The difficult interview

Objective

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:

• difficult – because confrontation is usually uncomfortable, almost unavoidably personal, and because interpretations of circumstances may differ;
• conflictual – not necessarily an encounter with shouting, aggression, violent disagreement or even tears (though I don’t exclude any of these), but because there is a period of disconnection, where the participants disagree fundamentally.

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.

• Trust your judgement and, if needs be, support it by sounding out peers or HR colleagues.
• Be aware that poor performance that is unaddressed is poor performance compounded – further deterioration is a major risk, which in due course will undermine the reputation of the leader’s own judgement.
• It is in your colleagues’ interests that issues are addressed, even if they don’t like hearing what you have to say – in the long run they will recognise your integrity and respect you for enabling their self-improvement.

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.

Context

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.

Challenge

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.

Success

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.

• Preparation – enter the discussion with notes about what you want to say.
• Starting – say that you want to discuss a performance issue on an informal basis.
• Set the context – make it clear that the purpose is an open and fair discussion and that you have not arrived at any predetermined conclusions.
• State the role of HR – inform your colleague that you have discussed the issue with the HR director/manager to convey that you have taken advice on its seriousness and also to demonstrate that you want to deal with the issue in the most appropriate manner.
• The issue – state the issue and describe what you think it is and the impact it is having.
• Give examples – support your analysis with some specific examples, which you cite as demonstrating the reality of the problem.
• Give more examples – retain further examples for later in the conversation.
• Provoke a discussion – ask your colleague to comment.

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:

• agreeing to a period of reflection, and a further meeting to discuss the issues again;
• involving the HR representative in a separate conversation with the colleague to provide a less emotionally-charged perspective from a people-professional;
• agreeing that the issue will be monitored and that ongoing feedback will be given;
• if necessary setting specific performance goals, with a future review.

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.

Pitfalls

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:

• the context has not been fully evaluated;
• you have allowed your own emotional response to dictate the preparation;
• the issue is presented in emotional rather than business terms;
• the issue is presented as one of personality rather than behaviour;
• you allow an emotional reaction to provoke an emotional one in yourself;
• the issue is not described with substantive evidence;
• there is inadequate time provided for the discussion, which gets truncated;
• you send signals that you are not focused on the conversation;
• there is no suggestion that there will be further feedback or discussion.

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.

Leaders’ checklist

• Be sure to evaluate the context, and don’t rush to hasty judgements – some issues may be transitional and will blow themselves out.
• When you perceive a difficult issue then it requires a one-to-one approach – be sure that you have clear evidence and examples.
• Be sure that you have a clear process in mind – do not allow vagueness or lack of preparation to be seen to diminish the importance of the issue.
• Do not allow emotional reactions to your comments to provoke an emotional response – be seen to stay cool.
• Involve HR if you feel this would facilitate the process of a colleague accepting that there are issues to be confronted.
• At all times be clear that the challenge is in your colleague’s interests and that you are doing it to help.
• Have clear, timetabled and measurable follow-up.