The Transparency Edge. How Credibiltiy Can Make or Break You in Business

1. I don’t think she can handle it. If you deliver the message in a respectful and constructive way, most people can take it and indeed often appreciate it.

2. I’ll hurt his feelings. You might, true. This is often what makes delivering bad news hard to do, especially if you truly care about the other person. Ultimately, however, how are you hurting the person if you do not give him or her the information?

3. She will get emotional. If your listener tears up or gets angry, you will live through it. Be empathetic, and keep the conversation moving and on track—the other person usually will follow.

4. He will get defensive. Not everyone is good at receiving tough information, and defensiveness is a natural tendency, particularly if your delivery is harsh or otherwise uncaring. If the defensiveness gets unproductive, point it out, and get to the source of it before moving on.

5. I am sure that she already knows. People tend to assume that other reasonable people will see situations as they see them. Yet one of effective communication’s most important bylaws is: Never assume anything. Even if the person really is allknowing, hearing the issue from you likely will add another perspective that might make a meaningful difference.

6. He should already know. Now you have coupled the breaking of “never assume anything” with a bad attitude. Whether you believe the person should be able to intuit your perception of a performance issue is not the point. As a leader, you have a responsibility to communicate.

7. She will think that I am singling her out. She also may feel particularly valued because her boss cares enough to tell her what is getting in the way of her success.

8. It is only my opinion. If you are a well-regarded leader, your followers probably value your opinion.

9. He will think that I do not like him. This likely will not occur if you position your constructive criticism around specific behaviors—not the person.

10. It will ruin our relationship. When bad news is handled well, it usually changes relationships for the better.

11. The situation may take care of itself. Most situations do not solve themselves magically, so holding onto this rationalization serves only to help you delay something that is difficult and uncomfortable but probably necessary.

When I began coaching executives, I used to dread sessions that required me to deliver difficult news: “Others find you obnoxious and unfair.” “You take all the glory.” “Sleeping with the boss is hurting your professional image.” I was particularly uncomfortable when the person I was going to sit down with had already established himself or herself as being closed to feedback or defensive or as having a temper problem. “Gee, this is going to be fun.” Experience taught me that my internal self-talk was unreliable. Even when those on the receiving end were defensive, hurt, or indignant initially, they usually realized that I was there to help. The messages often resulted in breakthroughs; a situation was clarified, perceptions changed, and a greater understanding—both of themselves and of others—emerged. And knowing that I had helped someone usually brought a sense of great satisfaction to me.

How do people like their bad news? Usually straight up and right across the table. A leader who does not sugarcoat but instead delivers difficult information in an honest, direct, and caring manner shows responsible transparency and builds credibility. And followers are more likely to accept and act on constructive criticism that is developed and communicated fairly and respectfully. Communicate the bad news eyeball to eyeball, and follow these guidelines:

Imagine your boss. No matter who you are talking to, pretend that you are giving the bad news to your boss. Use the same tone, body language, and words that you would with your own manager to maintain a respectful approach.

Be careful of the easing-in method. When we have to communicate disturbing information, we often look for ways to make the job easier. One technique people learned years ago was to sandwich bad news in between good stuff. Tell them two good things, and then throw in the bad news. People on the receiving end of this approach usually see it coming. And while they are anticipating your actual point— the bad news—your lead-ins of positive information may seem insincere and merely charitable. A balance of positive and negative feedback is only necessary over time— not during one meeting. If you still feel that it is beneficial to include positive feedback in with the bad news, then consider ending on the positive note instead of easing in with it.

Do not hint around. An indirect strategy whereby you make up your mind about an issue and then try to get the employee to see it your way by asking carefully designed questions reflects a narrow mind. Don’t ask, “Have you ever thought of signing up for a presentation skills course?” if you really mean, “You’re going to need to make better presentations if you want to continue moving up in this company.” Also, don’t start your conversation with questions like “Are you aware that we have a problem?” or “Do you know why I’ve called you in here?” Making people play guessing games is insulting and likely will send their minds reeling in a hundred different directions, conjuring things they “might’ve done” and diffusing the import of the real point you are about to make.

Concentrate on behaviors. Discuss the performance issue, not the person. For example, “Your monthly status reports aren’t thorough enough,” not “You are careless and lazy.” Also, it is not your place to overanalyze another’s mindset, uncover deep-seated reasons for his or her behavior, or solve personal problems. Leave that to psychotherapists, counselors, and ministers.

Allow the person to respond. You may have made a hasty conclusion that the person’s performance problem was due to his or her disposition instead of specific work-related circumstances. Allow the person to clarify and explain matters. He or she may have an alternative explanation that you were not aware of that may sincerely change how you feel.

Do not allow the discussion to stray. Keep the communication moving and on target. You may need to say, “That’s important, but it doesn’t have anything to do with why we’re here” or “Good point. We may need to talk about that at a different time.” Determine the amount of time you think will be necessary to have the conversation, and stick to it. Keep working toward the desired conclusion.

Do not get stuck in the past. It is possible for a difficult conversation to stay in the past where the performance problem occurred. Do not allow the issue to be described, explained, and dissected over and over again. Move to the future, because that is where the necessary action is required for improvement.

Determine a plan. How is the problem going to be resolved? Or how will the employee improve? At first, see if the other person can design his or her own plan of action. You likely will get more buy-in and better results that way. You can help him or her along by offering your opinions: “Here’s what I see. . . .” “I think if I were you. . . .” “These are the options from my point of view. . . .”

Sometimes performance issues are more complicated than helping good employees get better. Employees with negative attitudes, slackers, or otherwise bad team members can erode workplace morale and rob organizations of synergy. They drive high achievers, competent employees, and hard workers wild. When leaders do not handle these situations promptly, failing to hold everyone accountable, a team’s valuable members can lose faith and become cynical and frustrated, and the problem can escalate. One employee said of her boss: “By the time he deals with it, it’s a whole lot bigger than it would have been.” Failing to handle and adequately document poor performance also can result in potential legal problems for the organization.

In surveys, 91 percent of almost 1000 leaders said that they need to improve in effectively handling team members whose behavior undermines teamwork or partnerships. Of 8229 of those leaders’ peers and direct reports, 79 percent agreed that there is work to be done.

Yet managers often put off squarely dealing with underperformers, and many are aware of their tendencies to do so. In surveys, 91 percent of almost 1000 leaders said that they need to improve in effectively handling team members whose behavior undermines teamwork or partnerships. Of 8229 of those leaders’ peers and direct reports, 79 percent agreed that there is work to be done.

When a leader’s followers know that he or she is aware of an underperformer or problem employee (maybe they have even told him or her) and the leader fails to do anything, the followers shake their heads in disbelief. Do not alienate your prized team members. Swift action creates a culture that says nobody gets away with anything. People like and respect that.

When a team member is undermining your group in some way, follow these guidelines:

1. Do not assume that peer pressure will take care of it. Some people never respond to peer pressure. Besides, the peers have work to do, and dealing with Alan’s bad attitude is not their job—it is yours.

2. Setting high expectations does not prevent problems. It is not good enough just to communicate expectations. The second half of the performance equation is measuring against them. “This is what I expect. This is what you’re delivering.” Correct mismatches immediately.

3. Always follow up. The problem may not be solved with one conversation. Meet once a week for a month and review how things are progressing. If things are not improving, you will need to consider alternatives.

4. When appropriate, tell people what you have done. If the problem was a blatant or ongoing one and the team suffered, communicate that you are on top of it. You do not have to give the details, but reassure them that you are taking charge.