CHAPTER 6:
How to Break the Judging Habit
This chapter tackles the cause of many communication problems: judging, sometimes called labeling. This common habit is when people form an opinion of someone and put a label on that person, such as “slacker” or “know-it-all” or “lazy.” This kind of judging has a negative impact on management communication because it prevents problem solving and can actually produce greater problems. Judging stops a manager’s rational discovery process and creates tension within relationships. This chapter discusses many of the most frequent examples of judging/labeling and shows a process for how to turn these opinions into facts with solutions. When managers substitute the process described in this chapter for judging, they improve communication and dissolve bad feelings that deter achieving results. Managers who develop the process skill offered in this chapter also expand their ability to prevent people problems.
What Is Judging?
Judging is defined here as categorizing a person by labeling, or describing him or her with a word or term. Characterizing people with a name, or label, classifies them into vague groups, such as “the lazy people.” People may or may not agree on what “lazy” means, but one thing is for sure—a manager cannot fix “lazy.” Sometimes judging is referred to as “name calling” or “tagging” or “giving a negative descriptor.”
Judging reflects a person’s opinion. It is not fact. Labeling someone causes tension between you and the other person and with others who may be aware of the tag. So why do we judge? Judging is a shortcut to communicating because it assumes others have the same definition of the label. That may or may not be true, but judging is a dead end when trying to address a performance issue and help people succeed.
Judgments can be positive or negative. Isn’t it interesting that we are aware of when other people are judging us? Have you ever been “labeled?” Sometime in your life someone may have branded you with a descriptor that was repeatedly mentioned—usually to other people. It may have been something you liked, such as “prez” (for president), “the family writer,” “the artist,” or “the smart one.” Or it may have been something you didn’t like, such as “the scrag,” “clumsy one,” “idiot,” “a klutz,” or “self-absorbed.” In this chapter, we address the latter type of labeling or making judgments—the kind people do not like. These judgments are impractical for team building and productivity. They cannot be solved logically as stated and they damage relationships and teamwork.
Negative Judgments Mean Unresolved Conflict
A clue that interpersonal conflict exists is when people judge someone in a negative light. When there is labeling or name calling, it is a fair bet that communication is not taking place and neither is conflict resolution. Oftentimes managers are upset or even angry with employees when they judge.
Some typical comments from managers include: “She’s got a self-esteem problem,” “The younger generation has no work ethic,” “The older generation has no technology expertise,” and “She’s Mt. Vesuvius.” (We talk about Mt. Vesuvius in Chapter 9 on coaching.)
Employees also make negative judgments. They may complain and blame their managers and coworkers. They often lament that their managers cannot, or will not, help them with their coworker problems. When they give up on their managers, they tell their friends.
A common employee comment is that coworkers bully them and the manager won’t do anything about it. Or perhaps they think the manager bullies them. But what does that “bully” label really mean?
California children’s author Elizabeth Koehler-Pentacoff received two frantic calls on the same day. Why? Liz’s two friends stated the same problem—their coworker bullied them and their manager was useless. Both of her friends wanted to meet with Liz immediately to vent and get advice about whether to quit their jobs. Upon some questioning, Liz found out what “bullying” meant to each of them.
One friend, a local librarian, said, “Liz, my coworker is taking over my job responsibilities. I’m the book buyer, not her. But she’s buying books even though she’s not supposed to. She’s using my book budget for her purposes and my manager won’t do a thing about it. This woman intimidates my manager and me.”
Liz’s other friend, a medical secretary, had a malingering coworker. Liz’s friend had routinely done her colleague’s work in addition to her own. Her manager shrugged her shoulders and did nothing about it. Eventually the medical secretary developed carpal tunnel syndrome. She finally sought medical help, and the doctor gave the advice her manager should have: to just do her own work and let the coworker suffer the consequences.
Typical Judgments
There are a number of judgments that are commonly used to indicate that the manager is not getting expectations met. Here are some labels I have repeatedly heard managers call their direct reports:
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
Slacker
Old dog (older worker)
The kids (younger workers)
Lame duck (getting ready to retire)
Jerk
Or sometimes managers use adjectives or other descriptors to allude to the problem they are experiencing with their employees. Here are some that are frequently mentioned:
Short tempered
Low self-esteem
Bad personality
Not committed
Difficult
Doesn’t respect me
Bad attitude
Lazy
Obnoxious
Unreasonable
Complacent
Has tunnel vision
Disinterested or doesn’t care
Overbearing
Insecure
Unfortunately, some managers go as far as to use medical diagnoses, which they are not qualified to make, such as referring to direct reports as schizophrenic, bipolar, or depressed. How does this make the staff feel? What if the person they are labeling or some other coworkers actually suffer from these illnesses? It is never acceptable to call people by these terms, and it is not acceptable for managers to laugh when others do so.
When people judge each other, as in the above examples, the descriptions are vague and the problems unsolvable. The labels they call each other perpetuate their current perceptions. These self-fulfilling prophecies generate blame. Change in behavior is not possible if no factual discussion takes place. Blaming prevents identifying and solving the real problem. It also can lead to managers feeling disappointment in or anger toward employees. This blaming occurs every day in the media, in politics, at work, and even in our personal lives. So if you find yourself blaming and judging, don’t worry. It’s a common habit and you can change it.
Did you drive anywhere or take a cab this week? By any chance did you call another driver a name? Driving is the simplest example to use because it is commonplace to get angry with other drivers occasionally. This happens when other drivers do not conform to communication symbols such as stop signs, double yellow lines, and even red lights. Or when they surprise you by changing lanes in an unsafe way. In short, the action they take doesn’t meet your communication expectation (that they follow the rules of the road), or it surprises you (and maybe scares you).
What has driving got to do with workplace communication? It’s an example of how people habitually and quickly respond when performance expectations are not met or when they are surprised or feel unsafe. On the job, when expectations are not met or there is a deadline looming, managers might worry that the work will not be done correctly or on time. That could threaten the security of the manager’s main job—to get work done through other people. It’s a common reaction to blame the other driver or, at work, the employee, because all the facts are not yet examined. You, and other managers, are not alone if you judge others. It’s a widespread response.
Judgments hinder communication, relationships, and progress. They also inhibit managers from discussing the problem with the employee, because the judgment is not factual and not useful. Judgments also take managers off the hook—“there’s nothing I can do; the person is ‘like that,’ that’s all.”
Many managers refrain from fixing the problems because they fear confrontation or disagreement. Sometimes they worry that they do not have the skill to handle an unpleasant situation. This is because they have not been trained to clearly state expectations and assess performance in a factual way. They may feel uncomfortable discussing undesired performance and giving appropriate feedback. Managers may feel vulnerable if they get into a conversation and are unprepared to handle potential opposition. We address these concerns later in this chapter. There are simple ways to analyze and handle these situations.
“Don’t Judge Me”
Many TV comedies have had a character say to another, “Don’t judge me.” It is funny because judging is so common and most people have experienced it. So we laugh when the character says that. But in real life, most people do not appreciate being judged. They dislike being saddled with a name they can’t shake. They bristle at being misunderstood. And they resent being labeled as “always” or “never” doing things, rather than having each specific action on each different day evaluated separately. Judging is not useful to managers or employees because it skips over the facts and leaps to name-calling.
When a manager labels a person, the manager may see the employee consistently through this lens (“slacker,” “lazy,” “poor work ethic,” and so on). Then the manager may hunt for proof that the judgment is correct rather than trying to help the employee succeed.
What is more useful and solvable is to examine little chunks of the employee’s behavior rather than putting employees in boxes from which they cannot escape. Judgments are too vague and large to solve. But a problem that is stated as observed behaviors, rather than judgments or opinions, is solvable. It is a bite-sized problem to tackle rather than an overwhelming, infinite problem that erodes relationships.
Communicating performance discrepancies is simply a business transaction that needs to take place. It is easier to discuss performance when focusing on facts, not judgments. Having a factual discussion can cause an employee’s behavior to change because the manager has identified observable behaviors and an achievable path.
Analyzing judgments and turning them into facts can also have surprising effects. Sometimes a manager sees that the judgment is off base when the facts are examined. Oftentimes a manager learns that the organization itself has prevented performance. Sometimes the manager has been the obstacle, by not setting clear expectations, not properly discussing changes, not giving regular feedback, or not asking process questions.
Judgments are common and the skill to deconstruct them can be easily mastered, helping you to be confident of your facts, learn the employee’s point of view, and determine alternative courses of action.
Why Is It So Easy to Judge?
We live in a judging world, so it is easy to fall prey to judging first and thinking later. One may not see very many excellent communication role models. Television is a medium that has the power to influence millions of people. This medium could teach viewers how to communicate well. The irony is that fiction and story require conflict to keep a reader or, in this case, a TV audience interested. Television news, commentary, coverage of political speeches, and even sitcoms frequently depict judging behaviors, and these become role models for how to act and how to communicate.
Millions of people worldwide watch TV news channels. It is easy to see how the news channels judge the people they report on. The commentators use a tone of voice tinged with amazement, disappointment, shock, or some other emotion that is supposed to be contagious to the viewer. Their choice of words shows their bias and tries to pull the audience to their point of view. Interviewers ask loaded questions that lead the interviewee in the direction the news station wants to portray—all to convince the viewer to judge the person on whom they are reporting.
Politicians choose words carefully to put their opponents in a bad light. They skillfully use semantics to sway their constituency to fall in line with their own feelings or with what will have the best marketing outcome. Instead of describing factual behavior, many politicians cherry-pick certain quotes or deeds to back up their judging phrases. They might say something all encompassing like “she is a failure” instead of citing observable actions that resulted in one failure on one issue. Sometimes differing points of view are judged in a negative light instead of regarded as opportunities to look at all the facets of an issue.
Some of our funniest TV shows are satires with characters that demonstrate communication skills that are not helpful in real life. Without conflict, a story is boring. But in real life, conflict needs to be managed with skillful communication, or unhappy consequences can occur. At work, interpersonal conflict can lead to stress and lessen teamwork. Teams might experience discomfort, leading to missing deadlines or to not accomplishing the highest quality work. One man told me that he always avoided people who were demanding or who were overbearing to try to get their way. Part of a manager’s responsibility is to help employees work out the best way for the company, instead of letting them “run over” or “avoid” each other.
Strong managers who can step up to conflict, without judging direct reports, increase their credibility, solve problems quickly, and set up employees for success.
How to Untangle Judgments: A Four-Step Process
Why use a process? A process helps you discover the underlying problem you are trying to solve, which is not apparent when judging/labeling. When judging, perception becomes the reality and the employee being judged is seen through only one lens—the label. No person performs every action the same way, and when we see him or her unilaterally as “a slacker,” the true business problem may not get solved.
If you want to break a judging habit, you must first analyze the judgments you make. That will lead you to the facts of the situation and help you discover the real cause of the problem you are encountering. Only when you deal with observable actions or behaviors and facts can you dispassionately solve the problem. So how does one untangle judgments and solve the real problems?
At first we state the problem “as is,” even if it is judging. It is important to capture the first impression. We then peel back the layers. Here is a four-step process you can use:
1. State the problem “as is”—your original definition of the problem (slacker, not committed, doesn’t respect me, overbearing, old dog, etc.).
2. Identify observable behaviors and facts—what did you see and hear? Recheck those “facts” and eliminate any judgments. Keep re-checking until you have identified facts and observable behaviors— not opinion.
3. Brainstorm a list of alternative solutions or action steps.
4. Decide preferred solution/action steps.
Eight Real-World Examples Using the “How to Untangle Judgments Process”
These eight examples are actual work problems (judgments) and solutions. The names of the managers have been changed to protect their privacy. Their stories may be different from yours, but you have probably heard other managers use the same judgments. Maybe you have even thought these judgments yourself. Your analysis and alternative solutions might be different because your situation differs. However, if you follow the four-step process, you will have a great chance at management success. This process will help you form the habit of sticking to facts and thus doing a better job of following up on employee progress, giving feedback, coaching, building relationships, and achieving your goals.
At first the managers specified their problems in these common judgmental, unsolvable terms:
A. Lazy lead analyst
B. Old dog foreman doesn’t like change
C. Nitpicky and insensitive boss
D. Lame duck awaiting retirement
E. Weak link—employee or manager?
F. Controlling senior director
G. Hostile engineer
H. Employee milks assignment
When one creates a negative judgment about someone and gives him a label, it is easy to forget the details that led to the judgment in the first place. The solving is in the details, not in the label. Peel back the layers. Analyze the facts of the situation rather than targeting the person. This leads to discovering the root causes of the people problems. Once root causes are uncovered, logical action steps emerge. Solutions involve both following a structured process and preserving the relationship, or rebuilding it if damaged.
Now let’s walk through the four process steps using the content provided by the eight managers about the A through H judgments. These examples of judgments will be redefined as facts. The alternatives and solutions that the respective managers decided to implement are also included. Perhaps you can get some ideas so you can untangle the judgments that plague you.
A. Lazy
1. State the problem “as is.” The manager, Eliot, originally stated the problem as, “Lead analyst is lazy.” To analyze what the judgment “lazy” means to Eliot, we move to Step 2.
2. Identify observable behaviors/facts—what did you see and hear? This step can be tricky. Sometimes what seem like facts are really more judgments. So you may need to keep peeling the layers. For example, Eliot said he observed the lead analyst abusing company time and not working to full capacity. But those are still vague judgments. When we kept asking, “What do you see and hear that makes you say that?” the real facts emerged:
She takes extended lunches and breaks, which are not reflected in her work hours’ time sheet.
The capacity charts do not reflect the amount of work that should have been done in the hours worked (e.g., charts show she has completed 20 percent of the workload, while other employees have completed 80 percent). As a lead person, her percent of the workload should be higher than the other employees.
Now we were getting somewhere. It is much easier to deal with these facts than with the judgments. Eliot’s next attempt to describe the employee’s behaviors without calling her “lazy” resulted in calling the analyst “dishonest” and stating that the other employees were picking up the slack. Again, vague. So we kept digging, and Eliot got to the facts:
The lead analyst delegates tasks that she is supposed to do herself and falsely claims to do work she’s not doing. Capacity charts show proof of her lower productivity. She takes credit for those delegated tasks, claiming to have completed those tasks herself (the other staff dispute this).
Other managers witnessed extended lunch and breaks. After facts have been presented to her, she denies them.
3. Brainstorm a list of alternative solutions or action steps. Eliot came up with this list:
Pull the job description and capacity standards information.
Review job expectations of this employee. Gather the capacity charts and other facts. Now give feedback to the employee.
Meet with employee to review policies (i.e., lunch hours), job expectations, and actual performance observations.
Clarify the lead analyst’s understanding of job requirements by asking her to state what she thinks is expected of her.
Make sure expectations are the same as the manager’s.
Set up action plans to meet expectations. Ask, “What specifically will you do to meet these expectations?” > After she states her action steps, then ask, “What can I do to help you do your job?”
Identify consequences for not meeting expectations. Document the conversation and use it as a baseline for future performance issues.
Set up and hold twice-weekly job check-in meetings to make sure employee is on track with performance expectations. Discuss issues and build rapport.
4. Decide preferred solution/action steps. Eliot decided to follow all the action steps in Step 3 and then observe subsequent performance. Follow-up steps would depend on whether the analyst met expectations.
If the lead analyst meets expectations:
• Employee keeps job and grows in skills and expertise.
• Job check-in meetings might become less frequent.
If she does not meet expectations:
• Document facts.
• Consult Human Resources.
• Counsel and begin disciplinary action according to company policy.
Eliot felt better once he had a plan instead of an unsolvable judgment. It may be difficult to converse about these issues with the employee, but it is a whole lot easier than confronting the employee with the word “lazy.”
B. Old Dog
1. State the problem “as is.” In this case, David, the manager, stated the original problem as, “The old dog does not like change.”
2. Identify observable behaviors/facts—what did you see and hear? David said he was dealing with an older foreman who will only do what he wants to do. David continued that this foreman is an experienced person who only likes to do the “fun work.” The foreman doesn’t like to do housekeeping tasks, and he “milks the job,” David reported. When we teased this information apart, we got to the facts.
The experienced foreman spends 85 percent of his time doing his familiar construction tasks (roadwork) at which he has expertise rather than new duties (industrial).
He should spend 80 percent of his time on the industrial work. Instead, he defers the industrial work to other employees (laborers). He doesn’t finish the industrial work that he begins. He does complete roadwork assignments.
The foreman states, “I was hired to do the roadwork, not the other work,” and “I don’t like that other type of work.” > “Milks the job” means he does roadwork almost full-time but does not do industrial tasks.
Industrial tasks are a new assignment in the last few months.
The foreman has not had any training in the industrial tasks.
The foreman, who had been a star performer until a few months ago, was getting blamed because the new assignments had not been fully explained and the foreman did not know how to do them because of lack of training.
3. Brainstorm a list of alternative solutions or action steps. David’s list of options was to first determine if it was important that the foreman do industrial work instead of delegating that work to his direct reports. David needed more information to decide this. If it was only important that the industrial work get done, and not necessarily by the foreman, David would just confirm that new expectation with the foreman.
If it turned out to be important that the foreman do the industrial tasks, then David listed these action step options:
Update the foreman’s job description and David’s expectations.
Acknowledge that the foreman was originally hired to do only roadwork and explain to the foreman that the job has changed now.
Discuss duties and expectations going forward.
Tell the foreman why it is important that he personally does industrial work rather than delegating all of it.
Tell him what percentage of time you expect him to do roadwork and what percentage is to be industrial. Tell him why each of these percentages is important and the impact on others.
Arrange dates for training on industrial tasks.
Get ideas for solutions from the foreman.
Get agreement on what he will do from now on.
State consequences of noncompliance.
4. Decide preferred solution/action steps. David decided to follow all the action steps and to start to document behavior if the foreman refused to meet new expectations or attend training.
C. Nitpicky and Insensitive Boss
1. State the problem “as is.” Kathy, the manager, said her boss is, “insensitive and nitpicky about performance.”
2. Identify observable behaviors/facts—what did you see and hear? When we got talking about the situation, the behaviors and facts fell into two categories: The boss is new in his position, without adequate help from his own manager, and the boss needs help on how to deal with people.
The fact that the boss is new in his position cast a different light on things. Kathy began to empathize with him instead of thinking he was insensitive. Maybe he did not have bad intentions, but lack of knowledge and skills. So Kathy listed these facts about the boss being new in his position:
He is inexperienced as a manager of managers.
His new management roles and the roles of his direct reports are not clearly defined.
Unclear reporting relationships—no organizational chart or system.
Unclear expectations—we don’t know what he expects of us managers.
He acknowledges the organizational problems, yet no solution has been determined.
Kathy realized that the boss had not received adequate preparation and organizational support for his newly expanded responsibilities. Managing managers requires broader communication abilities. She figured out that he needs help with how to deal with people. The observed behaviors and facts were:
He has poor feedback skills: He criticizes staff, yells, and does not give specific information about his expectations and what he wants the direct-report managers to do differently, and why.
Managers have not observed him giving positive feedback to any of them when they do meet his expectations. They need to hear that they are on the right track—especially since there is so much uncertainty about the roles and expectations.
He undermines the authority of direct-report managers with sarcastic remarks at staff meetings in front of our employees.
He does not acknowledge employees. He passes people in the hall and gives no greeting.
He rejects my ideas without giving his reasoning (he says, “I don’t think it is important”).
He says, “You are paid to do the job.” > He disregards authority boundaries, criticizes tasks and employee performance for which he is not responsible (our staff).
He needs higher-level management and communication training.
3. Brainstorm a list of alternative solutions or action steps. Once Kathy quit labeling her boss as “insensitive” and examined the facts, she decided to take the initiative to improve the relationship. This would improve the work situation for the whole team. Kathy’s list included:
Meet with him one-on-one to formally discuss issues.
Tell him of direct-report managers’ needs for clarity on roles, reporting relationships/organizational charts, expectations, and feedback delivered in a constructive way. Tell him how the clarification will impact the productivity and help him get his goals met.
Give him feedback that direct reports want to improve working relationship with him and tell him of issues listed under Step 2 “observable behaviors/facts.”
Ask him for a meeting to clarify roles, responsibilities, and level of authority. (See Chapter 2 on turbocharged clarity.) > Ask him to commit to identifying and solving the problems his direct-report managers are having with him.
Tell his boss he needs direct on-site coaching by his own boss.
Ask his boss to get him higher-level management and communication training.
4. Decide preferred solution/action steps. Kathy decided to start with all the action steps she brainstormed except the last two bullets, which deal with going to his boss. She might do that if she has to, but she chose to start with her boss in an effort to solve the problems effectively and build the necessary relationship with him. However, if he is not receptive to working with her to resolve these issues, Kathy will:
Tell him she is going to talk to his boss and invite him to join her. She will put it in positive terms of enhancing the working relationship of all team members.
Suggest he invite all direct-report managers and his boss to a meeting to discuss and clarify expectations. She will get consensus in the meeting and document the decisions and results.
Involve HR to mediate if they cannot resolve it.
Check other positions within the company if it does not improve.
D. Lame Duck
1. State the problem “as is.” Alexandra, the manager, first described the problem as, “The employee is a lame duck just waiting for retirement.”
2. Identify observable behaviors/facts—what did you see and hear?
The employee is leaving in six months.
He is bored with his job.
There is no back-up person for his responsibilities.
He is a good employee—completes all work and does it well.
He has worked for company for over twenty years.
Alexandra agreed that she could not validate that the employee was “bored” with his job, since the employee never mentioned he was bored. “Bored” is a judgment. What was more useful were the observed behaviors that led her to say he was bored: Comes in late once every two weeks, leaves early once a week, and takes long lunches every other day. Now Alexandra had something she could work with—the employee was not complying with work-hour performance standards.
3. Brainstorm a list of alternative solutions or action steps.
Meet with employee and express her concern about how he ends his long-term employment with the company. Tell him she wants him to end his time on a successful note and that she will help him do that.
Set expectations about work-hour policy to be fair to all employees.
State consequences of not complying with policy and express her hope that he will comply.
Work together to create an exit plan that includes having him mentor people in his last six months so his institutional knowledge can be preserved.
Have him train one or two employees as back up on his job ASAP. These people will take over his responsibilities when he leaves.
After his years of contribution to the company, she will help him enjoy and celebrate his last six months.
Plan a retirement party with coworkers, if policy permits it. Otherwise, set up a lunch date.
4. Decide preferred solution/action steps. Alexandra decided to:
Follow all above action steps unless employee does not follow policy and expectations.
Treat him as she would any other employee by monitoring and documenting performance according to company policy if he does not comply, or if performance declines.
E. Weak Link (Employee or Manager?)
1. State the problem “as is.” Ling said his problem was, “How to deal with the weak link in the group when at least some members of the group know the employee is the weak link.”
2. Identify observable behaviors/facts—what did you see and hear? When Ling tried to state observable behaviors/facts, he realized he had been calling the employee the “weak link,” but that maybe he as the manager was the “weak link.” He had not provided the employee with sufficient information to succeed. His list of what he had observed was vague. If he tried to talk to his employee, it would be like discussing cotton candy. It might look like a big problem, but if he and the employee bit into the problem, it would quickly disappear. He did not have concrete facts. Let’s look at what he said so his action steps will make more sense:
Scope—it takes this employee the longest of all employees to absorb instruction.
Manager sets expectations and clarifies, yet the employee still misinterprets them.
The employee does not ask questions; he pretends to “get it.”
When there is a definite deadline, he adheres most of the time.
Quality of output compared to others—he does not contribute as much as the other employees do.
3. Brainstorm a list of alternative solutions or action steps. Ling decided he had some homework to do. Here is his list:
Determine clear definition of expectations for this employee and put them in writing.
Tell employee the expectations. Ask him to restate what he thinks the manager expects of him and by when. Ask him to send the manager an e-mail stating those expectations. Ask him to write exactly what he will do to meet those expectations.
Get specific data on how long it takes the employee to absorb instruction. What do employees do to demonstrate they have absorbed instruction? What is the performance standard on how long it should take?
Meet with employee and express the manager’s desire for him to learn the job and achieve the objectives. Tell him the manager will add more structure to help him.
Provide training or a buddy, if needed.
Set milestones/check-in points for the work and dates to follow up on each milestone (project planning).
Meet with employee on daily or twice-weekly basis depending upon his needs for help and the manager’s needs to be sure he is on track.
Explain impact on the team when quality is insufficient or deadline is not met. Do other workers have to cover for him?
Keep up the regular one-on-one meetings.
4. Decide preferred solution/action steps. Ling decided to:
Try all of the above action steps.
If they don’t work, he will begin the formal counseling process that the organization has in place.
F. Controlling
1. State the problem “as is.” Mary Beth said, “Our senior director is controlling.”
2. Identify observable behaviors/facts—what did you see and hear? Mary Beth was specific about the facts:
Three years ago her company had an audit that required corrective actions.
There were 1,200 open complaints three years ago, but they now have only 400 complaints.
The goal is to close complaints within thirty days of opening them, and the company is at thirty-nine days.
Senior management wants thirty-four days to be the maximum, and eventually for the company to meet the goal of thirty days.
The senior director calls every day to see how Mary Beth’s department is doing regarding this goal. She also stops Mary Beth’s staff in the hall, and even e-mails them asking for a progress date.
It took forty-five days to close complaints three years ago. Mary Beth’s department has made significant improvement from three years ago, but the corporate image is not healed because complaint closings are not at thirty days. So instead of emphasizing the progress they have made, the senior director constantly points out that they are not at the goal.
Currently, the closings are more than the openings, so throughput is over 100 percent. Mary Beth thinks that should count for something, but the senior director says the priority to look at is only to get the closings down to thirty-four and then thirty days.
The average closing takes twenty-four days, but the European region pulls the closings off average. So, the current average is thirty-nine days to close.
Quarterly Trending Report is by product complaint and cause. They tend to be the same problems.
The senior director constantly contacts Mary Beth and states that her team is not performing to the expected standard.
3. Brainstorm a list of alternative solutions or action steps. When Mary Beth got clear on the facts, she realized that she and her team wanted credit for improvement over the last three years but indeed they were not meeting the goals in front of them. The senior director was emphasizing the importance of what goal Mary Beth’s team must attain, rather than looking back at what they had accomplished in the past. Mary Beth decided to discuss the situation openly with the senior director. She planned to:
State to the senior director that she and her team are onboard to meet the goal of thirty-four days and then thirty days to close. State what she and her team were prepared to do to meet that goal. Ask the senior director’s opinion of what she thinks they could do differently to meet the goal. Tell the senior director she wants to work collaboratively with plans and follow-up on progress.
Set up frequent meetings with the senior director to discuss stat sheets.
Ask the senior director to work with the European region to solve the problem they have with slow closings, since Mary Beth does not have the organizational power to do that.
Print a progress report showing progress percentage by quarter. On the quarterly report, show the regional breakouts, to show that the European region is not complying and is dragging down the average. Compare current closings to past periods. Use bar charts (visuals) to highlight what the team did differently in each period.
Prepare and deliver a quarterly formal presentation to the senior director rather than just e-mailing her the quarterly report. Discuss progress and plans for the next quarter during that meeting.
Identify team training needs and organize the training.
Invite the senior director to team meetings.
Keep the senior director informed on a weekly basis of progress.
4. Decide preferred solution/action steps. Mary Beth decided to follow all the alternative action steps.
G. Hostile
1. State the problem “as is.” Javier said the problem was “an engineer, who doesn’t like to be questioned, becomes hostile and goes around the person he disagrees with.”
2. Identify observable behaviors/facts—what did you see and hear? At first Javier’s observations were judgments, so we kept defining what he saw and heard until he could describe observable behaviors and facts.
“Poor work ethic.” This means the engineer comes in a half hour late and leaves fifteen minutes early twice a week.
“Violent outbursts.” This means he shouts profanities.
“Hostile when questioned.” This means he rolls eyes, sighs, and walks out.
“Unprofessional behavior toward coworkers.” This means he uses sarcasm or refuses to respond to them and forces his way into conversations.
“Not a team player.” This means:
• Peer engineers object to working with him.
• He seeks advice from others not involved with the project.
• He is critical of others—offers negative feedback but not positive.
3. Brainstorm a list of alternative solutions or action steps. Javier’s list:
Ask Human Resources’ counsel on the employee’s behavior related to shouting profanities to see if it is considered to foster a hostile work environment and to be harassment. Ask them whether to provide feedback from other engineers on how he is perceived. Take any action Human Resources advises.
Review expectations of work-schedule tasks and projects.
Review relevant company policies with him.
Review expectations of acceptable behavior toward peers and manager with him.
Discuss expectation for open dialogue and working with team members.
Discuss his observed behavior, contrasting that with expectations.
Explain impact of his behavior on workflow and morale.
Try to find root cause of his behavior.
Offer coaching and communication training classes to help him find proper ways to express ideas.
Discuss consequences of continued behavior, including company counseling process.
4. Decide preferred solution/action steps. Javier decided to start with Human Resources to discuss the shouting of profanities. He would then discuss the other bullet points with them and, if they agreed, follow all action steps brainstormed in Step 3.
H. Employee Milks Assignment
1. State the problem “as is.” Deborah stated the original problem as, “the employee doesn’t take the initiative. She only does what is asked of her and ‘milks’ assignments.”
2. Identify observable behaviors/facts—what did you see and hear? This is what Deborah had noticed:
The employee closes Windows (computer applications) when manager walks by.
The employee meets all deadlines. However, she takes double the time needed to complete a task.
The employee takes one day to complete tasks that should take only a half day. Deborah previously did this job, but has not told the employee that this task should take a half day.
Employee does not inform Deborah when tasks are completed.
Employee does not ask for additional assignments/projects when she completes a task.
Employee transferred from a subsidiary company.
Once Deborah completed this list, she realized how many assumptions she had made about how this new employee should perform. Deborah had not set clear expectations about how long jobs should take. Deborah needed to examine whether it was realistic to want the task completed in only a half day. After all, the employee did meet all deadlines. Also, the employee is new to the organization and needs to be told about the expectation that she come to Deborah and ask for additional work. It may not have been an expectation where she worked before.
3. Brainstorm a list of alternative solutions or action steps. Deborah’s list:
Determine how long tasks should realistically take. Just because Deborah did the task quickly does not mean that should be the measure.
Talk to employee about the length of time the project should take. Get her side of the story. She’s a new employee so does she need training? More structured guidelines?
Discuss expectations that she get the task done in projected time allotted.
Discuss all other expectations about informing Deborah when tasks are completed and asking for more assignments.
Give shorter check-in times and follow-up at half day until no longer necessary.
Assign more work/tasks if employee needs more work.
Discuss adding a more challenging assignment.
Set up regular, periodic meetings/checkpoints/goals/status reports/deadlines.
4. Decide preferred solution/action steps. Deborah decided to follow all the action steps.
Through following the four-step process, you can replace judgments with facts and then easily determine a path toward a solution. As you saw in the examples, many times an employee was blamed when the manager was the organizational obstacle. It is common for managers following this process to realize that they may not have set clear or realistic expectations. The managers may need to provide resources, including training, in order for direct reports to meet the goals.
In the case of managing your manager, the same concept applies. Judging is frequently a misunderstanding. Once you examine the facts, it is often the “judge” who stands in the way of solving the problem. People who work with this process quickly and honestly examine who needs to do what in order to collaborate, achieve work objectives, and preserve relationships.
Word Choice
Once managers follow the process to discover the root of the judgment, they need to speak to the person they are having the problem with. Picking the right words can make the difference in whether the message is heard. The right words can also generate enthusiasm for collaborating and moving forward together to get the work done.
Words convey specific meaning. Managers are responsible for what they say. Since managers exert so much influence, whether or not they intend to, they must choose words carefully. It is important to be factual and friendly.
Words can include or exclude people, make them feel good or rile them up, and even assert dominance or invite collegiality. Selecting words appropriately and positively is one of the most essential decisions we make when we speak. The words we use can advance or impede communication about the work and the relationships. They show respect and courtesy, or the opposite. Consider the words in each of the following pairs and the connotation of each: smile/smirk, senior management/the suits, business trip/boondoggle, famous/notorious, economizing/cheap, curious/nosy, experienced/over-the-hill, and youthful/immature.
Poor word choice (including judgments and labels) builds walls instead of bridges. Picking words ineffectively can make people feel discounted and unvalued. It can create or contribute to conflict, and be interpreted as insensitivity or lack of caring. It can lower employees’ confidence and self-esteem. Words can place blame, create distrust, and shut down communication. And the person choosing unpleasant words can be viewed as being closed-minded.
Careful word choice can prevent people problems and establish an atmosphere of trust and respect. Neutral words or words with positive connotations show empathy and caring, create open communication, and facilitate conflict resolution. Positive words make it easy for the employee to hear your feedback and to feel welcome to give you feedback. When the relationship hits a roadblock, employees are more likely to work through the misunderstandings if they feel that, by and large, the manager is collegial and trustworthy, as demonstrated by his use of neutral and positive language. A trustworthy manager does not use judging terms or labels to describe anyone, up, down, or across the organization.
How to Handle Body Language Judgments
Besides using words, people can use their bodies, facial expressions, and tone of voice to insinuate judgments and put other people down. Imagine you and another speaker are up on the platform debating an issue in front of a large audience. You are seated next to each other. Every time it is your turn to speak, the other speaker lowers her head and shakes it slowly left to right. She scrunches up her nose in a way that brings her eyelids closer together rather than being open all the way. She smiles showing her teeth. She sighs audibly. We see this behavior every day on news panels on TV, and you may see this in your office or at a meeting.
Even though it was not this person’s turn to speak, she took the audience’s attention away from you and your words by using body language. How do you react? Perhaps it rolls off your back and you don’t care. Perhaps it upsets you. How do you interpret the body language? Do you say she disagreed with your message? Do you say she was rude? She smirked? She dismissed and discredited you?
One might have any of those opinions and they are just interpretations or judgments. They are not facts. The only facts are what we actually saw and heard happen as described in the first paragraph. The judgments may or may not be the purpose that person had in mind when she chose to react to your words using nonverbal communication. Acting on body language judgments will not advance relationships or get your message heard. You will have greater success staying with observed facts.
You have options while you are on the platform. You can ignore the nonverbal behavior of the other person. This is what many managers choose to do with their direct reports. Sometimes it is appropriate, and sometimes the behavior escalates until it bothers the audience (other teammates).
Let’s assume you decide to address the nonverbal behavior of the other speaker on the platform. If you choose to speak about your opinion/judgment, she will probably deny it and you will end up looking petty.
“Why are you being so rude?” you might say.
“I’m not being rude,” she answers.
“Yes, you are,” you continue. “You’re smirking.”
“You’re wrong. I am not smirking. What’s the matter—are your feelings hurt?”
Notice that you are not talking about the content of the debate, but the topic has now switched to your feelings. By now you might be plenty angry and easily distracted from the importance of your original message. You will not be winning the support of your audience. You will look like you do not exhibit grace under pressure. You may think people see you as a “victim” who can’t handle the communication challenge.
Another option is to address the behavior using only observable facts. This might get some information about why the person is using the body language and get an honest discussion going. Perhaps it will get you both back on track and focused about the work at hand.
“I noticed you shook your head ‘No’ and smiled when I made my point.”
“Did I?”
You use neutral, open body language and silently wait for her to continue.
“Well, what you said about X was totally ridiculous,” she says.
You ignore her tone of voice and concentrate only on the words she spoke. “What exactly did you find ridiculous?” you ask.
“I totally disagree with your comment about …”
“I’ll present my research in a moment,” you say. “But first let’s talk about why you disagree.”
Now you are back to debating ideas because you have facilitated a nonemotional discussion based on observable behaviors rather than being judgmental or letting the other person’s judgments control your behavior. You have stayed on message and can get results.
Summary
Judgments and labeling can escalate problems with people and thus block productivity and quality. Judging—even done jokingly—damages relationships because there is no clear communication about the meaning of the label or what to do to change behavior.
When you use the process for untangling and solving people problems, suddenly “people problems” become factual business issues that are unemotional. Once you are able to unravel them and get to the bottom of the situation, you are able to analyze and work it out much more easily. The emotion gets washed out and the problem becomes an arm’s-length issue. You can confidently handle these problems using process skills, just as you would handle any other of your managerial responsibilities.
Stating facts and observable behavior is a very important skill to use in all work discussions. Whether delegating, following up on progress, giving feedback, or coaching, it is imperative to untangle any judgments and speak with words both parties can agree on—facts.
Chapter 7 addresses many common management communication problems. Just as in this chapter, the facts of these problems also need to be analyzed so that solutions/action steps can be determined.