ILNews

Tough Talks: Having difficult conversations about delicate situations

May 21, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Lori Moss

moss-lori.jpg Moss

No one relishes telling someone they aren’t pulling their weight, that they aren’t billing enough hours or aren’t winning enough cases. Those are hard conversations. Those conversations, however, typically involve issues that are black and white. You have facts and figures to back them up: Here is the company policy. You broke the policy. Here is the consequence.

What if it’s something that’s not in the employee handbook? What if you need to tell someone they aren’t dressing or behaving professionally? Those issues often fall into gray areas, leading to conversations that can be emotionally charged and uncomfortable. So, what do many lawyers do? Nothing. They hope the problem will go away.

It’s not going to go away. In fact, it’s going to fester, it’s going to affect other employees – if it hasn’t already – and it’s going to tarnish your reputation and negatively affect the firm’s bottom line.

People – regardless of the industry – avoid having tough conversations. They avoid them by trying to rationalize. Clients will tell me they haven’t had “the talk” because there just hasn’t been the right time, or the issue hasn’t affected his or her work.

I tell them to rock the boat today, because tomorrow or next week or next month, it’s going to rock the entire company. Here’s an example of an issue that was not easy to confront.

A group of employees often huddled in the break room giggling about a co-worker. He was relatively new to the firm, but already had shown he was talented, and he had good sales figures. He dressed professionally, and clients seemed to respect him. However, he was causing a stir among his co-workers because he had a tendency to – for lack of a better way of saying it – adjust himself. Not just once, but multiple times during the day. His boss noticed it, too, and wondered whether he was even conscious he was doing it. More importantly, she worried that his behavior eventually would affect his relationship with clients.

Talk about a tough conversation. But it had to be done. And, it needed to happen sooner rather than later because employees looked to the boss to deal with it.

Whether it’s talking to someone about their behavior, their dress or demeanor, here are tips to help you prepare and make the most of the difficult conversation.

Realize this isn’t just about the individual employee. It’s also about your reputation and the reputation of the firm. If you are willing to turn a blind eye on professionalism, you’ll lose respect with your employees, and you’ll also diminish the importance of professionalism within the firm.

Be a mentor. Approach conversations about professionalism as a caring mentor, someone who has the best interest of the employee at heart and who wants him to succeed.

Acknowledge it’s uncomfortable. When you set the stage, let the employee know you understand this is a delicate situation. The employee is likely to be less defensive.

Don’t get into a debate. The last thing you want is for the employee to get argumentative and defensive with comments such as “I can’t believe you’re even accusing me of not dressing professionally when there are so many bigger issues out there,” or, “Why am I being targeted when others are a lot more obnoxious in staff meetings than I am?”

Instead of a debate, you need to remind the employee that you want to help him or her improve because you value the work he or she is doing. Being more nurturing than directive will help defuse someone who feels attacked. But remember, you need to be sincere.

Don’t lecture. This needs to be a conversation between two professionals. Think of it as you giving advice to someone whom you value and care about. Consider how you’d prefer someone talk to you.

Lecture: You’ve got to stop interrupting people during client and staff meetings. It’s rude and unprofessional.

Advice: You’re so passionate about an idea that it often comes across to staff members and even clients that you’re interrupting. I know you don’t mean to be unprofessional or disrespectful, but it can be perceived that way. I bring this up because it’s an issue I’ve had to work on my whole career, and I wanted to share ways I’ve tried to overcome it.

Make it private. When scheduling the meeting, make sure it’s in a private, quiet location. No one wants to be overheard discussing issues about their professionalism or performance in public. Turn off your cell phone during the meeting, and make sure you’ve put the meeting on your calendar. Taking calls discounts the importance of the conversation and your employee isn’t going to take it as seriously. This is a serious matter that impacts your company and your employee’s career.

During the conversation, you should be able to assess – through the employee’s response and body language – whether he’s vested in his career or even vested in the firm. Depending on the issues, it may require a follow-up meeting so you can provide some additional feedback or just let the employee know you appreciate the work he or she has done to improve.•

__________

Lori Moss is owner of Professional Presence Pro and specializes in helping law firms develop and implement professionalism standards. She will be a featured presenter at the Indiana Bar Association Solo & Small Firm Conference June 5-7. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

  2. Freedom as granted in the Constitution cannot be summarily disallowed without Due Process. Unable to to to the gym, church, bowling alley? What is this 1984 level nonsense? Congrats to Brian for having the courage to say that this was enough! and Congrats to the ACLU on the win!

  3. America's hyper-phobia about convicted sex offenders must end! Politicians must stop pandering to knee-jerk public hysteria. And the public needs to learn the facts. Research by the California Sex Offender Management Board as shown a recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders of less than 1%. Less than 1%! Furthermore, research shows that by year 17 after their conviction, a convicted sex offender is no more likely to commit a new sex offense than any other member of the public. Put away your torches and pitchforks. Get the facts. Stop hysteria.

  4. He was convicted 23 years ago. How old was he then? He probably was a juvenile. People do stupid things, especially before their brain is fully developed. Why are we continuing to punish him in 2016? If he hasn't re-offended by now, it's very, very unlikely he ever will. He paid for his mistake sufficiently. Let him live his life in peace.

  5. This year, Notre Dame actually enrolled an equal amount of male and female students.

ADVERTISEMENT