4 ms·

What's the best way to translate a meeting with one executive complaining about the behaviour of another executive into a meeting with both executives? Even if

by nirnira 13y ago

What's the best way to translate a meeting with one executive complaining about the behaviour of another executive into a meeting with both executives? Even if you schedule the meeting, aren't you admitting that you can be swayed by the influence of the first executive whispering in your ear?

omegant 13y ago
I guess that you stop the meeting on the spot ("we'll continue this conversation once the other executive is here to discuse this with us"), if possible call the other executive right away, if not, do a new meeting with both asap, and don't talk about it before the meeting. This way only people with serious objections will dare to start a complain, also the resolution of the complain must be fair, if not the CEO will be the one loosing the team trust.
shin_lao 13y ago
If B were to come to me to complain about A. I would ask the following: - Did you talk to A about the problem? (generally the answer is no) In whatever case, you set up a meeting. And you LISTEN. What comes out of the meeting depends on the situation. It might be a real problem, or just a misunderstanding. You might be surprised how much A and B will be grateful for the meeting. By doing this you send a clear message to potentials As and Bs. "If you come to me and talk about someone, I will make you say that to his/her face." "If someone comes to me and complains about your behavior, I will include you in the problem solving, nothing will happen in your back."
- amirmc 13y ago
  I'm guessing you didn't mean this in a general sense. An approach like this would fail horrifically in any of the following scenarios: Claims of harassment/discrimination, claims of incompetence, any form of whistleblowing (on the exec) and probably many others.
  - shin_lao 13y ago
    The problems you are talking are much bigger than executive vs executive issues and probably fall in the "Complaints about an executive’s competency or performance" where Ben suggest that you shouldn't, indeed, solve this with a meeting as it may imply many actions on your side. What I can add to Ben's advices is: assume everybody lies and work on facts only. You don't want someone innocent to be slandered and you certainly don't want someone guilty to get away with it. Fortunately, this is extremely rare, unless there is something very wrong with your company.
- 001sky 13y ago
  "If you come to me and talk about someone, I will make you say that to his/her face." Ya, this doesn't really work. It's like a lawyer asking a question in court: You had better know what the answer is before you ask the question. If you are the CEO and you set up this meeting to "ask/answer" such a question, you've already lost game. You've already been manipulated into a high-stakes "false dichotomy" problem with assymetric information, to your dis-advantage. Or maybe I'm mis-understanding your proposal?
  - shin_lao 13y ago
    Let's work from an example: B comes to me and says "- Well, I can't work with A, s/he's always voting against my proposals. - I'm sorry to hear that. Did you talk to her/him about this problem? - No, you know how s/he is - So why do you come to me? - Well, could you talk to her/him? - No. You will. I will be in the room as a neutral observer." If B wanted to slander A, the problem is that now A will know about it and will have an opportunity to defend him/herself. Also, B might be less aggressive when complaining directly to A. In your company you really want to have a culture of "let's fix minor people problems before they become big problems", and as a CEO you can do that by promoting a direct communication culture. Does my method make more sense now?
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- YZF 13y ago
  This reminds me of what someone smart told me a while ago: If you're supposed to be the leader and no one comes to you with their problems you're not really the leader any more. This may cause people not to come to you with their problems any more. I'm not saying your approach is always wrong but I would guess it would backfire around 50% of the time. Sometimes, B comes to you because he doesn't trust A. Getting A in the loop isn't going to restore that trust. If A and B could work it out together most likely they already would have. You need to do more in this case than simply getting them to talk. You need to understand why the trust was broken and work to repair it. Or, split them up.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - shin_lao 13y ago
    If you're supposed to be the leader and no one comes to you with their problems you're not really the leader any more. A lot of ego and politics in that definition of a leader. What about this: the purpose of a leader is to become useless? A leader is there to empower his team, and yes, there are always problems to solve, but you're job isn't solving your problems, it's to teach them to solve problems. How is your company going to grow otherwise? Sometimes, B comes to you because he doesn't trust A. When two people in your team no longer trust each other, it means you had a problem running for a long while and you haven't been doing your job correctly. It also falls in Ben's category two and must be treated differently. You need to do more in this case than simply getting them to talk. You need to understand why the trust was broken and work to repair it. When trust is broken, this is what I call a "broken arrow" situation and this isn't something you just "fix". This generally ends up with someone leaving.
    - YZF 13y ago
      I see where you're coming from but I think it's not as black and white. There are going to be situations and problems the individual or the team feel like they can't solve themselves. The definition isn't about ego, it's something observed externally, it has to do with the official structure vs. the un-official social order. I think trust builds and breaks over time (breaks more easily) and external intervention can help to prevent this from getting to the point where someone has to leave. My point though is why is B coming to you about A in the first place and why is forcing them to talk in front of you a good solution to that?

by nirnira 13y ago

omegant 13y ago

I guess that you stop the meeting on the spot ("we'll continue this conversation once the other executive is here to discuse this with us"), if possible call the other executive right away, if not, do a new meeting with both asap, and don't talk about it before the meeting. This way only people with serious objections will dare to start a complain, also the resolution of the complain must be fair, if not the CEO will be the one loosing the team trust.

shin_lao 13y ago

If B were to come to me to complain about A. I would ask the following: - Did you talk to A about the problem? (generally the answer is no) In whatever case, you set up a meeting. And you LISTEN. What comes out of the meeting depends on the situation. It might be a real problem, or just a misunderstanding. You might be surprised how much A and B will be grateful for the meeting. By doing this you send a clear message to potentials As and Bs. "If you come to me and talk about someone, I will make you say that to his/her face." "If someone comes to me and complains about your behavior, I will include you in the problem solving, nothing will happen in your back."

amirmc 13y ago
I'm guessing you didn't mean this in a general sense. An approach like this would fail horrifically in any of the following scenarios: Claims of harassment/discrimination, claims of incompetence, any form of whistleblowing (on the exec) and probably many others.
- shin_lao 13y ago
  The problems you are talking are much bigger than executive vs executive issues and probably fall in the "Complaints about an executive’s competency or performance" where Ben suggest that you shouldn't, indeed, solve this with a meeting as it may imply many actions on your side. What I can add to Ben's advices is: assume everybody lies and work on facts only. You don't want someone innocent to be slandered and you certainly don't want someone guilty to get away with it. Fortunately, this is extremely rare, unless there is something very wrong with your company.
001sky 13y ago
"If you come to me and talk about someone, I will make you say that to his/her face." Ya, this doesn't really work. It's like a lawyer asking a question in court: You had better know what the answer is before you ask the question. If you are the CEO and you set up this meeting to "ask/answer" such a question, you've already lost game. You've already been manipulated into a high-stakes "false dichotomy" problem with assymetric information, to your dis-advantage. Or maybe I'm mis-understanding your proposal?
- shin_lao 13y ago
  Let's work from an example: B comes to me and says "- Well, I can't work with A, s/he's always voting against my proposals. - I'm sorry to hear that. Did you talk to her/him about this problem? - No, you know how s/he is - So why do you come to me? - Well, could you talk to her/him? - No. You will. I will be in the room as a neutral observer." If B wanted to slander A, the problem is that now A will know about it and will have an opportunity to defend him/herself. Also, B might be less aggressive when complaining directly to A. In your company you really want to have a culture of "let's fix minor people problems before they become big problems", and as a CEO you can do that by promoting a direct communication culture. Does my method make more sense now?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
YZF 13y ago
This reminds me of what someone smart told me a while ago: If you're supposed to be the leader and no one comes to you with their problems you're not really the leader any more. This may cause people not to come to you with their problems any more. I'm not saying your approach is always wrong but I would guess it would backfire around 50% of the time. Sometimes, B comes to you because he doesn't trust A. Getting A in the loop isn't going to restore that trust. If A and B could work it out together most likely they already would have. You need to do more in this case than simply getting them to talk. You need to understand why the trust was broken and work to repair it. Or, split them up.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- shin_lao 13y ago
  If you're supposed to be the leader and no one comes to you with their problems you're not really the leader any more. A lot of ego and politics in that definition of a leader. What about this: the purpose of a leader is to become useless? A leader is there to empower his team, and yes, there are always problems to solve, but you're job isn't solving your problems, it's to teach them to solve problems. How is your company going to grow otherwise? Sometimes, B comes to you because he doesn't trust A. When two people in your team no longer trust each other, it means you had a problem running for a long while and you haven't been doing your job correctly. It also falls in Ben's category two and must be treated differently. You need to do more in this case than simply getting them to talk. You need to understand why the trust was broken and work to repair it. When trust is broken, this is what I call a "broken arrow" situation and this isn't something you just "fix". This generally ends up with someone leaving.
  - YZF 13y ago
    I see where you're coming from but I think it's not as black and white. There are going to be situations and problems the individual or the team feel like they can't solve themselves. The definition isn't about ego, it's something observed externally, it has to do with the official structure vs. the un-official social order. I think trust builds and breaks over time (breaks more easily) and external intervention can help to prevent this from getting to the point where someone has to leave. My point though is why is B coming to you about A in the first place and why is forcing them to talk in front of you a good solution to that?