Without doubt, employees have been known to act in amazing ways—sometimes it's hard to tell the adults from the children. A few examples come to mind. The man who was fired for sleeping on the job and then came back the next day, asking to be rehired. The manager who refused to stop smoking in his office because it was his "constitutional right." Last (I do have a million of these!), the customer service rep who stormed out of her office crying because her manager had given her a reprimand. There is no end to how inappropriately some people can behave. It can take extreme self-control to manage such employees effectively.
Anyone who has managed employees has stories to tell about office intrigue, pettiness, affairs, jealousy, arguing, and so on. One client of mine, a rather generous sort, purchased special office chairs for two large-size employees. This prompted other employees to object: "How come they got new chairs and we didn't?" They continued to complain until, finally, the business owner succumbed to the pressure and bought everyone new chairs. This challenge is about dealing with employees who perform their jobs well but stir up trouble in other ways. They may think they are stirring the pot in a subtle way, but usually their behavior is anything but subtle! Instead, it tends to evoke conflict, and in doing so challenge management.
Here are some common examples of what I'm describing here: Troublemakers hint at possible wrongdoing of others, or they suggest that other people aren't pulling their weight, or they intimate that another employee is not loyal to the manager. Whatever the accusation, and no matter how ridiculous it may seem on the surface, usually the manager has to take time to assess the situation, to determine if any action is required and, if so, what is appropriate.
Senior managers learn early that everyone walking into their offices usually wants something. For them, they are in a continual learning process, in an attempt to sift through all of the requests and make good decisions for the business and staff. More seriously, when an individual is seen as actively trying to manipulate the leader to meet his or her personal agenda, the organization's interests may come at risk.
Being a manager isn't easy—the pressure is intense. Juggling multiple priorities and individual personalities within organizations that are in a constant state of change is daunting. Add to the mix that the workforce may be highly diverse, of various ethnicities and age groups, and from all over the world, and one gains appreciation for those who manage staff successfully. A manager, no matter how well trained he or she is, is never fully prepared for the peculiarities of human beings.
Here's an example from a university, where one likes to think highly educated individuals will behave in a civilized manner (how wrong stereotypes can be sometimes). Two professors were staging a protest against the department head (the manager). Why? The two professors believed that the department head was showing favoritism toward another professor. Their e-mails flew back and forth (of course, they copied the entire department), filled with animosity and vicious accusations. The department head was in shock, and at a loss at to how to deal with the bitter divisiveness that had developed. So there it lingered, eventually becoming part of the department culture—"Which side are you on?"
I tell you this story to introduce a very important topic: electronic communications (especially e-mail) and their role in conflict. As we all know, dealing face to face with a person you're in conflict with is, at best, uncomfortable. So, naturally, many think it will alleviate the tension to address the situation via e-mail. Wrong! When there is conflict, nuance, choice of words, tone, and body language, all become extremely important. What might be taken lightly in a normal interaction can become inflammatory when two people are at war with each other.
Interpreting tone in an e-mail is tricky; frequently, what the sender intended and what the recipient understood are two very different things. I learned early on that direct contact with others at work helps to build trust. The less personal interaction you have with others, especially those you might need to rely on later, the greater the chance that mistrust can build. This is not to say that you need to be in constant contact; no, what you need is sufficient contact to ensure trust. This is particularly crucial in cultures that are highly politicized, aggressive, or passive, where mutual trust commonly is at a premium.
Keep in mind that a lot of business today is conducted without the individuals involved ever meeting or speaking. Managers often have to supervise individuals who are not in the office across the hall, or even in the same building or state or country. Many people also work from their homes, and never participate in a corporate office environment.
Unquestionably, e-mail is a necessity in this complex world, where distance often separates people who rely on and work with each other, but it is best reserved for:
Sharing of details of projects, plans, and the like.
Distribution of announcements and news involving large numbers of people.
Confirmation and restatement of conversations, agreements, and so on.
Asking questions requiring clarification.
Exchanging general communications.
On the other hand, electronic written communication is not effective for these situations:
Any kind of conflict.
Communication that contains emotional content.
Privileged or confidential information.
Personal or any nonbusiness-related communication (this should be on your personal e-mail account).
Whenever the nuance of language is critical.
A client of mine, the regional head of a national corporation, showed me an e-mail he had received from the COO. The first paragraph (of many that were similar in tone and content) went something like this:
"DISCOUNTING ON CERTAIN MODELS HAS NOT BEEN DONE. WRONG! IMMEDIATELY, I WANT THIS ABSOLUTELY STUPID PRACTICE TO STOP! FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN SERIOUS PENALTIES."
Oh my! We have come to understand that using all capital letters is the equivalent of shouting or screaming. Sometimes managing adult professionals has to be thought of as raising a family. You know what happens when you scream at kids on a regular basis? They become inured to raise voices and cease to pay attention. Employees react in exactly the same way.
If someone provokes you in an e-mail, don't react defensively. Instead, in a responding e-mail, let the other person know that you got the e-mail, but that you would like to discuss the issue over the phone or in person, whichever is more convenient. If the provocateur copied others in his or original e-mail, copy those same people in your response. Never forget, e-mails leave a corporate trail, and you don't want to be party to an argument that becomes documented in company records. Also, if you sincerely wish to resolve the conflict, you don't want the other person to misunderstand you in any way. Misunderstanding happens very easily when the conflict is being handled via e-mail. As tempting as it may seem to use this convenient technology, I strongly caution you against resorting to electronic means to resolve any issues you may have with another person.
Now let's get to the challenge at hand, the final one, another true story about an employee who causes trouble. Sadly, it's one that repeats itself on a regular basis in offices everywhere.
Jeremy is a manager at a large food processing plant outside of Kansas City. He has been in his job for two years; previously, he worked at another processing plant in Baltimore. He is in charge of six supervisors (three men, three women), each of whom supervises about twelve workers. All these supervisors have been at the plant longer than Jeremy.
The plant functions well; productivity and quality goals are consistently met. Nevertheless, Jeremy does not want to be at this job much longer: he has his eyes on his boss's job. (His boss had told Jeremy that he would likely be his successor, when he himself was promoted.) His reviews have been excellent; he knows how to play the political game, and people generally like working for him.
The general perception has been that Jeremy is destined for big things in the company. His staff is aware of this, and most of them are proud to be working for a winner. For the most part, Jeremy feels good about his team; they work well together, and have few negative incidents.
One day at lunch, Jeremy and one of his peers were talking, and his coworker told him that their boss was probably going to be promoted and relocated to another location. Jeremy was thrilled. This could be the opportunity he was waiting for. With each successive day, Jeremy's excitement grew.
One morning, Nikki, one of Jeremy's six supervisors, and he were meeting in his office. Jeremy was listening to Nikki tell him how two of the other six supervisors were slacking off and cutting corners. Nikki also mentioned that she knew Jeremy was up for a promotion, and that this probably wasn't the time to be having production problems. She presented herself as being supportive of Jeremy. When he asked her for more information, Nikki told him that the slackers were also undermining her, making it harder for her to succeed.
That afternoon Jeremy had scheduled a meeting with Tim, one of the supervisors Nikki had accused of poor management practices. He had to admit, what Nikki told him earlier in the day had stayed on his mind. He did not want to have any negative marks against him and his team, not at this time especially. Currently, the production stats were all fine. Jeremy was not sure how to proceed.
What happened next came as a total surprise to Jeremy.
At the meeting with Tim, unsolicited, admitted to Jeremy that he and Nikki were having issues. Tim also said he had heard that Jeremy might be up for a promotion (Jeremy wondered, did everyone know?), and hoped Jeremy would get the new position. Then he told Jeremy that Nikki was telling everyone that she was Jeremy's heir apparent: was that true?
Jeremy now saw that this situation was more than met the eye. He was well aware that as soon as there was a hint of organizational change, people start to jockey for position within the new regime.
Jeremy assured Tim that nothing had been decided yet; that it wasn't even clear that Jeremy's boss was leaving.
Then Tim added one more piece of information: that he had seen Nikki going out to lunch with Jeremy's boss the day before. "That is unusual," Jeremy noted to himself. He then promptly redirected the conversation with Tim from office politics to production issues.
Jeremy had come to realize that this situation was more complex than he initially thought, and that he had to proceed very carefully. After a week passed, Jeremy noticed that production stats were dipping a bit. He was concerned that the rumor mill might be directing attention away from the work. That, coupled with his ongoing concern about his conversations with Nikki and Tim, motivated Jeremy to go to The Working Circle.
Jeremy surmised the situation as follows:
Jeremy had staff members who were beginning to act in an untrustworthy manner toward each other, and potentially toward him, as well.
His boss would probably be promoted—if not now, in the not-too-distant future.
Jeremy wanted to be promoted to his boss's current position, should it be vacated.
Nikki was jockeying for position and causing problems on Jeremy's team.
Jeremy's instinct told him Tim had been telling the truth about Nikki, but he would have to investigate, to be sure—in particular, whether the alleged luncheon had taken place.
Production numbers were starting to slip in Jeremy's group, an indication that employee focus may have shifted to political events, and off the production line.
Jeremy had to admit he never completely trusted Nikki; he always had a sense that she told him what he wanted to hear, not necessarily the truth.
Jeremy had not yet heard from the other supervisor whom Nikki had accused of collusion with Tim.
If Jeremy did get his boss's job, he would not want to promote Nikki; he'd rather consider two other of his supervisors (Tim being one of them).
Jeremy did not want his boss to recommend Nikki for promotion, for two reasons: he did not trust her, and she did not have a broad enough base of experience yet.
What tangled webs we humans weave!
Jeremy instructed his assistant to call his boss's assistant to see if she could confirm whether Nikki had had lunch with his boss the prior week. Within one hour, Jeremy found out that they had indeed had lunch. Now he was really irritated—and ready to move on to the next question.
The only item Jeremy considered negotiable in this situation was timing: when he would talk to everyone involved. He moved on to the next question.
Jeremy had much more to say here:
It was totally unacceptable to him that a staff member of his would have lunch with his boss without speaking to him first. It was, at the least, common courtesy, that she tell him about it.
Likewise, it was not okay for his boss to have lunch with Nikki and not tell him—but this was a stickier subject, as his boss had a right to have lunch with anyone he pleased. Jeremy wondered whether his boss would tell him at their next scheduled meeting.
It was unacceptable to him that his supervisors were allowing themselves to be distracted from their jobs and engage in backstabbing.
He knew he should not be resolving issues among his staff members, that they should resolve things on their own—of course, with his assistance, if necessary.
Since he had been told by his boss that he was his most likely successor, Jeremy expected to be told if that were to change, for any reason.
As it does for mostly everyone, going through the list of nonnegotiable items gave Jeremy more confidence to proceed.
Jeremy knew right away what his response would be to this question: At his previous job he had two team members who did not get along. He had spoken to each of them individually, going back and forth, trying to find a solution. But he never got a complete story from either of them, and the manipulation of facts ran rampant. From this, he learned not to get in the middle ever again. If people were arguing, he would mediate, assist them in reaching resolution, but not get in the middle.
Fortunately for Jeremy, he was not uncomfortable with conflict. He was also rather adept at swimming through political waters, which was an important reason he was so right for this potential promotion. What he did have a hard time handling in this situation was Nikki's behavior. Disloyalty and lying to get an advantage really got his dander up. It was that thought that led him to the next question.
He was troubled by what his boss had done.
He was mistrustful of, and annoyed at, Nikki.
He was somewhat unsure of Tim.
Most of all, he wasn't sure what his chances were for getting the promotion (if, in fact, his boss was moving up).
He was very confident about his ability to put together a plan of action.
Jeremy enjoyed planning, so he eagerly set about putting his plan on paper, and constructed on a timeline.
Call for a staff meeting with his six supervisors, with this agenda:
Discuss the sudden dip in results, and determine how to improve.
Speak openly about the rumored departure of his boss, and tell them what he knew—nothing.
Schedule a one-on-one meeting with Nikki, for these purposes:
Ask her how the lunch with his boss went. Also tell Nikki that he would prefer, in the future, to be notified of such events.
Offer to meet with her and the two supervisors she accused of wrongdoing, If she refused, tell her that, in the future, she must have substantiation for any accusations she might make.
Let's interrupt his game plan at this point to go to the Masculine-Feminine Continuum and look at the ways Jeremy might handle the conversation with Nikki.
Back to the game plan.
At the scheduled meeting with his boss, ask him the following:
Was he leaving his current position?
What were Jeremy's chances of getting his boss's current job?
Was there anything he needed to know about the lunch his boss had had with Nikki?
If his boss was taking a new position, set up a meeting with the VP of operations, his boss's manager. At that meeting, express his interest in the promotion. If he got a favorable response, be prepared to suggest a successor for himself (most likely, Tim). Also, express his concerns about Nikki.
In the meantime, continue to monitor Nikki, to let her know he was on to her and was closely scrutinizing her production results.
Work with his supervisors, to ensure they were working together well and productively.
Reviewing his game plan, Jeremy felt great. He believed he had covered all the bases and was fully prepared to spring into action. He was also certain that he shouldn't give an untrustworthy subordinate too much room to maneuver; conversely, he didn't need to micromanage her, either.
Jeremy asked himself the next question on the Circle.
He was confident his game plan would result in the following:
He would reestablish his relationship with his staff, which seemed a bit offtrack now. The way he liked it to be is marked by direct conversation with honest feedback.
Nikki would be on notice that certain kinds of behavior were unacceptable to him.
He would feel more in control of his team.
He would be more prepared for greater responsibility.
Jeremy believed his plan would enable him to move in the direction he wanted to go. It would position him well for the promotion and, in the meantime, help him to align his allies and put his adversaries (notably, Nikki) on notice.
Jeremy knew that control was an illusion; but he also knew that this situation taught him how to deal with a number of important issues, thereby making him a better manager and professional.
When Jeremy met with his boss, it became clear that he was moving up the corporate ladder and that Nikki had spontaneously joined him for lunch. He also recognized that his boss was not impressed with Nikki's efforts at manipulation, a great relief to Jeremy. Most important, his boss confirmed that he had recommended Jeremy to take his place, and encouraged Jeremy to sit tight for a while.
Three months later, Jeremy was promoted, and, in turn, promoted Tim. "Now Nikki is your problem," Jeremy joked with Tim at a celebratory lunch they had together.
Is there always so much conflict at work? Well, yes and no. Some conflicts are so small they barely register, like one mosquito at a picnic. Others are more persistent, like a dull, chronic toothache. And a few just drive you crazy—like an older brother who behaves like a typical older brother. Oh my!
On a personal note, I want to say that I try really hard to walk my talk, and I do that best by sharing with others The Working Circle. And I can promise you, The Working Circle works.
My goal is for organizations to thrive and for people to enjoy working at them and to feel valued. In the next chapter, I will explain how you can help in this effort, by spreading the word and teaching others to use The Working Circle.