The Mis-Interpreter

Communication inevitably involves miscommunication.  However, have you ever worked with someone with whom miscommunications constantly seem to occur?  You give this person what you think is a clear message, yet he or she misinterprets what you’ve said and lengthy clarification discussions always seem necessary?  And if your message does contain a minor ambiguity, this person always seems to find and rely on it to their benefit or your detriment?

I’ve concluded that if an employee is always embroiled in miscommunications and misunderstandings, despite efforts by others to communicate clearly, the problem is likely them. I am no psychologist so I will not offer a diagnosis – and in many cases, there may be no “diagnosis” per se – but I reach this conclusion after years of investigating and coaching difficult employees.

So what can be done about this type of employee? Here are some suggestions:

  • First, identify that this is a problem: that your co-worker (subordinate, peer, supervisor) seems to frequently misinterpret or misunderstand what others say. 
  • Continue to have friendly conversations with the person, but put important things in writing.
  • Write as clearly as possible, but do not do not be clear to the point of insult and do not feel you have to be clear beyond what a reasonable person would see as your meaning
  • Ask the person to let you know if they have any questions.
  • Repeat any key points in a way that doesn’t look too repetitive.  E.g., after setting a meeting date, agenda, and goals, end the e-mail (the most likely form of communication) with “See you at 10:00 on Friday for our expectations clarification meeting.”
  • If something is really important, consider hand delivering the message and discussing it orally as well.  Because the frequent misinterpret-er often will somehow fail to get important messages.

Communicating in this way can be exhausting, but it does help minimize the chaos that can result from misunderstood messages. If you are the mis-interpreter’s supervisor, it may be worthwhile to address the issue head on (though diplomatically) to see if there is something you and others can do differently to improve communication. If the problem continues, it may be grounds for a performance improvement plan.

If you’re a peer or subordinate, you also could ask the person what you can do to avoid misunderstandings.  You never know, it might be something simple….

 Any other ideas on how to address this problem?  ~Amy Stephson

Employees WILL assume the worst!

Here’s one of my favorite quotations: “In the absence of trust, everything you do for me I consider manipulation.”

Think about these scenarios:

  • The division manager in this organization has closed her door to have quiet time to work on the budget.  It’s a tough year because, to make her budget balance, she will need to move some of her staff to other locations to keep from laying anyone off.  She’ll also have to cut the overtime and training budgets, but she’s pleased that she’s able to keep every employee.   When she finishes her work she calls a staff meeting and happily announces that next year there will be no layoffs.  However, there will be a 75% reduction in the overtime budget, a 50% reduction in the training budget, and some people will be moved to other locations.  There’s a lot of grumbling during and after the meeting because many people identify strongly with their current work locations and want to stay there.  They have also come to rely on the extra money from overtime and feel entitled to it.  Some staff members were counting on receiving training to prepare them for promotional opportunities.  There’s a lot of bitterness and negativity.  Hearing this, the manager is completely shocked: she thought her staff would be thrilled there would be no layoffs! 
  • In another organization, a lot of seasonal hiring has been going on.  Current employees were asked to recruit hard-working, trustworthy people they know and recommend them for the seasonal jobs.  Many did so.  About 15 people were hired.  Some of them had worked there seasonally before, while others were new.  Several former seasonal employees (with no right to the job) who were friends of current employees applied but were not hired.  When the names of the new seasonal hires were announced there was a fair bit of grumbling.   Some employees felt that their friends should have been hired, and that there was a conspiracy to exclude them.  Some of those who were not hired felt they were discriminated against because of their age or ethnicity.   The hiring manager was very surprised by the fallout.  He had thought long and hard about whom to hire, and really felt he had hired the right people.  Some of the former seasonals who were not hired were poor workers, and others had been a pain to work with and he didn’t want them back.  He hadn’t told them that at the time because he didn’t think he needed to.  He just wouldn’t hire them again.  He also felt he did not owe an explanation to the regular employees.  After all, it was a seasonal job and he could hire anyone he wanted, couldn’t he? 

 Both of these managers were right in their assumptions: they had no legal  obligation to share their thinking about budget development or hiring criteria with staff.  However, by not sharing this, staff naturally made their own assumptions about their boss’s motives – and those assumptions were almost all negative.  Lacking information, we all make assumptions about the reasons behind the actions of others.  And those assumptions are almost always negative. 

 Neither manager understood the almost inevitable likely fallout from not communicating.  There is no obligation to communicate about budget development or hiring criteria – but without at least some communication, negative fallout is virtually always predictable.

What to do?  Provide information – lots of it, frequently – to employees.  Drop the “need to know” screen.  We all hate it when we’re on the receiving end, and generally assume the worst when information is withheld.  No, you can’t (and shouldn’t) share everything.  Share as much as you can, and publicly acknowledge (to your employees) that there are some things that need to be kept confidential.  Your staff members aren’t stupid.  They’ll understand – and they’ll trust you more for telling them what you can and sharing a lot of information.  Then, over time the extent to which employees feel manipulated will decrease and the extent to which they trust you will increase.

Have you found yourself in a similar situation, either on the management or the employee side?  Let us know what happened!  ~Daphne Schneider

 

Sense of Accomplishment Is Critical

I recently read an article in The Washington Post entitled, “How to completely, utterly destroy an employee’s work life.” Written by Professor Teresa Amabile and psychologist Steven Kramer, the premise of the article is that people want to make a valuable contribution in their jobs and what makes employees most miserable is management that keeps them “from making progress in meaningful work.”

The article lists four steps managers take that lead to maximal “work-life demolition.” One of them really stood out for me because I think many employers — including those who are in no way evil — are guilty of this morale-killer: “Never allow pride of accomplishment.”

As described in the article, this occurs when work setbacks occur so frequently that employees can never complete anything and feel they made a difference. The article gives an example of the head of product development who routinely moves  people on and off projects “like chess pieces in a game for which only he had the rules.”

Strike a chord? How many workplaces have we seen or worked in where priorities constantly change? Or where a combination of budget cuts and turnover means that employees are constantly being given new positions and responsibilities? Or where funding, and therefore projects, come and go? For an employer to be able to “change on a dime,” is deemed a good thing. But what about the impacts of such rapid change?

I myself have seen the impact on employees. It is devastating and creates significant morale issues. This is true even when the employer is acting in good faith to meet changing needs.

So what’s the solution? First, employers need to be aware of how detrimental it is for employees to feel they never can complete anything. Then, they need to handle their prioritization and re-prioritization processes with more sensitivity to this issue. Finally, employers may want to talk about the problem openly with employees to try to figure out what they can do to meet their need for accomplishment.

Any other ideas on what employers can do? ~Amy Stephson

The Challenge of Facebook (and other social networking sites)

Washington Representative Jay Inslee fires staff members for making nasty comments on Facebook.  College team coaches demand they be ‘friended’ on Facebook before allowing someone on the team in order to monitor their activities.  Privacy rights groups rally supporters because some employers require they be ‘friended’ on Facebook before they agree to hire someone.  Yikes!  What’s the right thing for an employer to do here if they’re worried about what their employees might say about them on social networking sites???

 I’ve been thinking about this question and the varied responses to it.  How should  employers approach their employees’ inclinations to do and say things publicly that could have negative repercussions on the organization? We have a right to say what we want, don’t we?  Remember freedom of speech?  Yes…but…

 I was very pleased to learn that SkagitCounty, Washington recently developed a policy to address this very issue.  It’s short, to the point, and tells employees what the rules, expectations and possible consequences are:

Employees should assume their free speech (including letters to the editor, communication through social media outlets, presentations, etc.) could have an impact on their position at SkagitCounty. Employees have the right to express themselves as individuals. However if an employee’s free speech damages working relationships or negatively affects the public perception of Skagit County that may be grounds for corrective action, up to and including termination of employment. This is because such statements can undermine the agency’s mission, purpose and reputation.

Employees do not have the right to represent themselves as speaking on behalf of SkagitCounty unless they are officially authorized to do so. Additionally any County business conducted on personal social networking accounts or web sites may be subject to Public Disclosure Laws even if produced on personal time or equipment.

This policy is not intended to and will not be applied to improperly restrict employees from engaging in concerted activity, including discussing their wages, hours and working conditions with other employees.

 ****

Does that mean I can’t say my boss is an SOB and my coworker’s an idiot on my Facebook page?  Yes, it does.  Does it mean I can’t boast on Facebook about using the company cell phone to talk to my mom inTallahassee?  Well, I can – but there could be serious consequences.  And, if I work for a public agency, at least in the state ofWashington, all of that could land on the front page of the newspaper after a public records request because I’m talking about my work in the public sphere.

It’s likely that at some point this issue will be addressed in a lawsuit from one side or the other.  Meanwhile, I’d strongly suggest that every employer create a policy that clearly states your expectations for your employees – and I’d encourage you to use SkagitCounty’s as a model.

Have you been dealing with social networking issues at your workplace?  Tell us what’s going on!  ~Daphne Schneider

More on Teaching Mr. Spock

A couple of weeks ago I talked about the problem of supervisors who channel Mr. Spock from Star Trek.  Mr. Spock, if you recall, has tremendous technical expertise – but lacks people skills.  He was likely appointed to his position because of that technical expertise and loves solving all the tough problems.  By the same token, he really doesn’t like the people aspects of the job.  The reality is that you get higher pay for being a supervisor because  it’s hard to do the people stuff, and the expectation is that you’ll do it as a major part of your job. 

So, here are several more ideas to help Mr. Spock be a better people person, and thus a better supervisor.

  • Do some warm and fuzzy stuff: ask employees how they’re doing and actively listen to the answer, remember who told you about their child or parent or hobby (it may be necessary to keep a few notes after employee interactions as reminders), express sincere concern for what’s happening in their lives without being inappropriate or intrusive (yes, boundaries are important).  No need to fake friendliness and suddenly become touchy-feely.  Just let that inner caring person come out a bit.
  • Compliment employees in a meaningful way: acknowledge good work (that’s important to most employees) by being specific about the skills the employee demonstrates and how those skills made a real difference in a particular situation.  For example, don’t just say, “Good job, Joe!”  Say, “Joe, I saw you with that upset customer.  You quieted your voice, politely asked her to explain the problem, paraphrased what she said to be sure you understood and thanked her for bringing it to your attention.  That allowed you to fix the issue and have her leave happy so she’ll likely return.  That was really great customer service!”  If saying it is too hard, write a note or an e-mail, and be sure  to remember these things when it comes time for performance appraisals or bonuses.
  • Ask employees to help: Involve employees in real ways to improve matters, but don’t ask them to be involved when you already know what you’re going to do.  I’ve seen lots of supervisors get into trouble when they ask for employee input without really meaning it. So, ask for input, and be clear about what you’re going to do with it.  Say, “We’re considering buying a new floor waxer.  Tell me what bells and whistles you want and we’ll do our best (within budget) to get one that includes those.”  Don’t say, “What brand do you like?” and leave it at that, because that communicates you’ll get the brand the employees tell you they want – unless that’s actually what you intend to do.

 Again, these are all skills in interacting successfully with subordinates.  They probably seem awkward at first, but practice them and you’ll become a much better supervisor! 

Are there other points you’d like to pass on to Mr. Spock?  Let us know!  ~ Daphne Schneider

 

 

Office “Humor”

I’ve always noticed the “humorous” signs that office workers put up. The most noticeable thing about them is that they are invariably snarky.

Many are just plain negative:

  • “Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.”
  • “You want it WHEN?” [with guy with big open laughing mouth.]
  •  “Firings will continue until morale improves.”
  •  “Make someone happy today … Mind your own business.”
  • “I only have time to help one person per day, and unfortunately today isn’t your day. Tomorrow isn’t looking too good for you either.”
  • “My cow died. So I don’t need YOUR BULL!”
  • “We shoot every third salesman who walks into this place. The second just left.”

Then there are the negative messages have more of a workplace politics focus:

  • “If you’re not the lead dog, the view never changes.”
  • “Do you want to talk to the man in charge or the woman who knows what’s going on?”
  • “CAUTION, the toes you step on today may be connected to the ass you’re kissing tomorrow.”
  • “Eagles may soar, but weasels don’t get sucked into jet engines.”

Finally, there are the relatively good-natured ones:

  • “Bad spellers of the world, untie!”
  • “When all else fails, read the directions.”
  • “A cluttered desk is a sign of genius.”
  • “CAUTION: Messy cubicle. Enter at your own risk.”
  • “I don’t do mornings.”
  • “Of all the things I’ve lost, I miss my mind the most.”
  • “Give me coffee and no one gets hurt!”

So what is the significance of such signs? Do they show an employee with a bad attitude? An employee with a lame sense of humor? A passive aggressive employee? An employee who thinks she is a wit?

And what does it say about the manager who allows such signs? That he figures he’ll let employees blow off steam in a harmless way? That she supports free speech? That he thinks the signs are funny? That she too has a lame sense of humor?

I don’t really know the answers to these questions. However, I do think they are a bad idea. Why? Several reasons: First, some employees mean what the signs say and this can cast a pall on customers and co-workers. Yet, if everyone is allowed to have them, it’s hard to stop the one bad apple. Second, they set a bad tone in general. No one needs to blow off steam in this way and the signs can and do offend people. Finally, they make an office look unhappy and unmotivated. Which may be true: but it doesn’t need to be advertised!

To be fair, I also don’t like those motivational signs for offices – you know, the posters with fabulous nature shots and inspirational messages: “Communication: The art if making ideas meet.” Or, “Teamwork: Divides the task and doubles the result.” Or, “Success: There are many paths to the top of the mountain.” Or, in my view, the worst: “Innovation: Do not go where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.” I find mass-produced inspiration to be patronizing and silly – though at least the signs don’t offend anyone or set a bad tone. And some people do actually find the signs inspiring … if it’s their choice to put them up.

What are your thoughts on office signs? Or am I the only one who thinks about such things?  ~Amy Stephson

Don’t Channel Mr. Spock!

There have been many times that I have been called into a workplace because employees are up in arms against their supervisor (we’ll call her Bella,) while management can’t see the problem since she is delivering great work.  Again and again in these situations I find the following:

 Employees tell me Bella is unfair, mean, angry, cold, doesn’t care about them, never compliments them, doesn’t listen, micromanages, and even lies.  They say good employees have left because they can’t stand to work for her.

Meanwhile, Bella’s boss, Harvey, and her peers tell me she’s made a huge impact on the quality of work being produced, has straightened out any number of problems, improved efficiency, always responds quickly and effectively to whatever they ask her to do, is extremely knowledgeable and helpful.  

When I talk with Bella, she gives me perfectly logical explanations for decisions she has made that her employees labeled as unfair, uncaring and mean.  She explains why she pays attention to the details of the work and how that has resulted in improved work products and increased efficiency.  She describes how she has complimented employees, recalling she told one employee of whom she thought very highly, “I’ve assigned you to X, the toughest job we have, because you’re so good at what you do and this is important to the program.” (The employee’s view was that she was  being punished and her protests about not wanting to do this task fell on deaf ears).  Bella also tells me she provides information to her employees as appropriate, and that sometimes that information changes or evolves.

Are employees, manager, peers and Bella herself talking about the same person?  Is she simply behaving differently depending on the audience?  Or?

The answer is yes to all of these questions.  But more than that, Bella is channeling Mr. Spock – remember him from Star Trek?  He was a highly effective, efficient and task-competent, fact-oriented creature who had zero emotional intelligence.  That’s Bella.

It takes much more than task competence to effectively manage people.  Management sometimes forgets that when they promote a highly competent technician to a supervisory position.  Although in today’s world many supervisors and managers also perform tasks, their primary responsibility is to supervise and manage the people who report to them. 

What to do?  Here are the first steps Bella needs to take to build her relationship with her employees: 

  • Acknowledge and apologize: Before changing her behavior (even to improve it along the lines below), Bella needs to acknowledge and apologize for not being as good as she might have been at interacting with her staff in the past, and tell them she is committing to doing better.  She needs to ask their help in improving.  I know this is tough, but it’s very important in making a fresh start.  If Bella just starts changing some of her behaviors, her staff will likely notice and will most likely not trust that her efforts are well-intentioned (since they don’t trust her now.)  This could make things worse, rather than better.  This is a small scale version of the approach taken by the South African Truth and Reconcilliation Commission in moving past aparteid.  Then,
  • Actively listen: paraphrase, be genuinely open to input.
  • Frequently demonstrate empathy: acknowledge employee concerns, hearing both the content and the feeling behind the content.  Actully name the feeling, for example: “It sounds like you’re frustrated,” or “I’m guessing this move is scarry for you.”  Let the employee respond as to whether the feeling named is correct or not – being right matters much less than acknowleding that there is feeling involved  and attempting to understand it.  Remember: demonstrating empathy is not the same as agreeing.

These are the first skills to demonstrate when moving from Mr. Spock to someone with emotional intelligence.  Like all skills, they can be learned.  But if you’re Mr. Spock (or Bella) it won’t be easy and may feel like a waste of time.  It’s not.  Successfully supervising employees (not just the tasks they do, but them) is one of the most critical duties a supervisor or manager has.  In future blog posts I’ll talk more about some of these and other related skills.

Are there other critical employee supervision skills that Mr. Spock (or Bella) need to learn?  Have you had to learn some of these – or had supervisors who should have learned them?  Tell us your story – we’d love to hear from you!  ~ Daphne Schneider