Case Study #4

Cathy is the manager of a small team of analysts who are focused on process improvement in their division. She reports to the division president, Jason, but spends most of her time working with managers who do not report to him. These managers are a couple of levels below the president. The managers report to their supervisors who then report to the president. Cathy’s team is responsible for facilitating process improvement projects that effectively improve quality and reduce costs.

Cathy has been in her job for about two years, and today was the first time that the president had actually given her a performance review. Jason had set the appointment about three weeks ago, and this morning Cathy met with him for about forty minutes. Her performance appraisal was actually excellent, and her boss told her he was very impressed with the cost savings she had reported over the last couple years. He told her he needed even more savings, so she should continue to focus on cutting costs in the division.

During the session, Jason gave her some feedback that had been directly reported to him. Several supervisors said they had received complaints from other managers that Cathy was “no fun to work with.” He told her she needed to deal with these concerns because they had come from enough different sources to have some validity. Cathy was stunned and took strong exception to the feedback. She told her boss she was going to confront the supervisors to determine who had made the comments, and then go back to those managers and deal with them directly.

Jason responded very strongly that such action would not be acceptable to him. Cathy was stunned once again, but realizing how firmly her boss felt about it, she did not pursue it any further and even committed to doing nothing. Despite that commitment, Cathy became more and more upset following the meeting and convinced herself she needed to do something.

What should Cathy do?

Analysis #4-
This type of scenario in the performance evaluation process is not unusual. Several problems exist here, and each compounds the other. First, it is wrong to wait two years before you give feedback to an associate. Jason is apparently like so many “executives” who simply do not believe they should be required to do formal performance appraisals. If they do conduct formal performance appraisals, it’s when they “have the time.” Jason’s appraisal was weak in many respects, but the manner in which he brought up the feedback on the “fun to work with” allegation was wholly unproductive. What that means is anybody’s guess. Had he taken the time to pursue the question with his direct reports, he might have been able to offer meaningful and constructive feedback. Instead, he left it to Cathy to figure it out.

On the receiving end, Cathy did not react well. An emotional retort is not constructive. Her lack of composure prevented her from finding out what the feedback meant because her boss told her to do nothing … another boss blunder. The end result is the feedback is both disconcerting and useless to everybody concerned, most importantly to Cathy.

So what can Cathy do? Cathy must go back to Jason, after she has cooled o” and thought through her response. She needs to ask Jason what the feedback really means, and what he suggests she do to correct it. My guess is Jason has no clue as to what it means. It could mean that she is obnoxious and impossible to work with, or she is so focused on work and achieving her goals she has very little sense of humor. It could mean she is competent but literally no fun. Jason’s response would be dramatically different depending on which extreme might be true.

Whatever the case, Cathy and Jason must decide how she should proceed. Cathy cannot continue to be upset, and she should not be prevented from
determining what the feedback means. It is Jason’s responsibility to clarify the feedback, and it is most critical for Cathy to understand and deal with
this perception.

Case Study #3

Sandra was clearly uptight. Her boss was all over her case, telling her that she was simply not doing the job. He worked her over right in front of all her peers, and she was humiliated. But, the only reason she was able to deal with it at all was that each and every one of the others in her group had experienced the same thing, and many times over. She actually realized that she had been pretty lucky. Just last week, her boss had a meeting of all the staff and all he did was yell at the team. Sandra was used to this, but she just was not going to let that get her down. She really enjoyed what she did in her job, actually enjoyed her co-workers, but just could not stand her boss. She vowed to leave as soon as she got another job.

Then it happened. That afternoon, she was talking to a client on the phone when she heard her boss screaming at one of the other associates. She heard him tell her that she was fired and that he never wanted to see her with the confines of their workplace ever again. Claire, the associate to whom he was screaming, was a really nice person who worked very hard, and who was very smart. She just did not like sales, and was struggling. She asked for a transfer to another department where she knew there was an opening, and where she would be fully qualified for the job. Her boss had turned down the request just last week, and told Claire that he needed her right where she was. Not a week later, she was fired. Sandra was a stunned. Claire was one of the really professional and dedicated ones of the department and was a “really talented and enjoyable person who made the work environment tolerable. With her going, Sandra felt like she was truly going to be alone. This event really gave Sandra pause for concern about what she should do, and clearly, leaving now, had to be an option.

The Analysis #3

Well, it seems that Sandra is leaning towards quitting, and that is easily understood given the circumstances. The question is: Will it be for the right reason? Is Sandra leaving because she has just lost a friend from the workplace or is she leaving because her boss is intolerable? At first blush, we probably have the answer, yes, her boss is intolerable, and she should leave. What we do not know is what we do not know! That said, if Sandra is uncomfortable in her workplace, she should leave for that reason alone.
Yes, I am a big advocate of a need to enjoy your work, and if you do not, you should leave. How you feel about your boss has a great deal to do with how much you enjoy your work. If you have a serious problem with his/her behavior or relationship with you, and you have tried to make it work, then I strongly suggest you leave. The stress of a bad boss relationship will almost always lead to distress, which will eventually lead to a psychological impact that will ultimately affect your physical well being. You must extricate yourself from people who are toxic to your well being. Hence…if she is that stressed by the job, then Sandra must quit to maintain her own health.

Case Study #2

Joe has been a TV producer for 20 years. He is creative and technically quite capable. He produced for all the major networks and is now a freelance producer working for a variety of production companies. Several years ago, Joe decided that being on his own made it possible to for him to be creative on projects he actually wanted to do, rather than just doing those he was assigned to do by a boss who needed work done, and had little concern about job fulfillment.

Today, Joe’s work project is for a small production company, and the project is a half-hour show sponsored by a pharmaceutical company. The show is intended to be generally silent about the company, and much more focused on the illness being discussed. Obviously, the company has a drug to treat the illness, but it is important that the show be carefully scripted so that it is not a commercial for the drug. It is intended to be educational, informational and technically accurate, while at the same time creating an emotional hook for the viewer that assures the viewer will look for the solutions.

Joe has a team of writers and other technical staff recruited to achieve a quality of production he can be proud of. He has worked with many of these folks before, and he knows them well enough that he is quite familiar with their skills and behaviors. The only person he has not actually worked with before is the script writer. Joe has a long-time associate who has been his script writer for 15 years, but she was not able to work on this project due to health reasons. Hence, Joe was forced to find a replacement.

Sandy is that writer, and she has an enormously impressive resume and a portfolio of work that is equally as impressive. As Joe looked for talent, Sandy stood out, so he hired for this project. Unfortunately, from the very beginning, Sandy is a challenge. Sandy is a very talented wrriter, but she is anything but talented at the personal-interaction level. Sandy seems incapable of making a comment on anything without being a cynical or even sarcastic. It is a difficult challenge for Joe to handle in his relationship with her, but even more problematic are her interactions with the rest of the team, and in particular the on-camera talent. The problem has gotten so serious that one of the hosts warned Joe that he will not work with her any longer.

Joe is trying to ignore the problem, but it seems to keep getting worse. His hope was that the project was far enough along that he could just live with the tension. He actually came to greatly respect Sandy’s quality of output, and he himself actually liked Sandy very much. It was the rest of the team that simply did not want to work with her, so he is working hard to keep her distant from them. Given the team nature of the work, that became very difficult.

Joe is very concerned about the problem, so he decides to talk to Sandy about it, and after that discussion, the problem actually gets worse. Sandy so resented the feedback that she became even more negative toward the team members. This whole situation was a serious problem, but Joe simply did not know what do to.

The Analysis #2

This is a classic case. Joe is faced with the critical question, “When does Sandy’s behavior become so troublesome that it causes damage to the team?” The plain fact is, it is already at that stage. Joe cannot hold back any further. It is clear that he has a tough decision to make, and it probably means deciding in favor of his entire team, not just Sandy. It is also probably true that he “likes Sandy” and that is always a major challenge. He probably paid far too little attention to the staff’s concerns, in particular the on-camera talent.

Joe needs to take action. That action may be another stern warning session with Sandy, or it could be that he simply must terminate her involvement in the project. It will be a problem at several levels: 1) He will lose a talented writer, and that could be a major blow to the production team; 2) He would lose a personal relationship he has come to value; or 3) If he does the stern warning, Sandy could become even more belligerent, and he risks losing one or more of the rest of the team.

Those risks are always present when dealing with a problem associate, and Joe needs to recognize that his responsibility is to the project and to the team as a whole. His concern for Sandy can be real, and valid, but he must consider the entire team first and foremost. This focus on loving the team is what Lead with Love is all about. We must care about the human beings we lead, not just the human being we like. The “like factor” can be a cancer on a leader’s actions. Sandy needs a change in behavior, or Sandy needs to do something else. Joe needs to love his associates more than he likes Sandy. He has no option.

Case Study #1

Myra got up Monday morning and felt sick. She simply had a terrible headache and her stomach was churning. Although she had a very busy calendar, she just could not seem to get herself together, so she called in sick. Right after she made the call, her headache started to subside, and her stomach seemed to settle down. She spent the rest of the day catching up on jobs around the house, and then went out to do some food shopping. Her strange illness just seemed to get better very quickly, and she was ready to get up this morning and get to work, actually assuming that the day off had given her a chance to get rested.
But the next morning, it started all over, and she had the same headache and the same upset in her stomach. It was very puzzling to her, and she was struck by the fact that she had the same symptoms. She knew that it was impossible for her to miss two days in a row, so she decided to call in and tell her boss that she was going to be about an hour late, hoping that the headache would go away at about the same time it did yesterday.

Right after that call, she started to get ready with the hopes that the problem would end quickly, but this time it did not. Since she was committed, she went to work and had that headache all morning. She had a meeting at 1 PM that she knew was supposed to happen on Monday, but could not be put off another day. This meeting was one which her boss set up, with her newest employee (hired about 30 days ago) who was being let go as part of a restructuring in the company which caused a significant downsizing in the staff. She dreaded this meeting because she really did not think that it was fair for this person to be let go.

Myra had argued against the termination because she felt there were others who were less qualified, and who had been performing at a lower level of competence, but her boss told her that these cuts were being made by him and he had personally made the decision. When Myra asked him to sit in on the meeting, he refused, telling her that since this employee worked directly for her that she needed to do the termination.

Myra was furious, but obviously realized that she had no choice but to do the meeting. She hoped on Tuesday, that her boss might have had the meeting without her on Monday. When she got into the office, he immediately reminded her that she needed to do the meeting.
Myra did the termination in the afternoon, and it did not go well at all. The employee went ballistic and threatened to sue the company. She stormed out of the office, swore at Myra that she had been a terrible boss and that the company would pay for this injustice. Myra was beside herself and went to her boss. He told her to stop complaining, and that she probably mishandled the termination or she would not have had that type of reaction. Myra’s headache got even worse and eventually she told her boss that she had to go home.

Analysis #1

Well Myra’s boss is probably a classic “coward” manager who simply can not face the responsibility of firing an employee. To have made the decision on the person top go, and to then lay off that firing on Myra was pretty weak leadership.

Myra, on the other hand, probably was so stressed by the termination meeting, that her headache and stomach churn were probably the result of that stress. It is also probably true, that Myra probably did not handle the termination very well. A relatively new employee would not normally have such an emotional reaction since they would not have had a great deal of tenure to fall back on. Myra really did not want to fire this employee, and it probably showed. This is a consistent problem for supervisors who actually do not have full leadership control. Obviously her boss made the decision and she was being forced to handle the execution of that decision. Her “buy in” was missing, and her commitment to the correctness of the decision was as well. In short, she was biased about the call, and she probably did not “sell it well.”

Myra may have also like this employee too much. She probably forgot that the love she needed to have for the employee was to help her find a new job, not make her feel bad about losing this one. It is very difficult to be an effective Lead with Love leader, when you like the staff member too much. Myra was biased for this employee, and she resented having to terminate her. So, instead of working to make the transition easier, she may well have communicated in her voice and body language, the fact that she disagreed with the decision, even if she said nothing explicitly.

In spite of Myra’s possible error, there is no way to let her boss off the hook. He should have taken responsibility for the termination, and at least been with Myra when it was done. He clearly demonstrated that he was not a Lead with Love boss, because had he cared enough about Myra, he would not have put her in that situation.