ABOUT THE AUTHOR

David Maxfield is coauthor of the New York Times bestseller, Influencer.

READ MORE

Dear Crucial Skills,

At our organization, we expect our employees to be ready to care for patients at the start of their shift. But I have several employees who are far in the disciplinary path because they consistently “clock-in” a minute or two late. Of course, they would have been on time if “the water main hadn’t broken,” or they “hadn’t been stuck behind a school bus.” These employees feel the policy is punitive, unfair, and intolerant; and they have the empathy of the early arrivers. Help!

Needing Discipline

First, let me congratulate you for confronting the problem early and consistently, so that the late arrivers are already “far in the disciplinary path.” The most common mistake we make is to let these kinds of problems slide, and as a result, give our tacit permission for bad behavior. Here are a few tips for confronting your late arrivers:

1. Make sure the rule is clear. If you inherited this problem and your predecessor gave his/her tacit permission to let people come in late, you will want to give “fair warning” before beginning to enforce the policy. You will want to talk to the team, and specifically to the late arrivers, to explain the policy and to let them know that you will be enforcing it.

2. Have the crucial confrontation. You usually don’t notice the first time an employee comes in late, you notice when it’s become a pattern. The key is to have the conversation as soon as you realize someone is consistently coming in late. Describe the gap between what you expect and what you’ve observed, and probe for the cause of the problem.

Problems are caused by motivation (the person doesn’t share your priority) or ability (the person is unable or has difficulty complying) or a combination of both. If your employee doesn’t share your priority for arriving on time (motivation), explain the natural consequences for his or her patients, peers, and unit. If necessary, explain the imposed consequences involved in your organization’s disciplinary path.

If the person is having difficulty arriving on time (ability), ask for his or her ideas for making it happen. Encourage the employee to develop a plan that will work for him or her. But don’t allow ability blocks to become excuses. The person needs a plan that results in on-time arrival.

Often, the person will end up with both short-term and long-term plans. The long-term plan might be to get his or her car repaired; the short-term plan might be to get a ride with his or her spouse. By the end of this crucial confrontation, the person should explicitly agree on who will do what by when. Take care that you don’t transfer the burden to your back. People need to develop a viable solution that they buy into. And they need to understand that, if their solution doesn’t work, consequences will be imposed.

3. Impose the consequences. It sounds as if you have arrived at this step. If you don’t think you had a full and frank crucial confrontation, then feel free to have it now. However, if you have already had the crucial confrontation, the latecomers have already agreed on a plan, and they have failed to live up to their agreements, it’s time to impose consequences.

Take care to involve the right people in your up chain—your manager and HR—where appropriate. Try to avoid blindsiding anyone.

Before you meet with an employee, take some time to get your head and your heart right. Ask yourself what you really want—you want the person to be successful somewhere, but you can’t continue the costs to patients and your team. Then meet with the employee and explain the situation—you established a plan you both agreed to, and the employee has failed to live up to it—and the next step in the disciplinary process. Master your stories, and keep the dialogue professional. Create as much safety as possible, but understand that the employee is likely to be hurt or angry.

4. Dealing with others. When an employee is terminated, it’s normal for other employees to feel sympathy for that employee. It’s also normal for people to feel some fear about whether they will be next. You can’t share personnel information or feed the rumor mill. My guess is that, while many will have sympathy and empathy for the person, they will also feel relief that they won’t have to carry that person’s load any longer.

Best wishes for this next period. You should feel proud of yourself for stepping up to these tough conversations. Without your actions, problems like these would linger, festering in your team and undermining your ability to treat your patients.

Best,
David

David Maxfield Crucial Confrontations

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Al Switzler is author of three bestselling books, Influencer, Crucial Conversations, and Crucial Confrontations.

READ MORE

Dear Crucial Skills,

With the recent H1N1 scare, I would appreciate any advice on approaching colleagues in a healthcare institution—usually managers and MDs—to stay home when they are sick rather than feel obligated to come to work. I would also appreciate any advice on motivating them to get immunized against the flu without having to force them.

Fighting the Flu

 Dear Fighting,

The recent H1N1 situation illustrated the importance of motivating someone to do something they don’t want to do.

What can we learn about motivation from looking at the situation where people are sick but feel obligated to come to work? As we discuss in Crucial Confrontations, there are a few key concepts that provide the foundation for this discussion.

Consequences Motivate. There are consequences that occur naturally, and there are consequences that are imposed or enforced by others. People make decisions to act based on the consequences they anticipate. As a result, motivation is personal because people see and anticipate different consequences. Almost subconsciously, people assess the positive and negative consequences that are most likely to occur and then they act based on those assumptions.

Help Others See Consequences. We can motivate others by helping them see both the obvious and the more obscure consequences. In your situation, this includes consequences to self, to coworkers, to patients, to coworkers’ and patients’ families, to finances, to reputation, and to the quality of work. When we help others see and feel the consequences, people can change their desire to act in certain ways.

So let’s separate some of the issues in this case. For example, the manager is aching and coughing and trying to decide if she should go to work. What are the consequences of staying home? Positive consequences are that she will feel better physically. Sipping hot chocolate and lounging around the fireplace sounds pretty good. Also, she won’t get anyone else sick. However, she’s not sure she’s that sick and she assumes the probability of getting someone else sick is fairly low.

Negative consequences include not getting paid because she has exceeded her paid time off. This is particularly glaring because she has several bills that are due. She will also miss two meetings because delaying them is impossible. Catching up when she returns will be next to impossible. And while some people might have bad thoughts about her coming to work sick, she can probably avoid these people. Even if she doesn’t avoid them, they probably won’t speak up any way.

The combined value of the anticipated consequences makes the decision easy. If she goes to work, she will get paid, get important work done, and it is highly unlikely she will get anyone sick. More importantly, no one will say anything to discourage her decision. Take note that for a doctor, the financial and productivity consequences might be even more costly and the likelihood that anyone would speak up to the doctor is almost nil.

So as someone who cares about the consequences of spreading germs, what do you do? Here is some advice.

First: Manage expectations as a group around not coming in when sick.
Excellent performance begins with clear expectations. When we make agreements, we often agree on the who, the what, and the how; but we would improve motivation if we focused on the why. Have a discussion about the reasons you are making this agreement and clarify the possible positive and negative consequences. Why should people not come to work when they are sick? Why should they get immunized? Look at it from the perspective of the sick person. What will they lose? What will they gain? What will happen to colleagues and patients?

In addition to sharing the facts, share real stories of what happened in your hospital. Share the story of the nurse who picked up a virus at work and passed it on to her mother who was now in the intensive care unit. Where did the problem start? Usually with colleagues who came to work when they were sick.

Also, talk about the financial consequences or about the trust that might be lost if a colleague makes a commitment. Helping people understand and feel the weight of both clear and obvious consequences helps them make more balanced decisions.

Second: Agree to hold one another accountable.
As a part of your discussion, agree to hold each other accountable and speak up to individuals who come to work sick. Part of that agreement should be that everyone will talk in a way that is safe and professional; they will try to understand and help. Speaking up and holding others accountable is not just the boss’s job; it is everyone’s job.

When we make agreements, clarify expectations, outline natural consequences, and feel able and motivated to speak up, we reap the benefits of having a crucial confrontation. The difference between good teams and organizations and the best teams and organizations is how rapidly and respectfully problems get resolved. Individuals in these teams don’t let issues fester and they don’t let issues destroy relationships. They quickly and respectfully put them on the table and reach a resolution.

Best wishes,
Al

Al Switzler Crucial Confrontations

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

Dear Crucial Skills,

When I recently assumed my current job, I “inherited” an employee who has a long history of bad behavior such as being rude, stirring up trouble, and refusing to work with coworkers as a team player. How do I confront this person when the whole department has played into his behavior for years?

Inherited Employee

 Dear Inherited,

“Inheriting” an employee with a history of bad behavior is a concern for any leader. I strongly recommend your first conversation with this employee not be a “shake-down” or a “you’d better be careful cuz I’m watching you!” speech. Rather, you ought to extend a sincere handshake followed by friendly introductions.

The next step is orienting your employees to your leadership style and expectations. Even before exploring specific duties or concerns, explain the operating values and principles of your team and your expectations of team members. It’s best if this is a collaborative process involving the entire team, but at a minimum, everyone needs to be clear about the team values and operating principles. Explain that employees are not only responsible to produce results but are also responsible to produce results in a way that strengthens the team in the process. Give specific examples of what is acceptable behavior and what is out of bounds. This kind of orientation with your team sets clear expectations and gives everyone a chance for a new start—independent from past patterns and personality conflicts.

Your next leader-role with the team is teacher and coach. This requires gathering data through contact and observation, especially with the employee you have concerns about. Over the next few days, catch the employee, in the moment, doing things right. Acknowledge when his behavior approximates an important team value or principle and thank him. For example, you might say:

“Hey, Brent, I noticed in the team meeting when Alice asked for ideas about her project, you gave several helpful suggestions. That is a great example of our team value of collaboration. Your input helped Alice and helped to build a stronger team. Thank you.”

Similarly, when you see behavior that violates the team’s values, confront it as soon as is reasonably possible. Do this by first describing the gap by factually detailing what happened compared with what is expected. Next, ask why it happened this way. You could say:

“Brent, I noticed that when Jerry presented his proposal, you said his plan was ‘idiotic’ and asked him if he had ever heard of ‘professional standards’ before. One of our team principles is to treat each other with respect. Your comment was clearly disrespectful. Why did you say that?”

If he responds that he didn’t realize his comment was disrespectful, take the opportunity to define more precisely what is meant by the value of respect.

If he replies that it’s no big deal, then you have the opportunity to teach consequences and make the invisible visible. It could be that one reason for his past friction with employees is that no one helped him understand the negative, natural consequences his behavior had on others.

If he replies that he knows he shouldn’t do that, but can’t help himself, it becomes an opportunity to teach him the skills to start with heart or master his stories.

After each conversation, move to action. Get a clear and specific commitment from him about who will do what by when, and then follow-up on that commitment.

Clear expectations, as well as frequent and immediate praise and confrontation, are your best chance to help someone work well with others in a new setting.

Of course, this approach requires patience and persistence, and you must always give people the opportunity and the help they may need to improve. However, if over time, he does not comply and his poor behavior continues, make sure he understands that following the team principles and values is not a suggestion, it’s a requirement of his job.

At this point, it’s time to move from helping him understand the natural consequences of bad behavior to the consequences you will impose on him if he doesn’t comply. Clarify that the consequences of not working within the team standards are the steps of discipline identified by the organization, even including termination. Make sure he understands that failure to comply with your requirements around teamwork will result in you applying the steps of discipline. Moving this far is very serious and will most likely damage your working relationship with him, but at some point, his failure to abide by the team’s standards is a detriment both to the results you’re after as a leader and your other team members’ quality of life. Choosing what’s best for the team is more important than trying to preserve a troubled relationship.

My experience has been that this approach helps most employees—even those with a history of bad behavior—to improve their behavior and relationships with others. It also improves the team’s results. Please keep in mind this approach does not guarantee the changes in others you desire; it’s not a way of controlling others; it’s not a trick for manipulating others. This is a way to respectfully help individuals choose to be successful. Ultimately, it’s the individual’s choice whether or not to be a part of the enterprise you lead, and that’s as it should be.

All the Best,
Ron

Ron McMillan Crucial Confrontations

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

VitalSmarts has captured vignettes of some of the most sensitive crucial conversations. Watch as one boss is faced with an awkward performance review, or as a couple tries to talk with their elderly father about his ability to drive. Let us know what you think about our latest round of videos.

For more humorous videos of timely crucial conversations, visit www.vitalsmartscanhelp.com.

editor Crucial Confrontations, Crucial Conversations, Influencer

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

Dear Crucial Skills,

I work with an individual who does not appear to realize she monopolizes every conversation and meeting she is in by giving excessively long and repetitive explanations and background information when discussing an issue. Several of us have discussed this and simply do not know how to approach her without hurting feelings and potentially destroying good working relationships. We think this is a crucial conversation we need to have with an expert on crucial conversations.

Simply Do Not Know How

  Dear Simply,

I noted your request to have an expert respond to your question. Since Kerry, Ron, and Joseph are unavailable, I hope you will settle for me.

Your question actually has a fairly straightforward answer. But first, let me start by backtracking a bit.

In chapter one of Crucial Confrontations, we teach a concept called “CPR.” CPR stands for content, pattern, and relationship, and helps you define the type of problem you are facing. The first time a problem comes up, talk about the content, or what just happened. The next time the problem occurs, talk pattern—what has happened over time. If the problem continues, talk about the relationship—what effect the problem has on your relationship.

We ask people to focus on what kind of crucial conversation or crucial confrontation they need to have based on the finding that people often talk about the wrong issue. You can talk about the wrong thing until you’re blue in the face and get no resolution. Unfortunately, people often choose easy conversations over hard ones, simple issues over complex problems, or one instance over a pattern of bad habits. As people take the easy way out, they don’t solve the problem because their discussion never addresses the real issue.

So with that introduction, let me suggest that you have a content discussion. Note that your colleague seems to be unaware of the problem and that neither you nor anyone else has previously brought it up. A content discussion is one of the most straightforward conversations you can have. The process we teach in Crucial Confrontations offers step-by-step suggestions.

1. Choose what and if. You have several indicators that you need to hold this discussion. The main indicator is that you have been concerned about the situation for a while but your conversations have been about her instead of with her. As I suggested, have a conversation with her about content and maybe include a small discussion about the pattern.
2. Make it safe. You need to get your head right before you open your mouth. You need to have a private conversation with your colleague. You need to show in your face and in your tone of voice that you are bringing this up to help—that you have not pre-judged her or oversimplified the concern.
3. Describe the gap. Begin by explaining what you observe versus what you expect. For example, “I noticed you came in today at 8:20 a.m.; working hours start at 8:00 a.m. What happened?”

Granted, it is more difficult to discuss more complex behaviors like the ones you’ve described. Your conversation might begin this way: “Could I talk to you a moment? I noticed in our last meeting that only ten minutes were allotted to several of the agenda items. I also noted that we took about twenty minutes on two of the issues. This made the meeting run over by half an hour. From my perspective, you either gave background information we already knew or went into more detail than we needed—pushing us way over time. I’ve seen this pattern in every meeting this month. My goal is to make sure we all spend our time well. I’d like to talk about this with you.”

Now there are many ways to start this conversation; while my suggestion may not be perfect for you, I’m confident that if you follow these steps and begin with a script, good things can happen.

Your colleague might thank you for your honesty and ask for your advice. Or, she might get upset and be forthright about her feelings. If she gets upset, reaffirm your purpose and the fact that you value your relationship and want to continue to work well with her. She might get upset and go to silence. If she goes to silence, restore safety by reassuring her of your intent to strengthen your relationship.

In conclusion, when faced with this kind of crucial confrontation, focus on the issue using CPR, make it safe for your colleague to speak up, and step up to the conversation honestly and respectfully.

Best wishes,
Al

Al Switzler Crucial Confrontations

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

Dear Crucial Skills,

I supervise an employee who appears to be struggling with her responsibilities. We upgraded our software systems several years ago, and she still does not understand how the software works. In the past two years, I have received many phone calls and e-mails from customers and coworkers regarding their concerns with her. I have addressed these problems with her and have also written up a performance improvement plan. However, she still hovers on the line between employment and unemployment. What more can I do?

Struggling with Responsibility

 Dear Struggling,

What a question! There are levels and flavors within this question that are intriguing (and ever so pervasive) at work and at home. Of course, the main issue here is accountability.

Over the years, as we’ve consulted with managers to work on accountability skills and with teams to build a culture of accountability, we’ve noted the following:

• In low performing cultures, people don’t hold others accountable.
• In good performing cultures, supervisors (or people with power) hold others accountable.
• In the best performing cultures, everyone can and does hold everyone else accountable.

That distinction is key for a couple of reasons. When even a few low performers are not held accountable, the standard drops for everyone. “Oh yeah,” say colleagues, “Our written standards are A, but our real standards are A minus twenty percent.” Also, performance management systems alone cannot deal with performance gaps. Systems are necessary, but not sufficient. Real-time accountability is the responsibility of every person and is done the moment it’s needed. High, clear standards and real-time accountability from everyone is the key to a healthy culture.

Your direct report has a performance gap. You have followed a process. You have talked to her and even written her up. Given what you’ve shared in your question, here are a couple of suggestions.

• Make sure the expectations are clear. Clarity is needed on the process, steps or behaviors, and on the outcomes and results.
• Don’t underestimate people’s need for training. People are excellent at masking ability problems. Does this employee need additional skill building? Are there any other barriers that are causing her to not perform? Too often, managers try to motivate employees when the real problem is an issue of ability. So make sure you’ve looked at her skills and knowledge. Make sure she can do the process is essential.
• Clarify the consequences and then follow through. One of the biggest concerns I had as I read your question is this statement: “In the past two years…” This problem has gone on for too long. People often assume that to be nice they need to work on an issue for a long time. Not so. If you’ve clarified expectations, made sure she is capable, and removed barriers, then you need to help motivate her.
• Motivate with natural consequences. After you have shared with her what her low performance has done to suppliers, customers, colleagues and to you, you need to start a discipline process. This process often includes probation, suspension without pay, and then termination. A fair and patient process gives people the clarity, the support, and the time they need to improve. If they don’t improve, they need to be let go. Avoiding the consequences is not positive for you, the company, or for your direct report. When people do not perform, when they feel stressed because they can’t do the job, it’s not helpful to them to keep that job. It is better for them to find a job that matches their abilities and their motivation. So this last step is often not only essential for the company, it is the best step for the employee. /LI>

Thank you for your question. And best wishes to all who are working to improve accountability, at work and at home.

Al

Al Switzler Crucial Confrontations

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

Dear Crucial Skills,

I just read Crucial Confrontations and realized the issue I need to confront someone about has already happened enough times to affect our relationship, but I have not had the earlier confrontations regarding content and pattern. How do I begin the confrontation at the stage where the issue is now affecting the relationship, but the prior confrontations did not occur?

Signed,
Late Confrontations

Dear Late Confrontations,

In the book, we use the acronym CPR (Content, Pattern, Relationship) to identify what issue you need to address. We used to chuckle that with CPR you could breathe life into a failing relationship. I think this is still true.

Now for a little background before I get to your specific question.

The essential principle for using CPR is to address the right issue. We’ve written before in this newsletter that you can talk yourself blue in the face about the wrong issue and not make any progress. So what is the problem? When deciding what issue to address, people often choose simple instead of complex, incident instead of pattern, or easy instead of hard, and so on. When the real issue is not addressed, the problem is unresolved and festers or explodes.

Your concern about where to begin with a relationship issue is spot on. Relationship issues happen in a couple of ways. First, as you note, we sometimes don’t speak up at the content level (the first time) and we don’t speak up when it has become a pattern. A training participant once helped me define these terms by noting that the first time is an incident, the second may be a coincidence, and the third (or more) is a pattern. So by ignoring or delaying, when we are finally motivated to speak up, we have a relationship problem. For example, someone who works for you is twenty minutes late to work: content (an incident). He has been late three times this week: pattern. The consequences are probably more severe. If you haven’t spoken up to this point, the issue will invariably become a trust issue: relationship.

Now to address your question specifically:

Point 1. There are benefits of addressing gaps or issues early at the content level. The consequences to everyone involved are probably less severe. The emotions are more controlled. And, by bringing up an issue early on, you show that your motives are to understand and help solve the problem, not to play “gotcha” or to engage a guilt trip.

Point 2. If you have not spoken up to this point, you need to address the real issue—how his pattern of tardiness is causing you to not trust that when he makes a commitment he will keep it. That is the right issue and that’s what you should start with. You don’t have to go through all the CPR steps.

A bit of advice here: Remember STATE skills when you do speak up. Begin with the facts. For example: “We reviewed the fact that you start work at 8:00 a.m. and you have been at least twenty minutes late the last three days.” Now tentatively share your story, “I’m beginning to wonder if I can trust you to come to work on time and to keep the commitments you make.” In summary, start at the level you need to address the real issue.

Point 3. Some issues start at the relationship level and that’s where you need to start. Issues such as abuse, theft, safety, and dishonesty affect relationships right from the beginning. That is the issue you should bring up. Do so in a safe way. Describe the gap and then diagnose. Don’t immediately threaten imposed consequences. Don’t become part of the problem by screaming or belittling. But take action. Behaviors that are abusive, unsafe, unethical, or illegal have immediate, potentially severe consequences to many other people. Handling them professionally and quickly is not only very symbolic, but is also necessary because of the potential consequences to others.

Best Wishes,
Al Switzler

Al Switzler Crucial Confrontations