Delivering Tough Messages

Is failing to hold people accountable for high standards while allowing them to hold onto their dignity as human beings.

This denies employees the chance to learn and excel. And it sends a dangerous message to your staff that sub par performance or conduct is ok.

The art of delivering tough messages in a way that preserves the relationship is the subject of this week's Leader's Digest Mail Bag Q & A.

Dear Leader's Digest,

I sometimes struggle with the concern that I am "sugarcoating" an inherently tough message. How can I make it acceptable even when the results of the conversation will most likely be negative, such as talking about serious performance issues, letting an employee go, etc.?

Signed,

Straight Talk

Dear Straight Talk,

What a great question! Your question shows you are right on track with trying to achieve the essence of a tough love conversation—absolute candor coupled with absolute respect. Far too many times people go through management or communications training and emerge with a dangerous misconception. They believe the point is to be "nice." And for them, "nice" means understating their point.

The most important challenge we suggest is the challenge to find a way to do both—to be both 100% honest and 100% respectful.

Now with that as your goal, there are two things to keep in mind as you measure your tough conversations progress:

Volatility is not honesty. Some people think that if their affect doesn't match their message, that they've sold out. It could be that you are doing a terrific job—and are not sugarcoating—but that in the past you were more vociferous, loud, and demonstrative. Now you worry that without the added volume, people might mistake your message. If that is the case, worry no more. The show of emotion many people use during touchy conversations often undermines their message rather than enhances it. It can come across as an attempt to control or manipulate others and distracts from the power of the message itself. That's not to say the ideal is to be emotionally flat. All we're suggesting is that excessive emotion is not a measure of candor—it's crossing a line into something else. You can say it respectfully and somewhat calmly, and have all the power with none of the defensiveness.

The measure of success is not that they like—or even agree with—the message. You ask, "How can I make it acceptable when the result of the conversation is going to be negative?" That very question demonstrates a misunderstanding of this key point. A tough love conversation does not mean everyone is happy at the end. It just means they are able to hear you and understand your point of view—and in the end, see how a "reasonable, rational, decent person" might think what you think—even if they disagree. There are times when your conversation might lead someone to revise their view of themselves, their world, etc. and that revision can be painful. They may want to deny the truth of what you share for a period of time in order to forestall the painful revision, but if the conditions for dialogue are present in the conversation, you'll significantly increase the likelihood that they will eventually get there.

Years ago, I had a tough conversation with an employee where my message was, "You're fired." I sat down with my employee and explained the facts of the situation. We caught him in a pattern of lies that were so egregious we needed to terminate his employment. It was just before the Christmas holidays and I was sick at the thought of how his dismissal would affect his family. But the truth was the truth. I laid out the facts and asked him if there was any other reasonable way to interpret them. His shoulders slumped and he confessed to what he had done. I told him I was letting him go as a result of his lack of integrity. And then I added, somewhat choked with emotion, "I am sorry. I know you love your family and I know this will break their hearts. I will help in any way I appropriately can through this." I then elaborated on some ways I thought I could help. He was fired and out of work. I am sure his family suffered. And yet a year later, I was happy to receive a note from him thanking me for how I handled things and reporting on the better direction of his life.

He did not like my message. But he heard it. And because he felt respected by me—felt I cared about his interests and cared about him—he was more capable of contemplating what I was sharing with him. That's the measure of whether we get it right.

All the success!

PM in the AM