From time to time, though, the focused pursuit of a consistent image can create unforeseen consequences and get in the way of the effective pursuit of a business’s work goals and the execution of its tasks.

Case in point: I was chatting with a building super for a property that is owned and operated by a national real estate management company. The company had recently changed its selection of required work uniforms. Originally, the work pants, polo shirts, work shirts, caps, etc. had come in a range of styles that building employees could choose from.

Dressing for the Part

Now, the company’s management wants its employees in this particular building to look like the employees at its flagship location. So the local guys can no longer wear the carpenter-style pants that they prize for the extra loops and holster-type pockets for tools down the leg, which let them carry a few crucial work tools at all times, ready for a quick repair job or to help a tenant out.

Instead, the employees are required to wear regular plain-leg slacks and they have to carry their tools by hand in a small case — inconveniently — or to try to shove the case itself into their ordinary front pants pocket.

Of course it’s possible that numerous considerations went into the decision to change the uniform. Perhaps too many tools went missing in the fancy flagship building, or maybe the plain pants were significantly less expensive.

But even if there were many mitigating factors, the super had never been informed about them. So he filled in the gaps with the logic of his own perspective. His takeaway (paraphrased) was loud and clear: “They care more about looks than what helps us get the job done. They don’t care how inconvenient it is for us. Who needs fancy when they want something fixed? Tenants don’t like to wait for us to go back to the building office and get some tools. They just want the thing fixed right away.”

Think twice before you get between the workman and his work. Good-looking may have nothing to do with fashion, and a lot to do with how close the lights, heat, bathrooms, elevators, and air conditioning come to 100 percent uptime. Beauty, in a case like this one, is in the eyes of the tenant who sees a repair underway.

Onward and upward,

LK

My senior managers actually explained things to me. I didn’t always agree with everything they taught me or with all the particulars of their behavior, but the content was always relevant to the special nature of the business, and their attention gave me the opportunity to learn from both positive and negative examples.

But by the mid-’80s, businesses were cutting the guts out of middle management. Each successive cycle of rightsizing, layoffs, and buyouts set up scenarios in which senior execs had too many direct reports — and too many of those reports were the equivalent of raw recruits who were good material, perhaps, but definitely unseasoned.

The Disappearing Apprentice

When junior management was a form of apprenticeship, new up-and-comings learned not only their functional responsibilities, but also what was expected of managers. I’ve always suspected that the loss of this apprenticeship — and the extended, often informal training and development process that it offered — is one of the underlying reasons for ongoing management churn as well as the trend of young execs’ to move up by moving to another company.

Once there was no longer a clear path of internal advancement for junior managers in a given company, organizations were faced with a growing proportion of rising managers who had never been groomed for senior success. Many of these managerial aspirants did not fit as well or accomplish as much for their companies as their predecessors had, so they tended to have flatter career trajectories — making it more likely that they’d be subject to the next round of cuts and that they’d have to look elsewhere for growth.

But the situation is also partially a structural problem. It’s hard to train managers in both fundamentals and context when their senior leaders have no bandwidth, no time, and are themselves jumping from one apparent crisis to another.

And it’s not only the junior managers who have suffered from this lack of structure. Over time, increasing numbers of senior managers have never received particularly developmental training either.

Much floundering and poor decision-making ensued — and unfortunately it has continued to this day. It’s hard to tell, looking back, if management is really significantly less effective or if we just have more explicit models for evaluating managers and reasons for finding them wanting. Even when companies recognize that the necessary development is missing, the likelihood of their resurrecting the old apprenticeship system is low: it’s too expensive and too time consuming.

From Manager to Coach?

So as is true of many functions that benefit from specific expertise but are not perceived as being crucial on a daily basis, many businesses are outsourcing their professional development to corporate coaches. In fact, some large corporations outsource virtually the entirety of their managerial development to coaching companies that are assigned to coach all members of management at certain levels.

If you’re outsourcing what should be a core competency of leadership, the process of vendor management is absolutely essential. Reviewing whether the participants are growing, developing and serving the business is indispensible. Next week’s blog will examine an alternative approach.

Onward and upward,

LK

It’s Raining Ideas!

When brainstorming is used appropriately — as a technique for generating ideas — it can trigger incredible creativity as well as a feeling of joyful participation and a sense of tighter team affiliation. Brainstorming for new ideas can be fun and enlivening, opening people up and helping them make new connections between concepts, initiatives, and themselves and their colleagues. Most people like working together in a freewheeling, unguarded way to come up with new concepts and approaches.

But although brainstorming can be very effective for initial ideation, it is not suitable for planning, analysis, or decision-making.

Beware Brainstorming for Consensus-Building

In some organizations, executives use a version of brainstorming as a kind of review process — a way to generate support for an idea or project or take the temperature of the group and see who’s on board and who’s not. This kind of brainstorming frequently begins with, “Let’s go around the room and see what everyone thinks.”

And there’s often a subtext: Managers who use the “all voices on deck” approach may actually be reluctant to lead a structured planning process or to make decisions without the group’s full support. They use this pseudo brainstorming as a way to build consensus, as if the organization or the team itself is a mini-democracy.

Caution! Stormy Conditions Ahead

When everyone is directed to weigh in, it can appear that everyone has a say. But more often than not, the reality is that some opinions count more than others. It may enable one or two opinionated or favored participants to commandeer the entire group. This can be demoralizing for the people who realize that their votes don’t really count.

Others may suppress their true opinions if they fear office politics, don’t fully understand the situation, or feel that their positions or amount of experience don’t make them qualified to vote. They may withhold their input until they can figure out which opinions are socially acceptable, or even act out by behaving contrarily or hiding data.

Managers who use “brainstorming” indiscriminately are particularly frustrating to employees who have special training or expertise or who feel strongly about merit, preparedness, or thoroughness. When it’s obvious that the group leader is asking for everyone’s buy-in only because he wants the security of knowing that everyone agrees with him, brainstorming becomes a charade.

All Opinions Are Not Created Equal

Many employers stress that all jobs have equivalent moral or ethical value. Certainly that’s true, particularly if the people in the jobs show their best efforts and behave in principled ways. But not all jobs — and not all opinions — have equivalent business or market value.

A better approach is to limit egalitarian “circle time” to searching for new ideas. Once ideas are being reviewed and developed, though, it can be helpful to specify that people with relevant expertise should comment about, explain, or expand on the concept under discussion, and that the rest of the group should be responsible for describing the impact on their areas of the business.

How to Handle a Brainstormy Boss

If your manager is all too inclined to create a “brainstormy” weather system, try asking him privately, before the meeting, what kind of input he’s seeking. Specifically, find out whether he wants to build support for his idea, use the group as a devil’s advocate, or trouble-shoot any weak parts of the ideas in question. Then you can assess how best to contribute to the discussion, or whether you want to suggest an alternative forum.

You can find suggestions for other ways to deal with brainstormy types in A New Element of Management, Parts I and II, and in the How to Manage Conflict at Work series.

Onward and upward,

LK

A fundraising call I got at home from a paid rep a few weeks ago reminded me, painfully, just how crucial it is that the people who represent your organization are adding to, not detracting from, your credibility.

Here’s the set-up: After a long, scripted monologue about current political and social horrors and the organization’s severe need for immediate funding to stave off imminent disaster, and many, many thanks for my past generosity, the rep made her “ask.”

Obviously, the punctuation is mine. But the emphasis was hers.

Keeping It Too Real

The organization’s scripting was classic (as in, old-fashioned, long-winded monologue) and appeared to be headed for the traditional step-down: after the unrealistic first ask, the rep is supposed to ask for roughly half the amount, which an occasional donor may agree to give. If the prospective donor still declines then the third and guilt-inducing ask drops to “what you gave last year” or a smidgen more.

Sometimes it can be a pleasure to hear a skillful rep work through the donation levels, but not in this case. My pattern of donations, although regular, does not in any way suggest that I would give $300, and I could tell that the full experience was going to be both boring and annoying. So I just skipped to the end of the sequence myself.

Maybe the rep was particularly inexperienced, or maybe she had had a particularly crummy day, but she was so startled to get anything at all out of me that she expressed

Truthfully, she sounded somewhat foolishly off-point, as if she didn’t know what the correct response was supposed to be when someone actually makes a contribution, and as if the script didn’t even include polite thanks along with its enormous buildup and off-putting requests.

Absolutely? Not!

I didn’t mind all that much — I do support the nonprofit. I didn’t really hold it against the rep, either. She sounded like a complete novice, and it’s quite likely that no one had coached her not to sound shocked if she got a yes.

But a more sensitive or self-involved donor could have taken the rep’s response as rude; the absurdity of it could have deterred some potential donors from giving. A reasonably skeptical person might assume that the rep’s phone manner is indicative of the quality of the organization’s work, and that perhaps the organization isn’t any more competent at managing its funds than its fundraising interactions.

Mindless responses only serve to remind people just why they can’t stand phone reps or sales or fundraising.

You’ll try to do better, won’t you?

Onward and upward,

LK

Over-reactors typically have a great and visible sense of urgency: Whatever is a problem for them is a problem RIGHT NOW; whatever is important to them must be addressed RIGHT NOW; and whatever they’re curious about should have been explored yesterday.

These excessively reactive folks show many of the classic characteristics of what used to be called the “Type-A” personality. Type A’s were ambitious over-achievers who rose to every challenge and took on every comer, but as stressed-out workaholics, often risked their own health while striving for success.

Now that organizations have become flatter and simultaneously more matrixed, emphasizing nimbleness and avoiding bureaucracy, today’s over-reactors may actually endanger resources, teamwork, and other aspects of organizational health.

Team of One?

When over-reactors are in positions of authority or influence, others jump — to please them, in fear of them, or because it’s easier than trying to change their minds. They love the idea of teamwork but they’re usually not team players themselves — not unless they’re captain, that is. This driven — and driving — behavior is so normal to them that they keep pushing even when no one else is competing and there is no real urgency.

Over-reactors have extremely — often unrealistically — high standards for those around them. They also expect a great deal of loyalty, and left to their own instincts, can be quick to write off anyone who seems opposed to their view — and even those who don’t respond to their frequent “all hands on deck” declarations. They may assume that people who aren’t as visibly and intensely involved or concerned do not care at all, or care about the wrong things.

Thanks, I’ll Drive

Over-reactors like big goals that include the potential for big success. They need to be the driver of processes and projects, and don’t feel comfortable in the passenger’s seat or “sitting in traffic” and will change lanes just to know that they’re moving. They’re afraid of feeling stuck, constrained, and unaccomplished.

So it’s common for over-reactors to feel anxious when they’re not seeing action or significant progress. They’re not necessarily looking ahead for the optimal solution, just one that feels better now. They may actually bridle and bristle when someone suggests “taking the long view” or waiting to see how things shake out.

They seem to need the relief — whether it’s a sense of comfort or closure — of getting things off their lists, desks, and minds, of being able to say, “There! That’s done!” Whatever it is that completion means to them, the feelings of satisfaction and relief, that sense of “Ahhhh!” is palpable.

They need this sense of resolution so badly that on some visceral, emotional level they’re more comfortable putting out fire after fire rather than working slowly and carefully to ensure that the embers from one hurriedly quenched burn don’t reignite with every passing breeze.

Double Trouble

Over-reactors are dedicated and well-meaning, but if their strengths are taken too far, those strengths can become weaknesses. As valuable as they are, these “drivers and strivers” create a double-edged problem for themselves: Their belief in their own competence and strong drive, coupled with their need for closure and success, can lead them to assume that others won’t get the results that they get. They may not see others’ unique strengths or the contributions their teammates can make.

Plus, because their own effort and output is so high, highly reactive people can feel wronged or treated unfairly if they’re not perceived as being the best. So their ability to collaborate, to motivate, and to build a supportive culture is often compromised.

And yet, despite the problems and tension they can cause, over-reactors have a lot to offer. They have a huge appetite for work. They’re deeply dedicated, have high energy levels, and are happy to be on the go from morning to night. Because they’re not afraid to be disruptive, whenever there’s a major shift that needs to be made, they can be the best people to make it, so long as they don’t send organizations on wild goose chases or leave everybody chasing their own tails.

So how do you make the most of over-reactors? Next week’s post will focus on how to shift from excessive reactivity to a more measured kind of reflection and response and will be helpful if you recognize yourself in these descriptions. And if you recognize your overly reactive colleague, then be sure to watch for the posting to come in two weeks, which will have suggestions for improving teamwork, whether you report to them, they report to you, or you have to coexist productively.

Onward and upward,

LK

Some employees seem to take on this kind of role in an organization. They’re moved from position to position and from department to department, even though no department really wants them, and eventually there’s no expectation that they’ll perform significantly better in a different setting. Often, they’ve been moved around so much that it becomes a game of “Tag! You’re it!” between supervisors.

This kind of unproductive shuffling occurs most frequently in privately held and nonprofit organizations, where decision-makers are more likely to indulge in purely emotional responses (including guilt) over the unsuccessful employee’s personal situation. Managers tend to lose sight of the impact on the employees who have to work with the unsuccessful employee, and they often discount the concrete negative impact on the work and, ultimately, the organization’s overall mission.

Some unsuccessful employees were terrific at the start of their career, but were unable to adapt as their work or environment changed. Sometimes they’re a family member, a friend of a friend, or a “favor placement.” Whatever the origin of the poor fit, at some point these individuals cease to be productive, and, intentionally or not, can become a distraction and an obstruction to others. Their very presence may hamper productivity, creativity, and sound analysis, and can mean that others won’t work as hard or won’t feel free to speak openly about problems or opportunities.

Exploring Your Options

What turns a perennial bad fit into a management problem is the absence of candor around the entire situation. Many of these poor misfits know they’re not wanted, no matter what pretty story they’re told about the important new role they’re going to play. So if you’re the most recent manager tagged, and you’re determined to deal with the situation in a businesslike way, think through all the angles before you make a move.

First of all, consider whether the badly fit employee could actually provide value if they were to work in a reduced role with fewer days per week or could work remotely. One of these options might help them maintain both pride of employment and benefits.

It’s also worth trying one more time to talk with them about what is truly required for success in the role — not to horrify them with the size of their performance gap, but to make them understand just how high the bar is set. If their role or the way the organization conducts business has changed over time, you can point that out.

But if there’s no productive role and no amount of support you can provide to help them be successful, plan a graceful, logical exit strategy — one that includes meaningful severance and an eye to their future activities.

Even if you don’t have the authority to initiate the exit process yourself, clarifying your options may help you participate in finding the best resolution possible for a good person who happens to be an organizational burden. And be sure to consult with counsel before exercising any of your options, particularly if you’re setting a new precedent, or dealing with a protected class of workers.

Don’t Terminate for These Reasons

Even the most unsuccessful employees should be treated with dignity. Let them — and the people who care about them — think well of your organization, even if there is no longer room for them there.

Avoid the kind of sloppy management that happens in so many places when one or more executives finally gets fed up. Be sure to avoid these insensitive and fruitless strategies:

• Don’t try to “catch” unsuccessful employees performing badly so you can discipline them out the door. They’ve been performing badly for years.
• Don’t try to “send them a message” in hope that when they finally understand how dissatisfied everyone is with them, they’ll self-terminate. They’ve felt out of place for years yet have still tried to hang on.
• And don’t get cheap. The organization has been paying for these unsuccessful employees to be there for years, so forcing them out suddenly without care is unnecessarily unkind and overly harsh.

All’s Well That Ends Well

While it will be a relief not to have to pay for this person’s salary and benefits anymore, it’s well worth it to ramp down your expenses slowly if the extra spending will help ensure a smooth, respectful, amicable departure. Offer outplacement help, preferably from outside the organization and off the physical premises. And try to provide external training so they’ll be better equipped for whatever their next experience is going to be.

And don’t forget the retirement or departure party. Despite the challenges of the situation, many staffers or customers — even those who’ve suffered from the bad fit — have a fondness for these long-tenured people. Letting colleagues and customers express that affection is good for all parties.

Onward and upward,

LK

The Hisser has a periodic and appropriate need for certain staff resources, but he never discusses them in advance. Then, because it’s so late in the process, the Hisser dramatizes the request with actual yelling and screaming, as if there will be truly horrible outcomes if he doesn’t get what he wants

The request is always so last minute that other members of the organization have to run around in a panic to find people. If there were no emergency it would actually be unreasonable to try to fulfill the request, but the Hisser’s drama amps up the level of risk and makes it feel like an emergency so the request gets fulfilled in an “all hands on deck” last-ditch effort.

Worse, once staff members are finally found and assigned, the Hisser petulantly announces that they’ve come to the project too late — so the newly assigned staff members are confused and uncomfortable and the staff providers feel abused and unappreciated.

The Tantrum Temptation

Why do some people need to throw tantrums? Usually it’s because they don’t trust that the organization with attending to their simple request; they don’t have confidence that the request alone will be addressed without using drama to beef up the importance of their role or their need. And some people habitually “hiss” due to an excess of emotion that they don’t know how to regulate.

What’s amazing is how frequently senior managers who are aware of the drama don’t move to quell it; in the case of someone like the Hisser, perhaps they think it’s a normal part of being “creative.”

Draining the Air Out of a Hisser

Some people have developed such a habit of drama that they function better when they can have a periodic storm and recovery. It may be too difficult to teach them emotional self-regulation so channeling the frenzy may be the most productive thing to do.

If this is the situation, then the Hisser’s manager or a friendly colleague might help him throw his fits in private so that they don’t disrupt other staff. Meanwhile, colleagues can compassionately reframe the situation as “just Hisser being a hisser” instead of tying themselves in knots.

Some tantrum-prone folks, though, use their eruptions, which only look like a loss of control, as a way of maintaining control — as a power tool for applying pressure to others who might not otherwise respond favorably.

If that’s the pattern, any organizational intervention should both sustain the person and constrain the behavior.

Sufficiently authoritative colleagues could hear out the Hisser’s needs, promise support, and actually detail a plan that shows they mean it. They might also plan something like a monthly check-in with an internal supplier to standardize the process, timeframe, and assignments that comprise an effective resource solution; this will demonstrate the importance the organization places on the Hisser’s work and should build his confidence.

Either way, the point needs to be made that the fits are not the reason the Hisser get what he wants, but that he should and will get what he needs because it’s appropriate — or, conversely, that he doesn’t actually need what he wants, and that he’ll have to come to terms with that fact and find a new approach that is mutually acceptable.

Whenever a damaging, time- and resource-wasting behavior becomes a pattern, you can assume that it’s working for someone — even if it isn’t working for everyone. Figuring out alternatives to the tantrum-throwing should be the first step for the mop-up brigade.

Onward and upward,

LK

Middle likes to do well, wants to be a team player, and cares about managing his own schedule in a measured, non-frantic way, so he emails Senior frequently to ask which tasks have immediate urgency or high priority.

The situation is pretty nerve-wracking for Middle because when Senior doesn’t communicate, and Middle does not guess correctly, he winds up not completing all the tasks that Senior expects. In fact, sometimes Middle completes tasks that either turn out to be unnecessary or that Senior also does, duplicating efforts and irking Senior further.

The situation upsets both parties and leads to embarrassment — as well as a developing sense of hopelessness about being able to succeed and thrive in the job — for Middle.

More often than not, Senior doesn’t even answer Middle’s questions, leaving Middle to fret that he’s supposed to have both ESP and unlimited availability.

Two intelligent people are frustrated, significant amounts of time are wasted, the work is often a mess, and the relationship is deteriorating.

Middle’s current approach has now been tested enough to be proved ineffective.

Finding a New Approach

If you’re having a similar problem, try to find a new method of communicating and a different emotional stance, instead of getting indignant (the most natural immediate reaction) or resentful and despairing (the natural long-term reaction).

As the subordinate, instead of continuing to bang your head against an unyielding wall, consider that your “checking in” is somehow not working for your Senior, no matter what your intent and how strong your willingness to help shoulder the workload.

In this particular case, Senior may wonder why Middle is so annoying, always asking what’s next. She may feel that Middle is actually supposed to know and is somehow bucking the culture or being self-protective.

If your Senior were a reasonable, moderately structured, judicious decision-maker, it might be enough to shift the offer of help slightly: “I have some time to work on Task X this week. If you let me know by Date 1, I can finish it by Date 2.”

Getting Expectations Out of the Middle

But if your Senior is as distracted and frenzied as this one, it’s the relationship that needs to be addressed, not the specifics of completion dates. It’s worth asking for a meeting to discuss “how I can support you better” or “how we could get more accomplished” and engage your Senior in an actual dialogue.

The conversation could also include something like: “I’m concerned that I haven’t communicated clearly how much I want to be helpful and stay on top of the many things coming in. Is there a different way you’d like me to handle it when I check in about assignments? What will work best for your schedule? Would it be helpful if we sat together to plan the week? Or do you just want to send me an email once you see how the week is working?”

Expressing curiosity may help. Ask about the best way to work together — “I was wondering how you like to go through these assignments” — or the relationship — “I was thinking that I could be more helpful if I understood the rhythm of the work better, as well as which jobs you feel are the most crucial. Would you mind spending a little time explaining it to me?”

An in-person meeting is by far the best option, so you can read your Senior’s responses and see when to probe or when to pull back. Phone is next best because your Senior’s tone of voice can give you clues about how to proceed. Email is the last resort, and if it’s your only option, get some positioning advice from colleagues who have worked successfully with your Senior in the past.

The more stressed and/or disorganized your Senior is, the more crucial it could be to help her only in the way that she is comfortable accepting help — your way of helping may not meet her needs, and could actually become an irritant to her. If you’re a frustrated Middle and you want to reduce the stress of your relationship — and your schedule — first figure out what will work for your Senior, and then see if you can make it work for you.

Onward and upward,

LK

Here’s a recent story that shows why: It was a night of absolutely horrific storms, and I was traveling on Amtrak from New York to New London, CT. Power lines were down, there were system-wide delays, and the passengers, station staff, and train staff were all extremely stressed.

Off the Rails

In the confusion and crowds at a change point, I was misdirected off the appropriate train by an overly casual station employee and ended up in New Haven, CT quite late at night, looking for a connection to New London.

After consulting with a helpful customer service employee in the station, I made my way to a delayed, but now posted local train on track 10, which listed New London as its last stop.

But when I boarded the train, the conductor announced, crisply, that the train actually would not, this evening, travel as far as New London; instead, it would terminate one stop sooner in Old Saybrook.

In great dismay, I got off the train. After several further escapades of misdirection – and after schlepping a suitcase and fully loaded briefcase multiple times up and down staircases and through corridors – I found an official-looking fellow with a walkie-talkie, and called out to him, “Please, sir! Will you help me?!?”

After establishing the facts of the situation, he escorted me and two other New London passengers back to track 10, assured us that this train would take us to New London, and marched us on.

Burning Fuel

The conductor who had ejected the three of us angrily exited the train and started a screaming match with the station employee. Or at least the conductor was screaming. And cursing. The station employee didn’t scream, but he was clearly standing his ground.

The gist of the situation – so far as I could tell, from my seat near the door – was that this crew had already worked an excruciatingly and inequitably heavy load, and that by rights they should absolutely not, under any circumstances, have to go all the way to New London again. They had already done more than their fair share.

After 10 minutes of loud argument, the conductor stalked through the train and back out again, with the junior conductor and the engineer in tow, for more discussion with the station employee; their conversation this time was still intense, but a little calmer. The station employee’s persistent point, for which I was exceedingly grateful, was that this was the last train scheduled to make New London tonight, and it was their job to get the passengers there.

Dear Reader, we went to New London! Our trio of almost-stranded travelers looked at each other sheepishly and with relief during the 25-minute run from Old Saybrook to the end of the line. The junior conductor seemed amicable, and when he carried my suitcase down the train steps to the platform and I thanked him for his kindness, he smiled nicely and nodded. But when I tried to thank the disgruntled conductor, he actually turned away.

Back on Track?

The fair thing for Amtrak to do for its employees would have been terrible for its customers; the right thing for its customers felt terrible and was clearly unfair for at least one staff member. So how is management to make these Solomonic decisions?

Theoretically, an organizational vision and mission should include statements about achieving the highest good, which is often related to customer care or satisfaction. But when the real world impinges, as it did with Amtrak on this stormy night, and employees are exhausted and strained, how much is too much to ask of them to fulfill the organization’s mission?

Further, whatever the prior relationship between the conductor and the station employee, and whether the station employee was trying hard to be diplomatic and conciliatory or not, it’s not likely that these two will ever work together comfortably again. A lot of very dirty water flowed under – and over – the bridge that night, and now antagonism is much more likely between them than collegiality.

Training won’t help this situation, nor will new work rules, unless they permit the worker to leave his post in an emergency situation to the detriment of the passengers. How could this situation ever be returned to the rails?

End of the Line

I don’t think there’s a good answer, certainly not a speedy or conclusive one. In the short term, organizations rely on their employees recognizing the “higher good” and behaving with dignity in public because they have enough self-esteem to prefer to do so.

In the longer term, it is management’s responsibility, with the participation of the workforce, to identify the recurring areas of confusion and conflict and to consider what safety nets and escape hatches should be in place for these kinds of complex contingencies.

Have you found other things that work when these important interests are in conflict?

Onward and upward,

LK

You really care about making the situation better, so you plan to raise this issue with the group of people who have the knowledge and understanding as well as the authority, the involvement, and the skin in the game to do something about it.

But these folks are also likely to have feelings about the situation. So how do you describe the problem without leveling accusations, ascribing fault, or laying blame? And how can you create a supportive environment around the problem so that the crucial people can hear and accept what you’re saying, incorporate your input into their worldview, and move forward to make changes or present alternative, realistic views of the situation?

Errors That Should Be Omissions

Here are some things to keep in mind when presenting the problem:

• Do not talk about the people who have caused or perpetuated the problem and what’s wrong with them.
• Do not talk about the rank stupidity of the situation and how mind-boggling it is that it has been permitted to continue.
• Do not question anyone’s commitment, intent, or capability.
• Do not make insulting statements about people “deserving what they get” as a way of responding others’ dissatisfaction.
• Do not claim to represent all your colleagues who have ever complained about the same problem, or to be the only one brave enough to bring this issue to everyone’s attention.
• In addition, do not pretend that you know all the answers or have never been at fault. (And if you think that you do have all the answers or that you’ve never been at fault, you are already making a big mistake, so go back and review your facts.)

Be Part of the Solution

We all want to feel that we are relatively safe in, and have some control over, whatever our circumstances happen to be. If you’re making the listed errors, you’ve effectively announced that you don’t believe your listeners have control over their circumstances, or that if they once had control, they’ve messed it up. This will make them feel unsafe — and you’ll have created exactly the conditions that undercut good listening (a big safety requirement) or sound, thoughtful thinking (a big requirement for a sense of personal control and efficacy).

So stay neutral and calm in your communications and concentrate on process and structural causes.

Focus on identifying the problem instead of whose behavior, conduct, speech, or attitude contributed to it.

Explain the impacts of the problem and sketch out what outcomes would be more desirable than the current ones. If you can, connect the dots to specific unnecessary costs or the undermining of the mission in ways that allow everyone to see the impacts.

Point out the limitations in structure, process, and procedures.

Ask the big questions: What are the impacts? What outcomes would be more desirable? What are the gaps between current conditions and desired outcomes? What are the levers that could create the change necessary to reach the desired outcomes?

Here’s another list of factors you could share:

• The particulars of the situation — who, what, when, where, how, and how much — without focusing on the why, because the meanings are likely to be different for different people;
• The cost, timing, frequency, duration, number of cases, and number of impacts;
• The opportunities of low-hanging fruit vs. opportunities of greatest impact;
• The possible future impacts of the situation if it continues as is, and how any of the other factors may play out;
• The potential impacts of individual action vs. systemic change and the pros and cons of each;
• Any additional risks or exposures that could occur vs. the benefits of relief or improvement.

It’s crucial to encourage your audience to participate in sharing new facts, contribute to assessments of loss or gain, and brainstorm alternatives. Their involvement shifts the situation from one in which you’re dumping a messy problem on the table for everyone to clean up, to one in which you’ve placed a puzzle on the table so that you can all work on it together.

Onward and upward,
LK