Whenever possible I believe in giving a heads up before delivering bad news. I agree it shows respect for the team members professionalism. I also think that doing so maintains the trust that good leadership relies on.
I know there are times when I as the leader need to take my own time before I deliver the news. If my delivery is full of my own unprocessed emotions then that will just bleed over to the team. I learned this one the hard way. If appropriate I like to deliver news to the team, then follow up with individuals, then follow up again the next day or two both within the team and individually once they have had time to process. It is also important to watch their non-verbal cues.
Immediate layoffs are for me possibly one of the only cases as it may be company policy in how it is to be handled.
Oh gosh. I read the heading and had a momentary flash of adrenaline.
Nope. No surprises for me thanks!!
I often say to my team that we need to keep each other informed so that there are no shocks and surprises. I think the US lay-offs that we saw a few years ago where people had **surprise** (with jazz hands) emails to their private accounts after their work accounts had been shut down, telling them they’d been let go was unforgivable.
Yes - I think so. I make a point of ensuring that when there are big messages to share, I speak to the individuals that are impacted first and then share a general message with the whole team. I think if we want to be person centred, we must show individuals respect and have conversations with them about their situation. I think it's really poor leadership practice to announce a message in a team wide meeting that has a particular, and maybe different, impact on a specific individual.
I guess then, the simple point for me is respect and courtesy for all of the individuals that make up a team.
I'd also want to be able to take people along a journey, where it's appropriate to do so. And sometimes that's not so easy, until you're very near a conclusion (for employment law reasons or commercial sensitivity reasons - or because it's been landed on you as a **surprise**)
I absolutely see the other perspective - let's rip the band aid off in one go. But I'm not sure that that's an effective adult-to-adult model. Considering what transactional analysis tells us about relationships, I think pulling a tooth out by tying it to a slamming door isn't the kind of culture that I'd want to foster in an organisation....
I have found action plans important. This way if there's not progress over four to six weeks; one can take a different approach. I actually had this question weeks ago. I was supposed to cut hours on one of our people. I chose to treat her like the adult she is. She said she would have to look for other work if that happens. I said I understand, and would give her a reference too. Anyways she's still with us. I have rarely been in a situation, where a situation-based approach (Shriberg and Shriberg. 1998) is not the best model to use.
I try not to focus on things outside my control (other people's thoughts is one example). I usually try to get to know my team members. Once relationships are established. Communication can be fluid, brief, and sometimes blunt.
Another important fact, is overly sensitive people tend not to make it in kitchens.
Whenever possible I believe in giving a heads up before delivering bad news. I agree it shows respect for the team members professionalism. I also think that doing so maintains the trust that good leadership relies on.
Sounds like you might have an exception or two in mind?
I know there are times when I as the leader need to take my own time before I deliver the news. If my delivery is full of my own unprocessed emotions then that will just bleed over to the team. I learned this one the hard way. If appropriate I like to deliver news to the team, then follow up with individuals, then follow up again the next day or two both within the team and individually once they have had time to process. It is also important to watch their non-verbal cues.
Immediate layoffs are for me possibly one of the only cases as it may be company policy in how it is to be handled.
Oh gosh. I read the heading and had a momentary flash of adrenaline.
Nope. No surprises for me thanks!!
I often say to my team that we need to keep each other informed so that there are no shocks and surprises. I think the US lay-offs that we saw a few years ago where people had **surprise** (with jazz hands) emails to their private accounts after their work accounts had been shut down, telling them they’d been let go was unforgivable.
What is the real violation on your team?
When they hear the bad news from someone else first?
Is that the real violation in most teams?
Yes - I think so. I make a point of ensuring that when there are big messages to share, I speak to the individuals that are impacted first and then share a general message with the whole team. I think if we want to be person centred, we must show individuals respect and have conversations with them about their situation. I think it's really poor leadership practice to announce a message in a team wide meeting that has a particular, and maybe different, impact on a specific individual.
I guess then, the simple point for me is respect and courtesy for all of the individuals that make up a team.
I'd also want to be able to take people along a journey, where it's appropriate to do so. And sometimes that's not so easy, until you're very near a conclusion (for employment law reasons or commercial sensitivity reasons - or because it's been landed on you as a **surprise**)
I absolutely see the other perspective - let's rip the band aid off in one go. But I'm not sure that that's an effective adult-to-adult model. Considering what transactional analysis tells us about relationships, I think pulling a tooth out by tying it to a slamming door isn't the kind of culture that I'd want to foster in an organisation....
At least in the tooth analogy we all know why we are taking time to tie the string on.
:)
Unless you're the kid who's having their first tooth out....
I can't imagine the story/lie you tell an 7 year old that doesn't still panic them.
Good morning,
I have found action plans important. This way if there's not progress over four to six weeks; one can take a different approach. I actually had this question weeks ago. I was supposed to cut hours on one of our people. I chose to treat her like the adult she is. She said she would have to look for other work if that happens. I said I understand, and would give her a reference too. Anyways she's still with us. I have rarely been in a situation, where a situation-based approach (Shriberg and Shriberg. 1998) is not the best model to use.
Thank you for your time.
-Joe
Are there some on your team you would have taken a markedly different approach with, Joe?
Could it threaten your credibility at all if it's perceived you are handling communication differently with different team members?
I try not to focus on things outside my control (other people's thoughts is one example). I usually try to get to know my team members. Once relationships are established. Communication can be fluid, brief, and sometimes blunt.
Another important fact, is overly sensitive people tend not to make it in kitchens.
Thank you for the question and your time.
-Joe
I wish this could be talked about outside of the context of surprise layoffs.
That might be a separate Field Notes discussion all to itself.