Dear Crucial Skills,

In my organization, I keep hearing that senior management does not empower middle management and that middle management does not empower the front line workers.

How can Crucial Conversations help every level feel more empowered?

Signed,

Seeking Power

Dear Seeking Power,

When the empowerment movement became popular in the mid 80s, the results were mixed. The intent was to allow individuals who were closest to information to take part in decision making.

The rationale was simple enough–just because you’re at the top of the organization doesn’t mean you have the information you need to make informed decisions and just because you’re at the bottom doesn’t mean you don’t have the information. In most organizations, this meant that many of the decisions that had formerly been made by mangers or supervisors would now be made by people somewhere down the chain.

The reason the empowerment movement experienced mixed results was because it was frequently misunderstood. Hourly employees were often erroneously informed that now they would take part in most, if not all, of the decisions. In their minds, they weren’t empowered unless they were granted permission to make all decisions, or at least play a big role in them. This, of course, was untrue and caused a lot of people to feel disappointed, even betrayed.

The solution to problems with empowerment often lies in clarifying expectations. The goal of empowerment is not to lower decision making, but to allow individuals who have access to the most complete and accurate information to use it to make informed choices–where choices are an option. It’s important to make this distinction because even if you have a great deal of information, it doesn’t necessarily mean you have a choice.

For example, when it comes to deciding what to do at work, much of what we do comes in the form of a command. We have no choice. The marketplace sets the price, the customer sets the delivery date, the government sets the safety standard, etc. Even the president of a company receives much of his or her work in the form of a command. That’s just how things are.

Even when someone within your organization does get to make a choice, it doesn’t mean that you personally get to decide. The greater the number of people affected by a decision, the more difficult it would be to involve all of them in making the choice. For example, when deciding where to move a new office that houses 200 people, you aren’t going to bring all 200 into a room and talk until everyone agrees. All are affected, all have a huge stake, and yet involving everyone is simply too unwieldy. That’s why we have a representative government. We don’t make laws by consensus; we select a handful of people to make the choice for us. Within corporations, we make many decisions by consulting with people, and then allowing a much smaller group–often a committee–to actually make the choice.

Problems arise with the consulting process when we ask people for their input (consulting with them) but they think that they have the final say. They think the decision will be made by consensus. You’re in a consulting mode, and others think they’re actually deciding. Avoid this common mistake by (1) clarifying that you’re consulting with people and (2) identifying who will eventually make the final choice. This lets people know that they themselves won’t be making the final choice as well as who they need to talk to if they want to be heard.

The role of healthy dialogue in decision making should be clear. Talk openly about who is making key decisions and why. If you’re being given a mandate over which you have no control, clarify that the decision has been made and it’s your job to decide how to do it. If you do have a choice and you think many people need to be involved, then consult with them and let them know exactly what you’re doing.

Finally, when everyone needs to come to a shared decision (when you’re making a decision by consensus), clarify that you won’t move on until everyone is in agreement. This is where dialogue is most important. Everyone needs to have a say. You have to make it safe for those who disagree to speak openly, while the group is still talking about the issue. Encourage dissenting views. Play devil’s advocate. Call on people who haven’t said much to ensure that they get a chance to speak. Make it clear that there is no room for pretending to agree, waiting for the meeting to disburse, and then trying to undo the decision by talking to people one-on-one. Bring the group together and stick with the issue until everyone willingly supports the choice. This doesn’t mean that everyone gets their first choice, but that they will support whatever decision is made, as if it were their first choice.

Now, let’s move to a gray area. When members of one level of the organization complain that members from the level above them don’t empower them, it’s time to talk about who makes what choices and why. One group thinks they have adequate information and skill to make certain choices, but aren’t being giving the opportunity to choose. They feel unnecessarily constrained or micromanaged. This plays itself out in a variety of forms. For instance, they only have decision authority over a small dollar figure. They need signatures from two levels above them–from people who have less information and only slow things down on matters that feel routine. Those who are doing the constraining obviously feel the need to do so. They fear that if they don’t weigh in with their point of view, people will make poor choices.

So, how do you decide who’s right and who’s wrong?

Once again, it’s time for open dialogue. As a team, list the decisions you routinely make and who makes them–including approvals, budgets, policies, and signatures. Then decide as a group if the decision is being made by the right person or persons and by the right method. Take on the decisions that you think are being handled poorly. Where do you feel as if you are unduly constrained and why? Are there places where you feel the opposite–abandoned and given too much responsibility–given your skill set and access to information? Finally, make sure you discuss areas where you feel second guessed. You’re given authority but if things don’t go right, people are all over you. When does this happen and why?

As you can see, when it comes to empowerment, there’s plenty of room for holding crucial conversations. But before you say a word, make sure you’ve thought through the issues I’ve just described.

Good Luck!

Kerry Patterson

Dear Crucial Skills,

My current job is being eliminated, and unless I find another position in the company, I could be facing a layoff after twenty-two years with the company. The job I would really like to have reports to a manager I used to work for and with whom I didn’t get along.

The manager and I never resolved our differences. I am intimidated by this person. I seem to say and do things that set him off–certainly without intention. I want this person to understand that I have a great deal of respect for his intellect, for his accomplishments, and for his leadership. But I do not want to come across as a brown-noser, and certainly, I would like for him to consider me as a serious contender for the vacant position in his group.

Any suggestions that you might have for me in terms of my approach with this manager would be greatly appreciated.

Signed,

Very Anxious

Dear Very Anxious,

I couldn’t think of a better example of a situation where a crucial conversation must be held. Congratulations on recognizing it. So often we fool ourselves into thinking we’re coping with avoiding a crucial conversation, while we act in ways that perpetuate and even deepen the problem. You are right on target in believing that a failure to address the relationship problem will affect the outcome.

In truth, this crucial conversation is somewhat easier than many others. The reason is that your goal is just to find out what you were doing wrong in the past relationship. It’s always helpful to examine your own role in relationship problems, but when your very motivation for a crucial conversation is–as you said–to find out what you say and do that “sets him off”–you’re in a great place. You’ve applied the “Master My Stories” principle marvelously.

Second comment before some advice: To paraphrase the objective you described, your goal is to be honest and not pathetic. You have two “contrasting” challenges: 1) You want to discredit the story you think he holds about your view of him and help him see how you truly see him (you respect his intellect and leadership); 2) you want to express interest in the job, but without seeming like you’re pretending the relationship was fine.

I set up these “contrasting” statements because they help you design the opening lines of the crucial conversation. Your goal in these first lines is to “Make It Safe.” You’ll do it by helping him understand what your intentions are and aren’t, and what your view of him is and isn’t. By ensuring mutual purpose and mutual respect in this way, you’ll help him feel safe, and you’ll safeguard his accurate perception of your intentions.

For example: “Thanks for making some time. I’d like to throw my hat in the ring for this job. And yet in doing so I worry about a couple of misperceptions. I worry, for example, that based on some of the tension in our past working relationship you might think I don’t support you. I want you to know I have a high regard for your intellect and leadership. I also worry that in saying this now, I will be seen as disingenuous.”

That’s the opener–you’ve clarified your intentions and your respect while avoiding misperception of either. Now, we’ll open the main topic:

“I want to acknowledge that things weren’t always smooth between us, and in some ways I’m confused about why. My goal in this conversation is to get feedback from you about what I was doing that didn’t work for you and see if there’s a way to make it work better in the future. If there isn’t, I would not want the job–or to saddle you with me! If there is, I would welcome the chance to work with you.”

Here you’ve clarified the topic, and also avoided his perception that you’re begging or masking by being clear that you won’t accept the position at any price–both for your benefit and his.

The spirit of your question is so mature that I truly believe you’ll be able to get through this conversation.

Best of luck in your crucial conversation, and in your career.

Joseph

  Dear Crucial Skills,

What do you recommend as a first step when an irate employee comes into a supervisor/manager’s office and begins to shout out a complaint and demand immediate action?

Signed,

Under Attack

Dear Under Attack:

When I was asked if I’d be willing to answer a new question that had come in, I remember thinking, “I hope it’s something like the following:”

- I have a colleague who splits infinitives. How can I deal with this?

- Last week I asked my son to study ten hours and he only studied nine. How can I hold him accountable?

- My computer is eight months old and I need a new one. How can I get my boss to support my work needs?

But no luck. I get to answer this tough one. A serious one indeed.

When we do our training sessions, we show videos where a colleague, boss, or family member flies off the handle. Some participants say, “That’s way over the top. That would never happen here.” And we can understand that. Other participants, however, raise their hands and with energy say, “Oh, I’ve seen much worse.” I bring this up to suggest that many people do face situations like the one represented in the question.

So here is a response as first steps:

1. First, make sure you are safe. This means physically safe. There are too many incidents of workplace attacks in the news. How do you ensure your safety? Immediately make sure that there are other people visible. Make sure your door is open. Step into the hall to be close or visible to other people. You can often sense in the situation how much your physical safety is risk, but not always. Don’t take any chances.

2. Instead of jumping in to resolve the concern and running the risk of escalating the situation, address the other person’s emotions directly: “I can see this is a serious matter to you. When you talk that loudly, it becomes uncomfortable for both of us. I’d appreciate it if you could lower your voice. I want to listen to you and understand what you want, but I want it to be safer for both of us. Can we take a two-minute break?” This gives you both a chance to calm down and prepare for a more productive conversation. It also gives you the opportunity to make sure the situation is safe–to open the door, get someone’s attention, etc.

3. Find out what is making the situation so “unsafe” for the other person that he or she is shouting. If you explore others’ reasons, you might be able to help understand the data that’s driving their story and fueling their emotions. Once you understand their stories and their data, you’ll know where to begin in resolving their concerns.

4. If these kinds of behaviors are a pattern for the other person, you can not only mention that (“This is the third time you’ve come in upset and shouting. Please calm down”), you can also get an agreement about what is acceptable behavior the next time he or she has an issue to bring up. Clarifying this expectation and coaching the person will help him or her understand what behavior is unacceptable and what he or she should do instead.

I think it’s fair to talk about and then move toward progressive discipline if this kind of behavior is not eliminated.

In summary, make sure you are safe, make sure the other person knows you want it to be safe for both of you, and then deal with the issues that the person is bringing to your attention. Finally, and importantly, deal with his or her behavior and what needs to improve.

Best wishes,

Al Switzler