continue to merge and conglomerate at such a stunning pace. However, it’s critical to understand that your communication style reveals who you are and what you value—especially how much you value your team members. Do you treat them like adults? Do you hold them accountable and maintain high expectations? Do you share information appropriately so that team members understand the reasons for your decisions? Do you put their needs ahead of your own and practice servant leadership so they respect and appreciate your selflessness and dedication? Do you lead by example? Do you work late the Friday before a long holiday weekend so that your people can go home early, or do you insist that they work late so that you can leave early instead?

All these issues speak to your character and your values—the DNA that makes you who you are. People respect competence, they respect passion for what their leaders believe in, and they honor leaders who get to know them personally, demonstrate sincerity, and look to make their relationships personal and meaningful. And all of these values and belief systems reveal themselves in leaders’ communication style—the respect they demonstrate toward others; their willingness to teach, coach, and develop people; and their readiness to make themselves vulnerable so that people can relate to them in the sincerest way possible.

What are some of the key tenets that mark exceptional communication styles? First, great communicators are willing to engage in tough conversations and hold others accountable—the sine qua non of exceptional leadership. They don’t delay sharing immediate praise and offering constructive feedback, but they likewise address minor impediments before they become massive roadblocks, thus lessening the drama inherent in most business environments.

Second, great communicators demonstrate care and sincerity in all they do. That means they listen well and are empathetic, typically putting the employee’s needs above their own. They listen attentively and make people feel heard so that no one feels isolated or apart from the inner sanctum. Likewise, they recognize the psychic income that comes from group interaction and the benefits of working together closely to achieve a common goal. They look to have fun, build camaraderie, and keep work in perspective. It’s that type of wisdom that creates charisma and draws people to them.

Third, they understand that communication is a two-way street. There are two sides to every story, and they strive to always see both sides. They are aware that if they see everything in black and white, ignoring the gray areas, they may be missing some critical components of the story. This give-and-take aspect of communication creates and fosters a sense of empathic leadership where no one rushes to judgment, and all accept that there may be more to a particular story or scenario than initially meets the eye. As such, their message is gentle, no matter how stringent the content: not “You’re fired” à la Donald Trump on The Apprentice television show, but “I’m afraid this job may not be a good fit for your talents, and I’m afraid we’ll have to part ways. Thank you for all you’ve done for us in trying to help us move our organization forward, and we wish you continued success in your career and in all you’ll continue to do.” The end result may be the same: the individual is terminated. But Trump’s exit line strips the individual of his dignity and humiliates him when he’s most vulnerable, while the longer message allows him to exit the company gracefully and with his dignity intact, realizing it’s nothing personal and simply may not have been a good match of individual talent to organizational need.

And while all these characteristics may appear to be almost impossible to reach and incorporate into your overall communication style, remember that we’re not talking about your becoming the next President Kennedy or President Reagan. Great workplace communicators, at their core, are not necessarily superior orators or motivational speakers. Their actions speak louder than words, and they come from a simple, quiet wisdom that others can emulate and strive to repeat. Their communication shows itself in what they do, how they do it, and their concern for others along the way.

So now that we know what great communicators and great leaders have in common, the question becomes, How do we get there ourselves? What is it that we need to do to display role-model behavior that pierces people’s hearts and helps them feel connected to us and cared for? How do we want our communication style to be described and, in a broader sense, how do we want to be defined as leaders?

While many books and articles have focused on communication and leadership, keeping it simple is probably the best overall approach. With specific principles in place, we can measure ourselves throughout our careers as change dictates.

To start, let’s borrow some of the communication phrases outlined in my book 2600 Phrases for Setting Effective Performance Goals (AMACOM Books, 2012). That’s a great place to start because they help put communication talents and skills into particular buckets that can be broken down, analyzed, and strengthened with a helping of focus and effort.

The Golden Rules of Effective Communication

According to 2600 Phrases for Setting Effective Performance Goals, always remember to:

1. Recognize achievements and accomplishments often.

2. Celebrate success.

3. Deliver bad news quickly, constructively, and in a spirit of professional development.

4. Praise in public, censure in private.

5. Assume responsibility for problems when things go wrong, and provide immediate praise and recognition to others when things go right.

6. Create a work environment based on inclusiveness, welcoming others’ suggestions and points of view.

7. Listen actively, making sure that your people feel heard and understood and have a voice in terms of offering positive suggestions in the office or on the shop floor.

8. Share information openly (to the extent possible) so that staff members understand the Why behind your reasoning and can ask appropriate questions as they continue along in their own path of career development and learning.

9. Remember that thankfulness and appreciation are the two most important values you can share with your employees and teach them to live by: make them the core foundation of your culture.

10. Put others’ needs ahead of your own and expect them to respond in kind (a.k.a. “selfless leadership,” otherwise known as “servant leadership”).

11. When dealing with others’ shortcomings, always err on the side of compassion.

12. Solicit ongoing feedback and suggestions from your team in terms of how you could do things differently, thereby stimulating creativity and innovation.

Most importantly, build trust through regular, open, and honest communication. After all, your reputation is the coin of the realm when it comes to building strong teams of satisfied workers who laud your ability to lead and communicate effectively and help them grow and develop in their own careers. Great communicators and great leaders enjoy high productivity, high employee engagement and satisfaction, and low turnover. And it all stems from you—your values, your ability to relate and communicate, and your willingness to help others grow and excel in their careers through the work that you do together. Trust is the foundation of true leadership and communication, but it’s typically hard-earned and often tested.

The Art of Successful Communication: Guidelines to Help Your Message Soar

We’ve discussed what strong communication looks like, and we recognize that certain natural barriers make it difficult for people leaders to master the fine art of effective communication. Let’s focus now on some practical ways to communicate more effectively in the workplace.

“Please” and “thank you” still work!

As trite as this may sound, be sure and say “please” and “thank you” to your teams. You’d be surprised how often exiting employees make comments along the lines of, “You work so hard around here and you never hear a word of thanks. But make one mistake and you’ll be hearing from your boss like there’s no tomorrow.” Along the same lines, follow the mantra of “What you want for yourself, give to another.” That’s not just spiritual guru talk—it’s practical advice that injects greater humanity into the workplace, which in turn fosters a culture based on respect and more open communication.

Get to know your employees on a more personal level.

Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman’s bestselling book First, Break All the Rules: What the World’s Greatest Managers Do Differently captured the Gallup organization’s findings after studying 80,000 managers and over one million employees, and the results were clear: People join companies but leave managers. In other words, they join a company because they’re excited about its reputation, accomplishments, mission, and the like, but then leave a few years later because of ongoing challenges they have with their immediate boss. Gallup found that of all key retention factors—for example, company brand, benefits, and learning and development opportunities—nothing trumped employees’ relationships with their immediate supervisors as the glue that bound them to the organization. The relationship should be personal—at least to some degree—so that team members know you care about their own personal interests and lives beyond work.

How do you accomplish this? Meet one-on-one with your direct reports and (occasionally) with your extended reports to find out how they’re feeling about things. You might want to ask:

How are you doing, and how do you think we’re doing overall as a department and team?

What could we be doing differently around here that would make a change in the results we’re getting? If you could snap your fingers and change one thing about the way we do things, what would it be?

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, how engaged and motivated would you say you’re feeling these days, and how would you grade the rest of the team?

Tell me about my communication style. And be honest—I really want to know. Do you get enough information to do your job well and keep yourself and your customers informed about upcoming changes? Likewise, do you feel that you have a voice and can make a difference in terms of how you do your job and how we get our work done?

What would you add or subtract to the way we communicate with one another as a team? Is there enough respect? Would you say we’re good at teamwork? Do you trust that we have each other’s backs and provide the right amount of internal support so that all team members can perform their work every day with minimal drama and full peace of mind?

The questions, of course, are endless, and you could customize these to address your own personal values or some of the challenges you may be facing as a team at any given point in time. What matters most, though, is that you ask. Being a leader who cares doesn’t mean that you have to know details about what’s going on in your employees’ personal lives (although some understanding of that is arguably very natural and healthy). It means that you’re taking the time to ask them about what matters most to them in the workplace and in their careers. Listen actively, seek their advice, and appreciate that the best suggestions will often come from those in the trenches who are closest to your customers’ needs.

When delivering bad news, don’t come from anger.

If you show that you’re angry at your employees, their natural self-defense mechanisms will kick in, and the entire conversation will be off to a failed start. That’s why yelling and shouting never works: at best, employees will comply out of fear or compliance, but fear and compliance will rarely get you to 100 percent in terms of effort and dedication. Instead, people will perform only to the minimum necessary to get the job done because they’ll act either out of spite or out of resentment. What you’re looking for is 110 percent on the effort scale—employees going above and beyond for the sake of their company, coworkers, or boss. It’s that marginal difference that distinguishes strong, high-performing teams from those that struggle to satisfy minimum expectations.

Along the same lines, avoid using the word why; “Why did you do that?” will typically trigger a self-defense response that focuses on deflecting criticism and avoiding blame. Instead, open the conversation with: “Share with me how that came about and what you were considering at the time.” By stating your question as an open invitation to provide subjective input, you’ll typically get a much more candid and objective response that allows others to explain their side of the story (even if what they ultimately did was a mistake).

Turn “Yes . . . but” into “Yes . . . and” statements.

“Yes . . . but” responses often shut down a conversation right from the get-go. For example, instead of: “Yes, I know we spoke about that, but you should have known . . . ,” you can turn your statement into: “Yes, I know we spoke about that, and I’m wondering what other choices were available to you at the time that you could have opted for . . .” So don’t become a “Yes . . . but” communicator—an individual who’s a naysayer, who always seems to focus on the negative, and who tends to crush initiative and spontaneity. It’s okay for you to spot weaknesses—that’s a critical part of your role as leader. How you bring those weaknesses to others’ attention or help them realize the shortcomings in their reasoning, however, will help you foster and nurture talent rather than shut it down.

Speak from guilt more than from anger.

We’re not talking about old-fashioned guilt that stems from putting people down or otherwise shaming them into doing something. Instead, we’re looking at guilt as a natural human emotion that helps people look inward for solutions and come from a more selfless orientation where it’s safe to feel vulnerable and assume partial responsibility for an issue gone wrong.

When it comes to expressing dissatisfaction with an employee’s performance or conduct, coming more from guilt than from anger typically garners much more favorable results. First, anger is an external emotion: If people feel angry, they’re pointing their energy outward at someone or something else. They feel defensive and instinctively look to justify their actions by proving the other person wrong and themselves right. On the other hand, guilt, as a human emotion, helps people look inward for answers and, as such, helps people make themselves partially responsible for a problem so they could help resolve it in a more cooperative spirit.

For example, if you believe a subordinate was inappropriate or somewhat disrespectful during a staff meeting, you could raise the stakes by going toe to toe either during the meeting or in private afterward: “I can’t believe you used that tone of voice with me in front of the rest of the team. You report to me, and the stripes on my shoulder are a bit higher than yours!” While that may make you feel better for a moment as you let off steam, clearly it does little to help you understand what was really going on that led to the inappropriate comment or remark.

Instead, if you handle the matter quietly and in private, you’ll arguably get a much more desirable response by stating something like this: “Mary, I’m not quite sure what happened in that meeting. We’ve always had a mutually respectful relationship, but it seemed to me like you needed to work out a lot of pent-up anger in there, and the fact that you did that in front of the rest of the team really disappointed me. I respect you too much to call you out like that in front of others, and I wouldn’t have expected you to act that way toward me, especially in front of the rest of the team. Can you understand why I might feel let down by your actions in there?”

Said quietly and softly with a serious tone of voice, no drama was needed—no escalation, no threats, and no pulling rank—and your message will likely have a much stronger impact than had you escalated emotions by yelling. The typical employee response might be, “I’m sorry, I didn’t intend to embarrass you in any way, especially in front of the rest of the team. I apologize for my actions in there and promise that’ll never happen again.” Enough said.

Speak of “perception” and holding your employees accountable for their own “perception management.”

Finally, when delivering bad news, add the words “perception” or “perception management” to your vocabulary. Feelings aren’t right or wrong—they just are what they are. The same goes for perception: you’re entitled to your own perception, and sharing what things look like from your vantage point isn’t right or wrong—it just is what it is. For example, telling a member of your staff that he has a bad attitude will likely trigger all sorts of drama. Adults tend to get all weird when they’re told they have an attitude problem, so let’s approach it a different way:

Michele, I think it’s time that we sit down and address some concerns that have been on my mind for quite some time. Working with you can be challenging, and I’m guessing this isn’t the first time you’re hearing this. Let me share with you what things look like from my vantage point as your supervisor. From a perception standpoint, you come across as angry much of the time. I’m not sure what triggers hostility on your part or what I may be doing in terms of pushing some sort of hot button when I’m working with you, but your responses with me tend to be aggressive and confrontational. Truth be told, I tend to avoid you at times because I’m not sure what kind of response I’m going to get.

Likewise, your mood fluctuates often, and I’ve heard from others that you never know what kind of response you’re going to get from Michele because it depends which way the wind is blowing. That’s been my experience as well on a number of occasions.

I’ll make a commitment to you now that I won’t walk on eggshells around you anymore or avoid working with you. I shouldn’t have to, and neither should anyone else. Regardless of your reality or however you’ve been justifying your behavior in your mind up to now, I’ll simply not accept irrational or moody behavior from this point forward. You’ve got a significant perception problem on your hands, and from now on, I’m holding you fully accountable for your own perception management. If you’re not successful managing how you come across to others or in any way make it difficult for people to work with you, then my response will be in writing in the form of formal progressive discipline. And depending on the nature of the complaint and who informs me of it, I’ll arguably be starting the corrective action at either the written or the final written warning stage.

If you feel you can’t or won’t reinvent yourself in terms of how you’re coming across to others and to me, then you may want to rethink remaining with this organization. You’ve been here for eighteen years, which I respect, but in my last three months since joining the firm, you’ve shown me what feels like resistance at every turn. You come across to me as if I’m interrupting you or bothering you. I feel that you don’t have my back, are leaving me flying blind, and are otherwise not supportive of my success.

If you’re willing to turn a new leaf and reinvent your relationship with me and with others, then I’m fully on board and will support you in any way I can. But if you’re not willing to make that commitment to me, to the organization, and to yourself, then I’d ask you to please not put me in a situation where I need to reach out to HR to initiate corrective action that could ultimately lead to your termination. You deserve better as a long-term employee, but I deserve better as your supervisor as well. What are your thoughts?

Yes, that’s a tough conversation, but you’ll have created a clear verbal record of your impressions and your expectations, and that’s a very healthy place to start. It’s now up to the employee to measure herself by how others view and describe her and to remain open to reestablishing her relationship with her boss, coworkers, and clients.

Human Nature: The Path of Least Resistance Is Avoidance

No one wants to confront others at work if they can possibly avoid it. (In fact, if they do want to, they’ve probably got other, more serious problems on their hands!) But we have to focus on human nature to understand why communication can be so difficult and challenging. People tend to shy away from discussing uncomfortable issues and prefer to take a “let’s wait and see if it fixes itself” approach whenever possible. And sometimes things do end up straightening themselves out without any form of external intervention, but most of us would agree that’s more the exception than the rule.

In reality, this natural trend toward avoidance shows itself in many untoward ways in the workplace: an unwillingness to address minor impediments verbally before they become large-scale roadblocks, a reluctance to issue formal corrective action for fear of upsetting or demotivating an employee, and most commonly in the form of grade inflation on the annual performance review. These very common land mines may plague us throughout our career if we don’t acknowledge them and determine a strategy for communicating effectively through them, and the time to hone that skill is right now. And here’s a hint: this isn’t as hard as it seems! Remember, it’s not what you say but how you say it that holds as an evergreen rule of human interaction. Let’s focus on building the How in the equation so that it actually becomes easier to deliver challenging news and hold people to higher expectations. (By the way, the approaches we’ll discuss work with spouses and kids just as well as they do with coworkers and team members.)

First, though, we have to spend a few minutes understanding how we’re naturally wired. Whether it’s via our quirky individual personalities or millennia of practice, adults have certain hang-ups about communication. Understanding where we come from is therefore important because it can shed light on where we’re going. More specifically, knowing that any and all of these quagmires face us as managers at different times and to differing degrees, it’s important that we explore and understand that certain adult behaviors are actually built into us from childhood and have to be overcome to attain recognition as a great communicator.

The easiest way for us to view communication challenges in the workplace in a more common context can be seen in its parallelism to parenting. For the sake of this argument, let’s assume that Dad is taking care of the kids at home while Mom is out working. If little Nina and Sam are driving Dad crazy because they just won’t get along with one another, how does Dad stop the annoying behavior, raise behavioral expectations, and stop the roller-coaster ride so that the problem doesn’t keep popping up?

Let’s look at three models of parenting that reveal the choices at hand very clearly. In each scenario, let’s assume that the kids are at it again and Dad is about to go ballistic and is at the end of his rope. See which model sounds most familiar to you in terms of your own upbringing:

Model 1: Dad shouts, “Kids, you’re driving me crazy! Go out and play and when you come back, I don’t expect to hear any more bickering!”

Okay, not an uncommon response; the core logic is that the problem will fix itself once the kids are otherwise distracted. But if this approach does work, it’s usually not for very long, as the frustrated father realizes once the kids are back in the house and the bickering picks up where it left off.

Model 2: Dad shouts, “Kids, you’re diving me crazy! If you don’t knock it off, you’re both going to be in so much trouble when your mother gets home.”

Again, a fairly common approach, although Dad just totally minimized his role and gave total power over to Mom, who isn’t even home and doesn’t know there’s a problem. The kids typically figure out pretty quickly that Dad’s threats are pretty hollow, he’ll forget all about it by the time Mom gets home, and they’re at liberty to pick up the fight anytime and anywhere they want because they know that Dad isn’t going to do anything about it other than make some hollow threats about Mom’s wrath (which never materializes).

Model 3: Dad shouts, “Kids, you’re driving me crazy! Come in here right now and close the door behind you. We’re going to talk about what’s going on because I expect more of both of you.”

Ah, a very interesting twist. Once the kids sit down, Dad calmly opens the discussion by saying, “Nina, I want you to say something nice about your brother.” (Nina rolls her eyeballs and begrudgingly says, “You’ve got pretty eyes, Sam.”) Dad then turns to Sam and says, “Sammy, something nice about your sister Nina.” (Sam harrumphs and says, “I really like the painting you made me this morning.”)

Okay, now we’re getting somewhere: we set the tone of the “intervention” to be positive and constructive. Now that the kids have settled down a bit and gained some perspective (although reluctantly) on the situation, they’re prepared to discuss why the other is bugging them. At the conclusion of their explanations, Dad then has the opportunity to reset expectations in a calm voice and reassure them that in this household, a certain level of behavior is expected of the children and it’s his job to ensure that they don’t forget that. The kids can then give each other a hug, smile, and move on to other things.

Notice the paradigm shift in model 3: There’s no avoiding (model 1) and no deflecting (model 2). The wisdom that the father shows in model 3 is that he’s in total control, he’s there to remind the kids of the expectations that he has of them, and he’s there to support them both through an uncomfortable set of circumstances.

However, there’s a critical difference between this scenario with Dad and the kids and what you’ll typically find in the workplace: siblings can sit down cold in the midst of an argument and settle their dispute amicably. Not so with adults—they can’t be brought into your office cold and asked to sit down and fix a problem right on the spot. Adults aren’t made that way: sibling kids can do it because they’ve grown up together and know each other intrinsically, while adults in the workplace don’t have enough trust to solve the “what” of the problem as well as the “how” of the solution all in one sitting.

Instead, adult coworkers typically need to participate in separate meetings (preferably with a night of sleep between both meetings) to first determine the “what” (i.e., the facts and allegations) and then—after a good night’s sleep—to work on the “how” (i.e., the solution and their commitment to avoiding such behaviors again in the future). So if you bring two warring parties cold into your office to end an ongoing dispute and order them to “knock it off,” expect a whole lot drama and tension. Adults are too afraid of being attacked (again, the “what” of the issue and the ensuing allegations) and typically will not listen openly. Instead, they’ll be prepared to jump on the other person as soon as something “wrong” is said, leading to rolling eyeballs, glares, sarcastic laughter, and the like. (Remember the best defense is a preemptive offense!)

So don’t expect warring parties to fix the “what” and “how” in one sitting: They’re simply too socialized and not trusting enough at this point in their social development to simply assume good intentions and make themselves vulnerable. But there is a way for you, as their leader, to make it relatively safe to address their concerns openly and even assume partial responsibility for the problem at hand. As in most things in life, it’s all in the setup. So let’s explore how to make this happen successfully and consistently in your workplace in our next question.

Mediating Employee Disputes and Communication Breakdowns: The Strategy Behind Constructive Confrontation

Brokering employee disputes and communication breakdowns isn’t easy. People possess differing levels of self-awareness, business maturity, and spiritual evolution. Some are quick to assume responsibility, forgive, and move on, while others will harp on every point, act on principle, and leave no man standing in order to prove a point. How you customize your approach, therefore, will depend highly on the players involved. That being said, there’s a construct or formula that will allow you to maximize such meetings time after time, and it’s very much based on how adults process information and admit shortcomings. Only you can guess how participants will react under a particular set of circumstances, but if you set up the foundation as if you’re on each participant’s side, then you’re more likely to gain buy-in, even among the toughest, most stubborn personalities.

When mediating employee disputes or otherwise brokering disagreement in the workplace, follow this three-step formula to maximize the likelihood of success:

Step 1: Meet with each individual separately to learn the “what” of the issue.

When two of your staff members are “at war,” meet with each one individually. There are two sides to every story, and it’s important that you inject yourself into each person’s vantage point. First, it helps you assess the situation more objectively. Second, it helps you cement your relationship with each person so that both feel you’re on their side. Third, it positions you with all the information necessary to serve as a wise and objective arbiter of the dispute.

Privately find out Fred’s side of the story before meeting individually with Jennifer. But tell Fred right upfront that whatever he shares with you now, you’re going to share with Jennifer in your one-on-one meeting with her that follows. Total transparency, no drama: Fred needs to understand that you’re a conduit to their communication and are not taking sides.

Further, in your meeting with Fred, ask him why Jennifer may be feeling the way she does. Ask him what he’d like to see happen ideally in terms of his working relationship with Jennifer, and then ask him what he’d be willing to change about his own behavior to elicit a different response from Jennifer in the future. At the conclusion of the meeting, inform Fred that you’ll be meeting with Jennifer next and will share his sentiments. Likewise, once you’ve completed your meeting with Jennifer, you’ll get back to Fred and let him know her specific feedback.

Setting up a meeting with those ground rules automatically de-escalates feelings of angst or distrust in the participants. It also gives you the chance to take a gentle approach to interpersonal issues that, like scars, sometimes run long and deep.

Step 2: Prepare to meet the next day as a group to work out the “how” of the issue.

Let both participants know that you want to meet with them together in your office the next morning to open the lines of communication. But give them a night to sleep on the matter and process the “what” of all that they have learned during your feedback session from the one-on-one meetings you held. Unlike young siblings who can address the “what” and the “how” all in one sitting, adults typically respond a lot better when they learn the “what” in one meeting and then have time to compose themselves and prepare for the “how” session that’s to follow the next day. (Don’t delay the second meeting by more than one day: it’s not fair to keep people holding on when they feel a need to talk and resolve their issues and still have to work together in the interim.) When you open the meeting with your two subordinates, share these three rules at the onset of the meeting:

Let me share some critical rules and guidelines for our meeting right now. First, you shouldn’t hold anything back. You both know the “what” of the problem—what’s bothering the other person about your performance and/or conduct and why. You’ve also both had a night to sleep on this and give thought to your approach to this group meeting this morning in terms of addressing the “how” of it all.

This is your chance to get it all out in the open, and if you withhold anything, then you’ll have missed a golden opportunity to share your side of the story. You’re not going to get another chance to readdress these issues in the future—this is a once-in-a-career benefit, and I’m not going to permit a “roller-coaster” effect develop out of this where we need to address it more than once. After our meeting today, I’m re-welcoming you both to the company as if it were your first day of employment. I’m also holding you fully accountable for reinventing your working relationship from this point forward.

Second, everything you share has to be said with the other person’s best interests in mind and in a spirit of constructive feedback. There is no attacking and no need for defending anyone’s actions; this is really more a sensitivity session where you both get to walk a mile in each other’s shoes and hear first-hand how the other is feeling.

Third, once the meeting is about to conclude, I’m going to ask you to give thought to and potentially share what you’re willing to do on your end to elicit a different response from the other person. In other words, Fred, you can’t control Jennifer, and Jennifer, you can’t control Fred. However, you both could make commitments to amending your approach, your communication style, and whatever else in order to elicit a different response from the other person in the future. That’s only fair after an intervention like this, and I’m looking forward to hearing your comments once we get to the end of this meeting.

For right now, I’m going to ask you, Jennifer, to give us a broader overview of the issues that have been concerning you about Fred’s interactions with you since you brought the issue to me first. Let’s approach this like mature and supportive adults, and since we already know the broader issues from our discussions yesterday, we can simply recap here. Jennifer, the floor is yours: What’s your two-minute overview of what’s been bothering you in your communications with Fred, and what are some of the highlights from our conversation that you’d like to share with him now?

And you’re off to the races, engaging in a healthy dialogue in a safe environment. The issues are already known: this is simply an opportunity for the warring parties to share their concerns and perceptions in an open and honest manner with little surprise involved, while hearing the other person’s concerns directly as well.

Step 3: Conclude the meeting.

Conclude the meeting this way:

Jennifer and Fred, you’ve both heard the other side of the story now. I’m not asking you to hold hands and sing “Kumbaya,” and I don’t expect you to go bowling together after work tonight. But I do expect you to openly communicate so that the work in our department isn’t negatively impacted and nothing falls through the cracks because of a lack of communication between you both.

The final questions I have to ask each of you are, Now that you’ve heard the other person’s perceptions of what’s going on, what are you willing to change in terms of your own behavior that will elicit a different response in the other person? My other question is, How should I, as your manager, react if this situation were to rear its ugly head again?

And voila—you’ll have given each employee his or her day in court, so to speak, where each vents and shares perceptions of the problem. You’ll end the meeting on a constructive note where both parties agree to change their behavior. And you’ll also create a “healthy sense of paranoia” where both realize that if the problem surfaces again, there will be a more formal management response, most likely in the form of disciplinary action. Congratulations—you’ve treated your warring parties as adults and held them accountable for fixing the ongoing problem that exists between them.

Allowing adults to hash out their differences in a controlled, safe environment removes a critical roadblock that could otherwise hinder someone’s success. No matter how much you care, you can’t manage their differences. Only they can do that. Still, you can provide a mechanism for solving employee disputes that brings out the best in people. Establishing a culture of openness means confronting “people problems” in an environment that maintains the individual’s dignity and trust. It enhances your position as a leader and establishes your reputation as a fair arbiter of disputes—truly a leadership trait that will set you apart from your peers.

Much like the Dad in the scenario in Question 14, who allows the kids to share their concerns but then resets expectations going forward, this approach to warring adults will likely yield similar positive outcomes. Are you expecting them to become best friends again overnight? Of course not. But you have every right to ensure that communication doesn’t fall through the cracks because of either individual’s willful stubbornness to work with the other person. Should that happen and output and productivity suffer, you’ll unfortunately have to hold a separate meeting with them both, the results of which could be far less benign and caring than the intervention outlined above.

Additional Note

Encourage your two staff members to use the phrases “This is how I feel” and “Can you understand why I would feel that way?” Feelings aren’t right or wrong—they just are. Since perception is reality until proven otherwise, it’s each individual’s responsibility to sensitize the other regarding the existence of the perceptions that have developed over time.

Bearing Bad News: The Creative Art of Give and Take

Hollywood lore echoes a true story of the fear of bearing bad news: In 1939, the subordinates of Adolph Zukor, Paramount Pictures’ founder and studio boss, were terrified of telling him of the box office success of rival MGM’s Gone with the Wind for fear of his suffering a heart attack. Maybe that seems a bit exaggerated and overly dramatic, but it makes an important point nonetheless: We all walk the delicate line of balancing the delivery of bad news with the fear of being blamed for holding it back.

Giving and receiving bad news is a common part of business. However, focusing on how to deliver bad news to senior management or others as well as ensuring that your subordinates are keeping you abreast of unpleasant changes in circumstances are critical in our information-driven work environment. A simple rule to share with your employees is this: “I don’t mind that bad news occasionally hits the fan; I simply want to know which way to duck when it does. You’re responsible for communicating any problems to me before I learn about them from anyone else. There can be no exceptions while I’m at the helm.”

Okay, simple enough. But what about delivering bad news to CEOs and other senior executives who have a tendency to shoot the messenger? Unfortunately, too many managers avoid unpleasant confrontations with senior managers, even if this is to the detriment of the company. Only you can assess how welcome your comments and suggestions will be to your senior leadership team. And the purpose of this chapter is certainly not to damage your career by suggesting that you boldly volunteer bad news when others are reluctant to do so. That being said, though, as a leader within your organization, you are indeed responsible for the well-being of the enterprise and the fulfillment of its mission. If you choose to deliver bad news to the CEO or other member of senior management, here are some tips on communicating your message:

Step 1: Confirm your commitment to keep the enlightened CEO informed.

Simply stated, every CEO relies on her immediate core of senior managers to remain abreast of changes in company circumstances and employee attitudes. When a member of senior management finds out about a critical problem that was not communicated in advance, the tongue lashing typically sounds something like this:

Why am I finding out about this now for the first time? I can’t be everywhere all the time, and I rely on you to keep me abreast of changes in the organization that impact our business. I shouldn’t have to reprimand you for failing to fulfill an essential function of your job. What am I paying you for anyway?

Okay, point well taken. The CEO never seems to acknowledge at the point of castigation, however, that the last time a manager brought bad news to her attention, that manager was pummeled and bloodied and became the hot topic of water cooler banter for a month. A strategic opener to this dialogue with your senior manager consequently might sound like this:

I’ve got to share some unpleasant information with you, and I’m not looking forward to this conversation, but it’s important that you know. This won’t make you particularly happy, but we’ve got a few options that I’d like to discuss with you to help us through this. Here goes: The employment marketplace is coming back, and we’re seeing an increase in the number of resignations among our key employees. If we don’t address the hiring freeze and the hold that’s been placed on equity adjustments and promotions over the past year, I’m afraid that other “keeper” employees may jump ship at the first offer that comes their way.

The bad news is, this will cost money. The good news is, if we institute a management training program for all directors and above and also reward a small number of key players with promotions and equity adjustments, then I think we’ll have a greater chance of stemming the tide of turnover that’s upon us right now and keeping within a reasonable budget.

Step 2: Overcome the CEO’s initial objections preemptively.

After your opener, make a business case that preempts the boss’s objections. For example:

I know what you’re thinking: We’ve not faced this problem in several years, so why change the practice now? Our turnover has been exceptionally low over the past three years. We’ve been averaging 12% annual turnover, so why pay attention to some of the key resignations of late? The reasons why turnover has been artificially low is most likely because there were few outside jobs available for our people to turn to. We responded logically to the market downturn by not back-filling open jobs and by freezing promotions and equity adjustments. Obviously that environment wouldn’t last forever, and it’s time to gear up for change in the recruitment marketplace.

We have a lean staff that is very talented and committed, and changes to the lineup at a point when we have little bench strength could be very costly. The level of job dissatisfaction is high right now among most companies, though, and people are tired. Many of them feel their careers are stalled, and they’re looking to make up for lost time in terms of their earnings potential. If we don’t put a formal retention program in place and communicate and publicize it adequately, we’ll remain vulnerable to losing additional key players in our operation. In short, our lack of proactive change at this point could make us penny smart and pound-foolish.

Step 3: Do the math when focusing on the “how.”

A proposal like this needs to be tied to the bottom line: cost containment and budget variances. Any “lofty” proposals that haven’t been logically thought through or financially justified will seem naïve at best and could result in your loss of credibility. Here are some considerations you might include in your closing:

We could hire an outside training firm to put on a series of management seminars over the next three months for $35,000. We’ve looked at promoting six key employees and giving equity adjustments to 12 others, for a total payroll cost of $125,000. We believe we could show a permanent savings offset of $40,000 by cutting certain underused employee programs that don’t give us much return on investment, but we’d still end up $120,000 over budget. Still, it’s a strategic investment for our key players, and we’ve looked at external market surveys as well as internal equity, so we believe the fundamentals are in place and the timing is right. I also think we could cover $80,000 of that budget shortfall by outsourcing our temp desk, although it would take 18 months to show those savings. What are your initial thoughts?

Regardless of the senior manager’s ultimate decision, you’ll have created a compelling presentation with a logical business conclusion. More importantly, you’ll have couched the bad news in a contextual framework that forces your boss to consider your proposal on its objective merits. Likewise, you’ll have fulfilled your responsibility of providing organizational insights that the senior manager may not have focused on—a well-done opener that, it is hoped, will lead to further questions and investigation.

In comparison, when it comes to working with your own subordinates, creating a culture of trust is an amalgam of formal guidelines that you establish as well as informal, unspoken cues that you give. Of course, there are tools available to help you do this. For example, inviting your employees to evaluate themselves before you critique them during the annual performance review process allows them to involve themselves in their own career development, while placing you in the role of career mentor and coach rather than unilateral judge and decision maker.

Similarly, adding a question to a one-on-one meeting with a subordinate like, “What could I do differently to provide you with more structure, direction, and feedback or otherwise help you prepare for your next move in career progression?” would likewise help establish trust in your relationship. Simply stated, if your subordinates feel that it’s safe to stick their necks out of the foxhole and share bad news with you, there’s a greater chance that you’ll hear about problems proactively while you could still fix them.

But what do you do if a subordinate stubbornly refuses to provide you with negative feedback? If a feeling of “flying blind” plagues your relationship with a particular staff member, a more formal response may be an appropriate measure. Some organizations call this coaching and counseling, while others describe these types of actions as “verbal warnings.” However you categorize them, the verbal message needs to be clear and incontestable in its intent. For example:

Kelly, your failure to meet the deadline for our Estimate 3 financial projections resulted in my having to work till midnight last night to ensure that your information was properly integrated into the divisional report. More significantly, your failure to notify me in advance of your inability to meet your project deadline precluded my assigning additional staff or resources to help you. As such, your failure to communicate is a separate infraction that demonstrates an inability to meet the fundamental demands of your job. If I were documenting this in some form of progressive discipline, the language would read something along the lines of: “Failure to demonstrate immediate and sustained improvement may result in further disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.” We’re not at that stage, but I’m disappointed that you left me feeling like I was flying blind. I didn’t see this coming, and that’s a major misstep. I’d like your commitment right now that we won’t have to have a conversation like this again.

Just in case this issue recurs, be sure to document in your notes that you discussed your expectations regarding open communication, especially surrounding potentially negative news. It’s critical that each member of your team understands that communication remains the subordinate’s ultimate priority in all business dealings. Oh, and here’s the good news about Mr. Zukor at Paramount Pictures: his staffers had nothing to fear. He not only survived the bad news about Gone with the Wind’s box office success, but he also shaped Paramount Pictures into one of the greatest movie studios in the world, serving as honorary chairman until his death in 1976 at the age of 103.

Staff Meeting Tune-Ups: Upgrade Your Group Communication to Strengthen Team Performance

Opening the lines of communication with your staff starts with healthy group dialogue, and a regular, ongoing, and predictable forum to voice new ideas and safely suggest alternative ways of doing things will always be your best place to start. No matter how strong your relationships with particular individuals on your team or how long you’ve all been working together, the group dynamic takes on a life of its own during the weekly staff meeting. It, more than just about anything, gives you an opportunity to open the lines of communication with your team, demonstrate recognition for a job well done, and place individual contributors into rotational leadership roles.

There are three basic steps to a successful staff meeting. First, invite all of your subordinates to discuss what’s going on in their worlds. Brief updates and overviews of achievements, roadblocks, and opportunities to reinvent the workflow are hallmarks of healthy group get-togethers. It’s not only important for individuals to talk about themselves, however; it’s also critical that all members of the staff hear what their peers are doing. Too many times employees dig foxholes for themselves and develop an entitlement mentality where they believe they’re doing all the work. Once they hear what everyone else is working on, they tend to develop a greater appreciation for their peers’ contributions. Their sense of entitlement will typically diminish as a result.

Second, focus on what you, as a group, could have done differently in the past week to make the company a better place. After all, that’s what work is all about. We’re hired to increase revenues, decrease expenses, and save time. Any lost opportunities to impact the company’s bottom line in one of those three ways should be discussed, studied, and revisited in this postmortem exercise. “What could we have done differently?” is a natural counterpoint to our opening question because it mirrors what’s going on in your group at any given time. It also allows for a healthy dose of self-critical insight and makes it safe to learn from past mistakes.

Third, introduce constructive criticism into the decision-making process. Specifically ask, “What do we need to be doing differently to reinvent the workflow in our area?” The best ideas will always come from the people on the front line. The frustration that many employees share with HR during employee opinion surveys is that they didn’t feel that their ideas mattered or that management was listening. They went through the motions day in and day out but had no real impact or influence over their working environment. This simple invitation satisfies the basic need to be heard and to make a positive difference.

Where do these weekly staff meetings lead? First and foremost, you’ll strengthen the overall culture of the work unit when communication, recognition, and trust are encouraged. Second, by giving your people more “face time” with you, the boss, and with each other, a spirit of camaraderie will develop. Finally, these meetings optimally will expand from the micro view of work assignments and project updates to the more macro level of organizational impact. All in all, your investment in a group meeting like this will likely end up being the most important hour of the week in terms of enhancing productivity and teamwork.

In fact, one of the surest signs of a dysfunctional group is that it doesn’t hold regular staff meetings. The “informal feedback” response tends to be a copout in all but the most trusted situations where team members have been working together for a long time and work independently. Instead, when you hear that staff meetings “aren’t really necessary because we all know what everyone is working on,” your antennae should go up. If staffers aren’t talking collectively on a regular group basis, it’s more often the sign that people are working in silos and that cliques exist that create a more exclusive working environment.

If this is the case in your group or in a team that you’re now responsible for overseeing, it could be very simple to inject a staff meeting structure into the workweek—no matter how busy everyone’s schedule is or how little time they have to take the focus off their work. You can instruct your team as follows and, depending on what your team is responsible for, focus your team efforts on the critical issues at hand. You might try something like this:

Everyone, I called this meeting to let you know that I want to begin holding formal weekly meetings. I think there’s a lot of value in that sort of group interaction because I want you all to have an opportunity to share with your peers what priorities you’re working on, what challenges and roadblocks you may be facing, and how the rest of us could help you in terms of additional support or resources. I also think it’ll give us a chance to share and celebrate successes, which is something we don’t do enough of.

Here are my recommendations: First, be prepared to give an overview of the top three projects or assignments you’re working on in terms of progress, deliverables, and timelines. If you suspect that you may have any challenges meeting deadlines, this is the place for us to find out so we can all make ourselves part of the solution. Second, I’d like you to address the biggest programs or projects you’re working on—David, in your case that would be metrics development; Jennifer, in your case that would be employee communications in light of the recent employee opinion survey; Travis, I’d ask you to share your insights into the mentoring relationship you have with the two recent new hires and how that’s helped them assimilate into our culture more successfully.

Finally, I’ll ask you all to discuss what we could be doing differently as a team and how I could support you further by removing roadblocks and facilitating progress toward the goals you’re working on. Let’s try this, assume good intentions, and give it our all. I think this could be a game-changer in terms of our team’s productivity, and more important, I think this could be a lot of fun. I’m looking forward to your contributions, so let’s tee the first meeting up for this Thursday at 8:30.

Resist the temptation to back-burner weekly staff meetings, no matter how much pushback you get from your staffers. This is one of those situations where they might not know what’s good for them, but formalizing the lines of communication and giving yourself multiple opportunities to reset expectations and hear about feedback in real time is an advantage and an opportunity that you won’t want to do without.

Leadership SOS: Effective and Successful Turnaround Strategies for Failing Teams

What do you do when you inherit a department that is functioning poorly? Likewise, what happens if you’ve been ignoring or avoiding ongoing friction on your team, and people are starting to act up, using terminology like “hostile work environment,” or even grumbling about organizing a union? Well, you may not have a “Save our Ship” button on your desk, but there are ways to turn around even the most dire situations where it looks like a team may be about to implode. In fact, more often than not, if you peel back the layers, you’ll often find that there are root causes driving particular issues and key players that keep driving a wedge into the team’s relationships.

“Strawberries. It was all about a silly gift of strawberries. That’s when everything changed.” So reported a nurse at a hospital who was in tears in the HR officer’s office. Perplexed, the HR person asked to learn more about what a gift of strawberries could possibly have to do with the ongoing interpersonal problems plaguing this team of experienced and long-tenured nurses. Five nurses showed up in HR unannounced that day complaining about one particular nurse, Debbie, who harped on them, threatened to sue them, and created voodoo dolls of each of them.

That last element was significant in the case: These particular nurses were from an island nation where voodoo was a credible force, and they were legitimately frightened. Further, HR learned that Debbie also carried around a little black book, which she told them was where she kept notes on each of her peers for her lawyer so that she could sue them personally for harassment, bullying, and retaliation should they challenge her in any way.

These six nurses had worked together for years. A breach occurred in the group friendship about three years earlier when, according to the five complainants, Debbie started acting differently. She no longer wanted to go to lunch with them, get together after work, or participate in group events. One day, one of the nurses brought in four small baskets of strawberries. She only had four baskets at home that morning when she picked the strawberries from her garden. She knew that Debbie wouldn’t be in that day, so she brought strawberry baskets for the other four nurses.

As fate would have it, Debbie came to work that day even though she wasn’t scheduled. And when she found out that everyone got strawberries except her, she apparently went ballistic. She cursed and threatened her peers, she told them she’d create voodoo dolls of them all, and she said any form of friendship or personal association was over. And that’s how this real-life story turned into a crisis where five nurses almost walked off the job in anger, frustration, and fear. HR also learned that Debbie wouldn’t cover for them while they were on break or answer their patients’ call lights when they weren’t available, so there was a true concern about compromised patient safety.

The wise HR person reasoned that there were two sides to every story and invited Debbie in to learn more about her experiences with the team. Debbie wasn’t hesitant to launch an attack on her peers for harassing her, discriminating against and bullying her, and creating a “hostile work environment.” (Caution: When employees start using legal words like “hostile work environment,” your antennae should go up because they’re often contemplating suing.) HR went on to ask her for examples about the harassment and bullying, and Debbie stated that the nurses were doing things subtly to exclude her and taunt her.

HR reasoned fairly quickly that something was very odd about the whole setup: How could five employees be so intimidated by one person, and how could that one person appear to yield so much power over them? The answer, of course, lay in the voodoo dolls and that little black lawyer’s book. After speaking with the nursing management team, it was decided that the six nurses needed to remain in that particular wing of the hospital because of their specialties, and transferring Debbie to a different unit wouldn’t make sense. So it was time for HR to partner with the nursing leader and reset expectations for the entire team.

First, the HR person and the nursing director of that unit met with Debbie. The conversation went like this:

Debbie, after doing our investigation, we found out that you’ve threatened your peers with voodoo dolls and that you’ve shown them the dolls, which are in their likeness. You admitted to carrying a little black book that you told them you use to document anything that you feel is inappropriate so you could sue them. Is that correct?

[Yes.]

Okay, both of those practices must stop immediately. Threatening people with voodoo could potentially create a hostile work environment, and threatening to sue people and writing their names in your legal book can do the same. Based on your actions, we’re placing you on a final written warning that states that if you ever again engage in conduct like that, it could be considered hostile or offensive toward your peers, and you’ll immediately be dismissed for cause.

Further, you claim that you’re the victim of harassment and bullying from your peers, but aside from a few indirect examples that you provided, you’ve offered no proof of inappropriate behavior on their part other than a “gut feeling” and a “suspicion” you have about their talking behind your back. As a result, I see little merit in your allegations against your peers but will assume that they may be acting inappropriately at times. What you need to understand, however, is that we are holding you fully accountable for your own perception management. That means that you are responsible for fostering a healthy and inclusive work environment where your coworkers don’t need to fear you or avoid working with you. Is that clear?

[Yes.]

Finally, we’re holding a group meeting tomorrow with all six of you to reestablish our expectations and clarify the rules of respect and inclusion in the workplace. All six of you will be asked to sign a letter of confirmation recognizing these rules of engagement and respect, and if anyone violates the rules, then further disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal, may result.

In short, Debbie, we’re putting an end to this highly inappropriate conduct in our hospital. The fact that you’re receiving a final written warning for your particular conduct will not be shared with other members of your team. Only you can break that confidentiality if you choose to disclose it. Note, however, that after tomorrow’s meeting, we’re going to re-welcome everyone back to the hospital as if it’s their first day of employment. We don’t expect people to forgive and forget right away because we realize that if it took three years for your relationships to deteriorate to this level, it may take at least that long to simply get back to the baseline. Still, we wanted to meet with you individually and in private to explain our findings and reset expectations. We’ll draft the final written warning and issue it to you in the next few days. Do you have any questions about how we’re handling this and why?

[No.]

Okay, thank you for meeting with us, and we’ll schedule our follow-up group meeting for first thing tomorrow morning.

HR and the nursing director then met with the other five nurses later that afternoon and explained that the investigation was completed, that their complaints were taken very seriously, and that the voodoo dolls and little black books should no longer be a problem. HR and the nursing director instructed the team to notify management and HR immediately if those items ever popped up in the workplace again or otherwise were made mention of. All agreed, but they seemed nervous and apprehensive about the next day’s meeting.

The group meeting the following morning went like this:

Everyone, as you know, we conducted an investigation into what’s been plaguing your team and learned about voodoo dolls and little black books that seemed to threaten a number of you, which is understandable. The good news is now that we’ve found out about them, we have an agreement from Debbie that this will no longer be an issue. Debbie, is that correct?

[Yes.]

Good. Thank you. Further, I want to share on a personal note how sad I feel to see six people who have worked together for so long, who used to be close friends, and who save people’s lives on a regular basis, creating so much drama and making accusations against one another, constantly assuming bad intentions about the other side’s motivations.

We’re placing you all on notice that this type of behavior—whether direct or veiled, overt or in undertones—must stop immediately. First, we respect you too much as long-term employees to allow any of you to work in an unfriendly environment or feel excluded in any way. Second, you could potentially all be creating a “hostile work environment,” as some of you have called it, and we’re clearly not going to allow that to happen for legal reasons. And third, it’s time to reset expectations: we exist for patient care. Our mission is to cure and mend people with serious healthcare issues—not to get lost in our own dramas about strawberries and what not. We expect more of you as a team and as individuals. We expect you to appreciate this hospital for what it does, we expect you to respect each other and create a friendly work environment where people feel comfortable to express ideas and work with peace of mind, and we expect you to be thankful for the opportunities this hospital has given you to build your careers and care for your families. Anything shy of an appreciation for this hospital, your jobs, and your awareness of the opportunities available to you as a result of working here, will lead to failure.

I don’t expect you all to become best friends after this meeting, but I do expect communication among you all to remain open and clear. If someone doesn’t respond to a patient’s call in the primary nurse’s absence, I will consider that a terminable offense and the ultimate in patient disregard. If problems arise because of a lack of communication among you, we’ll have another group meeting, but it may result in far more serious consequences, and I would ask you please never to put us in that situation.

Finally, we’ve drafted a letter of confirmation outlining these points that we’ve just discussed. We’ll ask you all to sign the letter to acknowledge that we’ve held this meeting, reset expectations, and clarified the consequences of repeating these types of behaviors. This is not a disciplinary document and won’t be placed in your personnel file. However, if you ultimately violate the commitment that you’re about to sign about maintaining and fostering a respectful and inclusive work environment and following hospital standards of performance and conduct, then the document you sign today as a clarification letter could be attached to formal corrective action notice in the future or be used as justification to move to immediate dismissal. Is this clear to all of you?

[Yes.]

Then thank you for bringing this problem to our attention, and we’ll consider the matter concluded for now.

This scenario may sound very fact-specific, and it is. But that’s by design: when departments or teams seem like they’re about to crash or otherwise implode, in most cases it’s because there’s an antagonist who’s probably behaving oddly. It may be a supervisor who undermines her boss, a peer who engages in gossip and rumor mongering, or an individual who continually stirs the pot by pitting one person against another. In almost all cases, look for the ringleader. Find out who’s driving the ill will, angst, and drama, and address that individual privately. Then bring the entire team together to heal the wound and reset expectations. Verbal interventions like these may have written consequences (like a final written warning) for certain key players, but no one else needs to know that. Your job is to solve the problem. In this case, you called the players out, addressed the overt and veiled behaviors causing the ongoing angst, and concluded the matter cleanly, professionally, and respectfully. Job well done and crisis avoided.

Addressing Uncomfortable Workplace Situations and Personal Style Issues

Leadership and communication go hand in hand when it comes to motivating staff, recognizing employees’ achievements and accomplishments, and explaining your reasoning so that employees understand why they’re doing what they’re doing and how to best get there. But as we know, communication tends to break down when it comes to sharing more challenging news, and addressing uncomfortable workplace situations clearly falls under this category. No, the employee isn’t typically doing anything wrong per se, but certain personal issues tend to make their way into the workplace and impact coworkers in awkward and uncomfortable ways. When that’s the case, it’s time for you to step in and gently move things in a new direction.

Many all-too-common workplace issues get short shrift in the press because they’re simply too uncomfortable to deal with: employees’ inappropriate dress and body odor are two issues that managers are reluctant to address. Unfortunately, the workplace isn’t usually that forgiving: if you don’t handle it yourself, the problem will likely continue. But how do you approach it without embarrassing the employee, and what do you do if the employee challenges you and claims that she has every right to dress as she wishes?

My book 101 Tough Conversations to Have with Employees: A Manager’s Guide to Addressing Performance, Conduct, and Discipline Challenges (AMACOM, 2009) discusses many of the most common but also most challenging conversations you may have to have as a manager; the examples below represent a sample. So let’s address your responsibilities to your immediate subordinates and to the rest of your staff when it comes to uncomfortable workplace situations.

You’ve probably seen one of these variations on a theme before: Several of your staff members come to see you because a long-time coworker has developed a body odor or halitosis problem. Or perhaps an individual arrives at work with her hair in a mess looking like she just got out of bed. Maybe a subordinate’s face has a new, prominent piercing, or maybe a visible tattoo is being shown off to make a statement. How nice it would be to pull out a policy that dictates workplace behavior in instances like these. More likely than not, however, you’ll need to verbalize an ad hoc solution to the particular circumstances that you’re facing.

Bad Hair Days

Publicly shaming or ridiculing an individual will only develop resentment and anger. The goal of any management response in situations like these is to ensure that the individual is treated with dignity and respect. So here’s how we might address our first scenario, bad hair days, by making light of the situation and using a little humor:

Victor, I have to share something with you, and I don’t want to hurt your feelings or embarrass you in any way. This is private just between the two of us. Victor, your hair . . . Something’s either happening too much to it or not happening enough. You’re making a bit of a statement because it’s looking rather “severe,” if you don’t mind me saying so. I thought it would be a good idea to address it with you quietly before anyone else seems to notice. Where are you with that [pointing to the coif]?

Typically you’ll find some nervous shuffling along with an apology: “Oh, Paul, I woke up and went to the gym and didn’t have time to comb it out the way I normally do. I’ll run to the restroom right now and fix it and make sure that I come to work dressed for work from now on—including my hair! I’m sorry about that. Did anyone else say anything? I’m so embarrassed!”

Body Piercing

Okay, that first one was easy enough: a very common scenario with a predictable outcome. If only all employee relations interventions were that easy! Now on to a larger challenge: Assume that your customer service manager walks in one day with a new ring in his eyebrow and a metal post in his tongue. After you gasp and think, “He can’t service customers looking like that!” you devise a way to position your message so that he arrives at that same conclusion himself:

Michael, I need to talk with you privately about your fashion decision. First, let me say that I don’t mean to embarrass you in any way. I respect you as a person, and I don’t mean at all to dictate what you do in your personal life. But I’ve got to ask you: Are you sure that you’ve given sufficient thought to your eyebrow ring and tongue post in terms of how they might impact the customers that you service in our bank? I guess what I’m getting at is, Knowing that that kind of look might alienate some of our customers, would you be willing to remove them while you’re at work? Or would you consider removing them whenever you have to deal with the public? What are your thoughts?

The value to this approach lies in its subtlety and reasonableness. Few companies have policies restricting facial hair on men or insisting that women wear dresses in the office. And even the large accounting firms’ consultants now arrive at their consulting assignments in more of a “casual dress” mode than in the blue suit and red tie combinations of the past. Still, body piercing tends to result from revelations and epiphanies of what’s cool, what’s important in life, and what rights people believe they have over their own lives. In short, it’s not something to brush over lightly.

If your conversation leads to some kind of compromise where the employee agrees to leave the hardware at home or to take it off whenever dealing with customers, then you’ll have accomplished your goal. Employees who feel they’ve been treated respectfully and not simply been told “what to do” will almost always agree to some kind of modification, which will please the company and allow them to maintain their individuality.

Tattoos

Eyebrow rings and tongue posts are removable. Tattoos aren’t. (At least not for the sake of this conversation.) How would you address the ankle bracelet tattoo or back-of-the-neck black widow spider tattoo that seems about ready to climb into the employee’s hair? The phraseology may be different, but the strategy is the same: Discuss your concerns openly, listen to the individual’s side of the story, and then look for some resolution or compromise that you can both live with:

Eileen, a few of the staff members brought to my attention that you’d gotten some new tattoos over the weekend. I respect the fact that you have the right to do body art, but as the nursing supervisor in the ICU, I’m a little concerned about how some of our patients might respond. In essence, you know that we’re a little bit more of a conservative hospital, but that doesn’t mean that we want people to act like robots and repress their individuality. I wanted to talk with you and see if there could be a way where your desire to express yourself has a minimal impact on the patients and their families who come to us for care. What are your initial thoughts about that?

Once again, most people will offer alternatives that minimize the problem in the workplace: “Maybe I’ll wear pants rather than a dress to cover the ankle tattoo, and I’ll wear blouses with collars so that patients won’t be able to see the spider tattoo on my neck.” A reasonable approach begets a reasonable response.

Body Odor

Suppose your subordinates meet with you en masse to complain that a coworker’s odor is making the workplace intolerable. Odors come from bad breath, garlicky diets, insufficient personal hygiene, unclean clothing, and sometimes from chronic medical conditions like obesity, Crone’s disease, or colostomy bags. These conversations are a little trickier because they’re not necessarily something your employee can physically control. In addition, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) may govern these matters, so it may be more than workplace sensitivity: it may be a matter of law.

First, a caveat about the ADA: As a civil rights and antidiscrimination law intended to bring disabled workers into the workplace and to keep disabled employees in the workplace, its remedies can include punitive damages, so be careful! In addition to defining a “disability” as a physical or mental impairment (or record of such an impairment) that substantially limits one or more major life activities, the ADA also covers individuals who are “regarded as having” an impairment. In other words, even if no “disability” technically exists, a plaintiff’s lawyer could argue that you, the employer, “regarded” the employee as having a disability and that your company was therefore governed by the Act (and subject to its penalties).

Finally, in preparing for any workplace discussions with your employees regarding physical or mental conditions that may be governed by the ADA, remember that the law does not merely prohibit discrimination against the disabled; it imposes additional affirmative obligations upon employers to accommodate the needs of people with disabilities and to facilitate their economic independence.

Now that I’ve gotten your attention, proceed this way:

Joan, I need to make you aware of a situation that’s come to my attention, and I’ll need your help to solve it. A few of your coworkers came to me out of concern for you, but also out of concern for themselves. Apparently there is an odor coming from your office that makes it difficult for them to approach you. The odor is described as being a combination of sweat and urine, and apparently this is the third time that they’ve noticed it. It’s happening about the same time every month, and they’ve asked me to address it with you. You don’t need to share any specifics with me regarding the cause. I’d rather you address some possible solutions with me, assuming that you agree that this could be a problem. Is this something you’re aware of, and did you realize that your coworkers might have noticed anything?

Expect the employee to identify some underlying cause for the medical problem, but stop her before she gets too far. Under the ADA, you’re not obligated to accommodate a disability that you’re unaware of, so the fewer details you have, the less you have to formally “accommodate.” Likewise, for privacy reasons, you probably don’t want to know anything more than you have to. So after she shares that her monthly cycle aggravates her problem, ask her how she might want to resolve the matter. “Well, I’ll make a doctor’s appointment for tomorrow and see how this can be solved.”

Medical intervention is the only real direction in which an employer can lead an employee under these circumstances. Just be sure and close your conversation this way: “Joan, you just take care of yourself. If you need time off, if your doctor recommends any special considerations that we can help you with, just let us know. We’re all concerned about you and want to make sure you’re okay.”

Practically speaking, you’ll have demonstrated care and compassion to an employee in need of your help. That’s what effective leadership is all about. Legally speaking, you’ll have begun the process of fulfilling your obligation under the law to engage in an “interactive process” with the employee to determine an appropriate accommodation, if one is applicable. More importantly, you’ll have risen to the occasion and addressed a workplace issue appropriately. That’s what turns managers into leaders who stand out among their peers.

Dealing with Outright Refusals

Most employees will respond reasonably to your request if your presentation is respectful and reasonable as well as appreciative of people’s differences. However, there can be an occasional instance where a subordinate chooses to make a stand over a hairdo, eyebrow ring, or tattoo. If the employee refuses to discuss it with you, and if you feel you have a legitimate business reason for disallowing a nose ring or tattoo, then you may be within your rights to terminate the individual since body piercings and tattoos are generally not protected under the law.

Termination may be a bit extreme, of course, but depending on your industry and culture, it may be the only plausible outcome. Most states recognize the at-will employment relationship, and “at-will” means that companies can let go of employees for any reason or for no reason at all with or without cause or notice. The only catch is that you can’t let go of an employee for an unlawful reason. Body piercing and tattoos are generally not protected categories under the law, so it likely wouldn’t be unlawful to dismiss an employee who, for example, might intimidate your customers. In extreme cases like that, be sure to discuss such terminations with qualified legal counsel before proceeding. Consider the legal costs a cheap insurance policy to ensure that you’re not missing anything, you’re asking the right questions to qualify the individual’s reason for refusing to make an adjustment, and you’re coached appropriately on what to say (and what not to say) during the separation meeting.

Situational Coaching: How Do You “Coach Someone to Normal”?

How do you effectively deal with supervisors and other frontline leaders who report to you but just don’t seem to get it? Whether they continually make off-color or political remarks, refer to female staffers as “sweetie” and “honey,” or simply enjoy good old-fashioned public shaming sessions where they censure others openly and inject ongoing embarrassment and resentment into their working relationships, these leaders apparently don’t want to play nicely or otherwise get along with others. In fact, some are “spoken to” and even disciplined for past behaviors, yet their inappropriate conduct continues to roller coaster up and down every few months. At some point, frustrated and angry employees challenge why such behavior is allowed to continue, and company leaders often don’t take the situation seriously until people threaten to quit, file a lawsuit, or organize a union.

How do you stop these roller-coaster patterns from recurring in the workplace? How do you tell leaders that they’ve got a significant perception problem? And how do you stop these types of toxic behaviors and encourage errant leaders to behave appropriately? The key, like most things in business, lies not in what you say but how you say it and how you structure your expectations going forward. You must gain the leader’s commitment to fix the problem.

Such meetings often require a combined front. Let’s assume you’re a director and have a manager reporting to you and a supervisor reporting to him. The individual in question is the supervisor. You’ve heard banter about this supervisor’s conduct, but your manager hasn’t been able to correct it. In such cases, it might be time for you to step in and join forces with your manager to ensure that the errant supervisor hears two levels of consistency in terms of the organization’s expectations. In fact, if your company has an HR department, then it might make sense to invite the HR director to the meeting so that all three of you can provide a clear and consistent message about the ongoing problem and future expectations.

Next, determine upfront whether your organization can risk losing this individual, either via termination or resignation. If the answer is yes, then the suggested scripts that follow can be strengthened in terms of the consequences that you are prepared to apply; but if the individual is too valuable to your organization to risk losing, then you might want to change the language that follows in our example.

What’s critical, however, is that you not come across as judgmental. “Why do you keep making inappropriate and disrespectful remarks in public about people on your team?” won’t accomplish anything. The individual will simply become defensive and place blame elsewhere. Instead, come from observation—the “what’s so” rather than the “so what”—to explain the challenges as you see them:

John, you’ve had discussions about this before with your manager, and you’ve committed to undoing some of the damage that occurred when you admitted to engaging in public shaming sessions with some of your staff members in the past by censuring them at group meetings in front of their peers. You agreed at the time to follow our guidelines that you praise in public and censure in private. Yet yesterday two members of your team came to me as the department director to complain of that very same behavior repeating itself at your staff meeting. From what I was told, you reverted to using the F-word and questioned why people “aren’t thinking” and “are acting like f-ing idiots.” Is that an accurate assessment of what occurred yesterday?

[Yes.]

Based on our prior discussions and reflecting on your handling of yesterday’s meeting, can you look back and see some sort of justification for your behavior?

[No, not really: I just lost my head.]

Would you be surprised then if I told you that both employees are now considering quitting because of how they were treated in front of the rest of the team?

[No, I guess that could be a reasonable reaction on their part.]

Then based on that, John, you’ve got a real perception problem on your hands. They say that perception is reality until proven otherwise, and people are simply assuming bad intentions when dealing with you. In fact, your actions yesterday are very much now part of everyone’s reality—perception issues aside. We’re holding you fully accountable for your own perception management from this point forward. In other words, regardless of your intentions or how you think others may be receiving your message, you’ve got to raise your awareness level about how you’re coming across. You can no longer engage in public diatribes about your entire team or individuals on your team, especially using that kind of language. Is that a fair request on our part?

[Yes.]

Now would be an optimal time to remind leaders about personal liability surrounding what are known as “managerial bad acts” as follows:

John, you’ve also got to remember that you may be putting yourself at risk from a liability and financial standpoint. When a leader engages in what could be construed as harassing behavior or in potentially creating a hostile work environment, a lawsuit from a disgruntled ex-employee will typically name you separately from the company. We don’t pay you enough money to warrant risking your savings and your home in a personal lawsuit for what’s deemed to be “managerial bad acts” or “acting outside the course and scope of your employment.”

But the threshold for individual liability is fairly low, and I’ve read that one out of four managers in corporate America will become personally involved in some sort of work-related lawsuit during their career. What executives don’t realize is that, in some states, they can be sued for up to $50,000 of their own money; in California, there’s no cap on how much they can be sued for. As a frontline leader in our company, you may be seen as a juicy target who’s worth pursuing separately and apart from the company, and you can’t risk your personal savings because you keep losing your temper or otherwise striking fear in your staffers. They could all serve as witnesses to your behavior in a court of law.

Remember, you’ve been to training sessions on respect in the workplace, which included modules on bullying behavior and hostility. Just so you’re aware, we have proof that you attended multiple training workshops. In essence, the company uses that documentation to demonstrate that it was a good corporate citizen and trained its employees appropriately. However, this particular supervisor, John Smith, decided to engage in egregious behavior nevertheless and, as such, was acting outside the course and scope of his employment. Therefore, the company will logically argue, “Please don’t sue us—sue him. We did everything right, yet he continued on in this behavior nevertheless.”

The next question from the judge or arbitrator will clearly be, “Well, why didn’t you fire him then?” And you need to fast-forward to where we are right now: If this type of behavior shows itself again, we will indeed have to separate you for cause. This is your last chance, John, and if you fail to abide by our guidance here in terms of controlling your temper, you’ll be firing yourself. Is that clear?

[Yes.]

Okay, so you’re confirming that if we ever have to have another conversation like this, it will be your final day of employment with us, check in hand. Agreed?

[Yes.]

Fair enough, then. We’ll be codifying this conversation and our expectations in the form of a final written warning. Note as well that it won’t have an expiration or “stay clean” period. The document will specifically state that if you ever again engage in behavior that could appear to intimidate or threaten your team members or otherwise strip them of their dignity or humiliate them in public, you’ll be immediately discharged for cause. Do I have your commitment at this point that we’re all clear on our company’s expectations and the results if you ever go down this road again?

[Yes.]

Then thank you for coming in, and we’ll prepare the final written warning for your signature shortly.

You may, of course, soften the message, depending on the circumstances, and provide alternative courses of action:

John, we want you to be successful here. We’re having this meeting to confirm for you that you’re a valued and key member of our company’s leadership team, but that this sort of conduct has to stop. We want you to think about options and resources that may be helpful, including an executive coach. If you feel you would benefit from having one-on-one guidance from an external expert who could help you navigate through these types of situations, especially when you’re feeling frustrated, let us know. If there are other resources—education, additional staff, or otherwise—that you feel are necessary at this point to relieve some of your stress and pressure, we’d like to hear about them. Likewise, remember that you can contact our Employee Assistance Program confidentially if you want to discuss your reactions and emotions with a professional. You tell us what will help, and we’ll do our best to accommodate.

But I’d like a commitment from you now that we’ll never have to have a meeting like this again. This is totally within your control, and as much as we value you and want to support your success, we don’t want to risk unnecessary turnover or the potential of lawsuits because you can’t or won’t control your temper. In short, the roller coaster needs to stop as of today. This type of meeting is uncomfortable for us, and we know it’s uncomfortable for you, but once you give us your commitment, I expect that this will become water under the bridge and ancient history. We’re re-welcoming you to the company today—a fresh start—but it’s up to you to accept our olive branch and make this commitment. Are you willing to commit to us now that you’ll hold yourself fully accountable for your behavior and actions and ensure that we never have to have a meeting like this with you again?

[Yes.]

Great. Then I’ll consider the matter taken care of at this point. That being said, if you have any additional suggestions or concerns that you want to share with me separately, my door is always open. Thanks for joining us today.

Said quietly and without a lot of drama, a respectful discussion scenario like this, led by the individual’s immediate supervisor, next-level supervisor, and HR, will more than likely quell the drama. After all, you’ve placed John in control, listened to him openly, and offered additional resources and options to support him. Even if it doesn’t work and you’re forced to pursue this issue again, you’ll have created an outstanding record of having accorded the supervisor with “workplace due process” in the legal sense. Any further actions on the company’s part—whether in the form of progressive discipline or ultimately termination—will be strengthened by this healthy and fair verbal intervention.

The Danger of “Off-the-Record” Conversations and Over-Promising Confidentiality

Regarding communication, we’ve addressed issues of transparency, recognition, delivering difficult news, and even incorporating the concept of “perception” into our analysis: all make for critically important concepts in becoming an effective communicator. But listening is equally as important, if not more so. Being a good listener means acknowledging what others are saying, hearing their side of the story with an open mind and objective mindset, and allowing them to finish their thoughts before interrupting them or otherwise talking over them.

Another crucial aspect of effective communication lies in knowing what not to say. Too many leaders have inadvertently stepped on land mines without realizing it because they either said too much or otherwise made promises or guarantees that they simply couldn’t keep. Knowing what not to say, therefore, is an important part of effective communication. One common area where such land mines exist has to do with over-promising confidentiality.

If an employee asks to speak with you off the record, train yourself right now to respond like this:

Maybe. It all depends on what you have to say. If it has to do with one of three things, Laura, then I can’t promise confidentiality because I’ll have an affirmative obligation to disclose it to senior leadership: The three things are harassment or discrimination, potential violence in the workplace, or an inherent conflict of interest with the company’s business practices. If it doesn’t have to do with any of those three things, I’d be happy to speak with you. But if it does, then understand that you may not want to tell me because I’ll be obligated to bring the matter to the attention of senior management or HR.

Wait! Is it reasonable for leaders to instruct their subordinates not to tell them something that’s on their minds or that’s otherwise bothering them? I would argue yes. If employees want to talk off the record and not have the information escalate, then they shouldn’t tell their bosses if one of the three categorical areas above is in question. Likewise, leaders need to know not to provide blanket authorization to talk about anything and everything on the employee’s mind because they may have to disclose the matter, breaching their agreement of confidentiality with the employee and that individual’s trust.

Here are some common examples where you shouldn’t promise absolute confidentiality when an employee asks to speak off the record:

I’m afraid that Susan is feeling threatened and harassed by Ken’s constant requests for a date. She told me not to say anything to anyone, but I don’t know what to do and want to help her.

Jack, an IT programmer, pulled a bullet out of his shirt pocket and banged it on his desk three times this morning, shouting: “No one better bother me today.” I think we all got pretty freaked out because we know he keeps rifles in the trunk of his car so that he could visit the rifle range after work every night. Wasn’t that weird?

I know you’re not my supervisor, but I always enjoy spending time with you. I’ve got an opportunity to moonlight with XYZ Corporation. I know they’re a direct competitor of ours, but they’re willing to pay me $60/hour for 20 hours of work every week over the next three months to help them meet a project deadline. It sure would be helpful to make that extra money, but I wouldn’t want anyone to know. I’m really excited!

In situations like these, you have an affirmative obligation to disclose your findings. Why? Because in the eyes of the law, once an employee places a company leader (i.e., supervisor, manager, director, VP, and the like) on notice, then the entire company is deemed to have been placed on notice. Here’s how it works in reality: An ex-employee of your company decides to meet with an attorney to discuss what she believes was a wrongful termination from the company. During questioning, the employee volunteers to her attorney that she’s felt threatened by her supervisor on occasion because of his aggressiveness and disparaging comments about her weight. The lawyer questions further and learns that other indirect comments were made about her age and her choice of clothing (along with occasional references about her “sexy legs” and, on one occasion, large breasts).

Bingo! The wrongful termination claim just added harassment and discrimination to the charges—both potentially entailing the awarding of punitive damages. The next question is key. The lawyer asks, “Did you ever inform anyone in management about how you were feeling?” The employee hesitates and responds, “Well, yes and no. I told Jim, who’s a supervisor, but he’s not my supervisor. He’s in favor of the plaintiff’s attorney. And I made him promise me to keep it confidential, which he did and which I appreciate. Besides, I’d never want him to get into any kind of trouble.”

Too late! The case for discrimination and harassment has now swung decidedly in the plaintiff attorney’s favor, and Jim, your friend and confidant, is going to be the main reason why. He’ll be taken through a series of interrogatories, depositions, and may ultimately be asked to take the stand to establish why he, as a leader of the company, failed to affirmatively disclose the harassment and discrimination complaint that was made to him. His sheepish and apologetic response will sound something along the lines of, “Well, Doris asked me to keep it confidential, and I wanted to respect her request.”

Boom! The land mine just exploded. The entire crux of the case will be shifted to Jim’s failure to disclose the harassment he learned of. The plaintiff’s lawyer will skillfully argue that in the eyes of the law, once Jim was placed on notice, the entire company was deemed to have been placed on notice, and the company did absolutely nothing to stop the egregious misconduct that subjected Doris to harassing and discriminatory behavior. So much for being a nice guy! Jim, as a supervisor, fell for the biggest sucker punch in the book: he failed to disclose something that he had an obligation to escalate to senior management or HR. He’ll unfortunately feel the full brunt of his decision because the entire lawsuit will rest on his ultimate failure to do his job.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers aren’t in the business of protecting old friendships. Their job is to expose a company’s shortcomings, and “company,” in this instance, refers to the individual leaders who didn’t have a clear of understanding of their responsibilities under the law. Therefore, it’s critical that you avoid over-promising confidentiality. This particular error or oversight on leaders’ parts has gotten them into tremendous amounts of trouble and has cost people their jobs. Remember, if anyone asks you to speak off the record, respond “Maybe,” not “Yes”! Then follow the script above to clarify your expectations before the employee lets loose with her innermost secrets. Employees may not know how much trouble they’re getting you into, but now you know how to protect yourself from this particular land mine, which has derailed many a successful career for way too many leaders in corporate America.

Special Circumstances: From Coaching and Mentoring to Verbal Warnings—Communicating with Skillful Aplomb

Communication is such a broad and all-encompassing topic that no one chapter or even book can come close to addressing its variations in the workplace or elsewhere. Still, our goal in this chapter is to address common workplace opportunities where leaders can become more effective communicators, especially when it comes to employment offense (motivation, engagement, and positive recognition) and employment defense (tough conversations, resetting expectations, and addressing consequences when desired performance or conduct outcomes aren’t achieved). It’s appropriate for us to complete the chapter, then, with special circumstances that may be a bit more common that you’d think.

Coaching and mentoring employees is a critical aspect of effective leadership, and it all hinges on appropriate communication. On the other end of the spectrum, however, we need to discuss how to incorporate crucial conversations into the progressive disciplinary process to create a thorough record of according employees due process—the legal concept that employees know about problems before they’re terminated for cause. Let’s look first at coaching and mentoring—your opportunity to train and develop those employees who are following in your footsteps or otherwise growing and developing in their own respective careers.

When people feel valued, acknowledged, and appreciated, they will typically respond with increased commitment and enthusiasm, which naturally translates into higher productivity. Even though performance reviews typically occur only once a year, most experts in the field of leadership and management (including me) will argue that the optimal amount of time devoted to formal performance feedback is four hours per year or one hour per quarter. This is a fourfold increase over what most companies do and what most workers experience, but the strongest leaders provide formal feedback four times per year to catch up on progress, redefine goals in light of new information, and provide timely information and guidance to their team members.

So how do you coach and develop your employees throughout the year in way that will lead to a highly fueled, self-aware, and engaged team? Follow this general outline to structure your conversations:

1. Specific: Use real examples. Detailed feedback that is recent and “real” becomes actionable and much more meaningful to the recipient.

2. Balanced: People need to hear both what they are doing well and where they need to improve. The age-old advice still holds: You’ll garner much greater results as a leader if you spend your time and energy on building people’s strengths rather than managing their weaknesses. It’s likewise true that as a leader, you’ll be better off focusing on people’s natural talents and encouraging them to become more of who they already are rather than on trying to fix their weaknesses or making them perfect. That’s what teams are all about—diverse groups of individuals with varying strengths and talents that complement one another so that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Still, hearing both positive and encouraging information in addition to areas of development and opportunity provides a balanced approach to coaching and mentoring because employees generally want more input to focus on their self-development and heighten their self-awareness.

3. Timely: Waiting months to deliver feedback dilutes its impact and sends the message that the matter wasn’t very important. Providing actual, real-time feedback between formal performance reviews should become a matter of practice and expectation. The ongoing feedback loop will garner you high points as a caring leader who’s focused on employee development. Also, don’t be afraid to shift the responsibility for timely feedback back to your employees: Simply instruct them to call intermittent update meetings to discuss their progress and keep you informed of any surprises along the way—pleasant or otherwise.

4. Continual: In the same way we need to keep our cars fueled with gas, we need to keep our people fueled with feedback. That’s the psychological oxygen that keeps them engaged and refreshed, and it removes any awkwardness when it comes to addressing minor issues before they escalate. After all, if feedback is ongoing and continual, then it simply becomes a cultural imperative under your leadership.

Likewise, when meeting with an employee whom you’re mentoring or coaching, ask questions such as the following:

Do you have a clear understanding of what’s expected of you at work?

Could you articulate what would garner a “meets expectations” score on your annual review versus an “exceeds expectations” or “superior” rating for your particular role?

Do you have the materials, equipment, and training that you need to be successful?

What’s your biggest concern currently?

Do you feel that your opinion counts and that you have a voice on our team?

If you could change one thing right now that would make things better for us as a team or how we get our work done, what would it be?

Do you feel you have adequate opportunities to learn and grow in your role? Are there any types of rotational or stretch assignments that you feel could help you progress in your career more effectively?

These questions are easily customized, of course, but the examples above should help you launch into a conversation fairly seamlessly. More important than the particular questions you ask, however, is your sincere interest in the individual’s growth and development.

Finally, on the other end of the verbal communication spectrum, companies often issue corrective action verbally before proceeding to more formal, documented stages. The typical corrective action paradigm in corporate America is a three-step process that looks like this:

Step 1: Verbal warning (which may be documented for the sake of clarity and confirmation)

Step 2: Written warning

Step 3: Final written warning

Regarding step 1, you might be wondering why it is documented if it’s a verbal warning. A very logical question, of course, but there’s also a very logical answer: By documenting a “first warning”—something many companies label a “verbal warning”—companies establish a record that the meeting occurred and the content of the discussion is codified. This avoids claims that the meeting never happened or that the meeting was more of a “coaching session” and not part of the company’s formal progressive discipline process.

However, let’s assume your company doesn’t document first warnings (i.e., that your verbal warnings are truly “verbal”). In such circumstances, it’s critical that you use the words verbal warning during the meeting—especially if you work in a union environment. Any lack of clarity or wiggle room in terms of whether the meeting was part of your organization’s formal corrective action process or simply a “coaching” or “mentoring” meeting could be used against you if challenged by a union or in a court of law. Simply state:

Donna, we’re considering this a formal verbal warning, which, as you know, is the first step in our company’s corrective action process. I want to make sure this is clear to you, and I’m happy to discuss this further if you’d like. But the next step in the process would be a formal written warning if the situation doesn’t improve itself, and I just want to make sure that you’re clear on how the corrective action system works and, more importantly, that it isn’t something to take lightly because it could ultimately result in your being separated from the company. Tell me what questions you have about that at this point because we want to make sure that this first, verbal meeting addresses the issue so we don’t have to hold any further discussions about it. Do you agree that’s a fair approach to how we’re handling this?

[Yes.]

Okay then, thanks for your commitment, I’m glad we’re on the same page in terms of future expectations, and I appreciate your taking this in such a professional and cooperative spirit. I’m here to help you any time you want to talk and will always make myself available if you need me. Thank you.

Whether you’re delivering coaching and recognition for a job well done or directly addressing problematic performance and conduct issues that may arise in the workplace from time to time, remember that being a great communicator doesn’t only mean delivering good news. It also means delivering challenging news in a positive and constructive manner. Great leaders are great communicators, and there are few areas that you could invest in that will yield greater results than becoming a stellar and transparent communicator and leader.