Jonathan watched in horror as Patricia shredded Dave's career. Sure, Dave had just given the Board the bad news — the earliest possible ship was now six months later than promised. But it wasn't Dave's fault alone, and he shouldn't suffer for it. Still, Patricia's behavior was no surprise. Jonathan and Dave had discussed this possibility over scones and coffee in his office just this morning.
As he watched now, Jonathan vowed that he would never do what Dave had just done — hand the hangman the noose to hang him with.
Have you ever watched a career being shredded? Jonathan's was a typical reaction. He decided that he would avoid the trap that snared Dave, by never revealing anything that Patricia could use to harm him. A typical reaction, and, I believe, an appropriate one. If you work for someone who kills messengers who bring bad news, always deliver good news — or no news at all.
That's the problem with killing the messenger. If you're a manager in a project-oriented organization, you need to know the full, unvarnished truth. When you kill a messenger, you demonstrate what happens to those who deliver unpleasant Truth, and you deliver a message of your own: Tell me the truth at your peril.
If you've bagged a messenger now and then, can you believe the reports you receive from people in your organization? Are they truthful? Are they complete? Or are they perhaps skewed toward the positive?
If you've bagged a messenger
now and then, can you believe
the reports you receive from
people in your organization?And what of those who still dare to report bad news, despite having watched you finish off several messengers in the past couple of months? Don't they get it? Don't you doubt their sanity? Can you trust their reports? Killing messengers has such predictable results that you have to question any report you receive. When people have to put their careers on the line whenever they open their mouths, it's more difficult to trust what comes out — good news or bad.
But what about the project managers who've really messed up their projects and who then report the bad news? You might ask, "Can't I kill them?" Nope. Not even them. People watching your actions might not realize that you're acting on the basis of performance, rather than killing a messenger. If you must, reassign poor performers — don't destroy their careers. After time has passed, and they aren't in messenger roles, you can take other action without putting at risk your access to Truth.
In a project-oriented organization, Truth is your most important asset. You must have free access to the Truth. Killing messengers drives Truth underground. Never, ever, kill the messenger. Top Next Issue
Are you fed up with tense, explosive meetings? Are you or a colleague the target of a bully? Destructive conflict can ruin organizations. But if we believe that all conflict is destructive, and that we can somehow eliminate conflict, or that conflict is an enemy of productivity, then we're in conflict with Conflict itself. Read 101 Tips for Managing Conflict to learn how to make peace with conflict and make it an organizational asset. Order Now!
For a connection between killing the messenger and Virginia Satir's Five Freedoms, see "Ethical Influence: I," Point Lookout for July 4, 2007.
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenWJmLphrNrcFxYLwyner@ChacYAxjxTiAtwogbKoroCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Emotions at Work:
- Irrational Self-Interest
- When we try to influence others, especially large groups or entire companies, we sometimes create packages
of incentives and disincentives that are intended to affect behavior. These strategies usually assume
that people make choices on rational grounds. Is this assumption valid?
- The Loopy Things We Do at Work
- At the end of the day, your skill at finding humor inside the dull and ordinary can make the difference
between going home exhausted and going home in a strait jacket. Adopting a twisted view of the goings-on
might just help keep you untwisted.
- Responding to Threats: II
- When an exchange between individuals, or between an individual and a group, goes wrong, threats often
are either the cause or part of the results. If we know how to deal with threats — and how to
avoid and prevent them — we can help keep communications creative and constructive.
- It's a Wonderful Day!
- Most knowledge workers are problem solvers. We work towards goals. We anticipate problems as best we
can, and when problems appear, we solve them. But our focus on anticipating problems can become a problem
in itself — at work and in Life.
- Scope Creep, Hot Hands, and the Illusion of Control
- Despite our awareness of scope creep's dangerous effects on projects and other efforts, we seem unable
to prevent it. Two cognitive biases — the "hot hand fallacy" and "the illusion
of control" — might provide explanations.
See also Emotions at Work for more related articles.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming April 24: Big, Complicated Problems
- Big, complicated problems can be difficult to solve. Even contemplating them can be daunting. But we can survive them if we get advice we can trust, know our resources, recall solutions to past problems, find workarounds, or as a last resort, escape. Available here and by RSS on April 24.
- And on May 1: Full Disclosure
- The term "full disclosure" is now a fairly common phrase, especially in news interviews and in film and fiction thrillers involving government employees or attorneys. It also has relevance in the knowledge workplace, and nuances associated with it can affect your credibility. Available here and by RSS on May 1.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenTaYEwonKxHScMrFvner@ChacqyLDsVAOvuDVNrpOoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, USD 28.99)
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
- Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.
- Your stuff is brilliant! Thank you!
- You and Scott Adams both secretly work here, right?
- I really enjoy my weekly newsletters. I appreciate the quick read.
- A sort of Dr. Phil for Management!
- …extremely accurate, inspiring and applicable to day-to-day … invaluable.