Failing or faltering organizations are quick to point out the unfairness of a system, the weakness in the economy and problems with unions. Seldom do they admit their part in their own failure and/or eventual demise.
What’s worse is when their own accountability in the situation is pointed out, they attack…the person that pointed it out.
Examples
• A recent client became enraged when the results of a survey showed they were not trusted as a leader/manager. They lashed out at the consultant for presenting the data. Accusing the consultant of trying to undermine them. Even though the same survey showed that people respected their knowledge, he said the survey was invalid. When the meeting was over, he tried to cancel the rest of a three-year contract.
• Recommendations delivered by an internal group of high potential employees indicated that leaders needed training in building relationship and encouraging creativity. The senior team took offense to the notion that they were not providing training and told the team to go back and revise their recommendations. Three of the members of the team were taken off the high potential list and the team was disbanded prior to completing the second round of recommendations
• A senior leader at a large financial institution was reported to have attempted to fire three members of an employee focus group that gave feedback criticizing his leadership style and “being intimidating”. When he couldn’t fire all of them, he made sure to let their managers know how upset he was and they should be “watched”. The employees were responding to the question “What are areas about my leadership that could be improved?”
SIGNS THE MESSENGER BETTER BE WARY
1. There is a history of messengers getting “whacked”.
No, this is not a bad mob movie reference. There are organizations that have a history of dealing with people that give messages that don’t paint a great picture by getting rid of them. Those “messengers” can be fired, have contracts cancelled, demoted, or given assignments that force them to quit. There are many organizations with this reputation. Two that may be familiar are Kodak and the now defunct Eastern Airlines.
2. The initial reaction to bad news is to change it to something more positive sounding
When the first reaction is to change anything that may be construed as “not good news” to something positive sounding, be ware. This means that leaders don’t appreciate news that doesn’t paint a positive picture (or the people delivering it don’t know how).
3. When bad or unflattering news is shared, the initial reaction is defense…or attack
Messengers should be very worried when the reactions to news or recommendations are
• Undermining the vehicle delivering the message
• Immediately providing rationale for why the issues occurred in the first place.
• No acceptance of fault or even glimmer of accountability for the situation causing the news/recommendations.
FIGHTING FIRE WITH WATER – OVERCOMING THE KILL THE MESSENGER MENTALITY
1. Don’t tell me it’s raining, tell me how to build the ark
Always follow bad news or a tough recommendation with a solution or idea to turn the situation around. No one really likes to hear bad news, but a solution or remedy to the issue(s) will go a long way. This is not license to sugar coat anything.
It can allow for a little more latitude with delivering bad news because there is a solution or method to impact it right away.
2. Rip the Band-Aid off quickly
There is no reason, when giving feedback or relating bad news, to do a lot of build up. It is much more effective to just get to the point so that a discussion about remedy can immediately follow. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to drone on and on prior to delivering news. Everyone knows that the news is coming. Deliver the news professionally and rapidly.
3. Be ruthlessly compassionate
My British colleagues were masters at delivering bad news well. They did so by being professional, polite and unflinching in their delivery. No matter the news, they would make sure the message was delivered in a kind, straightforward manner. They responded to anger with politeness. They responded to cynicism with matter of fact answers. There was no doubt the news was not good, but no one felt beat up when it was delivered.
4. Know the reaction is not about the messenger
The initial reaction to any bad news is never about the person delivering it (unless you insult or do bodily injury while speaking). The reaction is really about the person who has it. A leader who yells or throws a tantrum (yes they do that) when bad news or feedback is shared is showing his or her insecurities. The objective is to get past the initial reaction with tact and politeness so that a real conversation can ensue.
No organization can survive without knowing the good, the bad and the ugly of their operations, sales, employee issues, customer service, etc. The only way to correct issues is to discuss them out in the open and come up with methods to combat them directly. People can’t be afraid to tell the truth. They must understand how to bring it up so that it can dealt with rather than them being attacked.
What successful tactics have you seen in delivering bad news? What is the worst bad news reaction you’ve seen?
Anil Saxena is the President of Cube 2.14, an organizational development consulting firm that works with clients to increase both customer and employee engagement while decreasing turnover, improving customer retention, and increasing profitability within organizations.
Saxena is a certified High Impact coach and trainer and a Joint Application Design facilitator. He is also certified by both Rush Systems and IBM as a focus group facilitator. He is an inaugural member of Northwestern University’s Learning and Organizational Change program, and he earned his bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from the Illinois Institute of Technology.
