Discussion on:

How to deliver criticism to a sensitive employee

I know it's easy to think that an employee is blowing up or crying intentionally, but some people just cry or fly off the handle easily. That doesn't mean you should ignore the advice to not let it stop you, but don't hold it against them. Give them a moment and then get moving.

I would go one step further and not only write down what you need to convey for yourself, but also for the employee. Make a list of the issues and expected resolutions in an email, with the employee right there, and send it right away. Repetition is your friend. You will avoid many a misunderstanding that way.

Above all, focus on the resolution as a positive thing, and tell the person you know they can make this change. You may have to say that last through gritted teeth, but do it anyway.

From how misbehavior is handled just south of me.

Worlds apart, they are.

Hi, Toni,

Behavior, not personality works together with employees, coworkers and our own children.

Big point.

Michel FENYO

Where is the empathy? It seems like it would be good to empathize with the employee, so that they feel heard. It doesn't mean you have to agree, it just means you can hear what is going on for him/her in that moment. If someone feels heard, and that it is a safe space, he is more likely to be able to receive a hard-to-hear message. Is the value always about getting things done better or more efficiently? What about the value of the person?

Happier employees are supposed to be better and more productive and lead to happier customers. Behaviors cannot be ignored and need to be addressed, but correcting an individual behavior is a short term approach compared to building a relationship with the employee.

What do you think? Am I off base?

If you're a humane manager who wants happy, loyal, hardworking employees, empathy, give-and-take and honesty are the best way. Then criticism is easier to take, if not to give. If you don't really care about that, since all employees are replaceable, including yourself, then empathy would be an unnecessary complication. And of course, if your goal is to drive an employee out, then you may wish to employ negative empathy, or use empathy to elicit responses that could be used against the employee.

The last part of what you said is what about 90% of the managers I've ever worked for engage in. They see employees as tools, like a hammer or screwdriver, to be used, abused, and thrown away at the slightest sign of trouble. Many of the managers I've worked for fire employees seemingly for sport. Very few have had any kindness or constructive criticism ever. It's a shame that people can't see that turnover costs money in most cases. Of course, there are employees who are lazy, crooked, or can't be reasoned with, but they are in the minority. Most people can be built up if they are treated with respect and kindness. I consistently have the lowest turnover in departments I run. They need to focus on that in college, rather than constantly covering and recovering diversity.

As a husband to a wife who uses the "Bawl until I get my way" technique on almost every occasion that she doesn't agree with, I can say empathy only goes so far. You can employ those things you say, but that doesn't fix the matter. They have to be aware of what they're doing to help them get better. If nothing else, they need to learn to be a stronger person in a world that will eat them alive if they don't.

Given what I said in my reply to the other post, I totally agree with you. That is not about being a stronger person, it's about manipulation. Manipulation plain and simple. Some people can be shown kindness, and some can't. IMO, the trick to becoming a good supervisor is figuring out which, and acting accordingly. Many managers think that the only way to get results is busting balls. That is true for a small minority of emplyees, and those should be fired. The rest, who can be reasoned with, should be treated with kindness. Infortunately, you can't fire your wife (you can legally, but I don't believe in that) so you have to learn to speak her language.

There are many problems that an employer cannot solve for an employee but it's
a good idea to inquire the nature of the problem because some problems can be
solved. For example, an employee may need to pick up a child after school.

A possible solution would be to change the employee's working hours by having him start early. Suppose that the enterprise happened to be located on the West Coast, someone may need to man the phones from five or six AM because customers want service at eight or nine AM Eastern time.

This is obviously not a universal solution but, in many cases, only a local solution is needed.

Empathy must take place at every moment in your own behavior toward others. So it will be considered as an asset in your relationship with all the people surrounding you. I do not feel the necessity to add more empathy at the very moment you say "Bad boy..." or "Bad girl..."

First I must say that my own manager and his manager are excellent examples of management, but I have observed other senior personnel (I've worked for many companies during my 40 year career) who have issues with criticism and when a manager is incapable of accepting even constructive criticism, he is less effective as a manager and his department and consequently the company suffers. In a previous job there was a manager who was 'never at fault' - any problems were always someone else's fault. How do you deal with such people who have the power to sack you?
On the subject of 'I am at fault', I find that an immediate admission of guilt is the best policy - it takes the wind out of the sails of the accuser and it conveys a sense of honesty because I am not trying to worm my way out of a situation for which I am responsible.

Unfortunately, the people you just described are the norm rather than the exception. In most of the companies I've worked for, the upper management are inept as far as people skills go. The VP's generally only care if the senior managers can make the paperwork look good. They couldn't care less what the turnover rate is. At my last company we had a 95%! turnover rate with people less than five years with the company. I left the company at 6 years on good terms, and told the VP of HR what the problem was. She told me I didn't know what I was talking about.

How to deliver criticism to a sensitive employer....

Thanks for the article and the discussion!

This is very much what I try to practice in my organisation, but it seems the top looks only in numbers and has degraded people to "resources".

I still think the biggest asset of the organisation is the people!

The problem as I see it is that we, as a society, are always concerned with being politically correct and don???t hurt anyone???s feelings. Many people are afraid of confrontations or have the ???don???t rock the boat??? mentality. Whatever happened to truth and honesty, tell it like it is no sugar coating. If a person is that sensitive to criticisms tells me they have little self-respect or confidence. It???s time to grow up and face the real world.

...how they come across with the criticism negates both.

As much as many out there will totally disagree with you Angelo, I for one fully AGREE! It has gotten way out of line with the mambb-pamby lets be nice routine.
Sometimes it is time to call a spade a spade and for all to get it together and move on - Make the corrections and keep going.

Well, then.. let's call it that. You have just shown in this post that you are clearly in insensitive jerk! As long as you can vent all over an employee and ruin their work week, then you feel all better. And that's all that matters isn't it?

course.
If you can't take it, don't give it......

Employees may need to grow up, but real-world practice shows that treating such a person sharply with harsh expressions of expectations and contempt for their behavior does not produce the desired growth. In fact it produces the opposite and undermines whatever growth may have been occuring. It reinforces the belief the person may have that they are unequal to the demands of their life. They may simply not have been taught the skills for dealing appropriately with criticism, and you have a chance to model that for them by teaching them that it is not a catastrophe that alienates them from the powerful people in their lives but simply a normal everyday event that can be overcome with a little effort. People who are afraid to make the effort are people who have been taught that they can only fail further no matter what they do because they are intrinsically flawed, so they avoid or deny to escape the pain of facing that.

A certain gentle firmness combined with an empathy that is rooted in simple respect for the human being gets the best results, whether you are dealing with employees, friends, customers, or children.

Very well said. Respect for the person, and gentle correction for the undesirable behavior or performance critique. It has worked for me time and again. Only on TWO occasions in 29 years of management, has it failed. There is the rare person who will not respond, no matter what you do, then you terminate and replace with a reasonable person.

Interestingly, the "Respect and be gentle" was an explanation I once heard for Proverbs "spare the rod and spoil the child": The rod is what a shepherd uses to direct the sheep---not beat them as most people think that verse means. Thus the emphasis is on disciplining (disciplina is the Latin word for teaching and learning), not punishing---which whether you use punishment or are against it you end up with a result that the person learns nothing, finds no boundaries, etc. But the "bust their ass" guys are a common fixture in America, oddly.

Controlling or Nurturing parent as your starter, the only acceptable response is child.
It's sorry I won't do it again, or sorry I'll try to do better.

Any other and you have an immediate communication failure.
React to the lack of expected response and it will just get worse, child to child probably.
So one minute you are discussing why a bug got passed all your checks, the next whether each other spots are due to lack of hygiene.

The mere fact that you go in to this as controlling (worse still nurturing iun some respects) is saying grow up, stop being a baby, start being an adult.
You wouldn't go in and say that out loud and expect a constructive outcome would you.
If you want an adult response, you need to kick things off with an adult statement.

What did we do wrong here is a good starter....

I don't have enough information to decide if you're one of the "ball busters" that I usually work for, and you're justifying it, or if you're simply not wanting to coddle the manipulators. If you are the former, then you are the reason for any problems in your organization, not your "dumb" employees. You don't know best, like you think you do. If you are the latter, I completely agree with you. One can be kind and give criticism of the specific issue at hand without telling the employee that they are useless, or threatening to fire them.

Is fine and dandy what the article says; however, in my long experience of 40+ years I have noticed that managers and supervisors, for the most part, are not fully aware of the details of the project(s) and so make harsh and non-productive decisions. Also, managers and supervisors tend to take full advantage of employees with excellent background and know how and so they load them to the point of burning them out and piss them off...there is no balance in the group of employees as some do a lot and others very little or nothing other than being a brownnoser. Also, most employees in the technical arena do not communicate very well or not at all about what they do, the so call job security, so difussion of know how is a must among employees in any group and the manager and supervisor must be aware of that. So, no wonder a technical writer does not communicate to well the technical aspect of the job at hand or takes him/her longer than expected writing about something which the technicl person does not want to talk about or makes it obscure. As far as being a difficult person...well, most technical people are!

You are 1000% spot on, alot managers and supers are so full of themselves that they think they are beyond reproach, they live inside this tiny bubble world oblivious to anyone else s opinion or ideas. They are so drunk on there own ego that they believe nobody else knows more than they do even when the employee has more experience in that field, letting the pro due his or her job and getting the project done in half the time and with out all the BS is beyond reasoning to them.

Right on! "Drunk on their own ego." Exactly right. That's about 90% of the people I have worked for. The other 10% have been gems. I don't mind receiving criticism or critique from them at all, because I know they care about me and have my interests in mind, in addition to the organization's interests. Perfect post bullybreed!

A good technique is to conduct brief (5 minutes) informal status checks with all of your team members (e.g. every couple of days or at minimum once a week) at their workstation. Encourage them to volunteer what is going right and what could be better. I learned this from another manager at a managment training course. He referred to this technique as "managing by walking about". This reduces the chance of a problem getting out of hand and improves rapport. It also allows you to be proactive in supporting your team members early before they can add stress.

Also, when performing more formal discussions, I always start with "How do you think things are going? Is there anything that you, I or both of us could do improve productivity etc.?" This allows the employee to reflect and self-critique rather than being 'told' how they are not measuring up. This reduces the perception of you 'picking' on them and since the critique is their own, they can actually embrace it. Should they only focus on the things that they are doing well, then agree where appropriate and then interject with your observations of areas that could improve. Always be prepared to suggest some ideas on HOW they can go about making the change and examples of how you would be able to measure the change.

Finally, remind and if appropriate, reinforce the change with positive comments during your frequent informal status checks.

I completely agree with the approach you offer, David. Even in one of the worst cases of abuse of position I've had the displeasure of being involved in, the CEO pulled me and the errant guy to one side for a meeting, and employed this approach to solve the situation. In the end the tech' talked himself out of the job. Nobody got fired; he resigned. A masterful managerial approach.

"Get your **** together or take a hike!" works sometimes for shock value, but as a general approach, gentle discussions with subordinates generally makes better sense, and creates much smoother day to day working environment. Guiding staff to make themselves take responsibility for their own actions gets far better results then goading them with a cattle prod.

While we're at it, perhaps we should consider not "delivering it", but offering it, as a mentor and coach?

One problem I have encountered is the use of the word "criticism". I have had managers and HR Specialists actually write in counseling documents. Employees see that word and automatically are put in a defensive position. Once in that mind set they are not hearing you. Criticism, as a word, implies a negative assessment even it it positive and is never taken as "constructive" as no one likes to be criticized so it is an oxymoron. I avoid its use and substitute word "feedback". Employees seem to be more receptive to feedback and "hear" what deficiencies are being pointed out so they can correct them.

I think many are mixing apples and oranges. The author would have done well to provide an example or two. If a person is constantly late or regularly turns a 10-minute break into a 25-minute break or 'slips out for a "quick" smoke' or uses crass language around clients... that is a legitimate criticism. And it SHOULD be presented as a criticism. "You know Bob, we've spoken about this before. You need to show up for work on time. We have regular working hours and you are expected to be here on time just like everyone else. We all have things come up, but you tend to abuse the flexibility and it's tarnishing your reputation among management and your peers."

Saying things like "What can "WE" do to help" is coddling. It's not the managers responsibility to get the employee out of bed and to work on time.

That said, there ARE situations where empathy and assistance are appropriate. Bob, I realize that your raising two young kids as a single parent. It looks like it's next to impossible for you to get here at 8am. How about if we adjust your lunch your to 45-minutes?

There are times when employees need to be held accountable for poor performance or behavior. And there are times when an employee simply needs some help. This article did not address this fact very well.

No ... that's enforcing the rules of the road. Criticism involves reasoned evaluation.

I find a lot of the comments on this topic distressing. It's little wonder America is becoming less competitive.

In the case you are describing, I totally agree. Some people don't respond to the first couple of gentle nudges. Then you need to turn the volume up. If that doesn't work, then terminate. But ALWAYS be kind the first time. I can't imagine what reason one needs to jump all over someone the first time they discuss an offense.

"If a person is constantly late or regularly turns a 10-minute break into a 25-minute break or 'slips out for a "quick" smoke'..."

The world is a bigger place than you seem to believe. Schedules are different at different kinds of work-places.

That may be for the "IT" folks, the "house geeks", the direct tenders of robots, people at the customer service desk, and such. But software product developers are not 8-5 creatures. We may all take off together Friday afternoon for the latest SF movie premiere, but work all day and night several days a week (and typically only write down 40 hours because we know you B-school bozos won't pay us for the extra hours we work, anyway). If we're there at 07:00 or 08:00, it's often because we've been there all night. If you want us to show on time for a special meeting, let us know several days in advance so that we can make sure our transportation is in order and we can be fully alert at that time of day (just in case it's a time when we've recently been sound asleep).

I've only worked in a couple shops with fixed schedules like that and it was a bizarre experience. They were focused too much on being seen (or playing power games), and not enough on getting the job done.

"or uses crass language around clients... that is a legitimate criticism"

That's a different and more difficult matter. Some clients prefer a little crass language and others will be extremely offended at things most people would not bat an eye at. Different people consider different things "crass". (I was just reading a book in which the author pointed out that among the people with whom he works, asking who a person's father is is considered an extreme breach of etiquette and in the best of cases will only result in your naivete being roundly laughed at rather than killed, while what would be a crude sexual reference is common. In parts of the USA, asking about your close relatives is a courtesy and necessary part of first meetings; it's a way to connect and establish roles and standing.)

Figuring out the client's expectations in such things requires someone with skill and experience in measuring them. I've known a very few people who had developed that knack and were expert in smoothing over situations with just the right joke for those present and the circumstances.

No, don't cut his lunch time. S/he probably needs that time, too, if only to mentally catch up with unfinished business, but probably also to run about town on errands s/he hasn't had time to get done otherwise. Better to just pay them for the hours worked if they can't work 12-14 hours a day and make it a "no hard feelings" matter on either side. Think about whether the person is getting done what needs to get done. Then think about when you really truly neeeed for that person to actually be physically present, not just that it would be convenient if s/he were always at hand during big swaths of every day to jump at your whims.

You are partly right Kageboshi. The thing that makes the difference between it being perceived as collaborative or adversarial is the background relationship before the event. Did you (or I) as a manager come alongside the subordinate and do anything at all to show that you cared about them? I know everyone on my team by name, I know their spouses (not just the names, I've talked to them and know a little bit about them), I know their children's names and ages, and I know a little bit about what's going on in their families. If I need to restructure their schedule to help them out (like if they have to share one car or get kids from school or such) I do it. I buy them lunch from time to time and remember their birthdays. Is that too much to ask!? Evidently for most managers it is. My employees almost never have a problem if I ask them to put the new cover sheets on the TPS reports.

I've worked with a couple of people who are super sensitive, this is good advice in this article. Saying you should avoid criticising people is PC crap, it's a job at the end of the day, they're there to work. I'm not a psychiatrist, I'm not there to counsel them. The one about having them repeat back to you what you've just said is spot on, I've learned to do that too.

...to detail fired?

I had a job a few years back with a Seattle technology company. I had been very depressed, and it was affecting my work. When my boss called me in, he DID NOT criticize me. Instead, he asked me how I was feeling. I told him the truth, acknowledging that my work had not been up to snuff. He courteously asked "Do you know how to handle it?", and I said yes. I made an effort to get back on track, and that seemed to be satisfactory.

Really, Use to work for my Dad (old school). He would say, do your job, do it right, play nice with others and get out of here and quit bothering me Why do you have to baby someone because they throw a temper tantrum. No one is irreplaceable, especially in an economy that is has high unemployment.

Good post. Old school guys were straight shooters. The difference is that they CARED about their people. You knew they cared, at least I did, so it didn't bother me to get it on the chin once in a while. Nowadays the managers just bust balls, and also don't care. Turnover IS expensive. That doesn't mean don't fire anyone, just don't do it for sport.

American Managers are totally incompetent. The core reason is that they have bought into the shift from objective to emotional. How people feel determines evaluations.

Dr. Chris Argyris cuts through the rubbish in his book, "The Management Trap".

While Toni is right (and has an impressive record of excellent posts along with Jason Hiner), "The Management Trap" expands on the idea and gives you much more of "the good stuff".

The bottom line is for management to stop lying, stop trying to pretend they are in charge, stop playing as if they were positive and stop pretending to care about the employee (in some cases not even knowing the employee) and begin telling the truth -- beginning with themselves and their incompetent practices.