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.

 

 

 

Accountability Run Amok—When Good Intentions Succumb To Bad Judgment

Think you can’t be fired for being accountable?  Think again.

A string of historic storms leaves hundreds of thousands of utility customers without power.  The collateral damage associated with clean-up and restoration is far greater than the “Type A” utility president either understood or was willing to acknowledge.

The company president, who had never been short of confidence and had a history of micro-managing, chose to be the media spokesman.  While the president’s stated  intentions were honorable (wanting to model accountability to his troops) they ultimately proved disastrous.

The President’s ‘MO’ always was to make things happen.  True to form, he did.  He went on record with an aggressive restoration target with the media.  On the surface of things, he was being accountable.  The target however was missed…badly so in the eyes of public officials.  Media briefings quickly went from cordial to contentious.  The president conducted the media briefings more like an internal utility briefing than one for media types looking for a juicy controversy.  To say that the president proved to be over-his-head in dealing with the media is an understatement.

Compounding the company’s media relations problem, were the prickly relations that had suddenly developed with public officials over delays in clearing roads and such.  One police department threatened to hold the president responsible for fires made worse by the utility’s sub-par performance. Things got so bad, the governor became actively involved.

The media, sensitive to the public outrage over power being out for over a week in several areas, turned their wrath on the president. When the media smells blood in the water they predictably will take full advantage. Rather than reporting on the company’s extensive restoration efforts, the president then became the story.  Editorial writers, public officials, and citizen bloggers alike put a bulls-eye on his back. The company’s reputation and credibility have been compromised. It becomes a nightmare scenario…. exactly what the company didn’t want to have happen.

After the dust finally clears, the president is forced to resign. The outcome was predictable.

Where did this go wrong?

First and foremost was the president’s decision to act as the media spokesperson.  Despite the president’s likely denials to the contrary, he proved himself ineffective with the media….having neither the skills nor the experience.  He became an all-too-familiar figure on television and in newspaper pages.  Each additional briefing generated more questions than answers.  Adding to the difficulty was the pressure-cooker atmosphere.  This event was arguably one of the company’s most critical PR events in its history.  It is little wonder the president ultimately became known amongst the media as the ‘beleaguered spokesman’.

And would the president have made such a bold prediction on a service restoration date (a bad idea!) had he not been the spokesman?  My guess is that he wouldn’t.  The president’s nature was to be “large-and-in-charge” which typically required a big stage. It wasn’t his habit (or preference) to work through a surrogate—especially on an issue of this magnitude.  (Note: not meeting the promised service restoration date proved to be the beginning of the end for the president.)

So what prompted the decision?  Was it ego or his stated intention to model accountability to the troops? We’ll never really know!  For our purposes, let’s assume his motive was to model accountability.  That decision, however well-intended, was a by-product of bad judgment. The President’s skills and capabilities were numerous.  However handling the media wasn’t one of them! Ultimately his poor decision cost him his job.  Plus, it cost the company big-time—in the form of a tarnished reputation.

Accountability is paramount in high performing organizations, but it must be preceded by good judgment.  Charging into the proverbial mine field (being accountable…putting the team on your back)  with inadequate skills and experience is bound to make things worse, not better….just ask the (now former) President!