The Death of the Bollocking

Jonathan pointed me to this article in Management Today. It’s a couple of months old now but if I hadn’t seen it, chances are a lot of others haven’t either.

It’s called Death of the Bollocking and it’s a complaint about the reluctance to tackle shoddy performance with explicit criticism.  Regular readers will know that a similar theme recurs in some of my blog posts. While I would not advocate Gordon Ramsay style verbal assaults, people sometimes need to be told in no uncertain terms that they have messed up.

This paragraph struck a chord:

But beware the beguiling concept of balanced feedback, where every negative is countered with a positive. This sort of spurious balance isn’t a good thing when what you want to deliver is unambiguously bad news.

Let’s say that you call James in and what you want to tell him is that his work on project X has been very poor. Instead, you sit him down and say: ‘James, we were really pleased with the way you dealt with presentation Y, but project X wasn’t so good.’ As a result, James takes away a mixed and confused message. Has he been good or bad? He doesn’t really know.

It’s the old Shit Sandwich Approach. Tell them something nice to soften them up, hit them with the bad stuff then say something nice at the end to try and make it better. It’s a really bad way to deliver a hard message. Often, the thing that you want the person to hear gets so sugared up with the nice stuff that he or she completely misses the point. It’s far more effective, though less comfortable, to just make your point then use the rest of the meeting time to deal with the fallout and agree some remedial action.

This bit amused me too:

Cary Cooper, professor of organisational studies at Lancaster University, says the managerial problem is twofold. First, there are legal issues. ‘We do have a lot of HR laws in this country and if I tell you you’re crap, I’m going to be kind of worried about the implications.’ This kind of thing is seen at its worst in the public sector, where there is the well-known phenomenon of ‘vexatious litigators’ – people who claim some kind of ‘ism’ every time their managers do something they don’t like and who have become virtually impossible to sack. And, even in the private sector, some feel that once HR gets involved, it can add needless layers of bureaucracy to the simplest dressing-down. One manager notes: ‘Our HR department is like having a little bit of my local authority at work.’

Well get yourselves some decent HR people then. This stuff about employment law and company procedures hampering the disciplinary process is true up to a point but a lot of the time it’s a cop out used by managers who just don’t want the aggro of dealing with poor performance. “Hey, I think Fred is a waste of space too and I’d love to sack him but, y’know, employment law, HR and all that, my hands are tied.”

Far from stopping managers from dealing with poor performers, a good HR executive will encourage them to do so. Sometimes that can upset their cosy little world too. A friend of mine was given HR responsibility for a department and shocked everyone by declaring that they were going to fight all the grievances and stop settling tribunal cases out of court. Even the ‘isms’ were tackled head on. It worked. Soon people began to realise that raising grievances or taking the organisation to court was not an easy way of getting money for doing nothing. It was a hard slog and it took a while but eventually the message got through and the grievance culture was broken.

It’s not necessary to shout at people to get your point across about unsatisfactory performance but sometimes you do need to be clear and firm and to confront issues before they get out of hand. In my experience, the people who rant and rave at their staff are often those who have avoided dealing with issues until they have got out of hand, then their patience snaps and they flip over and bawl people out.

I’m not an advocate of shouting at people but, to be fair, neither is the author of this pro-bollocking article. As he says:

[I]f managers are honest with people and communicate with them frequently, the odd well-meant home truth will be no big deal.

Nor should constructive but forcefully delivered criticism be confused with abusive behaviour. If your honest intention is to deliver a one-off shock to spur somebody on, you are not a bully.

Sometimes you need to confront people and give them hard messages. It’s not pleasant but it saves you a hell of a lot of even greater unpleasantness in the long run.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to The Death of the Bollocking

  1. Jo says:

    Hmm, usually agree with you! There is something wrong with the job when the employee doesn’t already know they have messed up.

    They can only be responsible for results they can see with resources they control. If they don’t already know something has gone wrong, I am afraid this is down to the managers and HRM who designed the job.

    So many managers confuse their own emotional incontinence with performance management. Simply not the same thing at all!

  2. This post is spot on. So many people equate discussions about poor performance as being mean and/or issuing punishment. You don’t have to yell at your employees. Just talk to them.

    If you ignore poor performance, then it becomes acceptable behavior.

  3. Rick says:

    HR Bartender?!!

    How can I not add this woman to the blogroll?

  4. I think the final paragraph sums up the situation of the country at the moment perfectly

    Sometimes you need to confront people and give them hard messages. It’s not pleasant but it saves you a hell of a lot of even greater unpleasantness in the long run.

  5. Sorry to post again but on re reading Jo’s comment I remembered going to a presentation by John Monie (who?) John Monie was coach of Wigan Rugby league when they won almost every game in the middle 90’s.

    Jo posted “There is something wrong with the job when the employee doesn’t already know they have messed up.”

    In his presentation, John Monie was asked about what he did on the rare occasion that the team lost – did he lose his temper & shout.

    He just said – “No”, he would walk into the dressing room, say in a quiet voice “well, you know where you went wrong, just do it right next week”

    Point was – he taught his players(staff) to know when they had not done the right thing…

  6. Thanks for adding me to the blog roll. Really enjoy reading your blog…keep the convo going.

  7. tbrrob says:

    Interesting post. It is very true that these work problems need to be nipped in the bud early on.

  8. THE ARGUIST says:

    So many expert employees have to allow themselves to be “assessed” by know-nothing “managers”.. They know it is ludicrous, but have to play the rubbish game just to pay the mortgage. The “manager” is far too thick to see how ludicrous it is, sitting there spouting nonsense just because they don’t have the gumption to question the rubbish they are taught on “management” courses. It is their non-questionning thing that gets them the “management” job in the first place !

  9. jonathan says:

    I slightly disagree arguist.

    Too many managers are managers because they have been there the longest and know how to lock up/cash up/live nearest to deal with fire alarm call outs…

  10. THE ARGUIST says:

    I’m not worried about that sort, Jonathon, they’re likely to know the ropes, and therefore be in a position to make sound judgements
    Its the “dynamic” go-getters that bother me, and reduce the efficiency of their organisation by lowering the morale of the expert workforce. The ones who know nothing, have only been there 6 monnths, and get a management job only because thet spend all day giggling at THEIR manager’s jokes They then augment their giggling skills to taking credit for the work of colleagues, and bad- mouth the same colleagues to their naive bosses. Then its a simple victory at interview to get the management job, because the naive selectors love a yes person more than anything !

    They then spout management nonsense about stuff of which they know nothing, safe in the knowledge that they will be supported by other so called “managers” for years and years, because of the “close ranks” syndrome. They will then oversee a steady reduction of talented personnel over the same time period, due to the expert workers eventually being unable to continue to subject themselves to the rubbish they have to stomach on a daily basis.

    That sort of “manager”, they’re the ones I mean, and if you want your organisation to become infinitely more efficient, I advise you to speak to your intelligent rebels for the first time, to find out whats REALLY going on. And it IS going on Jonathon, because its going on everywhere. The Cult of the Manager is a modern phenomenon, and continues because most people are too blinkered to spot it, or too cowed to find the courage to challenge it.

    Although not in my field, I would lay good money that many people “lower” down the scale could see the problems developing in the Banks and Finance worlds, and knew the personnel involved, but were ignored or ostracised. Can you imagine the “management” and “leadership” rubbish that would have been spouted by Maxwell’s “managers”, and no doubt spotted by more talented people who must eventually have bitten right through their lips !

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s