Ed Batista

Handing Off to a New CEO

I've worked with several dozen clients through the process of a CEO transition: The outgoing CEO who will serve as the Board's executive chair. The outgoing CEO who's ready to sit on a beach for a while. The incoming CEO who's succeeding a capable predecessor. The incoming CEO who's succeeding a dismal failure. The former CEO who sold the company and will be an executive with the acquirer. The former CEO who's taking another executive role under their successor. The investor and the C-level leader who aren't changing roles but have ringside seats and will be heavily impacted.

There's no one right way to orchestrate and execute this transition--every situation is unique, and there are a host of factors that merit consideration. But I've observed a sequence of stages that CEOs and companies tend to follow--see below. To be clear, there's nothing prescriptive about this framework--it's not a required order of operations, and it's not uncommon for a CEO and their colleagues to work through these stages in a different order.

Whatever path they followed, most of my clients who've navigated this transition were doing so for the first time, investors aside, and they've found it useful when I was able to normalize their experience by drawing upon my work with others in similar circumstances. While I've also worked with CEOs who've been removed from the business by their Boards (and with investors who've had to remove CEOs), that's a very different situation. In this post I'll focus on the CEO who's opting to leave, albeit often with mixed feelings.

1. The Dream

The starting point in this process is just an idea, a dream. The poorly-kept secret about CEO positions is that they can be profoundly stressful and lonely, and the compensation, power, status and other benefits may not outweigh the downsides indefinitely. [1] The calculus may start to shift after a period of time, and the CEO begins to imagine a life without the pressure, the problems, the visibility, the lack of empathy. [2] Even when everything's fine a CEO may begin to dream about something different: a big new idea, or an alternative industry, or an earlier stage of growth.

Sometimes this is just a fleeting fantasy, and merely thinking about leaving offers some respite. But in other cases that idea takes hold and becomes a goal--and yet while CEO positions are very difficult to obtain and hold, it turns out that they're also very difficult to leave. Even when a company has achieved a degree of sustained success, there's rarely a moment when it's obvious that the CEO should transition out. Sometimes a company's success leads to even greater anxiety about a CEO's potential departure--no one wants to take the risk that the business might stumble. And when a company is struggling, the CEO is undoubtedly reluctant to leave on a low note.

In all cases, the CEO is keenly aware of the commitments they've made to various stakeholders--employees, customers, investors--and that there's no way to leave without someone feeling disappointed, hurt, even angry. So it's common for this initial stage of the process to take a long time--but one way a transition can go wrong is when a CEO continues to defer acting upon this dream, waiting for that magical moment when the stars align and everyone will cheer them on as they depart.

This isn't impossible, but it's unlikely. And a risk that can increase over time is that the CEO's disenchantment builds to unbearable levels, leading them to conclude that they must leave and soon, which can result in any number of sub-optimal choices. [3] It's rarely a good idea to rush a CEO transition, which may entail not waiting too long to take the dream seriously.

2. The Inner Circle

Having done so, the dilemma CEOs face is that it's difficult to even raise the possibility of a transition with most stakeholders. Anyone with a stake in the company's success may value that stake over the CEO's well-being--and in the case of Board members and investors, this can be a professional obligation. This isn't to say that no one cares at all, but even stakeholders who truly want the best for the CEO as a person will likely be conflicted in some way.

And yet CEO transitions are group undertakings, not solo efforts, so inevitably the CEO must identify an inner circle and bring them into their confidence. It's easy to start with people who don't have a stake in the business and may even be bound by confidentiality agreements--family and friends, a mentor or coach. These figures can offer empathetic support and useful guidance, but eventually the CEO must involve people who can take action and whose approval may be needed to move forward.

There's no definitive guide to who should be included in this inner circle, but it's worth asking: How will the parties under consideration balance their competing interests? Can they be relied upon not only to be discreet, but also to provide objective advice? How will they feel about this news? How will they feel if they find out second-hand, or later in the process? In a word, are they trustworthy? [4] Yet trust develops slowly, and just as the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, the best time to begin testing for trustworthiness in a professional relationship is at the very start. [5]

The greater the trust, the more candid the CEO can be--but even within the inner circle it's necessary to bear in mind that news like this is the proverbial bell that can't be unrung. Once a CEO has indicated that they're open to a transition, this information will begin to have an effect on everyone else's plans and ambitions. It's a mistake to entrust this news too early or with the wrong people, but it's also a mistake to keep it too close for too long. When key stakeholders feel that they've been informed too late in the process, they may take it as an insult--and it may be a missed opportunity to enlist their support.

3. The Horse Race

Having mobilized an inner circle who can offer various forms of assistance, the CEO now needs to identify a slate of potential successors. In sufficiently large organizations with deep leadership benches, these candidates already occupy roles within the company as C-level officers, functional leaders or division heads, but even smaller, early-stage companies may have one or two viable internal candidates. With a sufficiently long timeline, the CEO may have filled some of these roles with this very possibility in mind. But you can't stockpile talent indefinitely--the challenge in building a deep bench is that the best internal candidates won't wait forever, and if they're kept waiting too long they'll grow restless and either leave or push for a transition before the CEO is ready. [6]

In many organizations the existing leadership team doesn't contain a candidate who would be an acceptable choice to all stakeholders with a say in the decision, which requires turning to outside talent. And in some cases stakeholders feel obligated to conduct an external search no matter who's on the bench in order to meet a standard of diligence. It's important to be aware at the outset that a CEO search will be more complex and fraught than those for other C-level roles.

The need for confidentiality is greater. The pool of candidates is smaller. The decision will be harder and more expensive to undo, so the stakes are higher. And while it's always the case that the best candidates for any role will be more selective, this is exacerbated in a CEO search because of the visibility of the position--a successful former CEO will be very reluctant to take on a new role if there's any chance that it might tarnish their record.

In any event, the right inner circle can play a helpful role at this stage of the process. Presumably they have the ability to assess senior executive talent, putting them in a good position to vet both any internal candidates and those identified by a search firm. They may also have personal networks from which additional candidates can be drawn. In the best case scenario, their discretion, judgment and integrity enable them to advise the CEO in a way that meets the leader's personal needs as well as what's best for the company.

But the process can go awry in various ways at this stage. Companies can take the idea of a "horse race" literally, pitting candidates against each other in a destructive competition. The process by which General Electric identified Jeff Immelt as Jack Welch's successor is a prime example. [7] Given the difficulty of this search, it's not uncommon for even the best firms to require more time than the CEO would like, and many of the external candidates will be C-level executives who've never been a CEO. (Some data suggests that more than 70 percent of CEOs are first-timers. [8])

All this may require decision-makers to take a leap of faith in a candidate's potential, knowing that a misfire will be costly and high-profile. And the inner circle doesn't always live up to the ideal--they often face intense pressures of their own, and it can be difficult to balance such strong competing interests.

4. The Covert Candidate

Ultimately the CEO and other decision-makers among the inner circle must settle on a leading candidate. A key for the CEO here is managing expectations, including their own. By this point in the process the CEO may be eager to move forward, and other stakeholders can have their own reasons for wanting to press toward a decision. But it can be a mistake to allow any particular preference to exert undue influence here, so it's advisable to proceed judiciously.

One way to slow the process down is to identify a leading candidate without telling them. This enables the CEO and other stakeholders to assess the candidate's suitability without making any commitments and maintaining maximum flexibility. The downside is that the covert candidate may pursue other plans for their career if they don't realize that they're in the running for the role, or become frustrated if they feel they merit consideration and are unaware of the ongoing process.

It's not uncommon for this step to occur sooner, particularly if a CEO has high confidence in a given candidate's viability as their successor or low confidence in the value of their inner circle as thought partners or sources of prospective candidates. A CEO may fill a C-level role with the express purpose of testing that person as a potential successor, well before they share that news with the candidate (or anyone else.)

5. The Overt Candidate

Despite the value of flexibility, at some point it becomes necessary to communicate to a candidate that they're in the running to be the CEO. If the candidate is being sourced externally, this is likely to be accompanied by a formal offer, or at least the beginning of a negotiation. But if the leading candidate is an internal executive, an offer may not yet be forthcoming. As noted above, it will be very difficult to undo a mistake, and it's likely that the candidate hasn't been a CEO before.

So the CEO and other decision-makers may want to assess the candidate's performance with the added weight of a succession plan on their shoulders before offering terms. In cases where the incumbent CEO exercises outright or effective control, they may skip directly to this stage, privately designating an internal executive as their successor, or bringing on a new C-level leader for this express purpose.

However they arrive here, at this stage the candidate will be put through their paces in any number of contexts--life will be an ongoing, slow-motion job interview. They'll be assessed on their ability to deliver results in their function, develop strong working relationships with various stakeholders, improve the dynamic on the executive team, and be an effective CEO proxy in public and private settings.

And yet informing the executive that they're a (or the) leading candidate, without making any binding commitments can leave them in a state of limbo. They may be sufficiently motivated by the prospect of becoming CEO to tolerate the ambiguity, in some cases for an extended period of time, but it's still difficult and stressful, and the uncertainty may eventually undermine their commitment to the role.

6. The Close

Whether an offer is delivered up front or an overt candidate finally passes the test (or signals that they're losing patience), eventually the process reaches a point where terms must be finalized to close the candidate. Note that this is neither the beginning nor the end of the negotiation--it's merely a particularly acute and explicit phase. In actuality both sides have been negotiating for some time--although not necessarily with the same degree of awareness and deliberation--and in some cases negotiations may continue well after one side (mistakenly) believes they've been concluded.

By this point a number of the key terms may have been initially addressed or even resolved--this is where a sophisticated go-between such as a trusted member of the inner circle or an experienced recruiter can play a helpful role. But even when preliminary dialogue has reduced the information asymmetry, one or both parties can still find themselves surprised by the contents of the offer (or the counter-offer.)

When this happens one party has usually misunderstood the other party's negotiating culture, a topic I've addressed before: "In a list-price culture, there's a high degree of transparency and very little flexibility. An opening offer may not be take-it-or-leave it, but there's relatively little gamesmanship in the process... In a haggling culture, the opposite is true. There's very little transparency and a great deal of flexibility. Opening offers are never take-it-or-leave-it, and gamesmanship abounds." [9]

There's no one right way to negotiate, and each approach has its pros and cons, but problems occur when the parties have different negotiating cultures and fail to realize it. Usually this becomes evident at earlier stages of the process, but sometimes this is a sudden (and surprising) discovery late in the game. At that point it's essential to attend closely to any potential ambiguities and misinterpretations, another topic I've discussed previously:

When an offer falls apart unexpectedly, the party caught by surprise was presumably under the impression that the issues under discussion were appropriate at this stage, that their stated positions were reasonable, and that progress was being made--but the other party had a very different interpretation of the situation. [10]

7. The Narrative

Once the candidate has been closed, it's time to spread the word about the impending transition and the incoming CEO, which is by no means a simple PR task. The key here is having all parties agree upon and effectively communicate the narrative that will explain what's happening and why to all interested parties. Crafting and conveying a compelling explanatory narrative is a critical skill in organizational life that's a common theme in my practice:

We depend upon narratives to navigate the world... Organizational psychologist Karl Weick called this "sensemaking": we rely upon narratives to "make sense" of ambiguous situations and pursue a plan of action in coordination with others. But our reliance on narratives means that in the absence of a coherent story we will feel lost and ungrounded. This poses a risk when we face rapid change that may overtake our existing narrative and render it out of date, as Weick noted: "People...act as if events cohere in time and space and that change unfolds in an orderly manner. These everyday cosmologies are subject to disruption." [11]

In some situations the narrative is evident and clear: A longtime CEO who's had a successful run is retiring and handing the reins to a trusted lieutenant who's an obvious successor known by all stakeholders and intimately familiar with the business. But it's rare that all the elements line up so neatly--it's much more common that a CEO transition raises some questions in the minds of stakeholders: Is the business struggling? Was the outgoing CEO struggling? What do they know that we don't? Why are they leaving us? Who is this new person we're supposed to accept as our leader? And what will our lives be like under their leadership?

Such questions come up with other executive transitions, but they're more fraught in the case of a CEO's departure because of the symbolic nature of the role--they embody the organization. [12] CEOs don't just make decisions and allocate resources--they offer reassurance at a primal level that the uncertainty surrounding the business can be rendered predictable. [13] So when a CEO  departs, the disruption leads stakeholders to wonder whether events will continue to "cohere in time and space" and if change will "unfold in an orderly manner."

Thus the importance of a narrative that answers stakeholders' questions and enables them to make sense of the transition. Note that I'm not suggesting that anything in the narrative should be untrue or misleading. The narrative must be factually accurate, but it will inevitably focus on certain reasons for the transition at the expense of others. This is a function of the fact that public discourse has a limited capacity for nuance and complexity. The narrative must be true, and it's unlikely that it will be able to accommodate the whole truth. As noted above, CEO roles can be stressful and lonely, and that's often a factor in a given CEO's decision to leave--but few stakeholders will empathize with this reality, so it's rarely incorporated into the narrative.

One specific tactical challenge is informing anyone who will be directly affected but was not part of the inner circle or a participant in the hiring process. When this news is delivered effectively, these people understand why they weren't involved and appreciate getting a personal heads-up in advance of any broader announcements. The purpose isn't just to assuage their egos, but to minimize any rancor toward the outgoing CEO and to ensure that the incoming CEO is set up for success in these working relationships.

8. The Handoff

We're finally ready for the baton to be passed from the outgoing CEO to their successor. And yet there's no guarantee of a clean handoff, and there are many ways in which it can be bobbled or botched. In the best-case scenario there's a shared understanding among all stakeholders of the timeline, various parties' roles and responsibilities, and what will change--and what will not--under the incoming CEO. But sometimes these details are overlooked as the handoff approaches, or one or more parties will mistakenly (or conveniently) assume that a shared understanding has been achieved.

There's no one optimal timeline, and a host of factors can affect the pace of the transition following any public announcements. But in my experience most transitions take too long, for several predictable reasons. Organizations tend to solve for optionality, which results in a longer period of overlap between the incoming and outgoing CEOs. The short-term risk of a transition that's too abrupt is more vivid and salient than the long-term risk of a transition that's too drawn-out. And even when an incumbent CEO is ready to move on, they've likely felt a degree of ambivalence throughout the process, and those emotions may intensify as the handoff approaches.

It's also common for different parties to have divergent or even incompatible perspectives on their roles and responsibilities, and a critical figure here is the outgoing CEO. They often retain a Board seat, and although it's increasingly rare for them to become executive chair in large companies [14], it's not unusual at smaller scales. But in those cases it's essential for the outgoing CEO, their successor, and all other Board members to clarify and agree upon the executive chair's duties. I've seen cases where a newly installed executive chair feels under-utilized by their CEO successor--and others where a new CEO feels intruded upon by their predecessor.

And even when the incoming CEO is a longstanding internal leader and the transition promises to be smooth and seamless, it's almost always the case that the newcomer will want to make some changes and put their own stamp on the role. The outgoing CEO may fully expect this and even approve in principle--but when they see their preferred management practices altered or abandoned, they may well offer some resistance. Outgoing CEOs usually want their successors to succeed, but they typically feel some chagrin at being succeeded.

9. The Hard Part

The handoff has been made, and the transition is complete. It's taken a lot of time and effort to get here--and yet this is where the real work begins, and for many leaders it can be confusing and disheartening to realize how much remains to be done. A useful analogy is moving house--given how much work it takes to find and secure a new home, and then pack up and transport our possessions, we imagine that the process will be over when the moving truck drives away. But then we look around at the stacks of cardboard boxes, and we realize that we have no idea where to find the silverware, and it dawns on us that we're still very much in the midst of our labors.

In some ways the outgoing CEO has it easy--at the very least, they're usually relieved to be free from operational responsibilities. It may even feel like "school's out" and "summer vacation" has begun, and they're delighted to see a long stretch of empty dates on their calendar. But this feeling rarely lasts as long as they think it will, and it's not unusual for former CEOs to soon find themselves at loose ends. They don't miss the stress and pressure, but they're surprised to discover the extent to which leadership has become a part of their identity, and they do miss the opportunity to be of service in this capacity. As I counsel former CEOs in my practice, it's essential to prepare for this moment [15] and avoid rushing into another leadership role prematurely. [16]

The challenges facing the incoming CEO will vary widely depending on the circumstances, but I've never seen a situation where everything goes as planned, so it pays to expect the unexpected. Turning around an underperforming business is hard--but it's also hard to take over a smoothly running machine and feel the pressure of ensuring continued success. An incoming CEO who's new to the organization must integrate with the surrounding culture to gain credibility and traction [17], while a CEO who's been promoted from within can be surprised by the change in how they're perceived, even by longtime colleagues.

Stakeholders who were involved in hiring the new CEO or endorsed their candidacy generally have a set of assumptions and expectations that formed the basis for their support. But even when such ideas are well-founded, leaders are reliably more complex than our reductive images of them, and it's always possible that a stakeholder's perception was based in part on wishful thinking. Stakeholders can feel let down, or even betrayed, when any gaps appear between their hopes for the incoming CEO and the reality. In some cases stakeholders need to ask whether their assumptions and expectations were accurate to begin with, but in others these gaps can serve as the basis for more candid conversation about the new CEO's leadership and their plans for the business.

While I've highlighted the many potential pitfalls in this process, my intent isn't to dissuade CEOs or their colleagues from pursuing a transition. Leaders and organizations may fear and resist change, in part because they believe that an individual CEO is "irreplaceable." I've seen leaders have a profound impact on company performance, and I believe that great leadership can make a difference. [18] But as I wrote recently, "I launched my coaching practice in 2006, and I've never seen a company fail because of the departure of any one individual. I've concluded that organizations are often far more resilient than leaders think they are." [19]

 

---

Footnotes

[1] Watch That Next Step (CEO Problems)

[2] The Difficulty of Empathizing Up

[3] Extending Your Personal Runway

[4] Two Sides of Trust

[5] How to Think Long-Term

[6] Talking About Promotions (with Very Ambitious People)

[7] GE Powered the American Century—Then It Burned Out (Thomas Gryta and Ted Mann, The Wall Street Journal, 2018)

[8] Why Today's CEOs Aren't Prepared for the Job (Joel Trammell, Texas CEO Magazine, 2023)

[9] Culture, Compensation and Negotiation

[10] When Offers Fall Apart

[11] The Importance of Shared Narrative

[12] Leader as Avatar

[13] Leadership and Transference

[14] 2022 S&P 500 CEO Transitions (Spencer Stuart, 2023)

[15] You Quit. You're Free. Now What?

[16] Don't Take That Job

[17] Conform to the Culture Just Enough

[18] What Do Great Leaders Do?

[19] Fear of the Empty Chair, Part 3 (On Attrition)

 

Photos by tableatny: left, right.

My Appearance on The Leadership Podcast

Jan Rutherford and Jim Vaselopulos are coaches who've been co-hosting The Leadership Podcast continuously since 2016, and they recently invited me to join them for Episode 393. We discussed my unexpected move to a sheep and cattle ranch after 30 years in San Francisco; my former work at Stanford, including founding The Art of Self-Coaching and teaching Interpersonal Dynamics, aka "Touchy Feely"; and the leadership challenges I see regularly in my coaching practice.

• Streaming Audio and Highlights
• Apple Podcasts
• Spotify
• Soundcloud

Recorded November 29, 2023. Published January 24, 2024.

On Co-Founder Decision-Making

Many of my clients are company founders, and many of them have co-founders. A theme in my work with these clients is the importance of determining how certain decisions should be made. This is an issue that all leaders and executive teams must address, but there are some distinctive aspects of the co-founder relationship that merit special consideration. While this framework is highly reductive, I generally see co-founders relying on the following three methods--and when there's a problem, it's usually because they're relying too heavily on one mode or failing to apply it when it would be useful.

1. Consensus

This is the starting point for co-founders, because all parties had to agree to launch the business in the first place. It's also sometimes the case that in a venture's early stages the co-founders' areas of expertise may overlap substantially, and there may be relatively little hierarchical differentiation, so the other two modes of decision-making are less relevant or inapplicable.

But it's easy for founding teams to get stuck here and rely on consensus for too many decisions well past the point of utility. This is often the result of good intentions--such teams may have a high degree of social cohesion and prioritize inclusivity. And yet cultures like this can have a shadow side--the members may be uncomfortable with conflict, resulting in a lack of candor, or they may have an endless appetite for debate, resulting in circular arguments and paralysis.

The key is recognizing that as the company grows larger and more complex the co-founders' roles and responsibilities will diverge, so members of the team will have differing abilities to weigh in on certain decisions. And yet at the same time some decisions should be made by consensus, even when it would be more expedient to employ an alternative method. This can be codified through formal agreements or mechanisms such as Board seats, but it's not possible to cover every eventuality--there must be a shared willingness to prioritize collective agreement over efficiency when necessary.

2. Functional Expertise

Some co-founders have distinct and clearly defined areas of responsibility to begin with--the possession of complementary skillsets may have been one of the primary reasons for their decision to start a company together. But even when there's a degree of redundancy at first, this tends to diminish over time as individuals focus on particular functions, develop specialized expertise, and "stay in their lanes."

Here, too, co-founders can err in two ways. Some are too rigid about functional boundaries, demanding authority over decisions within their nominal sphere without sufficient regard for cross-functional or downstream implications. And others are insufficiently respectful of such boundaries, constantly questioning their colleagues' judgment and undermining their autonomy.

The arrival of the first non-founder in a designated leadership position tends to have a significant impact here. At later stages of company development this often involves the creation of a C-level role, but even without such a title it's usually the case that this person is being entrusted with a significant scope of responsibilities because of their functional expertise.

This sometimes causes friction between founders who expect to remain actively involved throughout the company and non-founder leaders who expect a degree of independence within their domain. In any case, the solution invariably entails finding the right balance between respect for functional expertise and acknowledgment of cross-functional interdependence.

3. Hierarchical Authority

Even on highly egalitarian founding teams with substantial levels of functional expertise, it's inevitable that some decisions will be made on the basis of hierarchical authority, typically that of the CEO. Contemporary business culture has an uneasy relationship with hierarchy--some parties view it as anathema and propose utopian schemes like holacracy, while others idealize the decisive, command-and-control, autocratic CEO. But in my experience the most successful teams find a middle ground, fostering a healthy respect for hierarchy while ensuring that their leaders rely on it judiciously.

And yet a challenge for many founding teams is that the hierarchical distance separating the co-founders may initially seem minimal or even non-existent. In some cases it was unclear who would be CEO, or more than one member felt qualified to hold the position (and they may still feel that way). Further, as noted above, on many teams the non-CEO co-founders have an equal say in certain decisions by virtue of their ownership positions or other explicit or implicit agreements.

So it can be jarring when a decision must be made and neither consensus nor functional expertise provides a path to resolution. The founder/CEO needs to exert hierarchical authority, and yet there's no guarantee that they have any particular skill in doing so. They may be clumsy and excessively forceful, or they may be hesitant and excessively deferential--whatever the cause, it's quite possible that they'll make missteps and generate frustration.

Here it's essential that all parties recognize both the necessity of hierarchy and the importance of employing it effectively. The CEO needs to learn how to wield authority with skill and grace, cultivating the capacity to influence rather than command. And the other co-founders must come to terms with the limits on their autonomy and learn to truly disagree and commit.

So if you're a co-founder wrestling with these issues, what can you do?

Raise Your Awareness

A first step is raising your collective awareness of your team's norms and preferences around decision-making. Many teams operate on autopilot and are surprised when they stumble into an intractable conflict. You needn't establish cumbersome bureaucratic procedures or give up the freedom to act nimbly. A little time dedicated to identifying the best mode of decision-making before you begin trying to make a given decision can go a long way.

• Work Style Differences
• Group Dynamics: Norms and Emotion
• Rules Aren't Norms (On Better Meeting Hygiene)
• Leadership, Decision-Making and Emotion Management

Enhance Your Skills

Successful team decision-making rests on each member's repertoire of interpersonal skills. These capabilities are eminently learnable, and every leader I've ever encountered had the potential to improve if they were sufficiently motivated to make the effort. Of particular importance on a founding team is the ability to exert influence amidst complex power dynamics.

• Learning How to Learn
• Force Isn't Power
• Power Struggles Among Nice People
• Compliance vs. Commitment (On Behavior Change)

Invest in Your Relationships

Some of the most useful questions I ask clients are, "When did you last see your co-founder/s in person? When did you last have a meal together? When did you last have a conversation about something other than the business?" There's no universal best practice, but it's all too common for co-founders to neglect their personal relationship, even if they were good friends before starting the company. The value of maintaining this connection is a greater sense of trust and the ability to empathize with each other, even (and especially) when you disagree.

• Huddle Up! (Building Group Cohesion)
• Brené Brown, Vulnerability, Empathy and Leadership
• Abilene: Loneliness and Belonging in Organizational Life

 

Photos: Handshake by Amtec. Lanes by Steven L. Johnson. Salute by U.S. Army Europe.

Talking with Colleagues About Divisive Topics

A theme in my practice in recent years is the leader who's aware that a number of their employees have strong feelings about a divisive topic, often a pressing social or political issue. The leader may or may not share these feelings, and the issues may or may not directly affect the business, but there's an evident gap between what people are feeling and what's being openly discussed. And this state of affairs is creating a sense of uncertainty and discomfort within the organization that could affect the team's working relationships and ability to perform.

This presents the leader with some difficult questions: Should we address the issue? Should we discuss our feelings? If so, where and how would we do that? What's the purpose of such a discussion? What are our goals and objectives? What's the agenda, and how should it be determined? And what role should I play in the process? If you're a leader in this situation, here are some areas to explore and recommendations to consider:

1. Risk

People are often reluctant to address divisive topics in a work setting. Sometimes this is a mistake, because the suppressed feelings may leak out in counterproductive ways. And sometimes this is the right decision, because exploring a divisive topic in a group almost always involves some risk. There's the risk of further inflaming heightened emotions, leaving people more upset and distracted than they were before.

There's the risk of failing to reach any sort of resolution in the time available, leaving people feeling incomplete and frustrated. And there's the risk of open conflict between colleagues, who may find their working relationship damaged. This doesn't mean we should avoid directly addressing divisive topics, but it's important to be aware that such efforts carry risks and to have a plan to mitigate them.

2. Resistance

If you're prepared to address these risks, one of the first steps to take is anticipating resistance from your employees, which can range from mild reluctance to outright refusal. Resistance should generally be viewed as a form of self-protection that stems from anxiety, so it's essential to avoid taking any steps that people might experience as coercive. This will only affirm their anxiety and redouble their resistance. Even if people feel obligated to participate in order to appear compliant, they will remain guarded and wary. At best, the discussion will be an empty, superficial exercise, and you will have lost trust in the process.

This doesn't mean that you must always defer to resistance, but you need to meet it with thoughtfulness and care, not force. And it's surprisingly easy for leaders to be perceived as acting more forcefully than they intended. [1] A little social pressure--a "nudge"--is tolerable, but no one should ever feel "shoved" or compelled to participate in ways that make them feel less safe.

3. Safety

The paradox is that talking about the divisive topic may ultimately make it a safer environment, so it can be worth taking the risk to make the effort. The key is ensuring that people feel as safe as possible along the way, although what is meant by "psychological safety" is often profoundly misunderstood, a topic I've addressed before:

Psychological safety entails candid and direct communication. It requires asking and answering hard questions. It does not mean "being nice." It does not mean avoiding difficult conversations or fraught topics to ensure that no one experiences distress. To the contrary, a setting in which people are reluctant to be candid and direct for fear of triggering any distress in others is psychologically unsafe. [2]

A deep-seated problem with many formal programs intended to address divisive topics in recent years is that they mandate a particular point of view on an issue. Participants are expected to adhere to the officially sanctioned doctrine. Questions are viewed as resistance, and resistance isn't tolerated. As a consequence, these events are little more than theatrical performances. They may enforce compliance, but they never build commitment. [3]

4. Intentions

Sometimes it's our intention to enforce compliance--that's why so many mandatory HR programs are designed the way they are. But if you have other goals in mind for this discussion, it's necessary to clarify those intentions and get people aligned around them. Because of past experience with mandatory HR programs, people may assume that the purpose of the discussion is to obtain (or dictate) a group consensus about the issue. Or they might assume that the goal is to problem-solve and recommend a solution.

But neither of these outcomes is feasible for a meaningful discussion on a divisive issue of any consequence. If you want everyone to be in agreement, you'll get hollow HR theater. And if you think you and your employees need to "solve" a weighty social or political issue, you're setting everyone up for failure and frustration. I'm not suggesting you can't accomplish something important--you can. There's a significant goal within reach for you and your team in almost all circumstances: empathy.

5. Empathy

Medical professor and researcher Theresa Wiseman has explored the concept of empathy because of its importance for nursing and healthcare. She identifies four defining attributes of empathy:

• The ability to see the world as another person sees it.
• The ability to understand another person’s feelings.
• The ability to suspend judgment.
• The ability to communicate this understanding, which is essential "if empathy is to be felt." [4]

Note that empathy is not sympathy, which Wiseman makes clear: "Sympathy involves 'feeling sorry' for the other person or imagining how we would feel if we were experiencing what is happening to them. Empathy differs in that we try to imagine what it is like being that person and experiencing things as they do, not as we would." [5] Similarly, empathy is not agreement, a point I've made previously:

We typically associate empathy with agreement, and we act as though empathizing with someone entails endorsing their perspective and their feelings, but this need not be the case. Understanding someone’s perspective and their emotions while suspending our judgments about both does not necessarily imply that we agree with that perspective or believe that the resulting emotions are justified. It simply means that we comprehend their perspective and emotions, and we are able to envision ourselves experiencing that perspective and those emotions under similar circumstances. Just as we can empathize with someone without sympathizing, we can empathize with someone while disagreeing with them and considering their perspective inaccurate and their emotions unwarranted. [6]

6. Emotions

It's inevitable that this will be an emotional discussion. The primary reason you're having it is your awareness that people have strong feelings about this divisive topic that they're not expressing with colleagues, and you're concerned that if people continue to suppress such feelings it may exacerbate the climate of uncertainty and discomfort. But a critical counterpart to emotional expression is the capacity for emotion regulation. [7]

In almost all professional settings we err on the side of regulation--one way of distinguishing between professional and personal relationships is that the former are usually much more regulated than the latter, and this is an essential feature of most organizational cultures. Cultures are defined by behavioral norms, and in this discussion you're likely seeking to alter the norms that govern emotional expression without suspending them entirely. [8]

It's hard to create an environment that simultaneously invites greater emotional expression while supporting the necessary emotion regulation that will allow everyone to return to work when it's over. Hard, but not impossible, and this is why it's so important to mitigate the risks, meet resistance with understanding, and work to ensure safety. These are the conditions under which people are willing to be vulnerable, and expressions of vulnerability in a safe environment are the most reliable means of evoking empathy. [9]

7. An Invitation

If you're ready to proceed, consider the collective capacity of your team to handle such a discussion, and ask your key leaders to share their impressions. If you and your leaders are in sufficient agreement, initiate your efforts by extending an invitation, and asking people if they'd like to join you in a discussion. Make it opt-in and not mandatory, and make it clear that people are truly free to opt out, and that no one is obligated to attend. As I note above, it's fine to "nudge" people to attend, but no one should feel "shoved"--this will make it a safer environment for everyone.

Convey your intentions in this invitation. The goal is not to obtain consensus or to get everyone to agree on any particular position. The goal is not to "solve" the problem. The goal is empathy. This will require people to make disclosures, to explain the world as they see it, and to talk about their feelings. This will require listening to understand those feelings, and the suspension of any judgments that may arise along the way. This will require expressing that understanding, in words that ensure that others feel heard. This will not require agreement. Setting these expectations will help people decide how and whether to participate, and will enable them to aim toward a successful outcome.

8. The Agenda

Consider how you want to develop the agenda. You could simply craft it and present it to your employees--this will be simplest, but it may also be a missed opportunity to build commitment. An alternative could be to invite the most interested members of your team to join you in a working session to co-create the agenda. This will also help ensure that you surface ideas about what people would like to do with the time, rather than simply making assumptions about what they think would be best. Yet another option would be to conduct a survey to gather input. However you determine your agenda, circulate it in advance. This will also help people determine whether and how to participate, and will make it feel safer by giving people visibility into what will happen.

9. Logistics

• Timing: You don't want people to feel rushed, and you don't want it to last too long. An hour is probably the minimum, but two will probably feel taxing--90 minutes may be a good compromise.
• Configurations: Consider having people participate in multiple configurations over the course of the discussion, such as pairs or small groups, in addition to the full group. This is one area in which working virtually on a platform like Zoom offers advantages, because you can move people into pairs or small groups and back into the main room very easily. The pairs and small groups can be assigned in advance, or chosen by the participants, or selected at random, but you'll want people to be prepared for the process.
• Facilitation: The presence of an outside facilitator for such a discussion has pros and cons. They're not a member of the organization, which may make people feel less safe, but they may also be perceived as a source of expertise. Their presence will enable you to participate more freely, but if you're not aligned you may get in each other's way. I encourage clients to consider facilitating such discussions themselves, while recognizing that at times it's valuable to have an experienced partner.

10. Next Steps

Finally, be prepared to think of this as an ongoing dialogue, not necessarily a one-time event. The feelings evoked, both positive and negative, may not be fully resolved in a single session. There may be an appetite, and even a need, to continue the conversation. Consider how much time and energy you'll be able to devote to this effort, if any, beyond an initial discussion.

 

This is a companion piece to Talking With Colleagues About Suffering.

---

Footnotes

[1] The Blue Problem (Communication and Power)

[2] Safety Is a Resource, Not a Destination

[3] Compliance vs. Commitment (On Behavior Change)

[4] A Concept Analysis of Empathy (Theresa Wiseman, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 1996)

[5] Ibid.

[6] The Difficulty of Empathizing Up

[7] The Tyranny of Feelings

[8] Group Dynamics: Norms and Emotion

[9] Brené Brown, Vulnerability, Empathy and Leadership

 

For Further Reading

CONNECTIONS: Meaningful Virtual Conversations

 

Photo by Adam Cohn.

Talking with Colleagues About Suffering

A theme in my practice is the leader who's aware or senses that a colleague is suffering and would like to offer support but is unsure how to broach the topic--and a version of this occurs in my own work. In most cases when a client is suffering in some way our coaching sessions provide them with a setting in which they can express those feelings freely. But at times it's clear to me that a client is suffering and yet it's not the focal point of their agenda, or even on the agenda at all.

It's not my place to determine our agenda--that's the client's job--but it's not uncommon for people to want to talk about something while also feeling ambivalent about raising the topic. If I ignore my intuition and defer to their stated agenda, we might miss a meaningful opportunity. And yet the client must always feel a sense of agency in our work together.

It's complicated, but at least I have the benefit of being a coach, and in my relationships with clients it's expected that at times we'll explore troubling and even painful topics. But my clients may not have that kind of social contract with their colleagues, making it hard to know how to proceed when they sense that a co-worker is suffering. If you're in this situation, here are some suggestions:

Take the Initiative

Some people prefer to suffer in private, or they may be reluctant to discuss it with colleagues. They may resist or even resent our efforts to address the topic, and we should be careful to avoid "inflicting help." [1] But most of us tend to err on the side of caution, and while we tell ourselves we're "being sensitive," this also reflects our fear and anxiety. We're afraid that our efforts will be rebuffed, and we'll feel embarrassed. So instead we sit back and wait, hoping that when they need our help they'll ask for it.

Sometimes this is true...and sometimes it's not. The suffering person may in fact feel embarrassed themselves, and they may want us to relieve them of the burden of initiating the conversation. They may wonder if we see their suffering at all, or if we even care. Or they may conclude that this isn't the kind of relationship, or the kind of company, where we talk about such things.

So find the courage to take the initiative. This will be fraught, and it will feel risky, and sometimes you'll get it wrong. But you'll only improve your ability to sense the right time and to find the right language with practice. [2] Extend the invitation, and don't be discouraged if it isn't accepted at first. Try again later. Don't insist--the other person has to feel in control--but by signaling your interest you make it easier for them to respond when they're ready.

Normalize Vulnerability

Acknowledging suffering often evokes a sense of vulnerability in both parties. This is almost certainly true for the person who's suffering, who may believe that such acknowledgment is a form of weakness that will leave them feeling exposed and unsafe. They may worry that they'll be seen as less competent or capable, or that they'll be considered "emotional," a liability in many professional settings.

But this is also likely true for the leader seeking to offer support, particularly when it's unclear if such support will be welcome. The leader may lack experience in having these conversations, or this may be a new frontier in their relationship with this individual. Or the person's suffering may be apparent while the underlying cause is unknown, compounding the leader's uncertainty about whether or how to proceed.

The paradox is that in most settings expressions of vulnerability trigger an empathetic response, a mechanism that may be rooted in our evolutionary psychology. [3] This isn't guaranteed, of course, and it's necessary to take small steps at first and read the signs with care. A starting point is conveying any trepidation you might feel and letting the other person know that it's OK if they feel similarly.

Understand What's Needed

Leaders often rise to their position on the basis of their effectiveness as problem-solvers, and that's an identity as much as a skillset. In some circumstances colleagues are seeking a solution that will solve the problem, but much of the time there's none to be found, or at least not one that the leader can provide. This is certainly true of our greatest difficulties--a grievous illness, the loss of a loved one, a global crisis. [4]

If you find yourself in such a discussion there are many ways to offer useful help and support, but it's important to understand what the other person actually wants. Even when you don't have a definitive solution, they may still value your advice on how to address or think about the problem. But note the tendency of problem-solvers to offer advice, even when it hasn't been asked for.

Before jumping in to share your perspective, be sure to slow down and listen. The experience of truly feeling heard is surprisingly rare in organizational life, where people often listen in order to reply. Put your advice on hold, at least until it's requested, and just be fully present. You may find that this is sufficient.

And you may also find that something more is called for, even--and perhaps especially--when there's no advice to give and listening isn't enough. The other person may simply need a literal or virtual hug, which can be daunting territory to navigate in organizational life. While it's essential to be aware of and respect another person's boundaries, we can be so cautious about avoiding offense that we inadvertently appear callous. Tone of voice and body language can go a long way toward expressing the sentiment. A murmur, a sigh, a moment of silence, or holding our hand to our chest can speak volumes.

Why Bother?

All of this work is easier if we take steps early in our professional relationships to lay a foundation for more meaningful dialogue later on. One of the most straightforward ways for a leader to accomplish this is by scheduling regular one-on-ones with direct reports, honoring that commitment by minimizing cancellations or rescheduling, and ensuring that employees feel a sense of ownership over the agenda. [5] And yet it will still require effort and a modicum of risk, and a leader may well ask, Why bother?

One very pragmatic reason is that people who are suffering are incapable of doing their best work. They may be in the grip of a threat response, aka a "fight, flight or freeze response," which will impair creative thinking and render them more risk-averse and prone to distraction. [6] Talking about their distress and anxiety can play a significant role in helping them manage these feelings, enabling them to redirect their focus to other matters. [7]

I would add that our professional relationships have the potential to be sources of belonging and connection [8], not merely vehicles for value creation, and we realize this potential fully only when we're willing to have hard conversations. This doesn't mean that companies are "families"--I agree with Shopify CEO Tobias Lütke that this is an inappropriate metaphor, and that colleagues are best-served by viewing each other as fellow members of an elite team who earn their positions by virtue of their performance. [9]

Cultivating the ability to have hard conversations about suffering develops a set of skills that are equally valuable in hard conversations about performance: the courage to speak up, a sense for the right timing and the right language, comfort with vulnerability. This is yet another reason why "accountability and empathy are not mutually exclusive." [10]

 

This is a companion piece to Talking with Colleagues About Divisive Topics.

---

Footnotes

[1] Inflicting Help

[2] Conscious Competence in Practice

[3] Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness That Counts (Dacher Keltner interviewed by David DiSalvo, Scientific American, 2009)

[4] This section is adapted from What Do You Need Right Now? (Advice, Listening, A Hug?).

[5] How to Have Better One-on-Ones

[6] Neuroscience, Leadership and David Rock's SCARF Model

[7] Talking About Feelings

[8] Abilene: Loneliness and Belonging in Organizational Life

[9] Shopify CEO email to managers: We are not a family (Tobias Lütke, internal email, 2020, shared by Lukas Naugle, LinkedIn, 2021)

[10] Accountability and Empathy (Are Not Mutually Exclusive)

 

Photo by Christopher Matson.

Fear of the Empty Chair, Part 3 (On Attrition)

In Fear of the Empty Chair, Part 1, I discuss the factors that cause leaders to mistakenly delay a necessary termination. In Part 2 I explore why leaders rush to fill an empty role when they should actually slow down. Here I address a third, related situation in which a leader's misplaced concerns can contribute to suboptimal outcomes: the unwanted departure of a valued employee, which I'll call attrition.

Leaders strive to avoid attrition for understandable reasons. Valued employees represent a substantial investment of time and effort, ranging from recruiting and hiring to onboarding, training, and management. They possess hard-earned institutional knowledge. And they've demonstrated their trustworthiness and sound judgment.

So a theme in my practice is how a leader can retain valued employees in order to ensure that the organization will continue to benefit from these qualities. But such retention efforts can go awry when a leader is so concerned about a potential departure that they make choices they later regret. What issues tend to arise in these circumstances, and if you're in a similar situation, what can you do about them?

Fighting Inflation

When a leader learns that a valued employee is thinking about leaving, they may feel that they're in a negotiation that they must win, and their response is to offer more: a bigger compensation package, a higher-status title, a broader scope of responsibilities.

In many cases these negotiations conclude successfully, and leader and employee resume their productive partnership, albeit on modified terms. But sometimes that "must-win" attitude causes a leader to offer too much. They retain the employee, but on inflated terms: a compensation package dramatically higher than the employee could command elsewhere, a title that outstrips their real level of expertise or authority, responsibilities that they're unable to truly fulfill.

If you're a leader in this position, what can you do? How can you fight inflation? The first step is assessing your attitude toward the negotiation. Roger Fisher and William Ury, founders of the Harvard Program on Negotiation, suggest an approach to ensure that you don't "win" a negotiation on inflated terms:

The reason you negotiate is to produce something better than the results you can obtain without negotiating. What are those results? What is your BATNA--your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement? That is the standard against which any proposed agreement should be measured. This is the only standard which can protect you both from accepting terms that are too unfavorable and from rejecting terms it would be in your interest to accept... If you have not thought carefully about what you will do if you fail to reach an agreement, you are negotiating with your eyes closed. [1]

When you take a "must-win" approach, you assume that you have no BATNA, increasing the likelihood that you'll retain your employee on inflated terms. You'll "win" today but may well lose in the long run. I'm not suggesting that you make no effort to retain a valued employee, but, rather, that you reassess your options and calibrate the terms on offer accordingly. You may well find that what your employee really wants are other "currencies" that are less subject to inflation. [2]

Short-Term Pain vs. Long-Term Pain

As was the case in Part 1 and Part 2 of this series, a challenge leaders face when they learn that a valued employee is considering a transition is the assumption that the short-term pain will be greater than the long-term pain. This belief is at the root of a leader's assumption that they have no BATNA and must avoid attrition at all costs, so it's necessary to challenge its accuracy.

Seeing a valued employee leave will undoubtedly cause short-term pain in a variety of ways: the loss of their individual capabilities, a potentially expensive and time-consuming search, the prospect of a gap in continuity and important work going undone. But leaders sometimes fail to appreciate that their efforts to avoid short-term pain may make the long-term pain even worse.

Retaining an employee on inflated terms can have far-reaching effects. Compensation packages don't always remain confidential, and when significant discrepancies come to light other employees will be rightfully upset. Titles are by definition visible, and raising one person's status can make others feel that they've been demoted, triggering a cascade of discontent. [3] And employees who are "over-scoped" tend to under-perform, making it necessary to level them [4] or manage them out. [5]

If you're a leader facing the departure of a valued employee, balance the value of their retention against the costs of the means required to do so. And some of these costs may not be evident for a length of time, requiring you to project into the future and think well beyond this specific individual.

Irreplaceable?

The anxiety leaders experience in the face of attrition is exacerbated when they imagine that the employee is "irreplaceable" in some way, and on occasion this fear has merit. I've worked with many leaders whose valued employees included co-founders, personal friends, or family members. Those unique individuals couldn't be replaced, nor could the unique relationships the leader enjoyed with them. Leaders may also view an employee as truly mission-critical, fearing that their departure would permanently impair company performance or even, in extreme cases, cause it to fail.

If you're a leader facing the departure of someone you're close with, I appreciate your desire to avoid the loss of that person and your working relationship with them. And yet in my experience it's vital that a leader grow more comfortable with the inevitability of such departures. You can't replace unique individuals, but accepting that colleagues will come and go over time allows both you and the organization to be more adaptable in the face of change.

More generally, if you're concerned about company performance I'm not in a position to tell you that your anxiety is misplaced. It's conceivable that a particular employee is so essential to your business that you'll struggle to succeed without them, especially if you're at a very early stage of development. Should they depart, there will be some short-term pain, to be sure. But I launched my coaching practice in 2006, and I've never seen a company fail because of the departure of any one individual. I've concluded that organizations are often far more resilient than leaders think they are.

Optics

Even when leaders recognize that a valued employee isn't irreplaceable, they may be concerned about how a departure will be perceived by fellow employees, customers, investors, and other stakeholders. Leaders are right to pay close attention to the potential optics, as I wrote in Part 1 of this series, on terminations:

Perceptions matter, particularly for a growing company that may be facing a great deal of uncertainty. In this context leaders must attend closely to the narratives that surround the company and actively shape them through storytelling... The departure of an employee contributes to a company's narrative and may well be perceived negatively, particularly if they're a senior executive or have strong relationships with other employees or external stakeholders.

This is even more pertinent with attrition, and an unwanted departure may well raise questions about the company's future prospects and your capabilities as a leader. But the solution may not be to induce the person to stay--again, the costs may outweigh the benefits. As with terminations, the key is agreeing upon a shared public narrative that helps others make sense of this potentially troubling development, and this is generally easier to accomplish in the case of attrition.

The narrative shouldn't be false or misleading, but it will focus on certain reasons for the employee's departure at the expense of others. This allows the narrative to serve both parties' purposes, but it's also a function of the fact that all public discourse has a limited capacity for nuance and complexity. A shared public narrative must be true, but it need not encompass the whole truth.

The Risk of Changing Minds

Optimally a leader has some awareness that a valued employee is considering a transition, enabling them to intervene before any decisive commitments have been made. But sometimes a leader is completely surprised by an employee's sudden resignation or announcement of a new position. This may prompt a frantic effort to undo what's been done.

Not only is this likely to yield inflated terms, but there's also an inherent risk in trying to change someone's mind here. The employee was reluctant to be candid with the leader, or the leader was oblivious to the employee's discontent, or both. Reversing course won't necessarily change the circumstances that led to this outcome. I'm not suggesting that you should never try to talk someone out of leaving if they've tendered their resignation or accepted another role, but you should be circumspect about the possibility that it might happen again.

When a departure is unavoidable, the leader may seek to negotiate a lengthy transition. This can offer some benefits, but it will also come at a cost. Even a well-meaning employee will find it difficult to give best effort beyond a reasonable length of time, and people underestimate how quickly and dramatically motivation and power dynamics can change once an impeding departure has been made public. If you're a leader in this situation take care not to pressure a departing employee to agree to a transition period that's too long.

An Ounce of Prevention...

...is worth a pound of cure, as an astute letter-writer observed in one of Benjamin Franklin's newspapers. [6] Similarly, while efforts to "cure" unwanted departures can be quite expensive and even counter-productive, efforts to prevent them in the first place are generally much more economical. What does this look like in practice?

At the individual level, as a leader you should know the extent to which each of your direct reports are satisfied with their responsibilities, their compensation, and all other aspects of their role. Barring a sudden, unexpected change in an employee's life that may impact their feelings about work, if you're surprised to learn that a direct report is "loose in the socket," that's a managerial failure.

This is one reason not to have too many reports--while some employees will openly express dissatisfaction, many will not, and the leader needs to create the conditions for a more candid dialogue and actively inquire about an employee's fulfillment (or lack thereof.) The best means to accomplish this is holding regular one-on-ones that go beyond a tactical agenda and make sufficient room for an employee's concerns. [7]

At the team level, you should have a contingency plan for the potential departure of any given member. This involves maintaining a network of potential candidates, relationships with search firms, and an up-to-date assessment of skip-levels' capacity to replace their manager on an interim or permanent basis. And at the organizational level, a more strategic approach to People leadership can help a company increase retention, raise awareness of impending departures, and be better prepared to replace outgoing employees. [8] You should certainly strive to retain valued employees, but you need not live in fear of the empty chair.

 

This is a companion piece to the following:

Fear of the Empty Chair, Part 1 (On Terminations)

Fear of the Empty Chair, Part 2 (On Hiring)

---

Footnotes

[1] Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, page 100 (Roger Fisher and William Ury, 1992)

[2] Currencies (On Motivating Different People)

[3] Very Cheap, Then Very Expensive (On Job Titles)

[4] The Fine Art of Levelling

[5] Merciful Exits (On Under-Performing Executives)

[6] On Protection of Towns from Fire (The Pennsylvania Gazette, published by Benjamin Franklin, 1735)

[7] How to Have Better One-on-Ones

[8] The Truly Strategic People Leader

 

Photo by Votchitsev Viacheslav.

How to Have Better One-on-Ones

One-on-one meetings with employees are seemingly among a leader's most straightforward tasks. Two colleagues have yet another conversation about work--what could be simpler? But a theme in my practice is that a more deliberate approach to one-on-ones can turn them from perfunctory exchanges into much higher sources of leverage. [1] If you're a leader who'd like to hold better one-on-ones, here are some questions to ask yourself and a set of proposals to consider:

If you're not holding formal one-on-ones, why not?

Andy Grove, the late CEO of Intel, noted that managers from other companies viewed formal one-on-ones as unnecessary, telling him, "I don't need scheduled meetings with my supervisor [or subordinate]; I see [them] several times a day." [2] I sometimes work with early-stage CEOs who feel similarly and view formal one-on-ones as superfluous bureaucracy. But this approach has several problems.

Even when you're communicating frequently with employees, it's likely that those interactions are highly tactical, with with little time devoted to more strategic issues, and no time at all to address the quality of your working relationship or anything of similar complexity. And, as Grove continued, "there is an enormous difference between a casual encounter by a supervisor and subordinate, or even a meeting to resolve a specific problem, and a one-on-one." [3]

The absence of formal one-on-ones means that when you do schedule a meeting to address a bigger challenge, you signal to your employees that such events are for "tough conversations," rendering them more stressful and less likely to succeed. (And this may be equally true when an employee schedules a one-on-one with you.)

Alternatively, holding formal one-on-ones on a regular basis normalizes the experience, allowing you and your employees to grow more comfortable addressing complex or difficult topics. Simultaneously, it highlights that this is a particular type of conversation and not just an ordinary meeting, motivating both you and your employees to be more thoughtful about how you prepare and participate.

Who merits a one-on-one?

Having formalized the process, it's important to assess how you're allocating the time you have available for one-on-ones, which is one of your organization's most precious resources. This isn't self-aggrandizing--it's simply a consequence of the fact that your attention is finite. [4] And a one-on-one meeting involves a major "investment" of attention from which you should expect a substantial "return," just as you would with any other limited resource. [5]

In addition to meeting with their direct reports, some of my clients initiate or make themselves available for skip-level one-on-ones with more junior employees. This practice can provide you with a new perspective on the organization, but it comes with potential dilemmas. It doesn't scale, and can leave you spread too thin. It can also short-circuit normal managerial channels--although if you have concerns about one of your direct reports, this may be the point.

I've had clients who levelled an employee and offered ongoing one-on-ones as a way to cushion the blow, but again, this doesn't scale and is generally a short-term fix. The key is recognizing that people want the leader's attention because it's a valuable resource, and beyond a certain point in your career it's unlikely that you'll be able to meet this demand entirely without compromising on other responsibilities.

What's the appropriate cadence? How long should a one-on-one last?

Here Grove offers some useful guidelines:

How often should you have one-on-ones? Or put another way, how do you decide how often somebody needs such a meeting? The answer is in the job- or task-relevant maturity of each of your subordinates. In other words, how much experience does a given subordinate have with the specific task at hand? This is not the same as the experience they have in general...

The subordinate should feel that there is enough time to broach and get into thorny issues... I feel that a one-on-one should last an hour at a minimum. Anything less, in my experience, tends to make the subordinate confine themselves to simple things that can be handled quickly. [6]

Given that your employees' "job- or task-relevant maturity" likely varies, the cadence of regular one-on-ones need not be uniform, nor is there a single best practice. Most of my clients hold weekly one-on-ones with most of their direct reports, but meeting every other week is also common. A longer cadence with direct reports is less typical, but skip-level one-on-ones are often monthly or quarterly. Ultimately it's up to you and each employee to determine what works best.

The key is predictability, so you should only ever cancel or reschedule a one-on-one as a last resort. If you do this repeatedly you send a very clear message that it's a low-priority event, and your employees will act accordingly. And if you have a direct report who's reluctant to hold one-on-ones or who cancels on you, this merits further investigation. It may be a sign of a deeper problem in the relationship [7], or it may simply be that the quality of your one-on-ones needs to be improved. Make clear your desire for one-on-ones to be valuable to them, solicit feedback on your current arrangements, and enlist them in joint problem-solving.

What's on the agenda? How should we prepare?

As with cadence, there's no universal template for agenda-setting or preparation, but there are some general principles to bear in mind. Grove stresses that the employee should feel a sense of ownership:

A key point about a one-on-one: It should be regarded as the subordinate's meeting, with its agenda and tone set by [them]... So the [subordinate] should be asked to prepare an outline, which is very important because it forces them to think through in advance all of the issues and points [they] plan to raise. Moreover, with an outline, the supervisor knows at the outset what is to be covered and can therefore help to set the pace of the meeting according to the "meatiness" of the items on the agenda. An outline also provides a framework for supporting information, which the subordinate should prepare in advance. The subordinate should then walk the supervisor through all the material.

What should be covered in a one-on-one?... The most important criterion governing matters to be talked about is that they be issues that preoccupy and nag the subordinate. These are often obscure and take time to surface, consider, and resolve. [8]

Claire Hughes Johnson, the former COO of Stripe, expresses similar sentiments:

I generally tell folks, especially more experienced people, that the 1:1 is their time. We set up a mutual doc that we can both edit, and we track action items and link out to goals and career conversation notes. Beyond that, I ask the individual to propose each 1:1 agenda, and I only edit the doc to add in agenda item suggestions when I have them. [9]

When your employees own the agenda, not only is this much more efficient for you, it also ensures that the discussion will focus on issues that are most important to them. But having your employees set the agenda doesn't mean that you have no input, as Grove and Hughes Johnson make clear. You can also give feedback to an employee on the quality of their agenda if you conclude that the time isn't being well-spent. My clients who've asked their employees to take responsibility for agenda-setting typically find it a useful exercise in revealing who's well-prepared and who's not.

A particular form that lack of preparation can take is the employee who treats the one-on-one primarily or even exclusively as a vehicle to report out. If you find yourself listening to extensive updates that should have been written reports or automated dashboards for you to review in advance, you can let them know that it's a missed opportunity to have a more meaningful dialogue.

How should one-on-ones be conducted? What role should I play as leader?

An employee who sets the agenda and provides you with sufficient time to digest any preparatory materials enables you to add value not by directing the conversation or even having answers to all their questions, but by posing questions yourself. While there are limits on the extent to which you can serve as an employee's "coach," you can readily employ coaching as a methodology. [10] This not only scales, it also allows you to add value in one-on-ones even with senior employees who possess specialized expertise that you lack. Grove recommended what he called "dialectic management":

What is the role of the supervisor in a one-on-one? They should facilitate the subordinate's expression of what's going on and what's bothering them. The supervisor is there to learn and to coach... How is this done? By applying Grove's Principle of Dialectic Management, "Ask one more question!" When the supervisor thinks the subordinate has said all they want to say about a subject, [the supervisor] should ask another question. [11]

And your questions should include inquiring about your employee's state of mind and well-being. Hughes Johnson notes that a one-on-one should always begin by "asking how someone is doing--checking in really matters." [12] Grove firmly agrees: "The supervisor should also encourage the discussion of heart-to-heart issues during one-on-ones, because this is the perfect forum for getting at subtle and deep work-related problems." [13]

It's by attending to the logistical details above that you create an environment in which employees are willing to truly tell you how they're doing and be candid with you on "heart-to-heart" issues. Holding formal one-on-ones that are rarely cancelled or rescheduled and for which both of you are fully prepared goes a long way toward creating the psychological safety that's necessary for real openness. This doesn't mean that you should avoid contentious issues, as I've noted previously:

Psychological safety entails candid and direct communication. It requires asking and answering hard questions. It does not mean "being nice." It does not mean avoiding difficult conversations or fraught topics to ensure that no one experiences distress. To the contrary, a setting in which people are reluctant to be candid and direct for fear of triggering any distress in others is psychologically unsafe. [14]

I opened with the idea that better one-on-ones can be a great source of leverage for a leader, and I'll close with Grove's thoughts on the same subject:

What is the leverage of a one-on-one? Let's say you have a one-on-one with your subordinate every two weeks, and it lasts one and a half hours. Ninety minutes of your time can enhance the quality of your subordinate's work for two weeks, or for some eighty-plus hours, and also upgrade your understanding of what [they're] doing. Clearly one-on-ones can exert enormous leverage. [15]

 

---

Footnotes

[1] 1x 10x 100x (On Leverage)

[2] High Output Management, page 73 (Andy Grove, 1st edition, 1983)

[3] Ibid.

[4] Beyond Simple Multi-Tasking: Continuous Partial Attention (Linda Stone, 2009)

[5] Growth, Profitability and Return on Attention

[6] Grove, pages 73-74.

[7] Better Working Relationships

[8] Grove, page 75.

[9] Scaling People: Tactics for Management and Company-Building, page 399 (Claire Hughes Johnson, 2023)

[10] For more on coaching as a leadership tool (and its limitations), see the following:

• Connect, Reflect, Direct...Then Ask (On Coaching)
• How Great Coaches Ask, Listen and Empathize
• Investment vs. Attachment

[11] Grove, pages 75-76.

[12] Hughes Johnson, page 399.

[13] Grove, page 77.

[14] Safety Is a Resource, Not a Destination

[15] Grove, page 77-78.

 

Photo by World Bank Photo Collective.

Currencies (On Motivating Different People)

A theme in my practice is the leader who's seeking to increase employee motivation. In this context it's important to bear in mind the work of Frederick Herzberg, a 20th century psychologist who had a profound influence on our understanding of motivation in organizational life. Herzberg offers a sharp critique of the conventional approaches to motivation, which he refers to as "kicks in the ass" or KITA. These aren't only negative, in the form of criticism or threats--they can also be positive, in the form of desirable rewards:

Let us consider motivation. If I say to you, "Do this for me or the company, and in return I will give you a reward, an incentive, more status, a promotion, all the quid pro quos that exist in the industrial organization," am I motivating you? The overwhelming opinion I receive from management people is, "Yes, this is motivation." I have a year-old schnauzer. When it was a small puppy and I wanted it to move, I kicked it in the rear and it moved. Now that I have finished its obedience training, I hold up a dog biscuit when I want the schnauzer to move. In this instance, who is motivated--I or the dog? The dog wants the biscuit, but it is I who want it to move. Again, I am the one who is motivated, and the dog is the one who moves. In this instance all I did was apply KITA frontally; I exerted a pull instead of a push. When industry wishes to use such positive KITAs, it has available an incredible number and variety of dog biscuits (jelly beans for humans) to wave in front of employees to get them to jump. [1]

Herzberg is exaggerating for comic effect here--I don't think he ever kicked his dog. [2] But his larger point holds: rewards like dog biscuits and jelly beans may result in movement, but that's not the same thing as motivation. This doesn't mean rewards are irrelevant as incentives, but a key in deploying them effectively is understanding that there are two different types of motivation, intrinsic (deriving from the work itself) and extrinsic (deriving from by-products of the work or aspects of the environment in which work occurs). As I've written before,

Herzberg's research suggests that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction aren't endpoints on a single spectrum, but two distinct scales. Satisfaction is derived from sources of intrinsic motivation such as a sense of achievement, recognition, responsibility, and opportunities for growth. In contrast, sources of extrinsic motivation (also known as "hygiene factors") such as working conditions, compensation, status, and security generate dissatisfaction if they're perceived as inadequate. [3]

But this understanding only gets a leader so far. Intrinsic motivators increase job satisfaction, and a sufficiency of extrinsic motivators prevent job dissatisfaction--but what does this look like in practice? If you're a leader seeking to increase employees' motivation, what can you do? Leadership experts Allan Cohen and David Bradford offer some suggestions. [4] In Influence Without Authority they articulate a set of principles and frameworks to support the development of stronger working relationships and more effective collaboration. [5] Although the title indicates that they're writing for people who lack directive control, I find their ideas highly relevant in my work with leaders. My clients are typically in senior positions, but their employees expect a high degree of latitude and autonomy, and leadership in these settings rarely involves "giving orders." [6]

One of Cohen and Bradford's most useful concepts related to motivation is what they call currencies: "resources that can be exchanged [as] the basis for acquiring influence." The list below is adapted from Chapter 3 in Influence Without Authority, "Goods and Services: The Currencies of Exchange." I've followed Cohen and Bradford's general schema, while modifying some of their terminology.

---

Inspiration-Related

1. Vision: A compelling view of the company's future and a description of how someone could contribute to its accomplishment.

2. Excellence: Opportunities to work at the highest standards of achievement.

3. Values: Opportunities to pursue moral or ethical virtues through work.

Task-Related

4. Resources: Additional budget, personnel, technology, space, etc.

5. Challenge: Opportunities to pursue difficult goals and develop enhanced skills and capabilities.

6. Assistance: The ability to delegate unwanted duties or obtain support in facing difficulties.

7. "Air Cover": Public or private help in influencing decision-makers and overcoming resistance.

8. Speed: Confidence that requests and inquiries will be met with a rapid response.

9. Information: Access to restricted or private organizational knowledge.

Position-Related

10. Recognition: Public or private acknowledgment of effort, accomplishments or abilities.

11. Visibility: Opportunities to be known by and interact with senior figures.

12. Reputation: A positive image that opens doors to additional opportunities.

13. Status: Participation in select groups or events.

14. Contacts: The ability to join or build a larger or more valuable network.

Relationship-Related

15. Inclusion: Feelings of closeness and emotional intimacy with specific individuals or groups.

16. Understanding: Opportunities to voice concerns and feel heard.

17. Kindness: Thoughtful and timely expressions of support during difficulties.

Personal

18. Gratitude: Expressions of appreciation in the form of thanks, deference, or a recognition of indebtedness.

19. Ownership: An intrinsically fulfilling sense of control and responsibility.

20. Affirmation: Reinforcement of a person's values, beliefs, sense of identity or self-worth.

21. Comfort: The minimization of headaches, hassles, interruptions or embarrassment.

---

If you're seeking to increase employee motivation, Cohen and Bradford's inventory offers a wide range of potential interventions--and here's where it's important to apply Herzberg's insights. Any number of the currencies above can be dispensed like "dog biscuits or jelly beans," but will the result be motivation or merely movement? When people move in response to a promised reward, that's a form of compliance, but motivation springs from a deeper level of commitment. And as I've written before,

Compliant people remain so only as long as they aren't too dissatisfied, but the absence of punishment and the promise of rewards doesn't generate sustained motivation. Committed people are motivated, and the fulfillment they find in the pursuit of their aims makes them more likely to persist in the face of difficulties. [7]

Herzberg indicates that the most significant intrinsic motivators are "[a sense of] achievement, recognition for achievement, the work itself, responsibility, and growth or advancement," while the most significant extrinsic motivators are "company policy and administration, supervision, interpersonal relationships, working conditions, salary, status, and security." [8] Some of Cohen and Bradford's currencies fall readily into one category or the other, but in many cases the distinction is unclear or may be highly contextual.

None of this is to suggest that intrinsic motivators are somehow superior, but recall that Herzberg originally dubbed extrinsic motivators "hygiene factors" to express his finding that sufficiency prevented dissatisfaction, but a surplus didn't necessarily yield more satisfaction. This is where I see many leaders make a category error--they're surprised when increases in compensation or status don't result in sustained motivation, and yet that's common with extrinsic factors that are subject to the process of hedonic adaptation. [9]

But all of this guidance needs to be assessed in light of the needs and preferences of the specific individuals you're seeking to motivate. Herzberg's work can be viewed as a map to help you navigate these issues, and yet, as with all findings from social psychology, "the map is not the territory." [10] Hopefully Cohen and Bradford's inventory expands the possibilities under your consideration, but what ultimately matters isn't whether a given currency is intrinsic or extrinsic in an abstract sense, but the value it holds for a particular employee.

 

This is a companion piece to the following:

• Compliance vs. Commitment (On Behavior Change)
• Mind the Gap (On Leading Senior Executives)

---

Footnotes

[1] One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees? (Frederick Herzberg, Harvard Business Review, originally published 1968, republished 2003)

[2] I don't really know anything about how Herzberg felt about dogs. But he helped liberate Dachau as 22-year-old U.S. Army sergeant, an undoubtedly searing experience that influenced his interest in motivation, and I'd like to think that such a man would only be kind to animals.

[3] Compliance vs. Commitment (On Behavior Change)

[4] David Bradford has been an important mentor to me.

[5] Influence Without Authority (Allan Cohen and David Bradford, 2nd edition, 2005)

[6] Force Isn't Power

[7] Compliance vs. Commitment (On Behavior Change)

[8] Herzberg, 1968/2003

[9] Stop Trying to Be "Good Enough" by "Getting Better"

[10] The Map Is Not the Territory

 

Photo by Philip Brewer.

Fear of the Empty Chair, Part 2 (On Hiring)

In Fear of the Empty Chair, Part 1, I discuss the factors that cause leaders to delay a necessary termination. A mirror image of this fear can affect leaders during a hiring process, one that causes them to rush. They're so concerned about a role going unfilled that they make missteps or discount potential red flags along the way. Sometimes this is the result of inexperience, but even long-tenured leaders can be affected. What do leaders driven by a "fear of the empty chair" overlook or ignore when hiring? And if you're a leader preparing to make a hire, what can you do about it?

Cognitive Biases

There's ample research on the limitations of job interviews in predicting performance. [1] A particular problem is the unstructured interview, in which the interviewer lacks specific questions designed to elicit responses about the candidate's real-life experiences to test for a desired set of characteristics. The unstructured interview moves randomly from one topic to the next, with the candidate guessing what the interviewer wants to hear and eagerly seizing on any points in common. And the results are readily subject to cognitive biases, the mental shortcuts that preserve our limited capacity for logical reasoning at the cost of systematic errors:

• Confirmation bias: Searching for and promoting data consistent with pre-existing hypotheses about a candidate, while rejecting disconfirming data.
• Halo effect: Viewing a candidate's attributes more positively (or negatively) than is merited on the basis of positive (or negative) impressions of other attributes.
• Stereotypes: Assumptions about a candidate's fitness based on similarities to (or differences from) the interviewer's often vague assumptions about an "ideal candidate." [2]

Leaders will obviously continue to rely on interviews, despite their drawbacks. This isn't irrational behavior--even unstructured interviews have benefits [3], and structured interviews can be difficult to implement. [4] However, as organizational psychologist Robert Dipboye has noted, "The evidence is compelling that the inclusion of formal job analyses, standardized questioning of applicants, and behavioral rating scales improve the validity and reliability of interviewer judgments." [5]

If you're a leader who's feeling a sense of urgency about making a hire, it will likely be worth the effort to slow down and take the advice of Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman: 1) Create a structured set of questions to prevent you from simply pursuing the questions that you find most interesting, 2) Use the time available in an interview to obtain as much information as possible about the candidate's life in their normal environment, 3) Do not make decisions solely on the basis of your global evaluations, and 4) Rely upon statistical summaries of separately evaluated attributes. [6]

Defensiveness

More specifically, hiring processes should screen for defensiveness, which I define as an unwillingness to accept responsibility for setbacks, characterized by a disproportionately hostile, anxious or evasive response to critical feedback. When one of my clients has an under-performing employee, defensiveness is almost always an issue. Jean Leslie and Ellen Van Velsor of the Center for Creative Leadership studied "derailed" executives who left their organizations non-voluntarily or were plateaued at a level short of expectations. The two leading factors in such cases were "inability to develop or adapt" (61 percent) and "poor working relations" (57 percent), and in my experience defensiveness is a primary contributor to both. [7]

But a candidate is unlikely to show signs of defensiveness during hiring, when they're striving to be their best selves, so if you're a leader making a hire it's up to you to test for it. Here are three questions to ask candidates during the process, and in this order (although not all three may be necessary):

1. Tell me about a time when things went wrong.

If the candidate can't answer this question thoughtfully, that's an initial red flag, suggesting that they're unwilling to be forthright about their setbacks or unable to observe and interpret such situations without experiencing distress. But some candidates will provide an adequate answer while leaving themselves out of the story, blaming the setback on the failings of others or inescapable misfortune. In these cases, proceed to the next question:

2. Tell me about a time when you made a mistake.

The wording here is deliberate, providing the candidate with an opportunity to take responsibility for a setback without using unduly fraught language. We all "make mistakes," and only the most defensive among us will refuse to admit it. Still, some candidates will respond with an example in which the consequences of their mistake were relatively trivial, providing little data on their capacity to acknowledge and learn from serious missteps. In these cases, proceed to the final question:

3. Tell me about a time when you failed.

The wording here is also deliberate, inviting the candidate to identify a situation in which they bore personal responsibility for a meaningful setback. Some candidates who were less forthcoming in response to the first two questions will finally avail themselves of this opportunity--and others will not, providing examples of inconsequential "failures," or evading the idea that they failed, finding others to take the blame.

If a candidate's unable to provide a satisfactory response to any of these questions, consider that a likely sign of defensiveness. And if you're still bullish on their candidacy, ask whether your eagerness to fill the role might be distorting your judgment. [8]

Leverage

Once the top candidate has been identified, the leader has to close them, sometimes requiring multiple rounds of negotiation across a range of issues. The leader's goal shouldn't be to extract the most concessions possible from the candidate. By adopting such an aggressive stance, not only do they run the risk of losing the best candidates over relatively minor differences, they also increase the likelihood that a qualified candidate will accept the role begrudgingly, or that only less-qualified candidates will remain available, in either case sowing the seeds of future difficulties.

But it can be equally problematic when a leader is so anxious to fill a role that they give up their leverage in the negotiation, making concessions that they later regret. When the dust settles after the hire's completed, the result is an employee who's one of the following:

• Over-compensated: This can take the form of excessive base pay or equity grants, but it may also reflect unsound management practices, such as poorly-structured variable or bonus plans. Even confidential information about compensation rarely remains so indefinitely, and any arrangements that are outside the company's norms have the potential to wreak havoc should other employees come to feel that they're now under-compensated or have been treated unfairly.
• Over-titled: They candidate is really a Director, but they held out for VP. Or they're really a VP, but they held out for C-level. Or the role shouldn't even have a hierarchical title, but the leader felt obligated to award one to close the candidate. As I've written before, "at first...titles may seem cheap--I've even had clients call them 'free.' But not only are those hidden costs eventually revealed, they also tend to escalate--so supposedly 'free' titles ultimately become very expensive." [9]
• Over-scoped: This isn't to say that the candidate is unqualified per se, but, rather, that their ambitions extend beyond their current capabilities, and they negotiated for a set of duties that will stretch them to the point of failure.

Again, the solution isn't to adopt a bare-knuckles negotiation style and pick a fight over every single issue. But if you're a leader in the midst of making a hire, pay close attention to how you feel about the prospect of losing the candidate and the extent to which such feelings might be causing you to underplay the leverage you hold in the negotiations. In this context it can be helpful to better understand your strengths and weaknesses as a negotiator. There's no one right approach, but in my experience there are two distinct negotiating "cultures":

In a list-price culture, there's a high degree of transparency and very little flexibility. An opening offer may not be take-it-or-leave it, but there's relatively little gamesmanship... In a haggling culture, the opposite is true. There's very little transparency and a great deal of flexibility. Opening offers are never take-it-or-leave-it, and gamesmanship abounds. [10]

A challenge in hiring is that you and the candidate probably haven't negotiated before, so you may come from opposing cultures without realizing it, which is a recipe for miscommunication:

When a list-price leader meets a haggling candidate, the leader may be surprised by a seemingly outrageous counter-offer, and the candidate may be surprised by the leader's rigid inflexibility. And when a haggling leader meets a list-price candidate, the leader may be surprised by the candidate's apparent lack of responsiveness, and the candidate may be surprised by the insultingly low opening offer. [11]

Short-Term Pain vs. Long-Term Pain

As I noted in Part 1, a theme here is the belief that the short-term pain will be greater than the long-term pain. When filling an empty role, the short-term pain is evident: Important work is going undone. This includes not only the work that is the purview of the role, but also the work that the leader must defer or forego in order to dedicate time and energy to the hiring process.

It's also not uncommon for leaders to find hiring itself a somewhat painful experience. Even when recruiters or other employees are available to source a pool of candidates and conduct the initial screens, the leader must ultimately spend a substantial amount of time in later rounds with candidates who won't work out--and in many early stage companies the leader is doing all this work on their own. And some leaders enjoy negotiating, but many find it onerous at best. In most cases, the leader is driven to seek relief and put an end to the short-term pain by selecting a candidate and closing them quickly.

However, as I also wrote in Part 1, what gets left out of this equation is the possibility that the long-term pain might outweigh the short-term pain, and perhaps by a substantial margin. Candidates who breezed through a series of unstructured interviews might look the part but be woefully underqualified. Candidates whose defensiveness wasn't surfaced during the process (or, worse, was ignored) will almost certainly fail to fulfill their potential. Candidates who extracted outsized concessions in their negotiation may be overmatched by the role or create perceptions of unfairness, undermining trust in management.  And someone who fits any of these criteria may well need to be managed out or terminated abruptly. The long-term pain of a poor hire is nearly limitless.

If you're a leader preparing for or in the middle of an important hire, you're undoubtedly feeling some pressure to fill the role. But managing your "fear of the empty chair" and tolerating some short-term pain in order to create a more structured interview process, test deliberately for defensiveness, and carefully assess your leverage as you conduct negotiations may well spare you from much more pain in the long run.

 

This is a companion piece to the following:

Daniel Kahneman on Conducting Better Interviews

Fear of the Empty Chair, Part 1 (On Termination)

---

Footnotes

[1] For more on the shortcomings of interviews, see the following:

• Stubborn Reliance on Intuition and Subjectivity in Employee Selection (Scott Highhouse, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2008)
• Belief in the unstructured interview: The persistence of an illusion (Jason Dana, Robyn Dawes and Nathanial Peterson, Judgment and Decision Making, 2013)
• Overconfidence in personnel selection: When and why unstructured interview information can hurt hiring decisions (Edgar Kausel, Satoris Culbertson and Hector Madrid, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2016)
• The Utter Uselessness of Job Interviews (Jason Dana, The New York Times, 2017)

[2] For more on cognitive biases in interviewing, see Structured and Unstructured Selection Interviews: Beyond the Job-Fit Model (Robert Dipboye, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 1994) and How Cognitive Biases Make Interviews Unreliable (Huy Tran, TRG International, 2016).

[3] Dipboye, page 112:

Unstructured approaches allow for richer communication among interviewers and between interviewer and the applicant (Daft & Lengel, 1986); as a consequence, those involved in the selection process can achieve greater reductions in the equivocality associated with hiring decisions (Weick, 1979). Second, the political behavior that can emerge with an unstructured procedure can prove valuable in resolving conflict over underlying objectives and alternative job candidates. Third, when knowledge of cause-effect is incomplete and there is no consensus on standards, fairness becomes more of an issue, and the interactional quality of an unstructured interview can provide for greater procedural justice. Fourth, the overall fit of the individual to the job context becomes more important in these situations and as discussed earlier, unstructured procedures seem to provide a better basis for achieving a good fit to this broader context. Finally, it is in these ambiguous situations that the personal commitment of those conducting the interviews is especially important to the ultimate success of the decision, and through providing autonomy, an unstructured procedure may help build this commitment...

[4] Ibid, page 113:

There are several ways that a structured selection process can conflict with the existing system, and as a consequence can be rejected or destructured. In the search for personal satisfaction, interviewers deviate from guidelines by incorporating task characteristics such as variety and autonomy. In the attempt to achieve a good fit to the organization, interviewers stray from the job-related attributes to consider the personality, values, and goals and to allow recruiting, socialization, rind self-selection. Other deviations occur as a consequence of power tactics, such as building coalitions or controlling the decision process. In the attempt to be fair, interviewers deviate from the one-way interrogation."

[5] Ibid, page 94.

[6] Daniel Kahneman on Conducting Better Interviews

[7] A Look at Derailment Today: North America and Europe, page 11 (Jean Leslie and Ellen Van Velsor, Center for Creative Leadership, 1996)

[8] Adapted from Surfacing Defensiveness (Three Questions for Candidates).

[9] Very Cheap, Then Very Expensive (On Job Titles)

[10] Culture, Compensation and Negotiation

[11] Ibid.

 

Fear of the Empty Chair, Part 1 (On Terminations)

A theme in my practice is the leader who's been delaying a hard decision. [1] This can be particularly challenging when it involves terminating an employee. Sometimes this reluctance is well-founded, but my clients often look back on these scenarios and wish they'd been more decisive and less hesitant. [2] Instead, they were held back by a set of concerns that in hindsight don't seem to justify their prior inaction. What's behind this "fear of the empty chair"? And if you're a leader in similar circumstances, what can you do about it?

Self-Doubt

Some of my clients are relatively new to leadership roles, and they don't fully trust their intuition. Termination decisions should not be made purely (or even primarily) on an intuitive basis, nor is our intuition is always accurate. [3] But few difficult decisions are made on the basis of objective data alone--when the data is that clear, the decision is easy. In termination decisions there's always some data--the missed quarter, the botched project, the critical feedback--and it's the leader's responsibility to interpret that data and determine its significance.

This involves a degree of intuition, but it's not some sort of mystical process. Economist and psychologist Herbert Simon offers a straightforward definition: "The situation has provided a cue; this cue has given the expert access to information stored in memory, and the information provides the answer. Intuition is nothing more and nothing less than recognition." [4] If you're wrestling with self-doubt, the first step is creating an environment that's free from distractions, so you can tune into your intuition more accurately. [5] The key over time will be tracking your decisions to assess when your intuition pays off and when it's subject to cognitive biases that lead you astray. [6]

Guilt

Alternatively, a leader may be clear that termination is the right decision, but they're held back by feelings of guilt. They may have hired the employee, and even offered inducements to convince them to accept the role. The employee may be a friend, family member, or classmate, and termination may damage or end the personal relationship. Or the leader may feel that they've let the employee down by failing to provide appropriate resources or guidance.

Guilt is a powerful motivator of prosocial behavior, in large part because we go to great lengths to avoid the actions that induce this unpleasant feeling. [7] But we may also fail to take necessary actions to prevent the feeling from arising in the first place. If guilt is holding you back from following through on what you believe to be the right course of action, the key is emotion regulation. This doesn't mean suppressing those feelings, as I've noted before:

Suppression is essentially an act of make-believe--we pretend we're not feeling what we're feeling and hope to distract ourselves until the feeling passes... In contrast, emotion regulation involves improving our ability to sense, comprehend, articulate and express what we're feeling, and we develop those skills by getting closer to our emotions, not by distancing ourselves from them. [8]

Once you've determined how to prevent guilt from serving as an obstacle, there's still a valuable learning opportunity here for you: If you hired this person, what red flags did you miss or discount? If you have (or had) a relationship with them outside of work, how will you balance your personal and professional relationships in the future? If you failed to provide necessary resources or guidance, how will you alter your approach to management?

Obstinacy

Leaders are often persistent, and that's generally an admirable quality--but at some point a capacity to endure difficulties becomes irrational obstinacy. One way to prevent this is to recognize and write off sunk costs. An under-performing employee usually represents a substantial sum of time, effort and money. Meaningful amounts of these resources were expended to source a pool of candidates, identify the best prospects, select and close one, and onboard them. And the longer they've been in the role, the more resources that have been directed toward their training and management.

Tallying up these resources often fuels a hope that they can be recovered through improved performance and long-term retention. But it's essential to view such expended resources not as investments that may yield a return, but as sunk costs, a concept explored by professors of management Jeffery McMullen and Alexander Kier in their research on why entrepreneurs persist in striving toward goals when the rational choice is to quit:

An uncompleted goal prevents production costs from being treated as sunk because they are mentally categorized as investments rather than expenses until evidence overwhelmingly disconfirms the likelihood that they will produce the expected return... Sunk costs and time invested are costs of abandonment that grow from delay, further increasing the desirability of outcome attainment for decision makers who do not want to appear wasteful. [9]

If you find yourself resisting an otherwise rational decision to terminate an employee, consider the extent to which you remain hopeful that the resources expended over the course of their employment might somehow be recovered. Now write down the value of those resources to zero, and take a fresh look at the situation. Rather than asking yourself how those resources could be recovered, ask yourself whether you should continue trying.

Optics

Perceptions matter, particularly for a growing company that may be facing a great deal of uncertainty. In this context leaders must attend closely to the narratives that surround the company and actively shape them through storytelling, as I've written before:

Why is [storytelling] such an important aspect of leadership? Because reality is socially constructed, and the vehicle for that process is narrative. There are few ground truths in social structures, organizational life, or interpersonal experience. Once we get beyond the realm of physics, the "truth" is what we believe to be true, and when enough people, or the right people, profess their belief in a given narrative its influence is as irresistible as gravity. The converse also holds, of course: when enough people, or the right people, withdraw their belief in a given narrative, it has no influence at all. [10]

The departure of an employee contributes to a company's narrative and may well be perceived negatively, particularly if they're a senior executive or have strong relationships with other employees or external stakeholders. This is one reason why terminations should be handled in a way that affords the affected employee as much grace and dignity as possible, maximizing the possibility that the leader and employee can agree on a shared public narrative that explains their departure. This narrative will undoubtedly be simplified--public discourse doesn't afford much room for nuance or complexity. But this isn't always possible, even when both parties make a good-faith effort.

In such cases leaders often overemphasize the risk of bad publicity resulting from a termination and resist taking needed action. But in my experience people are increasingly skeptical about such claims, recognizing that adverse publicity about a company in the media or on review websites represents the subjective viewpoint of the claimant, not objective truth. Further, leaders often discount the possibility that the narrative attached to an unwilling departure may be a net positive for the company, signalling a commitment to high performance or accountability for professional behavior.

If you're a leader who's reluctant to pursue a necessary termination because of concerns over optics, first consider how you might reach agreement with the employee on a shared public narrative. This shouldn't be false or misleading, but it will leave out certain details and focus on others in order to serve both parties' interests. This is why departing executives so often profess a desire to "spend more time with the family"--this is never the whole truth, but it is almost always true.

If agreement on a shared public narrative proves impossible, consider how you might judiciously communicate with your stakeholders. To be clear, in almost all cases you should not make public details regarding the employee's performance or behavior in order to justify your decision. This will generally be perceived as a violation of privacy and undermine trust in you and the company. But in some cases you can comment on general standards of performance or behavior, without sharing any details related to this particular situation. Or you may have an opportunity to simultaneously announce other, happier departures with a degree of fanfare, while electing not to comment on the termination. Silence is also a form of communication. [11]

Short-Term Pain vs. Long-Term Pain

An element in all of these rationales is the belief that the short-term pain will be greater than the long-term pain. Sometimes the leader doesn't even acknowledge the possibility of long-term pain--they imagine that an under-performing employee can be retained indefinitely without causing irreparable damage. More typically, the leader is aware that allowing an under-performing employee to continue in their role will cause long-term pain, but they resist taking action because the short-term pain of a termination seems so much more evident and troublesome.

Moving forward with a termination will compel the leader to overcome any lingering self-doubt and trust their intuition. It will require a confrontation with any feelings of guilt and taking responsibility for their contributions to the situation. It will entail admitting the futility of recovering all resources expended on the employee's behalf and writing them off as sunk costs. It will be necessary to struggle to craft a shared public narrative, or to run the risk of adverse publicity if this proves impossible. All of this work will be painful.

In many cases leaders are also concerned about a gap in continuity, which will generate even more short-term pain. The terminated employee's duties will have to be delegated, and it may fall to the leader to take them on. Or this may simply not be possible, causing pain for customers or other stakeholders. Shortening or eliminating the gap in continuity will require an expedited search for a replacement, which is often arduous work under the best of circumstances. There will be no shortage of pain.

But what gets left out of this equation is the possibility that the long-term pain might outweigh the short-term pain, and perhaps by a substantial margin. An under-performing employee can take a toll on everyone around them, not just their manager, and left unchecked this can cause very painful problems. The employee's poor performance or unprofessional behavior is rarely evident only to the leader, and the leader's inaction will be noted and raise questions. The best employees may choose to leave, while others may lower their own standards of performance. And as education experts Steve Greunert and Todd Whitaker have noted, "The culture of any organization is shaped by the worst behavior the leader is willing to tolerate." [12]

In encouraging you to weigh the risk of long-term pain more carefully and perhaps overcome your reluctance to move forward, please note I'm not suggesting you act rashly or terminate an employee over a trivial offense or a single setback. Very few mistakes are truly fatal, and the ability to grow and learn from failure is a vitally important quality to cultivate in organizational life. [13] But it's also worth considering that your under-performing employee is also suffering, and allowing them to remain in the role is not merciful, but cruel. As the great management thinker Peter Drucker once wrote, "I have never seen anyone in a job for which he was inadequate who was not slowly being destroyed by the pressure and the strains, and who did not secretly pray for deliverance." [14]

 

This is a companion piece to the following:

Merciful Exits (On Under-Performing Executives)

On Firing a Senior Team Member

Fear of the Empty Chair, Part 2 (On Hiring)

---

Footnotes

[1] Kicking the Can Down the Road (On Hard Decisions)

[2] Don't Wait

[3] For more on intuition, see Strategic decisions: When can you trust your gut? (Interview with Daniel Kahneman and Gary Klein, McKinsey Quarterly, 2010)

[4] What is an "Explanation" of Behavior? (Herbert Simon, Psychological Science, 1992)

[5] How to Think (More on Open Space and Deep Work)

[6] For more on decision tracking, see Creating a Decision Journal (Shane Parrish, Farnam Street, 2014) and Decision Journal (Shane Parrish). For more on cognitive biases, see When Heuristics Go Bad (On Cognitive Biases).

[7] For more on the value of guilt, see Guilt and Helping (Christian Miller, 2010) and Avoiding and Alleviating Guilt Through Prosocial Behavior (Mica Estrada-Hollenbeck and Todd Heatherton, Chapter 20 in Guilt and Children, 1998).

[8] The Tyranny of Feelings

[9] Trapped by the Entrepreneurial Mindset: Opportunity Seeking and the Escalation of Commitment in the Mount Everest Disaster, page 679 (Jeffery McMullen and Alexander Kier, Journal of Business Venturing, 2016)

[10] The Importance of Shared Narrative

[11] "No matter how one may try, one cannot not communicate. Activity or inactivity, words or silence all have message value... The mere absence of talking or of taking notice of each other is no exception to what has just been asserted." (Paul Watzlawick et al, Pragmatics of Human Communication, page 49, 1967)

[12] School Culture Rewired: How to Define, Assess, and Transform It, page 36 (Steve Gruenert and Todd Whitaker, 2015)

[13] The Ruling Out of Possibilities (On Failure)

[14] The Effective Executive, page 89 (Peter Drucker, 1966)

 

Photo by Votchitsev Viacheslav.