In a meeting, Johnathon lashed out at a Jose, “You had no authority to tell the customer the item was under warranty. It clearly is not. Your response made the customer mad. Now, he is filing a complaint about me.”
Jose’s face reddened and he angrily responded, “Don’t blame me for that. I told the customer no such thing. You were rude. That’s why he is filing a complaint.”
Experiments by Michael Blanding, written in HBS Working Knowledge, suggest that anger makes a wrongly accused person look guilty. While there may be reason to be upset when falsely accused, voice tone and nonverbal expressions are likely to carry more weight than facts.
Jose may have been more convincing if he had maintained his composure and responded in a calm voice with something like, “Johnathon, I see you are upset by the customer’s complaint. Can you fill me in on the details? My hope is to clarify the situation and resolve the customer’s issue.”
Previous research has well documented the impact of voice tone and nonverbals on how others attach meaning to verbal expressions. This appears to be particularly true when responding to false accusations.
Most of the CEO’s executive team seemed pretty charged up about the new, ambitious branding campaign.
“Do you really think we can pull this off?” he asked his team.
There were many head nods, smiles and comments such as, “It’s a winner.” “Very doable.” “I wouldn’t want to be our competition.”
At an informal gathering later, a colleague asked the chief marketing officer, “Do you really think the CEO’s plan will be effective?”
“Seriously, I have my doubts,” was his response.
“Why didn’t you say something in the meeting?
“I did not want to be seen as an anti-team player.”
Psychologist Irvin Janis, long ago labeled the danger of stressing harmony among teams as “groupthink.” In the interest of functioning as effective team members, some individual members falsely express their support for others’ ideas. This reduces dissenting opinions and sometimes leads to bad decisions.
To avoid meandering into a groupthink culture, leaders can regularly:
- honor disagreements,
- aggressively seek contrary views,
- designate a member to play the role of devil’s advocate, and
- seek opinions of outside experts.
Additionally, leaders may separate evaluations and decision making. That is, designate one meeting for evaluating options and a second meeting for making the decision.
“I know your schedule got slammed last week,” a manger said to a colleague. “I hope this week will be better.”
The colleague answered, “I have a lot of deliverables this week also. I am just trying to keep my head above water.”
“I am in the same boat. I think everyone has a full plate.”
Now, check out a restructuring of this exchange to go something like this.
“I know last week was a tough. Do you think this week will be any better?”
“I think so but I’m not sure. There are just too many uncertainties.”
“I heard that. Is there a particular uncertainty that worries you most?”
“Yes, a major customer is inquiring about advancing a delivery date. That one worries me.”
“Really. Is it the same customer we had trouble with last quarter?”
In the first conversation, the greeter inquired and then began telling his story, “I’m in the same boat . . .”
The second conversation began with a question and followed up with two specific questions based on the colleague’s response. A recent Harvard study published in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, found that a sincere question and two specific follow-up questions made the other party feel more respected and appreciated.
“I wish he would be clearer about how he wants this analysis done.”
“She tells me to use my judgement and then disagrees with my decision.”
“He asks for too many status reports. They take a lot of my time.”
These are just a few of the hundreds of responses to my question, “How do you think your leader could improve?”
Face it. We are complex beings with wide varieties of behaviors. Get any two employees, even high performers, together for two minutes to discuss their leader and you can be sure they will find something that irritates them.
So how do you handle the differences between you and your leader? Do you become aggressive and openly defy decisions? Sulk and become distracted? Continuously whine to others and lobby against the leader?
Do you act professionally by offering other options when you disagree while willingly accepting your leader’s methods?
A departing staff member once said to me, “I enjoyed working on you team. I did not agree with all your decisions or methods, but I don’t agree with everything my spouse does either and that has worked out pretty well.”
Put differently, if you were the leader, would you hire someone like yourself?
Janus said to me, “Approval of some decisions requires signatures of eight team members.”
“How does that affect you?” I asked.
“Well, a lot of documentation accompanies each decision; and to be honest, I don’t always scrutinize everything. Sometimes, I just sign it.”
“Do you worry that you might support a bad option?”
“Not really. Seven other highly-qualified people are involved.”
Janus engaged in social loafing; that is, he shirked his responsibility and relied on other team members to fill the void.
Max Ringlemann, a French engineer, coined the term “social loafing” decades ago because of a rope pulling experiment. In groups of two, three and eight, Ringlemann asked participants to pull a rope. Members in larger groups put in less effort than individuals in smaller groups.
Social loafing in work groups may slow decision making, impact performance negatively and create frustration among team members. Studies of students’ group projects show rampant vexation among some due to others failing to do their “fair share” of the work.
To reduce social loafing in work teams:
- include only members whose skills are required,
- identify specific and measurable objectives,
- set a hard deadline, and
- assign five or fewer members to a team.
An acquaintance said to me, “I need to talk to Calvin about his progress on a compliance report, but I procrastinate because conversations with Calvin are lengthy.”
Another person reported, “When I attempt an in-depth discussion with Duane, I leave the meeting uncertain about whether we have understood each other.”
Do either of these examples sound familiar? Juan Siliezar, writing in the Harvard Gazette, described a study by Adam Mastroianni, a Ph.D. student in Harvard’s Psychology Department which reported only two percent of conversations ended when both parties wanted them to end.
In almost half of the cases, conversations extended longer than both parties desired. In a display of politeness, parties in two-person conversations appear to continue talking, not because they have more to say, but because they are unsure of the other’s intentions. Persons said their conversations ended too soon in only about ten percent of the cases.
Many discussions pose a dilemma. Individuals are busy and wish to communicate efficiently but prolong conversations unnecessarily.
How can you resolve this issue? Try this. When you believe you have what you need, say something like, “That sounds good to me. Are you OK with it?”
Part 3 of 3 Parts
Helena, the district manager, went into the retreat with a strong position against a reorganization plan the vice president was proposing.
“This new plan will flatten our organizational structure, reduce our overhead and allow us to be nimbler,” the vice president proposed.
Helena responded, “As the plan keeps the same number of people, I don’t see how we reduce overhead. A new customer-response team will likely meet our immediate needs much better.”
Following lengthy debates, the VP prevailed in his proposal.
“Afterwards,” Helena commented, “I had a problem. My team knew I was against the VP’s proposal, but the VP clearly expected us to support it.”
Rule 1: When you disagree with your leader’s decision, listen with an open mind and try to understand and accept the leader’s position.
Rule 2: After the meeting, when others approach you and voice their disagreements, respond with something like. “Look, the leader has made a decision, I am committed to its execution and it would be better if you took the same position.
After tough decisions, too many team members accelerate stress by continuing to campaign against the decisions in hallways and parking lots. Effective teams bury their opposing tactics and channel their energies toward executing the plan.