ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Joseph Grenny is the author of three bestselling books, Influencer, Crucial Conversations, and Crucial Confrontations.

READ MORE

Dear Crucial Skills,

I’m a manager in a tech company that seems to be clueless. While I know unemployment is high, management seems to be oblivious to the fact that we are losing some of our key people to poaching by competitors. We haven’t increased salaries in the past two years and I’ve personally lost three of my best people because our salaries are so far below market. My peers have seen similar losses.

I know HR is sympathetic—but senior management just doesn’t seem to care. We’re losing great people and it’s impeding our ability to get the work done. Should I just give up and cope?

Signed,
Exodus

Dear Exodus,

I’m going to assume that you’ve held crucial conversations about this issue with your immediate supervisor and HR. In our thirty years of studying influence, we’ve found the most direct and effective way to bring about change begins with these conversations. However, sometimes influence involves more than talk. Interpersonal influence is efficient and often incredibly effective, but if talk isn’t cutting it, you’ll have to do more to penetrate the status quo.

Let me suggest a couple of options.

1. The influence of data. People who successfully lose weight tend to weigh themselves daily. People who read international newspapers tend to talk more about foreign affairs. The “Gas Wars” of the 1970s began when fueling stations were required to post prices visible to passing motorists.

We each live in a certain “data stream.” The stream we live in brings us certain information. We read certain newspapers, attend certain meetings, receive certain reports, and interact with certain people. These sources of information profoundly affect our behavior. They set our mental agenda—decide what we care about, what we worry about, and what we believe is true.

The problem you’re up against is that your data stream involves a firsthand view of the reality and consequences of staff losses. Senior management’s data stream may not. If, for example, HR is reporting that staff turnover is 5 percent—which is low for your industry—senior management may see this number and assume all is well. According to you, this number obscures more than it reveals. You’re suggesting the quality of the turnover has changed substantially and you need to find a way to reveal that data to senior management. If what you’re saying is correct, then the kind of people who are leaving in that 5 percent are more critical to corporate success than a similar number two years ago. My challenge to you is to:

a. Confirm your assumption. There’s a possibility you are wrong. The turnover you’ve experienced may be atypical across the organization despite what your peers say. Or your perception of salary gaps may be wrong. Find out. Consult with HR—learn more about the data sources they draw from in setting their policy.

b. Change the data stream. There’s a principle in newspaper journalism that the lead point should be the opening sentence of an article. If you’re right about the turnover, influence HR to ensure their reports don’t “bury the lead” and that this data is presented to senior management.

2. The influence of stories. As influential as data is, it will not impel action with the same force as will a compelling anecdote. So in addition to influencing the data stream, arm those who will present the data with a story that illustrates the problem. The presentation may sound a bit like the following:

“The good news is that turnover is at an all-time low. The bad news is that almost all of our turnover is in key positions. Poaching has become an urgent concern. In prior years, ‘critical turnover’ averaged one technical lead per month, recently it has risen to three—a 300 percent increase.”

“Six months ago, for example, we lost Anja. As far as we can tell, she was offered 15 percent more by a competitor, plus a signing bonus. We have interviewed more than 150 candidates since then but haven’t found one qualified to fill Anja’s shoes at our current salary levels. The six-month hiring gap has left us paying overtime at a higher rate to cover her work. Anja is just one example—but is typical of what we’re dealing with across many departments.”

If you want your executives to feel and think as you do, you’ll need them to see what you see. Your challenge is to influence their data stream so they appreciate the reality you’re dealing with. As you do so, do your best to understand their data stream as well. But be warned, spending some time in their data stream may also change how you think and feel!

Best wishes,
Joseph

Joseph Grenny Influencer

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Joseph Grenny is the author of three bestselling books, Influencer, Crucial Conversations, and Crucial Confrontations.

READ MORE

Dear Crucial Skills,

Our organization took a hit last year and many people were laid off. I was lucky to stay but now I feel overwhelmed by the amount of work and responsibilities that I’m required to do in others’ absence. I don’t want to look like I can’t handle my workload and I especially don’t want to lose my job as a result of my complaints. How should I approach this tricky situation with my boss?

Signed,
The Survivor

You’re right to consider this a sensitive issue. If, when you leave this conversation, your boss thinks you’re ungrateful to be employed or a pain to have around, you have failed. Next time the ax swings, he or she may well say, “Hmmm . . . ‘Survivor’ seems to want a country club rather than a work place—let’s give him or her a LOT more free time.” That is clearly a bad outcome.

However, there is absolutely no reason you can’t have this crucial conversation—provided you approach it in a way that ensures your boss feels comfortable. In fact, if done right, this conversation will demonstrate even more powerfully why you should be at the bottom of any layoff list.

I highly recommend a new book called Indispensable by Monday written by Larry Myler. Larry’s research suggests there are fourteen behaviors that bosses prize highly in employees and that make them terribly reluctant to let these employees go. The good news is that the list of fourteen does not include sucking up, maintaining appearances, or “It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.” While these advantages may make a marginal difference, the most prized behavior for any employee comes when . . . drum roll . . . they bring in much more money than they cost.

Now, I’m not going to go into all the details of how any employee can have profit impact—irrespective of whether they are in a direct revenue role or a back office job. But I will suggest that the brilliance of Myler’s point is that if you frame the conversation with your boss in a way that shows your intention is to maximize your impact on your team and your company, you’re likely to find the freedom to raise any concerns you have.

So, here’s the question you must answer before you speak to your boss: What three to four things am I doing now as a result of layoffs that are distracting me from making my best and highest contribution to my team and company?

If you’re not careful, you’re likely to come across as a bureaucrat rather than a business person. If you come into the conversation with your list of gripes, complaining that you’re doing work that’s not in your job description, or that staffing levels are too low to keep up, you’re adding to your boss’s headaches without any compensating payoff. This isn’t about mutual purpose, it’s about your purpose. Unless your boss is a saint, he or she will likely feel put off and put upon by your approach. After all, your boss’s life probably got more complicated in the past year, too!

So, make a list of all the big tasks that fill most of your time, ask yourself the leverage question, then think about your team and the company’s best and highest use of your expertise. As you consider this question, you may want to take a peek at some of Myler’s fourteen suggestions for how you can make a more significant profit—or if you are in a government or nonprofit role, how you can make a more significant mission contribution. Use these fourteen behaviors to assess what your best and highest use is to the organization. Then prepare a proposal showing the benefit to the company if you decrease time in some lower leverage tasks—and how you might deal with the consequences of minimizing these tasks. For example, propose ways to free up time by any of the following approaches:

· Simplify
· Outsource
· Delegate
· Re-engineer
· Delay
· Eliminate

Now, don’t be disingenuous. Be honest that this will be good for the company and for you. Sympathize with your boss and others who are feeling the same pressures while candidly acknowledging that the added burden has distracted you from things that should be first priority.

My assistant, Joanne, approached me in exactly this way a couple of years ago. She was clearly distraught because quality was slipping in some areas due to her ballooning responsibilities. I knew from her work habits that this conversation had nothing to do with her looking for a serene and contemplative work life. It was about survival—and quality. She carefully detailed the tasks she thought made the biggest contribution. I was putty in her hands because she understood my needs so well that I had no disagreement with her list. Then she continued, “If I continue to do X, Y, and Z—I won’t be able to improve my response time and quality in these areas. At least that’s how it appears to me. If you can see something I’m missing, please tell me. I don’t want to shirk my work.” I couldn’t say a thing, other than, “We’ve got to either eliminate those tasks, or find other ways to get them done.”

She let out a sigh and said, “That’s my proposal too.”

We implemented all of her ideas, and she walked out of my office having convinced me that she was worth far more than what we pay her. Hopefully, someday, we’ll catch up on that!

Best wishes!
Joseph

Joseph Grenny Crucial Conversations

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Joseph Grenny is author of three bestselling books, Influencer, Crucial Conversations, and Crucial Confrontations.

READ MORE

Dear Crucial Skills,

My husband and I have $40,000 in credit card debt. We’ve made all kinds of budgets and set all kinds of goals but still can’t get together on this. We fight about it a lot and it’s become a real source of conflict for us. We both want to get out of debt, but one bad deed keeps leading to another. How can we stick to our budget?

Signed,
Good Intentions

Dear Good Intentions,

What a great question to kick off the New Year. I’m sure you’re not alone after a tough financial year—many of us have had to try to change our spending habits to help us weather everything from economic anxiety to a true financial famine. Fortunately, there’s a lot you can do to change your good intentions into good behavior.

First, I’d suggest you and your husband play a game together. Let’s call the game Name That Influence! The object of the game is to identify all the different sources of influence that are undermining your good intentions. You’ll be shocked at how long the list is. Here are three questions to help you generate some specific answers:

1. What visual images in your home get you thinking about spending rather than saving? (Hint: Do you longingly browse shopping pages on the internet? Do you have a Library of Congress-sized stack of catalogs by a comfortable reading chair?)
2. How do your interactions and conversations with friends or family affect your thoughts, plans, and actions toward spending? (Hint: Is shopping a social event?)
3. What sources of influence keep you from immediately counting the cost of your spending choices? (Hint: Do you buy with cash? Checks? Credit cards? Do you have “one-click” purchasing enabled on favorite Web sites?)

Set a goal with your husband to come up with at least a dozen different influences that both motivate and enable you to spend more than you should. Be honest with yourself and recognize your role in your current situation. As you do this, something very important will happen. You’ll realize the problem is not that the two of you are weak. The problem is that you are blind and outnumbered. You’re blind to the many sources of influence that are shaping your choices. And the one source working for you (your willpower) is hopelessly outnumbered by the sources working against you. (If you read our book Influencer: The Power to Change Anything, you’ll find you’re outnumbered 5 to 1. Not good odds!)

When you finish creating this list, your job is to change as many sources of influence as you can to support your good intentions. Dismantle those sources you know are encouraging your indulgence. Create positive influences that will keep saving top of mind, make it easier, and help you feel rewarded for following through.

For example, you could:

1. Make it a game. Create a progress chart for your savings goal. Keep it visible. Make a ritual of posting progress as a couple and generating the “completion endorphins” that come when you color in the next progress bar.

2. Banish temptation. Change your home page, delete tempting web pages, toss out magazines and catalogs or other “triggers” of spending impulses. Make no mistake—shopping generates dopamine in the same pleasure centers of the brain that cocaine does. You’re fighting a pleasure-driven habit and your best defense will be to minimize the temptations.

3. Make spending harder. Eliminate any structural enablers of mindless spending. For example, research shows people spend far less if they have to fork over cash than if they can simply slide a credit card through a slot. You might try carrying nothing but cash with you for six months. You’ll find this one physical change will profoundly affect your choices. You may also choose to undergo “plastic surgery” by cutting up your credit cards.

4. Change an accomplice into a friend. If shopping and spending are social activities, you’ll need to identify your accomplices. For example, if you and a girlfriend enjoy a regular outing at a mall, you’ll need to change that relationship. Eat some humble pie and let her know you are in desperate need of change. Ask for her help. If your husband is the accomplice, find a substitute activity you can do together. You won’t succeed by simply eliminating social activities; you’ll need to generate new ones. Our research shows that changing habits almost always involves engaging the help of at least two trusted friends.

These ideas may or may not be the right ones for you. But one thing I can promise you is that if you’ll examine your situation carefully, you’ll realize the problem is out there. There are myriad sources of influence working against you—and until you recognize and reverse them, you’ll continue behaving in a way you don’t want.

Best wishes for a prosperous, frugal, and fun New Year!

Joseph

Joseph Grenny Influencer

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Joseph Grenny is author of three bestselling books, Influencer, Crucial Conversations, and Crucial Confrontations.

READ MORE

Dear Crucial Skills,

Our company has a review policy called the 70/20/10 rule. This means that 70 percent of my staff must be rated “Meets Expectations,” only 20 percent can be rated “Exceeds Expectations,” and worst of all, 10 percent must be rated “Needs Improvement.”

I find this rating system unmotivating and unfair for many obvious reasons. Specifically, at the present, I don’t have anyone I’d describe as “Needs Improvement.” However, I must come up with two people to fit this category.

At the other end of the spectrum, more than 20 percent are exceeding expectations and deserve commensurate rewards—yet I must arbitrarily leave people out so I don’t exceed the quota.

I raised my concerns over this policy but was told I should always be able to find 10 percent who “Need Improvement.” This seems like a losing battle, but I’d like to encourage the decision-makers to rethink this policy.

Sincerely,
Frustrated Reviewer

 Dear Frustrated,

I find the performance appraisal system you’re describing to be as unjust as you do. However, I believe it was designed to address an even more egregious injustice.

Forced rating systems have been imposed on managers for decades because managers were failing to manage. The heart of good management is the speed and effectiveness with which managers hold crucial conversations. However, they typically put off holding crucial conversations for many months and, even when holding them, tends to gloss over the most fundamental messages.

I believe that forced ranking systems have been imposed on managers primarily because senior leaders believed that, without the compulsion of these systems, managers would continue to shrink from their responsibility to deal candidly, ethically, and professionally with performance problems. Managers are now being governed by unjust systems because so many failed to exercise ethical and leadership responsibilities in addressing performance problems willingly.

Now, with that said, most system responses to behavioral problems are doomed to fail. They produce unintended consequences of the kind you describe. They are brute force solutions to entrenched influence problems. Those familiar with our work on influence know that problems exist because there are six sources of influence that are perfectly aligned to produce the negative results you’re experiencing. To change those results, you must affect four or more of those sources of influence—nothing less will do.

Okay, soapbox aside, here are some thoughts as you decide how to be an ethical manager, a loyal employee, and a decent human being at all once.

1. Keep the spirit of the law. Given that the 70/20/10 system’s intent is good, first make sure you are not fooling yourself about the quality of your team and are stepping up to crucial conversations scrupulously—both in the interest of your organization and in the interest of your team members. You lose the moral authority to claim there is a “better way” than the 70/20/10 system if you aren’t an example of that better way yourself. For example, if you conclude that 40 percent of your team is in serious need of development, you should acknowledge that just as honestly as when you believe 40 percent deserve a rating of “Exceeds Expectations.”

2. Choose only from ethical options. When considering my options in confronting value conflicts in organizations, I distill them down to three. I can quit, stay and accept, or stay and influence. In other words, I could conclude that I would be a hypocrite to stay in an organization whose practices so conflict with my values. If you take this option, I’d suggest you use your exit as an opportunity to exert influence. In a clear and respectful way, detail what you admired in the company and all of the reasons you are reluctant to leave. Add your concern with this system and the inequities it made you participate in. One strong and clear voice like this can be remarkably effective at influencing change. It may not happen overnight, but it can plant seeds of doubt that spur reflection after you leave.

Second, you can stay and accept the circumstances. The only ethical way to do this is to decide to loyally fulfill your duties, even though you personally disagree with the system. If you stay in your current position at this company, carry out the 70/20/10 system as you are bound to do, and avoid badmouthing the system or the leaders who choose to continue with this program.

Third, you could stay and influence. You could, for example, decide that you are remaining only contingent on your success at influencing the system. If you do so, you must do so under the same ethical terms as the previous option. You must carry out the spirit and letter of your management duties. But at the same time, you can make your best effort to influence change. If this is the approach you take, I’d suggest a time limit to your efforts so you don’t become the angry rebel and waste your professional efforts in a lost cause.

If you choose to stay and influence change, here are a couple of options you could consider:

1. Invite study. If you have influence with HR or senior leadership, attempt to invite them to study the effectiveness of the 70/20/10 system rather than simply criticizing it with anecdotes. Honestly share your concerns with some of its effects, but also express openness that further study may convince you it’s the best approach. Encourage HR to declare what “dependent measures” they believe will be positively affected by the employment of the system, then study over time whether or not better results are following. It’s likely you’ll find that the system did produce some worthwhile effects—which will help you make recommendations more useful than just “throw out the bad system.”

2. Teach influence. As I mentioned earlier, the intent of the system is to influence managerial behavior. Our research into the six sources of influence is often a very effective way to help leaders see the limited success of their “single source” influence strategy. Share copies of Influencer: The Power to Change Anything with key leaders and attempt to engage them in reflecting on its application to managerial behavior in your organization.

I applaud your desire to do right by your people and your company and wish you the best as you make this crucial decision.

Warmly,
Joseph

Joseph Grenny Influencer

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Joseph Grenny is author of three bestselling books, Influencer, Crucial Conversations, and Crucial Confrontations.
READ MORE

Dear Crucial Skills,

I need advice on how to have a conversation with a subordinate about her provocative attire. It’s tricky because her clothes are clean and very nice—just more revealing than is appropriate for our office. To make it more complicated, I’m a man and I’m wondering if that should make the conversation any different than if she had a female supervisor. Her attire is holding her back from progressing and limiting how management can use and develop her skills. I’m nervous about discrimination and harassment accusations that could result if I handle this wrong. And yet, I know I need to have a conversation with her.

Revealing Conversation

 Dear Revealing,

Since you’re in a legally sensitive area, I asked Jaclyn, our HR Manager, for some advice. Between Jaclyn and myself, we’ll give you our best thoughts.

1. This is about policy not preference. The first thing you have to do is ensure your company has a clear dress and grooming standard in place. If they don’t, you are on shaky legal ground if you approach a specific employee and make this an issue of personal judgment. If the policy was implemented correctly, it should already have been communicated to all employees, and even signed by them to acknowledge their understanding and commitment. If this step is done right, your conversation will be much easier to hold. So, address any gaps in the policy deployment before opening your mouth with your employee.

2. Just the facts. When you sit down with her to explain where she’s out of compliance, be sure you scrupulously avoid mixing any of your judgments or “stories” into your description of the problem. For example, if you said, “Some of your clothes are a bit more provocative than appropriate for an office setting” you would cross the line into judgments. Rather, refer factually to the gap between what she wears at times and what the policy says. For example, “Our policy says ‘clothing should not be form-fitting or revealing of large portions of the legs, chest . . .” After sharing the relevant excerpts, you could ask how she thought her outfit yesterday, for example, compared to the requirements. Once again, the focus is not on judgments but on facts.

3. Make It Motivating. Mention that part of your interest in holding this conversation is a concern for her potential in the organization. Be sure to mention that. Let her know that a key reason for her to comply is to keep doors of advancement open. Using her career as motivation could help her to keep her commitment while also ensuring she understands your goodwill toward her.

4. Make It Safe. You’re likely to feel uncomfortable in the conversation because it is an area of sensitivity and you’ll be worried she’ll be offended or hold a grudge against you. That’s where make it safe skills come in. I’d encourage you to use contrasting after having shared your concerns to help her understand your motives and respect for her.

For example, you might say, “You and I have worked well together in the past and I want you to know that I do not want that to change. I have a great regard for the quality of your work and have no concerns in any area other than this. This is an uncomfortable conversation for me just as it is for you. I was nervous that you would misunderstand my reasons for holding it and hope you know it is only to ensure I’m doing right by the company while contributing to your development as well.” Using contrasting in this way can help her understand you are not simply doing this to be a prude or to make life hard for her.

You also asked about whether the conversation should be any different given that you are a man speaking with a woman. Jaclyn and I agree that it should not. Your mindset in this conversation is that you have an employee who is out of compliance with a clear policy. Period. You should describe the gap between her current practice and the existing policy factually and respectfully. Then conclude by both confirming her understanding and asking for her commitment to comply in the future.

On a personal note, as I wrote this to you, I reflected back on my first really sensitive conversation with an employee. I was an entrepreneur in a small company and had a half dozen people working for me. One had a tremendous hygiene problem that was offending customers. Sal was 25 years old. I was 17. He was a good friend. I hardly slept for a week as I obsessed over whether and how to deal with the problem. When I finally had the crucial conversation, my stomach was in knots, so I know how easy it is to turn inward when these challenges face us.

And that’s the idea I want to leave you with. The reason we do so poorly in so many of our crucial conversations is that we’re more concerned with how the problem and conversation affect us than we are with how they affect the other person. My selfishness in the situation with my employee made me more worried and less effective than if I had kept my attention on what I really wanted to do for Sal, my customers, and my colleagues.

At last I had the conversation. I don’t recall well enough what I said to be a judge of whether or not I was skillful. But I do remember what happened. Sal began bathing. He bought some new clothes. He got some badly needed dental care. His circle of friends increased. In the next year he got married—something he had longed to do for some time. Now, I don’t take credit for all of that. But in my quiet moments when I deliberate about whether or not to talk to someone I care about, I try to get outside of myself and focus on what I really want for those I care about.

Best wishes,
Joseph

Joseph Grenny Crucial Conversations

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Joseph Grenny is author of three bestselling books, Influencer, Crucial Conversations, and Crucial Confrontations.
READ MORE

Dear Crucial Skills,

I’m holding a performance review with one of my direct reports. The way we do it here is that he rates himself first. Next, I provide a rating and lots of data to support it. It’s not unusual for the employee to offer a higher rating than the supervisor, but this time it was much higher.

And here’s the tricky part. At the end of the performance review I’m supposed to assign improvement goals to him. I did, but he disagreed with all of them because he thinks he walks on water and I think he’s under water. Now he’s got goals I know he doesn’t believe he needs to work on. What next?

Signed,
Agree to Disagree

  Dear Agree to Disagree,

Sounds like an awkward moment. One I’ve been in myself. (We recently recreated one of these kinds of awkward performance reviews in a video.) It should be no surprise to those of us in leadership positions that we often have to confront people’s illusions about themselves. The fact that human beings have an incredibly inflated sense of efficacy is also no surprise. I just attended my son’s soccer game last Saturday and smiled when I heard parents from both sides swearing vehemently that the ref was obviously playing for the other team. We all think we do better, deserve more, and are perfectly informed far more often than is the case. (Note: The ref did, in fact, favor the other team).

The tricky thing in performance reviews is that even leaders might have an inflated sense of rightness. And these leaders are seated across the table from someone who likely suffers from the same affliction. So how can two imperfect people muddle their way toward truth?

The answer is to trust the dialogue. A better approximation of truth is much more likely to emerge through healthy dialogue. So here are a few tips to help the dialogue happen in the emotionally charged atmosphere of a performance review.

1. Decide how to decide. To avoid violated expectations, be clear up front that while your strong preference is to arrive at consensus about the rating and goals, at the end of the discussion you as the supervisor are charged with making the final decision. Do not overstate this—let your team member know that you are willing to spend the time and energy required to reach a common view of things and would only make an independent decision if it’s clear you cannot do so in a reasonable amount of time.

2. Don’t own the burden of proof—share it. Don’t get cornered into feeling like you have to convince your direct report that you are “right.” That’s not your job. Your job is simply to share your view. If you find yourself trying to convince your team member that your view is “right,” then you’ve stepped out of dialogue and into monologue. You need to step away from your own conclusions and recognize that they are just one view of the truth. Take a few deep breaths and open yourself to a different perspective. Share the responsibility for arriving at the “right” conclusion. Let him know that you’d like his help in making sense of a substantial amount of data. You should feel that together, you’re filling a pool of meaning, not that you’re trying to convince each other of your story.

3. Separate content and pattern. Often, the disconnect comes because the supervisor has seen a pattern and is attempting to help the employee recognize and take responsibility for this pattern. Yet the employee doesn’t own up to these behaviors. Instead, he or she explains away one data point after another.

For example, you say, “On a number of occasions, customers have complained that you were brusque or impatient with them.” There’s the pattern you’re trying to establish.

To which your team member says, “Can you give me an example?”

Now, here’s where it gets slippery. At this point, you MUST give him examples. You can’t expect him to just nod robotically to the pattern you’re alleging he has demonstrated. So you give an example: “Last Friday a customer said you dropped his project on the counter and walked away without saying a word.” To which he says, “I remember that—and that’s not what happened. Yes, I didn’t say anything, but I smiled and waved and turned to get a phone call that had been on hold.”

This is a tricky point in the crucial confrontation because something subtle just happened. If you don’t catch it, you’ll end this performance review feeling unsatisfied and at odds. You’ll avoid this outcome if you can recognize what your team member just did. What was it?

He changed the subject from a pattern conversation to a content conversation. You’re now discussing what happened last Friday rather than what happens as a pattern.

Here’s what you have to do to move back to the right conversation: “I see—and I can see how you might have thought you handled things right in that instance. But what I need your help with is the pattern that has emerged. I can share three different examples with you—and there may be extenuating circumstance in each—and yet the pattern is more consistent with you than with other members of the team. That’s what I’d like us to discuss and resolve.”

Do you see what just happened? First, I tried to share responsibility for addressing the pool of meaning. Second, I moved the conversation from content back to pattern. And finally, I set expectations that if he continues to give explanations for every element of the pattern, he’ll still need to address why the pattern is different for him than for other team members.

Now, even if you do all of these things, you still may agree to disagree. In which case, you’ll have to lean back on suggestion number one. You could end with something like: “Well, it seems like we see things differently. I appreciate your patience and hope you can see that I have sincerely wanted to understand your view, as well. Yet I still have to make my best judgment about what’s going on and how to move ahead. I apologize if I am wrong in that judgment, but I ask that you respect the position I’m in and make efforts to respond. I still believe this pattern of brusqueness with customers is an issue you should address. To do so, I ask you to do the following. . .”

Your question demonstrates how seriously you take your coaching role. I applaud your efforts and wish you luck as you sort through your own self-illusions and work to be a positive influence on some of our similarly afflicted colleagues. In the meantime, I’ll keep trying to convince the ref that he’s playing favorites!

Warmly,
Joseph

Joseph Grenny Crucial Confrontations

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Joseph Grenny is author of three bestselling books, Influencer, Crucial Conversations, and Crucial Confrontations.

Dear Crucial Skills,

Our hospital offers Crucial Conversations Training, so I was greatly disappointed to witness a recent firing that felt very wrong. A manager who had been with the organization for fifteen years was devoted to her job, but at times, seemed overwhelmed with its demands. Many were concerned about her poor follow-up on projects.

She was recently fired and escorted out of the building. The current leadership says that “for confidentiality reasons” they cannot speak about the incident but she does not feel anyone ever voiced concerns about her performance. Moreover, on further inquiry, it appears that firings of this type almost universally occur in this way at our center.

I have been trying to “Master My Story,” but this feels wrong. I want to speak up but I don’t know where to start. Do you have any ideas?

Signed,
Where to begin,

Dear Where to begin,

I’m happy to help. But before I do, let me offer one more challenge to your “story.” The “facts” in your letter make it entirely possible that your company did everything right. Few companies are public about something as private as performance management. You grant in your letter that this manager, while committed to the company, was not exactly a stellar contributor. And the fact that her dismissal was a surprise to many does not necessarily mean she was not given prior warning and lots of help to make improvements.

With that said, I applaud your desire to have a just and respectful workplace. I believe that, in such a workplace, being dismissed should never be a surprise. Expectations should be so clear, and feedback about performance against those expectations so candid, that everyone will understand the consequences of their current choices. If you believe your organization is not living up to this standard, you can try to have a positive influence by stepping up to some crucial conversations.
Here’s how you can change performance management practices in your workplace.

1. Influence with action. The greatest influence in the world is the influence of norms. When people see visual models of desirable behavior, and when that behavior becomes widespread, it also becomes self-sustaining. However, few people understand that norms change one person at a time. When someone offers a living example of behavior that solves a problem, others can be powerfully influenced by that one person. The behavior often catches on one person at a time.

I once attended a formal meeting in a sweltering hot room. All the men in jackets and ties were absolutely dying from the heat. Everyone wanted to remove the excess clothing, but no one was sure it was “okay.” They kept looking at the big boss with pleading eyes hoping he would make the first move. Finally, one man—not even the most senior person in the room—arrived a bit late, gasped at how hot it was, loosened his tie and removed his jacket. The person next to him looked at him, and slowly removed his jacket. Almost immediately, three or four others did the same. Then the big boss did. Then everyone did. Everyone desired change—they just needed a reasonable person to set the example. Be the reasonable person.

2. Influence with words. While offering a splendid example, you can also accelerate change by speaking up about better ways of managing. But be careful, if you don’t speak up well, you’ll come across as a critic or a bore. Here are some things to keep in mind so you come across as credible and useful, rather than whiny and weak.

Share the facts. It’s sad but true that nothing is more rare in organizations than data-driven arguments. Opinion leaders are often the ones who have done the homework to marshal facts. This doesn’t have to require research teams. It could be that you simply send an informal e-mail to a handful of people you know who left the organization involuntarily and ask a few questions. When you talk to your colleagues and can say, “You know, the last four people we let go report that they did not have any prior warning…” your argument sounds much different from when you simply complain about how your friend was mistreated.

Motivate with natural consequences. After sharing data, share consequences. But be careful to share those that your audience cares about. Don’t be so immersed in your own agenda that you suffer debilitating selfishness. When you’re so absorbed in how the problem affects you, you tend to communicate in ways that make it unlikely others will be motivated to action. You may, for example, influence your colleagues to manage performance better by saying, “I’m aware of five people who updated their resumes when Enid was fired. They saw her dismissal as evidence that no one is safe.”

Under- rather than over-state. When sharing natural consequences and data, never make the mistake of overstating your data. When you do, you undermine your credibility and decrease your influence. In the moment when we’re doing it, we delude ourselves into thinking we’ll achieve the opposite. But people these days are so accustomed to bombastic pundits who use exaggeration as their primary communication tool that we immediately dismiss those who resort to inflammatory excess. Hint: Never start a sentence with “never” or “always”—you’re almost always overstating your data when you do.

Frame criticisms by acknowledging tradeoffs. When you want to offer a critique of what leaders have done, avoid assuming they were simply weak-willed or dumb. In many cases, they already considered some of the concerns you are about to raise but there were other tradeoffs involved. When you’re stepping up to a crucial conversation in which you want to challenge a decision someone made, do your best to imagine potential tradeoffs they faced. Acknowledge those tradeoffs before sharing your additional view of the consequences.

I admire your desire to influence the culture and character of your organization. I hope these ideas help you change your corporate culture for good.

Warmly,
Joseph

Joseph Grenny Crucial Conversations

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Joseph Grenny is author of three bestselling books, Influencer, Crucial Conversations, and Crucial Confrontations.

Dear Crucial Skills,

I have always tried hard to contribute to my company. And yet, when I went to the Crucial Conversations Training, I realized I often did not express myself when I should to avoid making waves. This quality was actually cited on my yearly reviews as a weakness.

This year, I tried to change that. I confidently voiced my disagreements with processes or impending decisions in a tactful and respectful way—always supporting the final decision, even if I disagreed with it. Unfortunately, I got hit “right between the eyes” on my latest yearly review by my supervisor and was told that I undermined management. The few times I spoke up or disagreed were cited as examples! Where do I go from here?

Signed,
Right between the eyes

Dear Right between the eyes,

I’m sorry for the disappointing comments on your latest annual review. Unfortunately, others have experienced the same shocking response when attempting to change the way they deal with crucial conversations. Let me suggest four reasons this may have happened and some advice to reflect on.

1. The devil they don’t know. Though you may have raised your crucial conversations perfectly, people were unprepared for your new behavior. They were prepared for the “devil they know” and interpreted your new behavior through the old lens. In other words, if they believe you only say 10% of what you really think, then the temperate concerns you raised probably appeared like violent opposition. My advice: if your behavior is about to change, always explain it in advance to those who might misinterpret it. You may do well to sit down with your boss and explain what you tried to do last year, and ask where you went amiss. This conversation will engage your boss in a dialogue that will force him or her to articulate his or her conclusions about you and potentially reconsider them as you share the intent behind your past behavior.

2. Not what but how. It could also be that your perception of your behavior is inaccurate. You may believe you came across very respectfully and tentatively, but that’s not how it appeared to others. For example, just because you use an even tone of voice does not mean people perceive you as respectful. If, for example, you said, “I disagree with the new policy because I think it is unfair,” no matter how calm your tone, your boss could hear it as insubordinate. My advice: ask for feedback as you make these attempts. Make your boss your coach by following up after a meeting where you tried new skills and ask what you did well or could have done better. This gives you a chance to course correct not only your behavior, but your boss’s “story” about your behavior.

3. Be clear about what you “don’t mean.” You may have been the picture of Crucial Conversations perfection and yet others felt defensive because they didn’t want dialogue, they wanted support. So, they saw any level of question as opposition. When you begin to change the culture of an organization where candor is not common, you need to go to extra lengths to clarify what you “don’t mean” after asking tough questions. My advice: take great care to let people know that you will support the final decision, and understand that this is not your decision to make. If you raise questions without clarifying any misunderstandings about where you stand on supporting the final decision, others are left to guess on their own—and may do so to your detriment.

4. Check in after disagreeing. Finally, I strongly suggest that after a public disagreement (even a respectful one), you follow up with any key players. Take advantage of the increased safety one-on-one to ask if you offended them and assure them of your respect and support. Often people put on a “game face” in the meeting, but are hurt or offended inside and carry that forward. This is especially true in a “nice” culture where people are very uncomfortable with public disagreement.

The bottom line is that you now have crucial conversations to hold with your boss and others. If you “Start with Heart”—clarify your personal intention to learn and improve—then you’re less likely to be defensive. Share your data—the comments from your performance review. Share your intentions—what you attempted last year. And ask them to help you understand what you should have done differently.

If you do this well, it’s likely to be a two-way learning experience. Others will learn more about you and your true intentions. And you may pick up a skill or two for avoiding future offense.

By all means, don’t give up on your goal to speak more honestly and respectfully. Make this year a year to “Analyze and Adjust” as you learn how to build on last year’s good efforts.

Best wishes,
Joseph

Joseph Grenny Crucial Conversations

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Joseph Grenny is author of three bestselling books, Influencer, Crucial Conversations, and Crucial Confrontations.

Dear Crucial Skills,

I have a big problem that I’m sure other office managers face. How does a manager stop the rumor and gossip mill? Nothing is said that isn’t around the office within five minutes and even reaching the branch office within an hour.

Signed,
Surround-Sound

Dear Surround-Sound,

Any courageous individual can begin eliminating rumors by refusing to pass them along and by not silently watching as they spread their poison. Find respectful ways of holding crucial conversations with anyone at any point in the rumor flow. Here are three steps (I wish I could say they were easy, but they are effective!) that will help in your rumor-fighting efforts:

Step #1:
When someone passes along a rumor to you, don’t merely refuse to pass it on. Respectfully and directly share with the person (a) your intention to not let this information go any further and (b) the reasons you believe passing along this kind of information is hurtful. The better you help others see the negative consequences of their actions, the more likely they are to limit this behavior in the future.

Step #2:
Identify those who might have influence with the people spreading rumors and engage them in a similar crucial conversation. For example, you may be aware of a half-dozen people who seem to be the information nexus in your office. If you have a strong enough relationship with one or two of them, approach them directly. If not, you may have some influence with someone else who has influence with them. Engage this person and see if he or she agrees on the merits of approaching these individuals.

Step #3:
If you have information that could discredit a rumor, share it. Rumors, like mushrooms, require darkness to grow. Pull groups together and use your STATE skills to share your path about the rumor. Shed light on the topic. Help others see why you’ve concluded there are inaccurate rumors floating around. Then, share the information you believe to be more credible. Be sure to make it safe so that you can engage people in dialogue—not monologue—in these sessions.

For example, years ago I worked with a leader who during times of stress and change held “Rumor of the Week” meetings. The purpose was to replace rumors with accurate information. When he couldn’t answer a question for reasons of propriety or because decisions had not yet been made, he would acknowledge that information wasn’t available and commit to share the information as soon as possible. His forthrightness and unfailing honesty made these sessions a much more highly valued source of information and increased his influence within the organization. The rumor mill still ran, but with far less efficiency.

Warmly,
Joseph

Joseph Grenny Crucial Conversations

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Joseph Grenny is author of three bestselling books, Influencer, Crucial Conversations, and Crucial Confrontations.

READ MORE

Dear Crucial Skills,

I read your survey results on long-distance loathing with great interest. I work for a multi-site corporation and approximately two-thirds of our staff are in one city while the rest are dispersed over five smaller sites. Despite significant efforts to bring our teams together, there is still a strong sense of us and them. Can you recommend any strategies to make long-distance working relationships more cohesive?

Teamwork at a Distance

Dear Teamwork,

Yes! There is a great deal you can do to build teamwork among widely dispersed people. A good way to begin organizing your change effort is to think about all the sources of influence that create conflict and alienation in your current environment.

So first you need to ask, “What can I do to increase conflict?”

It turns out you can get almost any two people to resent each other if you do a number of things:

• Give them a separate identity or goals.
• Make it difficult for them to communicate.
• Have them associate with a social group that already resents the others.
• Make it difficult for them to help each other or limit their communication to official channels by imposing a chain of command.
• Reward them for individual achievements or for supporting those in their geography but not the larger team.
• Keep them physically isolated—allow few means for them to communicate and then only in sterile ways (voice only, e-mail, etc.)

Now, if you’ve read our book, Influencer: The Power to Change Anything, you’ll notice I’ve just outlined six unique sources of influence. I’ve also described reality for most dispersed teams. And finally, what I’ve done is describe a set of influences that will make it inevitable that individuals will, at best, tolerate those in other locations and at worst despise them.

Now some readers might think “inevitable” is too strong a word. But take a look at the findings from our recent Long Distance Loathing study:

• Employees are 243 percent more likely to have problems with distant coworkers than co-located coworkers.
• Employees report that these problems are much more difficult to solve and last much longer.
• In order to cope with annoying distant coworkers rather than step up to crucial conversations they resorted to the following tactics when working with these colleagues: avoided their phone calls, stopped reading their e-mails, avoided working with them altogether, witheld information from them, criticized them to others, and challenged their decisions.

So, what can a leader do? Well, if the six sources of influence I already outlined are the reason for the resentment, then distance doesn’t make conflict inevitable. Distance is only one source of influence. You’ve got five other sources you can use to create a cohesive team. However, it will require work. It will require intentional effort. But what human change doesn’t?

Here are a few examples for using multiple sources of influence:

Source 1: Personal Motivation—Make a greater effort than usual to create team identity and purpose. Have a mission, charter, and operating rules. Have a team name. If possible, have periodic face-to-face meetings. Take extra care as new members join the team. Create as much face time as possible so people connect at a human level, not just a task level.

Source 2: Personal Ability—Build much better crucial conversations skills. This isn’t just a self-serving argument—it is an essential skill-set for ensuring people don’t resort to the dysfunctional games we describe above.

Sources 3 & 4: Social Motivation and Ability—bWork to build bonds of friendship and trust. Begin meetings by having one or more people share a personal anecdote. Have the team work together on volunteer tasks, personal betterment tasks, etc. For example, have them raise money for United Way as a team, run races in their communities, or come together to build a Habitat for Humanity home.
Have team members from different locales meet together at client sites or work together on the same client’s projects.

Set the norm that everyone holds everyone accountable—you can’t afford to involve a manager.

Schedule frequent, formal feedback sessions—times when you specifically ask about what’s working and what’s not. When you have a concern, talk it out—don’t act it out.

Source 5: Structural Motivation—Use small prizes or awards—maybe competitions—that provide the occasion for recognition. Distance often removes informal opportunities to say “thanks.” Make sure you frequently let people know you are aware of their contribution and appreciate their work.

Source 6: Structural Ability—Provide daily or weekly progress on key business indicators that track the team’s performance.
Make sure people have visual reminders of their team members—photos that are near their phones or computers.

Create a Web site, Facebook page, or other social networking hub for sharing information. Stay on top of technical barriers—for example, often small changes to the organization’s network will deny access to remote workers.

If possible, have a physical “teaming space” where team members can meet. You may also have shared workspaces where people can set up temporary offices for more intensive face-to-face interactions.

Ask team members to define their core work hours—to build in some predictability as they attempt to contact each other.

Bottom line: If you systematically and intentionally counter the sources of influence that create conflict, you’ll inevitably see cooperation. Conflict is not the natural human condition. We are social creatures at the level of our DNA. All that’s needed is wise leadership to bring out the best and truest parts of our nature!

Good luck,
Joseph

Joseph Grenny Influencer