Jump to main content

Views

Psychological damage in organisations

How ‘caring communication’ can be exactly the opposite

Proposition

By not communicating painful or difficult information to their people in the interests of being kind or protective, leaders and managers do more damage to themselves, their people, and the organisation than if they had communicated the information in the first place. They fail to recognise what psychologist Larry Hirschhorn describes astutely as ‘the normal psychological injuries of work’1.

Examples:

  1. A manager knows that a department is going to be closed down. He knows that only a third of the people will be retained and transferred to other units. He assembles the department on Friday afternoon and tells them: ‘The department will be closing but we do not know what the full people implication is yet. As soon as we do we will share it with you’. There is surprise and shock. The meeting soon breaks up. People stay around in small groups talking. After work some go the pub and continue discussion there. Others go home at once.
  2. A subordinate who is known to be experiencing severe problems with her marriage chairs an important internal meeting. Her performance is not good. Attendees at the meeting thank her and say that ‘she did a great job’. Her immediate boss is not at the meeting but hears about her performance on the grapevine. She herself does not talk to her subordinate, but lets the matter drop.
  3. The management performance of a senior engineer is persistently poor refuses to acknowledge this. As an engineer he is brilliant and has added value to the company, but his managerial skills are below par and he is not delivering as a department head. The senior management team decides that he has to go. This is achieved by making him redundant (ie He is told that his job is being abolished. The performance issue is avoided).

What is happening in these cases in communications terms is….

  1. The closing department.
    1. Full information is not shared - the manager knows more than he communicates. He adopts this stance because he feels it will be kinder to wait until the whole picture is clear.
    2. The timing of the announcement is poor. Friday afternoon is chosen because the manager is unconsciously putting it off as long as possible.
    3. He does not allow much time for feedback because he feels uncomfortable about the whole scenario, and has not thought about or prepared responses anyway.
    4. Through the grapevine and insider information, those affected either know already that a third of the people will be retained and transferred to other units, or find out within hours. People feel that the manager has not been straight with them. Respect and trust are dented.
    5. The timing means that the information cannot be processed or shared immediately and appropriately. People go home for the weekend in shock, with uncertainty, and spend Saturday and Sunday with uncertainty and resentment brewing, talking on the phone to one another, getting information on the grapevine. In no time rumours and domesday scenario become accepted as fact. Monday, a new week, starts with everyone in a negative and speculative frame of mind.
  2. The poorly-presenting colleague
    1. Everyone knows that the presenter did not do a good job. She probably knows as well. But because it was not addressed, a parallel communications universe has been created in which everyone ‘knows’ but is too timid (=fearful) to acknowledge it. Moreover, it is a wrong assumption to associate this performance failure with home pressures.
    2. The presenter knows that people know, and feels that they cannot talk openly with her.
    3. Those in the presentation, who knew that it was not done well but who had no knowledge of the domestic problems, simply see an underperformance and question why it was allowed to happen. Department credibility is affected.
  3. The redundant manager
    1. It seemed like the simplest and trouble-free option to make the manager redundant. It avoids complex dismissal procedures and messy questions about performance and competence.
    2. Colleagues who do not know that this manager’s performance was poor, but have regarded the colleague as a superb engineer and affable, committed individual are shocked that he is being made redundant. They are every bit as competent as he is. Will they be made redundant out of the blue? Fear and uncertainty are created.
    3. Colleagues who do know that this manager’s performance was poor know that the issue has been fudged. Senior management loses respect. Consistency and trust are dented.

In all these cases, well-meaning communication intended to spare the organisation psychological damage has inadvertently created it.

The personal communications failure in the above examples

In each case, the manager responsible for the team or individual holds back from communicating the truth in each situation. Reasons:

  1. Manager may be uncomfortable or fearful about dealing with the truth, and doesn’t have the inner confidence or resources to do so.
  2. Manager may be comfortable with biting the bullet but is unsure about the best communications channel or technique to use.
  3. Manager comfortable with all the above but holds back the truth because he/she wants to be ‘kind’ to the recipient(s).
  4. Various combinations of all or some of the above.

The issue to be grasped

Emotion and aggression are part and parcel of our experience of organisations. They cannot be avoided – managers and employees will all feel emotion and aggression in the ups and downs of organisational life. The issue is to marshal them at the right place (what some commentators have called the right ‘boundary’) and communicate effectively as a result. In all the above cases the mangers drew back from the right boundary – and inappropriate (=wrong) communication meant that the emotion and aggression were left to ricochet destructively round the organisation.

What good communication looks like

  1. The closing company
    1. The manager assembles the department late morning on Thursday (this episode is itself is part of a communications strategy that has created a plan and schedule for this announcement).
    2. He tells them that the department will be closing and there is likely to be scope for only about a third of the staff to be retained (he gives as much information as he can about practicalities). He says that as soon as he has more information he will share it with them individually and as a group.
    3. He takes questions.
    4. Colleagues have Thursday afternoon and all day Friday to assimilate the news, talk to one another, and sense-make. The weekend is a time for it to settle and be with family and friends.
    5. The new week starts with much of the initial emotion and aggression processed.
  2. The poorly-presenting manager.
    1. Someone in the audience who knows the presenter takes her on one side and gives her feedback. An opportunity is created for two-way communication to occur, in which the presenter can acknowledge the fact of the below par performance and make, if appropriate, the connection with stress at home.
    2. This process is repeated between the presenter and her boss, with the same results.
  3. The redundant manager.
    1. The HR and assessment process is marshalled and used consistently to highlight the poor performance – and held to.
    2. The dismissal/exit is handled with sensitivity and tact.

Training and coaching can address the kind of challenges faced in the above examples. For example:

  • For the manager uncomfortable or fearful about dealing with the truth because of inner confidence or personal resource: Coaching.
  • For the manager comfortable with biting the bullet but unsure about the best communications channel or technique to use. Training.
  • Manager comfortable with all the above but holds back the truth because he/she wants to be ‘kind’ to the recipient(s). Combination of coaching and training.
  1. Larry Hirschhorn, ‘The Workplace Within’, MIT Press, 1990