Communication and Criticism

Talking to People You Supervise

Evaluating performance and correcting mistakes, oversights and sluggishness takes a lot of a supervisor’s, and a manager’s, time. It’s an important job; maybe THE important job. Failure to evaluate and correct would allow small problems to grow into big ones; profit killing big ones. But, failure to do it right might be equally devastating; causing morale to plummet, sowing the seeds of anger, and leading to defections of important personnel. Mistakes in handling performance issues can be particularly devastating when middle and upper level management is involved.

This truth was brought home to me in no uncertain terms recently. The circumstances had to do with a non-profit organization where I volunteer my services as a communications consultant. While the organization was “non-profit” the situation has lessons that are transferable to any business enterprise.

The non-profit in question had recently undergone some wholesale changes in its communications and public relations department. The monthly “newsletter” was particularly hard hit; losing its entire production staff. The people who stepped up to do the job were bright, and energetic, and showed considerable promise. But they were raw. The second issue they produced had some problems; an article that should have been included had been “lost” and the calendar was incomplete.

A day after it’s publication a senior manager and member of the executive board sent an e-mail harshly critical of the omissions. That email was cc’d to every member of the executive board and all of the newsletters staff. I can’t imagine a worse way to have handled the situation. The e-mailed response of the communications committee chair (who acts in the same capacity as a business executive “department head”) tells us why:

“First, criticisms of this nature are best addressed, privately, to the department head involved. That would be me.

Second, criticism of those immediately involved in the issue should never, ever, be public. Unless your goal is to destroy morale and alienate the people involved. I would hate for this situation to cost me (important members of my committee).

Third, these kinds of complaints are usually best dispensed with some “sugar.” Personally, I favor the sandwich approach in which the manager first praises, then critiques, then praises again.

Finally, emails are often a difficult medium. Since you can’t give any nonverbal cues, intent and tone are often misinterpreted.

People seldom respond well to what they may perceive to be an attack. Volunteers, especially, need to be handled with care lest they say “screw it, I quit.” I would hate for (members of my committee, who produce the newsletter) to reach that conclusion.

Since, as I said, e-mails are a medium in which it’s difficult to express “tone” let me make mine clear. You can say anything you want, to anyone you want, about me. But when you attack the people I “supervise” I will respond exactly as I have done today. You “address a serious problem with this month’s newsletter.” In the future, I would prefer you address it with me first.”
(items in parenthesis substitute for personal names used in the email)

The Committee Chairman’s e-mail was a little “harsh” in it’s own right. It was, nevertheless, accurate. There are ways to offer constructive criticism. The best ways make clear what is expected while, at the same time, showing support for those who are doing the work. Raw criticism can be hard on morale. It can be particularly devastating when those most directly responsible for the situation are held up before a larger group.

The committee chairman did leave out one important point though. That had to do with following the chain of command. I am convinced that criticisms of the newsletter should have gone to the chairman first. If he or she was unable to explain them or resolve ongoing issues satisfactorily, then the matter should be addressed by the executive committee, up to and including removal of the chair if necessary. That gives the department head opportunity to correct any problems and allows them to handle the people involved according to what I know to be accepted principles of management. Anything else shows a lack of respect.

Communication, whether it be a speech, leading a meeting, or sending an e-mail, has consequences. In this case, the consequences were bad blood…between BOTH executives, and the front-line staff producing the Email.

PS: I was the communications chair.