Some leaders are afraid to directly address self-centered behaviors. Examples include messes, parking in the wrong spot, and abusing the printer or copier.
What happens then, is the leader (attempting to solve an obvious problem) sends out an all-purpose missive, rather than addressing people directly.
This is an error.
Why?
- Because the people it is really directed to generally still don’t get the message.
- Because the people it is not directed to will know exactly who the leader is talking about.
- Because this combination of factors will damage both the leader’s credibility and the team’s loyalty.
Here’s a real-world example (with a few changes for the sake of privacy):
Happy Friday afternoon!
This e-mail is being sent out with this thought: “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.“
A regular client of ours, Grace, brought in home-made scotcheroo bars for the office this morning. Grace is a very nice gal. As she offered me a bar, I said, “no, but thank you.” A fair amount of encouragement took place from Grace and others in the office to get me to eat a bar. I kindly replied, “if I eat one, I’ll probably eat another, then I might have another later in the day…just because I can have one, doesn’t mean I need to.”
An analogy…enter copier/printer in the upper and lower level pods into the discussion.
Just because you can print (500) copies from your computer, doesn’t mean you should.
Just because you can avoid the long-lines at central print, the inconvenience of the online central print submission [obvious sarcasm] by making (175) copies on your own, doesn’t mean you should.
Let’s make sure everyone on staff does their part to conserve resources and plan in a more proactive manner.
Have a great weekend!
Maxine
As in the above example, sometimes the message is couched in cleverness, which doesn’t impress, but makes eyes roll. Also in this example, the leader is really only trying to get a point across to 2 out of 40 people who are abusing the copy system, and everyone either knows that or is now worried that they’re doing something wrong because they don’t know what she’s talking about.
Worse yet, this example includes sarcasm. It would have taken less time (but would have been harder) to find and address those two people directly.
Instead of sending an email like the one above, make an attempt to address people directly.
It may be awkward and harder at first, but you will actually end the behaviors this way, and enhance your credibility and relationships.
Thanks for reading,
Alan Feirer
joel
Hell Alan….I thought email was spectacular!
You’re telling me,…I have to rethink all of my correspondence?! The funniest part of the whole email…was I could hear you in a very sarcastic tone delivering it! hahaha
GEEEEEZ!
Best wishes!
Joel
Alan Feirer
We all have room to grow, Joel. Right? Right!? Geeeeez indeed! 🙂 Thanks for weighing in.
Jacque
Agreed. But when you do address it directly and well if the other person is not capable of receiving and delivering return communication then even attempts to share constructive info does not go far
Alan Feirer
Well, that turns into a new conversation. If someone is consistently insubordinate, something is very wrong; either with the leader (if this is widespread) or with the report (if it’s isolated). One of the two is likely not a fit and has to change, or be let go, right?