"Go ask your mother."
How many times have we either heard or said this (or its variant, "Go ask your father" etc...)? It's a way to excuse one's self from having to take responsibility for a decision; to put the burden of leadership on the managing partner. It's easy to do and it protects us from criticism. Sometimes, delegating responsibility makes sense, especially if the decision rests squarely in the managing partner's authority. Most of the time, however, it is a toxic response.
As children, we all had to deal with this, and some of us realized early on that it provides a ready opportunity to game one parent against the other. As grown-ups, we sometimes continue the behavior by trying to pit one supervisor against the other, or by shopping around until we get the answer that we want. When we do this, we miss an opportunity to manage conflict in ways that demonstrate integrity, we end up undermining our leaders, and we sacrifice long term benefits for a short term gain. As leaders, we need to be especially careful that we don't encourage this behavior in those we are responsible for. We all know this on some level, but there's a subtle form of the Parent Trap that we don't recognize; when we complain to one leader about another on the team.
The dynamics of spleen-venting are complex, and gossip fulfills an important social need for affiliation. (I intend to discuss the joy and power of gossip in a future post.) For now, let's just examine the psychological safety issues at play here. If I complain to a supervisor about what another supervisor has done, without first trying to correct the problem with the one I am unhappy with, I've demonstrated that I feel afraid of approaching the person. As leaders, we need to think about why that is. Why should a follower be afraid to talk something over with a leader? What does this dynamic say about the reputation of the leader? About the communication skill set of the follower? About the relationship between the two?
Such a dynamic leads to low-trust environments, with a feedback loop that reinforces the lack of trust.
This is a serious meta-problem, that is, a problem about a problem. If leaders aren't approachable, they compound issues that come up. Leaders need to be able to resolve their follower's problems, not make them worse! Leaders whose followers are uncomfortable going to them have succeeded only in undermining their own authority.
What is the leader to do when a follower comes to them about another? Just listen? Give advice? Try to handle the problem? We should never place ourselves in a position where we help undermine another partner leader's authority.
The best approach is to deal with the problem with integrity. After hearing out the subordinate, ask why they haven't gone directly to the person with the problem, and offer to accompany them. This accomplishes a couple things. First, that person came to you because they see the relationship with you as one of higher trust than their relationship with the other leader. If you accompany them, they have a measure of psychological safety with your presence. You also can help keep the conversation on a problem-solving track. Finally, the subordinate knows that you aren't there to be a "plaster ear" but active and engaged in working to fix the problem. If the subordinate is trying to stir the pot, you've blocked them from gaming you.
By dealing with the issue with integrity, you demonstrate your leadership skills, you work towards untangling the meta-problem, and you don't fall into the Parent Trap of undermining or being undermined.
How many times have we either heard or said this (or its variant, "Go ask your father" etc...)? It's a way to excuse one's self from having to take responsibility for a decision; to put the burden of leadership on the managing partner. It's easy to do and it protects us from criticism. Sometimes, delegating responsibility makes sense, especially if the decision rests squarely in the managing partner's authority. Most of the time, however, it is a toxic response.
As children, we all had to deal with this, and some of us realized early on that it provides a ready opportunity to game one parent against the other. As grown-ups, we sometimes continue the behavior by trying to pit one supervisor against the other, or by shopping around until we get the answer that we want. When we do this, we miss an opportunity to manage conflict in ways that demonstrate integrity, we end up undermining our leaders, and we sacrifice long term benefits for a short term gain. As leaders, we need to be especially careful that we don't encourage this behavior in those we are responsible for. We all know this on some level, but there's a subtle form of the Parent Trap that we don't recognize; when we complain to one leader about another on the team.
The dynamics of spleen-venting are complex, and gossip fulfills an important social need for affiliation. (I intend to discuss the joy and power of gossip in a future post.) For now, let's just examine the psychological safety issues at play here. If I complain to a supervisor about what another supervisor has done, without first trying to correct the problem with the one I am unhappy with, I've demonstrated that I feel afraid of approaching the person. As leaders, we need to think about why that is. Why should a follower be afraid to talk something over with a leader? What does this dynamic say about the reputation of the leader? About the communication skill set of the follower? About the relationship between the two?
Such a dynamic leads to low-trust environments, with a feedback loop that reinforces the lack of trust.
This is a serious meta-problem, that is, a problem about a problem. If leaders aren't approachable, they compound issues that come up. Leaders need to be able to resolve their follower's problems, not make them worse! Leaders whose followers are uncomfortable going to them have succeeded only in undermining their own authority.
What is the leader to do when a follower comes to them about another? Just listen? Give advice? Try to handle the problem? We should never place ourselves in a position where we help undermine another partner leader's authority.
The best approach is to deal with the problem with integrity. After hearing out the subordinate, ask why they haven't gone directly to the person with the problem, and offer to accompany them. This accomplishes a couple things. First, that person came to you because they see the relationship with you as one of higher trust than their relationship with the other leader. If you accompany them, they have a measure of psychological safety with your presence. You also can help keep the conversation on a problem-solving track. Finally, the subordinate knows that you aren't there to be a "plaster ear" but active and engaged in working to fix the problem. If the subordinate is trying to stir the pot, you've blocked them from gaming you.
By dealing with the issue with integrity, you demonstrate your leadership skills, you work towards untangling the meta-problem, and you don't fall into the Parent Trap of undermining or being undermined.
 |
| Taken from http://www.network54.com/Forum/151453/message/1266330855/Go+and+Ask+Your+Mother+-+cartoon |
I understand the importance you emphasize for the next step approach (accompanying the subordinate for reasons listed) however it would be best that the third individual agrees with this approach (two versus one) for the following reasons.
ReplyDeleteWith all good intentions and exercising integrity, satisfactory outcomes emerge when all individuals are in agreement with the ground rules and support a conflict resolution/dialogue engagement approach. Lastly, this would imply open minds with flexibility as collaboration and alternative solutions materialize. Colette Zito
Hi Collette! Thanks for weighing in.
ReplyDeleteI think what you suggest is getting buy-in from the untrusted supervisor before meeting with them. If that's the case, I'm not sure that approach makes the most sense. First, the subordinate is coming to you because they don't feel comfortable going to the untrusted superior. Unless you wish to join the untrusted boss in lacking trustworthiness, then you would need to get buy-in from the subordinate before approaching the other supervisor. Not only is that step unnecessary, but it avoids the meta-problem. Second, one could easily spend a career chasing after approval to get buy-in in order to be able to get approval for buy-in, etc... It becomes circular and ineffective. Third, there's no need for a two against one dynamic, as you a) offer to bring the subordinate to assist in a mediation (you aren't forcing the issue) and b) there is no reason for this meeting to have a confrontational feel to it. The whole point of the meeting is to assist in removing barriers to communication such as a confrontational tone.
The reason why it's a best practice to offer to accompany the worker when bringing the subject of concern to the untrusted supervisor is twofold. First, since the subordinate has inserted you into the conflict by approaching you, it permits you to be effective in helping the two parties work out their communication problems. There is no need for you to seek approval from the untrusted boss, as doing so will only devolve the trust that the worker put into you when confiding in the first place. Second, if the subordinate is bullshitting, or trying to game one supervisor against the other, it calls out the unethical practice by holding them accountable.
Hope this clarifies things, and hope all is well with you.
I do not follow you on the 'buy-in' perhaps my interpretation.
DeleteWhen I indicated that open minds are a critical component I thought this emphasized the importance that the untrusted supervisor will most likely block all methods for reaching a satisfactory outcome.
A closed minded, untrustworthy, my way is the only way individual is a promising challenge for individuals with open-minds and so forth.
Accountability eludes an untrustworthy individual and/or the subordinate with --perhaps--a hidden agenda.
I am perplexed that my response even hinted at the thought that seeking approval is important. Further, it perplexes me that I mention collaboration, open dialogue and open minds as critical components yet somehow confrontation is interpreted. I am not sure why my thoughts are mis-understood.
Words and word usage is all we have aiding us in a blog setting to crystalize our thoughts/values on such a topic which is why I mentioned the importance for engaging in an exchange by way of a dialogue.
Yes, all is well with me and family.
I will trust that all is well with you.
Enjoy your day, Colette