Most bosses don't like confronting people or making decisions that favored one staffer over another. “Instead of having one bad day and getting over it, it went on for literally years,”.“You just kick the can a little farther down the road—‘Let’s have a meeting on this next month’—anything you can try to keep from having that confrontation.”People bristle at such gentle criticisms, and at times change the subject: “You’re getting to work on time; that’s wonderful!” he would say. “Never mind that your clients say you’re difficult to work with.”
What resulted was a dysfunctional department, he admits, “with no discipline, no confidence in where they stood, lots of scheming and kvetching, back-stabbing”. He gave up his management role. “I’m extremely happy not managing,” he says.
The bad manager tends to conjure images of the blood-vessel-bursting screamer looking for a handle to fly off. But these types are increasingly rare. Far more common, and more insidious, are the managers who won’t say a critical word to the staffers who need to hear it. In avoiding an unpleasant conversation, they allow something worse to ferment in the delay. They achieve kindness in the short term but heartlessness in the long run, dooming the problem employee to non-improvement. You can’t fix what you can’t say is broken.
In a knowledge economy, where work is more complex and interdependent, people need feedback more—what they particularly need feedback on are on things that are difficult to give: one’s interpersonal style. Bosses who use generalities so people really don’t know what they’re talking about believe that one-size-fits-all comments: “Pay a little more attention to detail” and “improve the way you communicate” and “develop better organization skills”.The substance less nature of his feedback stuck him with one of the worst performance-related torments: Being left to your own imagination. “Hearing nothing is worse than hearing something”.
No one appreciates the deceptive peace and quiet.
Managers hate to give an employee news that would “crush his spirit”.
The bad manager tends to conjure images of the blood-vessel-bursting screamer looking for a handle to fly off. But these types are increasingly rare. Far more common, and more insidious, are the managers who won’t say a critical word to the staffers who need to hear it. In avoiding an unpleasant conversation, they allow something worse to ferment in the delay. They achieve kindness in the short term but heartlessness in the long run, dooming the problem employee to non-improvement. You can’t fix what you can’t say is broken.
In a knowledge economy, where work is more complex and interdependent, people need feedback more—what they particularly need feedback on are on things that are difficult to give: one’s interpersonal style. Bosses who use generalities so people really don’t know what they’re talking about believe that one-size-fits-all comments: “Pay a little more attention to detail” and “improve the way you communicate” and “develop better organization skills”.The substance less nature of his feedback stuck him with one of the worst performance-related torments: Being left to your own imagination. “Hearing nothing is worse than hearing something”.
No one appreciates the deceptive peace and quiet.
Managers hate to give an employee news that would “crush his spirit”.
Though someone says,“I would rather be mean once to one person than cause this unrest across the team,” he says.As it stands, he adds, “ it’s a horrible cycle, because now I have even more work to keep everyone else happy.”
No comments:
Post a Comment