Great executives test the evidence (prosecutor), evaluate (psychologist) the information and facilitate (coach) behavior change in the person who consistently over-reacts to situations and leads to an organization in crisis. More importantly, through this three step process, the executive demonstrates consistency, credibility and integrity.
A perfect example of process is the recent approach taken by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. To further illustrate my point, consider the different styles of management Rumsfeld and Gates. Who would you want to be? To read further analysis read Responsive Gates: Rumsfield Reverse.
What does test the evidence mean? Here’s a perfect example. Your assistant, Sally, runs into the office and tells you the entire sales organization is talking about Jim Smith’s recent demotion. She rants and raves about this conversation she had with someone.
What do you do? One executive called a mandatory conference call with his entire field organization and in essence yelled at them.
“This is an inappropriate discussion taking place in the field and I will not have it go on within the organization. I will not have it repeated again. Should I discover anyone else is doing this, they will be put on notice.”
What did he do? He de-motivated everyone in the field didn’t he? He found everyone guilty without ever discovering the legitimacy of the information, he indited all of his direct reports.
What didn’t he do? He didn’t test the evidence did he? What do I mean test the evidence? Ask specific questions of the person sharing the information. What information would he need to test? The who, what, where, when, and why. He needs to discover specifically what was said, to whom, when, specific context of the conversation. And he needs to write it all down. He then needs to become a bit of an investigator. Whom was it said to? Could he have limited information? Could he have faulty information? Could he have information that is biased and not quite undefined? Happens all the time.
What he should have done is gone back to Sally and verified the information. Through that probing, he would have discovered Sally over-reacted and may have exaggerated. More importantly, he could have had specific one-on-one discussions with the individuals that Sally spoke with directly, which is important in the self-development process.
At the end of the day the objective is to advert an organizational crisis, keep your team motivated, and understand that there is a huge difference between intention and interpretation relative to listening and communicating.
Copyright 2007 Ev Nucci
I use the gender term he for simplification purposes, please do not take offense.