I have been in management positions for a total of about fifteen years. In that time I have had to have difficult discussions very similar to the case study. My interactions could have been improved had I had all the information I have received during my courses here at Ashford, especially in conflict resolution.
In attempting to confront a difficult communication situation, there are a series of six steps to get from beginning to end. They are:
1. Preparation: Identify your problem/needs/issues.
2. Tell the person “we need to talk.”
3. Interpersonal confrontation: Talk to the other person about your problem.
4. Consider your partner’s point of view: Listen, empathize, and respond with understanding.
5. Resolve the problem: Make a mutually satisfying agreement.
The preparation of a list of issues and specific occurrences is very import. Conveying vague concepts such as “your work is lousy” or “people don’t like you” are useless. Specific instances must be illustrated so the specific remedies can be agreed upon. Examples such as “on the Lowry account you failed to resolve their networking issue in a timely manner” and “your behavior in the last staff meeting where you continually interrupted the other team members and made inappropriate comments” are imperative for clear communication to take place. After the issues have been identified, the list of needs can be compiled. In addressing the above examples, the corresponding needs could be “all client service issues must be completed in the time we quote and if you are having difficulties achieving these results you must notify your manager in a timely manner so that the client experience is not adversely affected” and “respecting other employees in all interactions includes not interrupting during discussions and not making any type of disparaging comments.”
The next step is to set a time for the discussion. In my experience, giving the person too much time to obsess about the possibilities of the discussion isn’t the best idea. Talk with the person about a time preferable the same day where the two of you can meet for say thirty minutes to discuss something that has recently come up. Then comes the challenging part, the interpersonal confrontation or the actual discussion. The initial part of the discussion should focus on “I” messages and not accusatory “you” messages “I am having some issues lately with customer and team member complaints” or “I had a rather awkward discussion with a client recently about their account.” This provides the setting for the potential issues without pointing the finger of blame right off the bat. At this point, the specific issues are addressed and examples are provided.
The next step involves listening to the individual’s response and demonstrating empathy and understanding. It may seem as though you are just listening to excuses but active and empathetic listening at this stage is the key to a collaborative discussion in the next phase. The individual may insist they were unaware of the time frames or scope of work required and therefore were ignorant of their poor performance. They may become defensive regarding the staff meeting interactions insisting that the other employees were setting them up for failure or ganging up on them. Empathy and understanding not argumentation and defensiveness need to be utilized to keep the confrontation from escalating.
As you have either kept the situation from escalating or diffused it if it did escalate, you are now at the stage where you can begin discussing a mutually satisfying agreement. The individual’s satisfaction in this case is allowing them to keep their job. Your satisfaction, as the manager, comes from having a productive team player. Utilizing the SMART method (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time bound) (Locke 1968) in performance improvement plans ensures the greatest measure of success. A goal which met this criteria would be something like “[specific] you will complete all assigned tasks in the time provided, [measurable] we will meet weekly to assess your progress on all assigned tasks, [attainable] we will determine of your current progress will allow you to meet the time requirement, [relevant] your success in complying with these goals will ensure your continued employment, and [time-bound] after sixty days of continued success we will no longer need to meet weekly. Both you and the individual are clear on the expectations and there is regular follow-up to ensure that these expectations will be met.
References
Cahn, D. D. & Abigail, R. A. (2007). Managing Conflict through Communication, 3rd Ed. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Locke. (1968) Toward a Theory of Task Motivation and Incentives. http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newHTE_87.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment