It's Only Words - So Be Very Careful

Have you ever considered the impact that our language has on ourselves and also on other people? OK, you have probably had one or two occasions when you have said something in the heat of the moment that you've later regretted. Ouch! But what about everyday language, phrases that don't sound like they are harmful, but really can be.

Think about these little nuggets:

'I've spoken to him til I'm blue in the face'...No you haven't. A blue face usually means you're either choking or your body is freezing. Nothing more. Have you ever seen someone's face go blue just because they're a little peeved at someone?

'He's too long in the tooth to learn anything new'. What have long teeth got to do with someone's ability and/or willingness to learn?

'You can't teach an old dog new tricks'. Well, unless you work in a zoo or for the RSPCA, there's unlikely to be any dogs or tricks. Yet again, a few carefully selected words can cause problems.

During my very early years in executive and management development, some one to one coaching sessions could become rather heated. The key reason was the client had something on his or her mind and this forum was the only or safest place to be really open and genuine - which is always a nice experience. One such instance which I do have permission to share with you is when a very demanding boss who felt he was CONSTANTLY being LET DOWN by his 4 direct reports had reached THE END OF THE LINE (what line?) and was intent on taking these individuals OFF LINE (nice way of saying a real rollocking) and a PIECE OF MY MIND. He had been KICKED IN THE TEETH and STABBED IN THE BACK so many times that enough was enough.

This client was usually very assertive in his approach but not aggressive. Thankfully, our brief relationship had developed in to a high level trust relationship and we had permission to question, challenge and disagree with each other, but only on the condition that such behaviour would help him develop and grow. So here's what happened. After listening to a full 7 minutes of profanities mixed in with a table leg being kicked, profuse perspiring and my ears losing their feeling, I politely asked 'May I see your teeth?'. 'What?' he replied, somewhat shocked by my unusual request. 'May I see your teeth, just for a moment. I'd really like to see your gnashers', posturing with a big smile and clattering my teeth for full effect. His anger turned to shock, his shock turned to confusion, all in a matter of seconds. I continued, 'OK, you won't show me your teeth, I understand....so please take off your shirt.' This was a risky step. What reaction would I receive? Well, if you've been watching the tv series 'Ashes to Ashes' and picture the chief cop, Gene Hunt, the response wouldn't have looked out of place coming from his mouth. 'PROFANITY, no way pal', was followed a second or two later with a smile and a laugh when he pointed to me and said 'I know what you're up to Scott. You want to see all of the knife scars on my back don't you?'. 'Absolutely, and I'm sure there are many, aren't there?' I replied.

From this moment on, the coaching session returned to a calm, thinking environment where the things that mattered most to him and his company were thought through, talked through and solutions to each of the problems generated. And all in less than 2 hours. During the following 3 months, 3 of his managers began to perform better than they had ever done, while 1 other left the organisation by mutual agreement.

Just think what the possible outcome could have been if this really decent, hard-working and caring man had handled the situation in the manner he initially had intended. Managers could have been the walking wounded (oh, there I go, I'm doing it now), and their brains would have counted this latest verbal assault as the norm.

So remember, be very careful about the language you use and also, check understanding of what other people actually mean when they use old cliches to express how they are feeling at any given moment. It could save you many headaches and a few heartaches too.

Spying or Simply Positive Performance Management?

Airbus are in the news due to a supposed 'spying scandal' . A previous management board allegedly spied on staff between 2005 and 2007 in what was deemed to be a positive step to identify and deal with instances of corruption amongst its ranks. The BBC reported that the checks were to see if any employees bank accounts had any links to those of the company's suppliers.

But is this a bad thing or a good thing? Corporate surveillance can be perceived as a distinct absence of trust for employees but on the other side of the coin, isn't it also a very positive step the company's former bosses took to ensure that their company's business was being run honestly and transparently? Not that it is an act of transparency to secretly 'spy' on staff - but I suppose that informing everyone in advance of such a project would defeat the whole object of the exercise!

In the instances of the Enron, Worldcom, Parmalat scandals, if the cameras have been focused firmly on the leaders of the organisations the fall-out would have been reduced significantly. But, as it is on most occasions the leader/s who authorise such a practice, they are unlikely to promote such a practice for themselves.

A certain Mr Madoff is also in the news. His alleged multi-million dollar fraud could have and some commentators say, should have been avoided if his company's accounts had been audited by a genuinely independent accountancy practice.

We may have to accept that in some situations, actively observing and indeed investigating employee behaviour (from the very top downwards) is a very good thing. Moving away from the old adage 'if you've nothing to hide, there's nothing to be concerned about' to 'it's in everyone's best interests that we all demonstrate transparency'. Remember in the UK in the 1970's where a car manufacturer British Leyland identified that some of its assembly line workers were stealing car parts from their employer - not to sell or indeed use the parts individually. At the expense of British Leyland, they were building their own cars at home!

Is there a difference between 'spying' and 'managing quality'? Is it the intention on which the action is based? If you don't trust your boss, isn't it likely we will view it as spying or micro management, whereas if we do trust our boss, we are more likely to view it as a genuine corporate requirement?

How do you perform when you feel you aren't being trusted? How would you respond if your employer was found to have been watching your every move?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7978713.stm

Showing Two Fingers To Bad Behaviour - Football's Shameful Leaders

Many companies have a clause in their employment contracts which states something along the lines of 'the employee agrees to behave themselves, not be stupid, silly or get into trouble with the police - basically...BEHAVE YOURSELF'. Is it fair for a company to impose such a stipulation on its employees when they are outside of the workplace and outside their working hours? There is after all this growing awareness of human rights - we should be free to do as we please when away from work. Well, such a general statement could cause chaos in a world where social ills such as violence, illegal drug use and booze culture are growing fast.

But what about when a professional sportsperson/footballer (or two of them in this case) choose to break the rules set by their national team manager by allegedly going on a heavy drinking session when they should have been tucked up in bed in preparation for representing their county 24 hours later? Some people may challenge 'Well, as long as they perform on the pitch, why is it a problem?' while others may claim 'They get paid enough to behave themselves, how stupid can they be?'.

But while national team manager George Burley and Walter Smith, Rangers' Manager thought they had effectively resolved the matter of 'drinking on duty', what made matters worse, much worse in fact was the two players' two finger hand gestures to the television cameras during the Scotland v Iceland match when they were both on the bench and not selected to play due to their manager suspending them.

Whichever way we look at the situation that Barry Ferguson and Allan MacGregor currently find themselves in, the facts of the matter are:

1. The Scottish Football Association has decided that both players cannot represent their country again.
2. Both players have been suspended by their club for 2 weeks and have been fined 2 weeks' wages. Perhaps this isn't a big deal in itself as Ferguson reportedly earns £25,000 per week and MacGregor £15,000.
3. Barry Ferguson has been stripped of his club captaincy role and both players transfer listed by Rangers. They are unlikely to play for their club again, even though the Scottish league championship is rather tight this year and Rangers would benefit from having their best players available.

So what does this mean in a corporate sense?

How do you tackle those team members who choose to flout the rules and standards that your organisation set and you are paid to implement? Do you turn a blind eye if the rules are being broken by a high performing team member because you can't afford to upset them in case their performance drops?

How about, if as in Rangers case, you have a good chance of 'winning the championship' and you feel you can't afford to take your best player/s out of the team? Either way, whether they remain in the team or are suspended/fired, what messages do you send to other team members who behave impeccably well on a consistent basis?

If a member of your team behaves in such a manner that s/he is ultimately removed from your organisation, would you still provide a job reference saying they were a model employee/committed/dedicated, not mentioning the reason they left your organisation - even if the prospective employer asked you?

How many times do you give a team member 'another chance' to behave within the boundaries set by your organisation? When is enough, really enough?

What situations have you faced, or are facing where someone's behaviour is being tolerated even though it is destructive?

When have you procrastinated on taking action on a poor performer and it has got worse?

Have you had a time when you procrastinated on taking action on a performance/behaviour issue and the matter seemed to resolve itself?

Why do some people choose to let their ego get in the way of doing what they are paid (and hopefully, trusted) to do?

There is a big difference between 'making an example' of someone and leading by example. In my view, Walter Smith has set a standard which as well has having potential serious repercussions for both players future career prospects, sends a clear message to his current and future players - behave, or else. Perhaps Mr Smith is leading by example as football is supposed to be a family game and he may not want to promote the possibility of young, impressionable children accepting the behaviour of their role model/s as the norm.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/apr/03/barry-ferguson-allan-mcgregor-banned-scotland-rangers

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/7983283.stm