This occurs when some tough things need to be said by the leader to one of his or her team, and where the reception to them is unpredictable and possibly hostile.
Frequency – rare.
Key participants – direct reports.
Leadership rating ***
Sometimes they are unavoidable – the 121 meetings where blunt things need to be said, where you need to convey some negative observations about performance to one of your team. Such interviews may be difficult and lead to conflict:
However, these meetings demand a constructive outcome, because it is your absolute responsibility to ensure that performance issues are aired, discussed, accepted and tackled.
This is a very difficult area of leadership. Since so much depends on people, you will inevitably be torn between wanting to establish effective and warm relationships, and having to confront uncomfortable realities about possible underperformance. You will be looking to balance empowerment and respect for the individual on the one hand, and the overall team’s need to succeed on the other. You will be concerned that a conflict arising from blunt conversations might fatally undermine a relationship or damage your larger team’s functioning. You may also be plain nervous about face-to-face confrontation.
Three guiding principles will stand you in good stead.
No matter how difficult it may appear, you must confront any of your team head-on, face-to-face, if there are performance issues – your credibility and integrity rest on it.
The initial assessment must first be whether or not an issue is serious enough to merit any action. Here you depend very much on your instincts and experience. You need to stand back from any emotion that others may have expressed, and reassess the reactions you have had.
Your assessment needs to take into account the severity of the case. Is the problem sporadic or consistent? Is the issue part of the process of relationships being established (the so-called ‘storming’ phase) and consequently may blow itself out? If so, the best course of action is to do nothing.
If you come to the conclusion that the issue must be confronted, you should consider if your HR director/manager might provide a more effective solution. In certain cases, the relative independence of an HR director may allow them to have a discussion that feels less confrontational to your colleague – though this needs to be balanced against the impression of seriousness that will be conveyed if you yourself take up the issue.
The point is that confronting issues, while a necessity, should be done in a considered, measured and unemotional manner.
I do not subscribe to the view that certain levels of staff are in any way above such considerations, and that the leader should adopt a take-it-or-leave-it approach. Such an attitude to behaviour and performance is complacent, evasive and not even in the best interests of staff.
We all benefit from constructive feedback which can inform not only our current performance but also our career path. In turn, your staff need to know that you will confront issues, that you approach them with fairness and integrity and that you are driven solely by a desire to maximise their and the organisation’s performance. They may not thank you for it, but they will respect you.
If you reach the conclusion that you are going to tackle the issue yourself, you must arrange to see the colleague involved – and make a fixed appointment to ensure that meeting is not allowed to happen by chance. As this is not a formal disciplinary meeting, no advance warning of the subject is necessary or desirable. The meeting should be organised in such a way that it is not disturbed.
In these circumstances nothing is to be gained by talking round the issue – you need to get to the point – but it is vital that you follow some ground rules in your approach and what you say.
This is the point where the nub of the conversation is reached – does your colleague’s reaction convey any sense that they recognise the issue? They may attempt to avoid the issue by raising issues about other people’s personalities, performance or behaviour. You need to be firm in asserting that the conversation is not about others. You may then give further examples and try to engage your colleague in changing their self-perception.
The way such conversations develop is highly unpredictable, not least because most of us don’t like being challenged, and when we are we tend to react emotionally or defensively. The key here is to stick to your guns – to lay out the issues with clear examples, to allow your colleague to challenge and respond, yet ensure that the issue is not lost.
An overriding principle in such discussions must always be a focus on behaviour and not personality. Generally speaking, you should never attempt to challenge or change an individual’s personality – you should respect colleagues for who they are. Your interest as a leader is in how they behave and how their behaviour interacts with and affects others – this is the touch point with business performance. Thus such ‘conflict’ discussions remain focused not on who people are, but on how their actions are perceived by and affect others.
No conversation of this kind works unless there is a follow-up, which can take a number of forms depending on the responsiveness of the colleague in question, but these are likely to include:
Once you have decided to have the ‘difficult’ conversation, as much is gained in the manner you conduct it as in the content of the conversation itself.
What is most likely to backfire in a difficult conversation is an approach that has been poorly thought through. This is no occasion for off-the-cuff commentary. To the contrary, precisely because such a conversation is so personal, it needs the most careful and detailed preparation. So the conversation may backfire if:
Such a conversation – however difficult – can reap rich rewards in the performance improvement it can provoke. But if it backfires through careless preparation or thoughtless management, the legacy can be damaging and long-lasting.