 |
| Mrs. Novelli modeled silent reading during DEAR time with her students! |
Let's stay positive and look for the BRIGHT SPOTS!
Access the link to this article and sign up for the Crucial Skills newsletter: http://now.eloqua.com/es.asp?s=567&e=164606&elq=7c93a5cc73354256a34be23a5afdf902
Q Dear Crucial Skills,
One of my main concerns at work is how we talk about each other—the staff
lunchroom can be especially toxic. What feels most shocking to me is how our
boss is often thrown under the bus.
I am having a hard time thinking of an appropriate comment to make as I feel
that listening to these conversations implies my agreement. And I have to admit
there have been times when I've piped up with a rude wise-crack or two, so I
don't want to seem like I'm above it all. There are times I just avoid the
lunchroom and I know others do, too.
What suggestions do you have for responding to wisecracks made behind
coworkers' backs?
Staying In From the Lunch Room
A Dear Staying In,
You've done a great job of describing a familiar problem. I bet many of us
have been in the same situation. We're joking around in the lunchroom,
one-upping each other's wisecracks, when somehow the topic turns to our boss or
maybe to a colleague. We keep on with the jokes and banter, but at some point,
it crosses the line from play to poison. As you said, we're throwing someone
under the bus—all in the name of fun.
In these situations, silence isn't golden. It's agreement. When we don't
speak up, we show our support for the people doing the badmouthing. We're
helping to throw the person under the bus.
It's this kind of poisonous conversation that causes bad morale to spread
across a team or organization. It begins with a seemingly innocuous joke, which
is really the leading edge of an attack. Instead of saying something like, "I
see it differently," others in the conversation remain silent or add to the
wisecrack, amplifying the attack.
The group is creating a villain story at someone's expense, without stopping
to question the story's truth or giving the person a chance to respond. As the
story is repeated and grows unchallenged, it becomes full of what the comedian
Stephen Colbert calls, "truthiness." It may be several steps away from the
facts, but it
feels true. And it poisons the workplace.
Why do we do this? Sometimes it's because we don't know the person's true
motives and we assume the worst. Jamaicans have a saying, "If you don't know a
man, you'll invent him." The implication is that we'll invent him as an ogre.
Few of us know our managers—especially senior leaders—really well. We aren't
privy to their information or motives. And as the saying suggests, we judge them
harshly. We don't give them the benefit of the doubt.
Sometimes these conversations are as simple as failing to give the benefit of
the doubt, but often there is more going on. Sometimes your colleague is
motivated by jealousy, revenge, fear, or dislike. Regardless of the cause, you
need to speak up when you see this inappropriate behavior.
Use CPR to decide what to say. CPR
stands for Content, Pattern, and Relationship. CPR can help you think about a
problem and decide how to focus your conversation.
Suppose a person at your table says, "Sure, the boss says she's trying to
improve staffing levels, but that's just to shut us up. What she really means is
'staphing' levels—you know like a staph infection!"
A statement like this may contain issues related to Content, Pattern, and
Relationship. As a problem-solver, you can decide which issues are most central
to you. You can use CPR to focus on the issues that are closest to the heart of
your concerns.
Content: Addressing the content means you focus on the facts
in the person's statement. Focusing on content is usually the simplest and
safest way to respond because you aren't drawing any conclusions beyond what the
person has just said. An example of addressing the content would be, "I don't
think she's trying to shut us up. Why do you think that?" Addressing the content
frames the problem as a question of facts. It focuses the discussion toward what
your manager said and why your colleague doesn't believe it.
Pattern: Suppose this comment is just one in a pattern of
passive-aggressive comments this group uses to badmouth the boss. Then, you
might address this pattern by saying, "I like the way we kid around with each
other, but not when we start to throw people under the bus—people who aren't
here to defend themselves." Addressing the pattern focuses on your colleagues'
inappropriate behavior. It's a tougher discussion, but it may be closer to the
heart of your concern.
Relationship: The long-term impact of these corrosive
conversations is the undermining of trust and respect. The relationship with the
boss is put at risk. If you feel that people's comments reveal a rupture in
basic trust and respect for your boss, then you might address the relationship
itself: "It sounds as if you're questioning whether you can trust and respect
her. Is that right? If that's your concern, then I think you need to find a way
to talk with her and hash it out." Note that you may decide to have this
conversation in private, instead of putting the person on the spot in front of
everyone. Again, it's a tough discussion, but it may be closer to the heart of
your concern.
The mistake many problem-solvers make is to focus on content, the simple and
safe route, when their true concern involves the pattern or relationship. They
address a problem, but it's not the problem they really care about.
This CPR skill can be used in a wide variety of situations, not just in
confronting gossip about your boss. The next time you have a concern, use CPR to
decide which part of the concern to address. CPR can help you focus on the heart
of your gossip problem.
David
