You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.
This one is especially aimed at my fellow administrators, though it’s probably relevant far beyond them.
Let’s say that at first glance, something seems to have gone awry, and whatever it is, it’s in the bailiwick of someone at a lower level in the hierarchy. There’s time pressure, and you’re concerned at both the consequences of the mistake and at what it may portend about whomever made it. (For the sake of argument, let’s say it’s not some sort of bright-line moral or ethical violation. It’s a screwup.) And let’s say that you’re working in a pandemic, so an in-person conversation isn’t an option.
How do you start the email?
- “It has come to my attention that …”
- “What the %#+^% is this?”
- “I’m confused. Can you shed some light?”
I’m always a little surprised when people answer anything other than 3.
Admittedly, any of the three can work in the short term. Management by intimidation survives, which suggests that it must have some sort of payoff. But it burns bridges, encourages lying and -- the part that its fans often fail to recognize until it bites them -- it undermines the credibility of the one doing the intimidating. That’s because what looks at first blush like a mistake often isn’t. It’s a reasonable response to a reality that’s much more complicated than it looks from a distance.
The first response puts the speaker at the center, which is already a mistake. It also presumes guilt, which tends to lead to evasion, blame shifting and CYA maneuvering. The second is even worse, for obvious reasons. Both imply that a final judgment has already been reached, and the only issue at hand is the assignment of blame or punishment.
Over time, people in environments like that either become risk-averse and gossipy, or they try to reciprocate with counterattacks. Either way leads to energy being spent on the wrong things. At a previous college, I had a colleague who had learned over time to end every meeting with “OK, so I’ll wait for you to get back to me with …” He was smooth enough that I didn’t pay it much mind the first few times, but eventually the pattern became clear. What he wanted, more than anything else, was deniability. If employees are aiming for deniability, good luck making any forward progress on almost anything.
Progress requires taking risks. It requires willingness to go out on a limb. Deniability requires camouflage, or hiding among the shrubbery.
Asking someone to shed some light implies that the matter isn’t yet settled. That allows the manager to save face if it turns out that it was all a big misunderstanding. It assumes good faith. And as any experienced instructor can tell you, having someone narrate their process is often enough for them to discover where they went wrong. (“It sounds stupid now that I say it out loud.”) That can lead to growth, rather than evasion. Over time, it’s healthier.
Of course, sometimes people actually are incompetent or malevolent. The beauty of starting with a relatively benign inquiry is that you can always escalate if the situation calls for it. If anything, it gives you a chance to gather evidence to make a better case. And if the situation turns out to be innocent, it’s much less destructive to the manager’s credibility than having to climb down from a high horse.
In the pandemic, folks are stressed enough already. Although I’m a fan of the “shed some light” approach generally, it’s particularly appropriate now when people’s reserves of chill are running dangerously low. For my colleagues who lean heavily on answers 1 and 2, try 3. You might be surprised.
