Management Stress And "Stuffing Thoughts"

Whatever is unresolved becomes a stressor.

Yesterday's post was really about how we literally terrorize ourselves when we pile on mental burdens that need to be released. Managers add stress to their lives by postponing important conversations and letting them build up until their heads start to feel like a balloon waiting to burst. Or, we try to submerge those thoughts until we discover that they tend to pop out in strange and often harmful ways. How many times have we received--or given--a terse comment that really was the result of some long- unspoken feeling?

Marketing guru Mike Wagner responded with a good question:

" I had to acknowledge you're living in the head of nearly every leader I meet with that observation! So, what is the "do something" you recommend when a manager has been stuffing thoughts about someone's performance?

I know what the negative thing looks like - I've seen plenty unload in a less than healthy manner."

Maybe the place to start is with:

Why Is Feedback Important?

Feedback started as a term used to describe the signals sent from a rocket back to earth in order to determine the accuracy of the rocket's course. By tracking speed and trajectory, ground crews could determine when and where to make corrections.

At some point in time, the term Feedback was incorporated into business language as a way to talk about performance. And, as in rocket flight, it has been determined that the best way for a person to stay "on course" is to assess where one stands at any given moment in relation to the task or goal at hand.

Here's the really important point: The chances of impacting performance increase with frequency and timeliness of feedback. That implies the need for ongoing "How are we doing?" conversations. It's our best chance at knowing whether we're on track or not.

What Gets In The Way of Giving Feedback?

1. Let's face it: few of us enjoy hearing about those areas of worklife where we're coming up short. It's human nature. The flip side is that managers are people, too, and they have the same thoughts and feelings. So it's not exactly a peak experience being the proverbial "messenger" even though it comes with the job.

2. The term "feedback" has morphed into "Here's what you need to correct" instead of "Here's how I think we're doing."

3. Feedback has been institutionalized to the point where it is often done at yearly or semi-annual performance reviews. That's usually too far away from the actual performance for a person to make the kind of changes that will alter an outcome. So it's almost like a "Gotcha!"

4. It takes a relationship built on trust to have meaningful conversations about performance.

Trust comes from a series of interactions where people have made agreements, talked about how things were going, and then lived up to what they said they would do. And if something goes wrong, one person points that out to the other. They talk about what to do differently. And they learn that, even if something does go wrong, they care enough to bring it up and do something about it. I've said this before: The people you trust the most are the people who tell you the truth--good and bad. If it's good, they offer encouragement. If it's bad, they offer ways to work with you to sort things out.

5. Lack of ongoing, natural conversation about work life gets in the way of building relationships that breed the level of trust we need to have ongoing, natural conversations. It's circular.

What Can You Do About This?

1. Managers: Start the conversation from Day 1.

Set the tone for the future early on by asking, "How are things going with project x?" What didn't we anticipate? What's going well? What isn't going well, so we can find out how to get it on track?

Then make sure that both of you do what you say you'll do.

2. Employees: If there isn't a conversation, start one. Turn the questions in #1 into statements. For example, "Here's how project x is going." "Here's what we didn't anticipate."

Sure, maybe your boss doesn't like bad news. Here's a secret: Surprises are worse than bad news.

If you start the conversation, you have a better chance of putting your boss at ease with the whole idea of "How are we doing?"

3. Keep talking about having conversations, not feedback.

Language conveys feeling. The whole notion of feedback has degenerated to the point where the word contains more negative connotations than positive. Why? Maybe because it was never meant to be associated with the human condition in the first place.

From the time we're kids we have conversations. We talk about "What's going on" and "How are things going?"

Start having ongoing "How are we doing?" conversations. Start now.

I absolutely guarantee you that two people of goodwill can increase their combined performance and reduce their stress-inducing baggage by having regular, honest talks about their progress and the factors impacting it. These kinds of talks are the foundation of every good relationship, on and off the job.

Bonus Thought: The longer you wait, the larger the "negative" becomes and the more difficult it is to discuss. Regular, frequent conversations mean that the problem areas will be smaller and easier to talk about!

Bonus Resource: Read what Dr. Ellen Weber has to say about The Power of A Stress-Free Mind. 

Comments

[peter vajda]

Speaking of feedback, I was chatting with a member of one of my men's groups a few months back, an individual who works for a major international consulting firm. I was curious about his up-front assessment process(es) when he initially enters a company to begin his due diligence and information gathering efforts about working relationships. He spoke of forms, assessments, exercises and the like.

I wondered aloud what he thought about tossing the paper and forms and having every manager ask each direct report one question, namely, "What's it like to work for me?" Or, a variation, "What was it like working for me today/this week/this month?"

I'm always curious about what gets in the way of such open and honest communication? And, as you suggest Steve, trust is at the "heart" of the resistance...resistance that is fear-based and leads to the flight, fight or freeze response.

What would it take to ask such a question? Or, for the direct report, "What was it like having me work for you today/this week...?"

Incidentally, in the couples coaching I do, partners, or spouses have a weekly sharing session which begins with a flavor of this question, e.g., "What was it like to be in relationship with (married to...) me this week?"

The $10 question is: What's right about "not having" this type of dialogue?" Hmmm.

[David Zinger]

Steve,

I like your points and how you structured feedback into conversations.

I teach a course called Crucial Conversations and your points are right in line with the basic ideas of that book/course.

I think your post should be required reading for anyone leading people who thinks the work is all in the metrics, strategic planning, and systems. The work is in the organization brought out by a leader's strong connections and coversation with the people.

Take care and keep feeding us with your ideas and perspectives,

David

[Steve Roesler]

Peter,

I sure like the $10 question.

Could you ask your consultant group member what he thinks is better (more effective) about the paper and forms vs. the verbal question? I'm genuinely curious about that. Experience would say that if a consultant actually started the conversation, (s)he wouldn't have a load of data to show the client. In which case the hoped-for scope of work could diminish. (That's not accusatory, it's simply the model that most firms follow--and there are sound reasons for data gathering).

However, what would stop us (consultants) from developing a new entry point which actually modelled the conversation, got it going, and then used a more facilitative/coaching approach to build confidence in making it a part of organizational life?

A thought...

[peter vajda]

Sure, I will, Steve; it may be a few days, but will come back with his perspective on your question.

[Michael Wagner]

Steve, thanks for taking my question and releasing some healthy wisdom into the blogosphere.

You insight into how the term "feedback" has come to be only a negative was new to me. That is a very timely insight for me.

Also, the piece about how trust is built proves out in my experience as well.

Thanks for making my mind race.

Keep creating,
Mike

[Steve Roesler]

Hi, Mike,

Well, the "feedback" term is probably not totally negative. That would be an overstatement on my part. But it has become institutionalized and, as a result, has lost its punch. Maybe its neutral at best.

[Wally Bock]

I've come to believe that if there's a "secret sauce" to success it involves getting and using feedback. But,if you've grown up or come up in a "gotcha" culture, it's very hard to learn to take feedback as something you can use for improvement.

[Jim Stroup]

Hello Steve,

As usual, you have demonstrate yet again a knack for identifying a vital topic and presenting an insigtful take on it. I have followed the past two posts and the comments with interest. I agree that positive, ongoing communication built on mutual trust as well as joint focus on mutual goals is important. After all, as you mention, if the feedback process degenerates into a mechanical periodic - every 6 mos, a year - routine, perceptions of goals and the nature of progress being made toward them can begin to diverge so much that the fractured conversation, when taken up again, can reveal some real surprises. Had it been ongoing, that would likely not be the case.

But another aspect of this issue comes to mind: sometimes, managers simply are not up to the job of engaging in potentially controversial conversations about almost anything - in particular, what they may have a really visceral dread of what they interpret as, or assume will be, confrontations with juniors over job performance. Many managers who are unable to work through this difficulty are willfully turning a blind eye to a central aspect of their duties.

They wish to see their role as a decision-maker and allocator of assets in an antiseptic environment of material resources and time, and tend to avoid the less manageable, if you'll forgive the pun, world of human abilities, emotions, ambitions, energies - and fragilities. Hence, they take recourse in the minimum requirements of a structured, periodic review process (if one exists in their firm), and even then make it go away as quickly as possible with anodyne and meaningless feedback.

Sometimes, managers who cannot confront the need to engage in ongoing, constructive dialogue with their "most important asset" simply are not cut out for the work, and cannot be made to be so. Acknowledging and confronting this may indeed provide welcome relief not only for the individual, but for the organization as a whole.