6 ms·

This is how I would approach it too. Specifically creating an "us" or "we". The reason for me is that I am in a reasonably senior leadership role. So even thes

This is how I would approach it too. Specifically creating an "us" or "we". The reason for me is that I am in a reasonably senior leadership role. So even these diplomatically framed options would come across the same way "don't bother me" etc. Investing myself as part of the team is a key way to make sure I can give feedback in a safe and engaged way. You do have to actually be engaged though. And it can be a fine balance between engaged and interfering. Upwards & with direct reports I am more blunt, depending on the dynamic of the relationship. For people I have minimal relationship with (say peers in a different part of the business) I'll tend to flip it as a question; so not "this meeting is not a good use of my time" but instead "what, specifically, might you need from me in the session" (asking for clarification also has the advantage of challenging your assumptions)

icambron 4y ago
This is my approach almost to a T. Managing upward, be direct and take personal responsibility for saying something with friction. Only use we when taking credit. This what your bosses want; their egos are secure but they don’t have time to parse indirect communication and guess what you want (source: I was until recently in sr management) Managing down, I use “we” and (narratively, if not always in practice) to include everyone in a decision. (Some caveats: e.g. just be direct about stuff they have no say in; no one wants you to pretend they’re included in like reorgs or something). This isn’t about tricking them into misunderstanding how much power they have—it’s about creating the safety for them to push back directly on something they disagree on, despite being objectively less powerful. They’ll feel more comfortable doing the managing upward part directly and effectively. I’d never say most of the things on that list for fear of feeling squirmy, evasive, or, yes, passive aggressive. In general, people want firm but open bosses, and bold but accepting staff, where this way of approaching communication works. If you don’t have that, you should find them.

icambron 4y ago

This is my approach almost to a T. Managing upward, be direct and take personal responsibility for saying something with friction. Only use we when taking credit. This what your bosses want; their egos are secure but they don’t have time to parse indirect communication and guess what you want (source: I was until recently in sr management) Managing down, I use “we” and (narratively, if not always in practice) to include everyone in a decision. (Some caveats: e.g. just be direct about stuff they have no say in; no one wants you to pretend they’re included in like reorgs or something). This isn’t about tricking them into misunderstanding how much power they have—it’s about creating the safety for them to push back directly on something they disagree on, despite being objectively less powerful. They’ll feel more comfortable doing the managing upward part directly and effectively. I’d never say most of the things on that list for fear of feeling squirmy, evasive, or, yes, passive aggressive. In general, people want firm but open bosses, and bold but accepting staff, where this way of approaching communication works. If you don’t have that, you should find them.