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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT