What is the Cost to Organizations of the "Actually a Good Person" Story?

Dear Critical Skills,

Sometimes I observe that managers forgive the problematic behavior of their employees on the grounds that "they are actually a very good person and therefore their intentions are not bad".

I have worked in non-governmental organizations for years and I have actually both done this and witnessed others doing it. This reminds me of the stories of helplessness that I learned in the Critical Conversations training. I mean, there is nothing to do, he is actually a good person but he is not very talented. I wonder if you have anything to say about these kinds of stories.

Alias Wrath of Angels

Dear Wrath of Angels,

Thank you for this interesting and thought-provoking question. You are right, the stories we tell ourselves about others are not always negative. Sometimes we make up a rosy story about someone else's lack of motivation or bad intentions (the most common type of story). Then, as you say, we forgive the problem just because the person in question is a good person.

Either you are talking about talking to the person, resolving the problem and not imposing sanctions, or (and this is more likely) you are talking about ignoring the problematic behavior. Because after all, you are dealing with a well-intentioned person. Under the umbrella of a non-governmental organization, the person in question may even be a volunteer. Who would want to hold a well-meaning volunteer to account?

I am answering the second option, that is, you have chosen not to say anything to "this angelic person" because he is so good and kind and trying to do the right thing. This is a mistake. While it may be tempting at first not to say anything to others about the problems they are causing, keeping silent can be very dangerous. It perpetuates the problem, deprives the other person of useful feedback and leads to a weak or absent culture of accountability.

How serious are the consequences of classifying people as good-hearted and ignoring their bad behavior? For the person who has these good thoughts, it is of course preferable to think the best of others than to always think the worst of them. However, in terms of the consequences for the organization, thinking well and allowing unprofessional behavior to continue can be devastating.

Over the course of my working life, I have made the following observations about various people with different personality combinations in terms of likability and professional behavior. Unprofessional and unlikable people are quickly dismissed and disappear into the past. They make a mess of the business and nobody wants to work with them. People who are liked and act professionally have long, beautiful careers, no matter where they work. People who are disliked but act professionally are usually ostracized and left alone.

Let's not forget the last and most dangerous combination: The unprofessional but liked people, the ones you call "angels". If we are on our bad side, we can also call them the "weak link". Whatever their label, they can sign your company's death warrant. They can stay in the organization for years, even though they are useless.

Underlying the strategy of being nice to nice people is a faulty assumption. We hesitate to hold nice people accountable for their behavior because we think it is somehow rude, cruel and insensitive. We don't want to break good people's hearts. Pointing a finger at a problem is hurtful, isn't it?

Underlying this assumption is a predictable pattern. We hold ourselves back from saying something to someone who is performing poorly (for the reasons I just mentioned), we get increasingly frustrated by this mediocre performance, and finally we say something. And because what we say comes out harshly, even hurtfully, we confirm our belief that talking about problems is hurtful.

The solution to all this is to let go of our perception that talking to people about problems is harsh or insensitive. This is often the most helpful and kind thing we can do, unless we stay silent until the last moment, and then we get up in anger and go down in fury. Defining the problem in clear, neutral words and asking the other person for their perspective is a great start to an important problem-solving conversation. The other person is now aware of your point of view and the two of you can sit down alone and talk openly if there is something that needs to be improved.

We cover this interaction in detail in the book Crucial Conversations, which my colleagues and I wrote, and in our Crucial Conversations trainings . In fact, it will take more than a good start, but for now at least, I will content myself with focusing on the underlying cause.

CRITICAL CONVERSATIONS TRAINING

Let's not put labels on people that do them no good. It prevents us from talking to them as ordinary people. Let's also get rid of the idea that talking about problems is inherently hurtful. Speaking openly, honestly and professionally is often the most humane response.

KERRY