The Dreaded Heart-To-Heart Conversation With A Beleaguered Colleague

A colleague of yours (let’s call her Janet) isn’t meeting expectations—neither performance targets nor cultural norms.   You know it…everyone else does too.  What Janet is doing (or not doing) threatens the organization’s results.  That means a lot of people (you included) will likely get hurt if her shenanigans continues.

Your gut screams for you to have a heart-to-heart with Janet—you know, peer-to-peer.   What do you do?

It’s interesting the things we tell ourselves when faced with a situation like this:

*** ”If I speak up, our relationship will never be the same.”

*** “It’s not appropriate for me to speak up. This is a job for the boss…that’s why they get paid the big bucks.”

*** “I don’t have the communication skills to pull this off.”

*** “Surely, Janet will be offended if I speak up.”

*** “It isn’t my place to judge.”

I’m confident you can think of plenty of additional examples.  Notice what great lengths we will go to in justifying not speaking up.  Certainly, the situation with Janet requires good judgment and a great deal of decorum, but rest assured that many of us are masters at finding ‘cause’ for not speaking up. (And, yes, an organization’s culture can be an impediment to not speaking up.)

Yet, part of the motivation underlying our unwillingness to speak up (e.g. to be direct with people) is often our own desire to be liked—to be thought of well by others.  When that occurs, it becomes all  about us.

Admittedly, this is one of the most difficult things to get people to do in organizations.  Let’s face it…it’s   risky.  Yet it happens.  You see it in team sports, in the for-profit world, etc. The degree to which an organization’s colleagues (as opposed to just the boss) hold each other accountable is often an indicator as to how well the organization performs.

People’s willingness to speaking up to one of their colleagues is also a reflection as to how committed people are to the organization’s results…..in other words, the degree to which they hold MS #1—having a bias for results.  The commitment to the result becomes a lynchpin in helping us overcome our own human tendencies not to act.

Other MS’s help people in speaking up too; namely all the rest— MS #2- MS #7.  That’s unusual, but it just goes to show how it really takes a professional who is secure in their own skin to speak up in an admittedly uncomfortable situation like this one with Janet.

In spite of all the reasons one might conjure up to avoid approaching Janet, the professional speaks up.    The reason is simple—they’re committed to the result (MS #1).  They know it’s not about them (MS #2) and they know that they need to rise above the fray (MS #4).  Ultimately, they commit to do what they know is right (MS #5).  It’s rarely easy, it’s never fun—but, in the end, they do it.

It’s what professionals do.

 

 

 

Ask The Right Person The Right Question

I frequent a local independent hardware store that I’ve became a big fan of.  It’s a small store, but it’s been rare that they didn’t have the stuff (or the advice) I need.  Their people are knowledgeable.  They are patient—especially when I ask a question that only an annoying novice would ask.  They won’t sell me a $5.00 solution, when a 50 cent solution will do.  They’ve earned my loyalty.  I send my friends  there.

But, as good as they are, when I have a particularly vexing problem I routinely ask the staff  “who is your most knowledgeable person who can help me with such and such a problem?  It could be an electrical problem or plumbing problem or painting problem…doesn’t matter.  I ask this screening question because I’ve learned that nearly all their staff will have an opinion about what the solution to my problem is–regardless of their qualifications to render that opinion.  Occasionally this has led to a less-than-optimal solution. (I don’t hold it against them, I realize they’re just trying to be helpful.)

Sometimes we forget that the staff’s expertise isn’t necessarily always interchangeable.  We need to ask the right person, the right question, at the right time.  In a marketing department, the experiences and perspectives from the folks in advertising will be very different from those in demand generation.  Asked an identical question, their responses will naturally be different.

Simply put:  when I have a question whose answer is dependent on a higher degree of expertise, I seek that expertise out. In other words, I try to ask the person who is best qualified to answer my question.  In doing so, I’m more apt to get the very best advice while avoiding some well-intended (but less informed) people to influence me towards a so-so solution.  This is one way to ensure getting the optimal results as we advocated in The Power of Professionalism.   

I’ve noticed that workplace managers are prone to asking questions of people who aren’t necessarily in the best position to answer them.  When asked, most people will answer…it’s human nature.   Usually they do so because they’re trying to be helpful (while avoiding looking ignorant at the same time).  Plus, people (like the folks at the hardware store) will always be pleased to share their opinion.  After all, it makes them feel important.

The manager, as a reality check, should always be asking themselves, “how confident am I in the answers people are giving me?” Screening questions—analogous to the one I used at the hardware store—will help keep managers (or anyone else for that matter) out of the weeds.

Professionals Just Don’t Do That

A woman co-hosting  a call-in radio program chimes-in on a technical question from a caller.  She goes on at nauseam about the topic.  A different caller later challenges her conclusion.   After back-pedaling for what seemed like an eternity, the woman finally acknowledged she knew little about the subject.  It took guts for her to acknowledge that—but , for me, that experience was like fingernails on a chalkboard.

Professionals just don’t do that.

When faced with a similar situation, the professional would acknowledge that the question wasn’t  within their field of expertise and suggest an alternative person to talk to.

It’s usually ego that drives us to chime in when we shouldn’t.  Sure…we all want to look good…have credibility in the eyes of others…and more!   But portraying ourselves as an expert when we shouldn’t  will almost always backfire in the end.

Last week I mentioned I recently attended Keiretsu—a forum for entrepreneurs and investors to meet, collaborate, and perhaps put together a deal.  An investor asked a particularly insightful question of one of the entrepreneurs that put the entrepreneur on the spot—largely because it required some additional research.  Rather than wing it, the entrepreneur answered the portion of the question he could and asked for the gentleman’s card so he could follow-up on the remainder of his question.  That made big points with the investor.  The entrepreneur, who had already gotten off on the right foot, became even more impressive in the eyes of the investor.

The willingness to be vulnerable in the way this entrepreneur did is a sign of being comfortable in your own skin.  It’s keeping one’s ego in check (consistent with mind-set six) …a demonstration of maturity…a sign of being a trusted professional.

 

How Mind-Set Three Aids Fledgling Entrepreneurs In Venture Funding

I recently attended a chapter meeting of the Keiretsu Forum.  The Keiretsu Forum provides a medium for young, high-potential companies needing venture funding to meet potential investors.  The companies need the funding to sustain their current operations or, more typically, take their business to the next level.  Obtaining that  funding is critical!  For some, the lack of additional venture funding can mean languishing in mediocrity or worse.

The investors can be a tough bunch…and well they should.  Many of these enterprises must overcome long odds to succeed.  Investors need to be both thoughtful and  prudent. They routinely scrutinize balance sheets, market strategies, and the like. But often their greatest scrutiny is of the entrepreneur’s themselves.  It’s, arguably, the most important factor to get right.

Investors love “coachable entrepreneurs”. Why? Because entrepreneurs who can’t learn ‘on the fly’ will likely fail.  And investors–who typically were once successful entrepreneurs themselves—often become the source of deep insights for the fledgling entrepreneur-leader. Often the investors are the entrepreneur’s best source of advice.

Know-it-all entrepreneurs usually have a short business life-span. The fast and furious start-up experience has too many moving parts –each of which requires specialized expertise–for people not to ask for advice.

On the other hand, entrepreneurs who are constantly asking questions (because they realize there’s so much they don’t know) have a much better shot at flourishing. These are people who have a mind-set that suggests that ‘things get better when they get better’  (mind-set #3).  They plan, execute, evaluate and learn….then repeat the process until they get it right.

When an investor comes to the conclusion that the entrepreneur is uncoachable…it usually signals the beginning of the end.  It doesn’t matter how smart or creative the person is. Without the ‘coachable’ trait the entrepreneur is unlikely to get funded.The investor, who is all-too-aware of how difficult the uncoachable entrepreneur can be,   opts out.  He keeps his financial powder dry, patiently awaiting the next potential deal.

This attribute of personal leadership (being uncoachable) often makes or breaks people very quickly in the entrepreneurial world. Investors simply won’t put up with it.  In the ‘corporate world’ it’s another story.  Uncoachable people in mainstream corporate environments ‘flame out’ much later–at least comparatively.  There’s lots of reasons why…but it doesn’t change the ‘drag’ the person typically has on the organization. Imagine if the corporate ‘uncoachables’ were forced to justify their funding each year by a rough-and-tumble investor.  Boy, how things would change!

Professionals: Not What, But How

In our August 30, 2011 post we illustrated why it’s a bad idea to think an organization should automatically be considered ‘professional’ because it produces technically sophisticated products developed by really smart people. A recent article in Fortune couldn’t have been more timely or effective in complimenting that earlier post. The story–based at the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer–is outstanding.  It’s one of the best business articles I’ve read in a really long time. Here’s the link: http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/28/pfizer-jeff-kindler-shakeup/

There is perhaps no greater threat to an organization than dysfunction in the top team. And when that top team leads the world’s largest drug company, the potential consequences are huge. ’Inside Pfizer’s palace coup’ is the title of the article. Trust me–it’s aptly titled. In terms of bad behavior, these people had nothing on Machiavelli. Revenge, betrayal, power-grabs…it’s all there. If this story would have taken place in the military, it would have been described as ‘behavior unbecoming’.

Pfizer’s historical performance has largely been impressive….they make technically sophisticated stuff….they have exceptionally bright people. Yet ‘professional’ is a term that most reasonable people would find hard to use in describing Pfizer’s top team after reading this article. And, of course, the whole organization takes a big ‘hit’ because of that. It’s simply unavoidable. Remember—most people define an organization as ‘professional’ not by what the organization delivers but by how they go about their business. Pfizer’s experience should always be a reminder of that.

Loose Threads

Resisting the urge to pull on a loose thread can be tough for some of us. Lest you think today’s post is about fabric, it isn’t. Loose threads are interpersonal teases.

They occur in meetings when someone:

  • makes an innocent error on an inconsequential fact
  • pauses for a moment to gather their train-of-thought
  • says something provocative in a well-intended attempt to challenge people’s thinking

What do you do when this occurs? Pull on the thread or leave well-enough alone? Some pull on the thread—interrupting the speaker, asking an inappropriate question, filling a void in the meeting with our own ‘stuff’, or taking the conversation in an unhelpful direction. We tell ourselves we’re being helpful…

…but closer to the truth is we’ve been unable to resist having the last word or getting in our two cents. In other words, it’s about us—often a not-so-veiled attempt to show how smart or important we are.

In meetings this can be death—especially for the inexperienced or ineffective leader/presenter. How many times have we all seen meetings completely unravel because one or more attendees couldn’t resist the urge to pull on a loose thread or two? This is not only frustrating, but expensive too.

Professionals resist the urge to pull on loose threads, largely because they:

  • quickly turn from one into eight (people pile on)
  • knock the leader/speaker off their train-of-thought
  • are a catalyst in derailing a meeting’s momentum
  • are a sign of disrespect

Professionals aspire to master their emotions—especially when it comes to pulling on loose threads.

Changing Your Tune

“Cheryl is the best project manager we have—her integrity is beyond reproach.”  “Suzanne is one of the finest people you’d ever want to work with—she’s simply a star.”
“Charlie was my best boss ever—fair-minded, respectful, insightful–he’s the real deal.”

The people expressing their admiration for these people based their views on years of personal experience working with them. But isn’t it funny how we’re prone to change our tune when things don’t quite go our way:

  • You change your tune about Cheryl after she reassigns you to a lower-profile project.
  • You change your tune about Suzanne after she respectfully, but vehemently, disagrees with you in front of the boss on a key strategic issue.
  • You change your tune about Charlie after he doesn’t hire you for a job you desperately sought.

If these people were good before, they should be good after. Your view shouldn’t change just because an isolated situation doesn’t go your way. Changing your tune in such circumstances makes you look petty…makes you look small…puts you fifty yards south of showing up as a professional would.

When Sacrifice Isn’t

A wide receiver throws a great block, springing his running back teammate around the corner for a 15 yard gain. The announcer in the booth (a former wide receiver himself) sings the wide-out’s praises–finally paying him the ultimate compliment by commending him for how he ‘sacrificed himself’.

Huh?  Last time I checked football was a team sport.  Suggesting that the wide receiver (a ‘skill’ player) was ‘sacrificing himself’ by performing a skill with less prestige (blocking)…or by suggesting that he did it begrudgingly (because he dislikes it)…or by suggesting it’s especially admirable because it’s out of his comfort zone is myopic. It’s a team sport. People are expected to do what’s required to achieve the desired result. He’s not sacrificing himself, he’s attempting to help his team win!

I’ve noticed that managers are sometimes like the announcer…they think that when one of their ‘skill players’ performs a ‘lesser skill’ (something ‘beneath them’) they consider the ‘skill player’ to be making a sacrifice. Regretfully, these managers haven’t caught the vision of mind-set #2 – being a part of something bigger than yourself.

Consider:

  • the busy rainmaker at the law firm who takes their precious time and shares their considerable influence to open an important door for a colleague.
  • the mechanical foreman who takes 20 minutes out their day to provide encouragement and technical advice to a second-year apprentice who has run into a particularly vexing problem.
  • the theme park GM who– one day a month–works ‘the front lines’.
  • the Marketing VP who willingly gives up 5% of their departmental budget to R&D as a result of an unexpected new research breakthrough.

Neither the rainmaker, the foreman, the GM, nor the VP, consider themselves to be ‘sacrificing’. They, like the wide-receiver, realize they’re a part of something bigger than themselves. They’re a part of a team – they do what is required for the team to succeed.

People on winning teams constantly do things that may be out of the norm or that stretches them but they are rarely seen as a ‘sacrifice’. It’s just not how they see things.

Should I Say What I Know?

That’s a question that some of us constantly ask ourselves.

Most of us wouldn’t:

  • tell our friends how the new blockbuster movie ends.
  • speak up in a meeting on an arcane point if we believed doing so would derail the meeting.
  • share an innocent, but little-known, fact about a colleague that, when revealed, might be used against them.

Sometimes knowing when (and when not) to speak up is a matter of judgment. In other instances, it’s a matter of character. Either way, the fact that we’re asking ourselves the question as to whether to speak up or not is evidence that we should tread carefully.

I once had a manager who always ran in the right circles.  He hung out with the ‘big dogs’—the ‘A’ list crowd. He was always “in the know”.  And he couldn’t wait to demonstrate that he was “in the know”.  Initially, it was just awkward…the information he’d tell me about.  I initially suspected he was revealing information he shouldn’t.  After awhile it was obvious that was exactly what he was doing. It seemed he just couldn’t help himself—revealing confidences that is.

It’s really tempting to be ‘in the know’….tempting to say what we know. In most business cultures,  the more information we possess, the greater our standing in the eyes of others. For some being ‘in the know’ is a (self) validation of one’s own self-importance.  Being ‘in the know’ can be intoxicating, because with knowledge comes a form of power–perceived or otherwise.

It also means that someone has taken us into their confidence…they’ve extended trust. That’s the trouble…my manager was violating confidences.  He had broken the trust that had been extended to him.

When this happens it’s typical:

  • for people to share only the information that’s absolutely essential with the offender (especially if that person is higher up in the food chain than we are).
  • that the offender develops a reputation for having ‘loose lips’ …which translates to a blemish on their character – eventually undermining their own effectiveness.
  • for the offender to lose the respect of others – the polar opposite of the enhanced ‘standing’ they may have originally hoped for.

So when you’re tempted to say what you know…remember, discretion is the better part of valor.

Professional or Classy?

How do you describe someone who…

  • keeps quiet about a rare indiscretion that, if revealed, would have tarnished someone’s otherwise stellar (and deserved) reputation
  • resists the temptation to tell someone they were wrong (when they clearly were).  Instead, they offer a different point-of-view–one that lets the person down softly.
  • jumps in and deflects attention away from a colleague who has unexpectedly embarrassed themselves in front of 80 ‘A’ list attendees during a workshop at your industry’s annual conference

Which description fits—professional or classy?  Not surprisingly, it’s usually both.