It sucks to be unhappy.
It sucks to watch someone else be unhappy, especially if you believe their unhappiness reflects on you in some way.
However, sometimes people are just unhappy. And sometimes they are unhappy at work. How big of a problem is that?
Someone may dislike a needed corporate change, or feel upset about valid and accurate feedback about a performance issue. The question is, it is yours to fix?
Today I want to talk about people who are unhappy at work about legitimate and necessary business activities. Their distress is real. But what should you as a leader do about it? I am not talking today about complaints about racism, sexism, ageism, anything that is covered by law, corporate guidelines or would fall under the purview of HR.
If leadership overreacts or underreacts it can be problematic. What is the golden mean here?
First, let’s understand what your automatic reaction is. If someone on your team raises a distress flag, what do you do?
I’m talking about your first reaction, the knee jerk, automatic one. Generally, I see people fall into three categories: fixer, avoider or neutral.
Avoiders are going to pretend it’s not happening. They may be conflict averse or less aware of interpersonal tension. If someone speaks to them directly about distress, they may minimize or discount. “It’s always busy this time of year, it’ll get better next month,” “We’ve all been struggling with this new re-org.”
The fixer, on the other hand, rushes in to fix things. Lots of empathy, affirming head bobs, making space for the person’s feelings; the fixer is going to prioritize making the distressed person feel heard and validated. And then they’ll try to come up with a solution.
The third option is to be neutral and situationally curious, which is the most skillful approach.
Do any of these resonate for you? Or are you somewhere in between?
Understanding our default setting is a good start to making sure we’re handling distress skillfully.
If you’re on a leadership or management team, it will be useful to understand which default setting the other leaders have, because a disconnect can cause tension within an executive team. If one leader believes that any distress from any person for any reason is a cause for concern, and another leader feels like people are going to have reactions to tough business calls and shouldn’t be coddled, they are going to clash.
Here's a useful framework I often use with coaching clients. Is this a solvable problem? Is it solvable by me?
Here are examples of distress flags that are not solvable by a manager.
· I’m afraid I’m going to get laid off, or that my job will change in corporate restructurings that are being decided somewhere else.
· I’m stressed out because of situations happening outside of work; a recession, climate change, something in my personal life.
· I dislike a person I work with because I don’t like their personality/politics/something else, although their behavior to me is always professional.
· I’m sad that the organization has changed in some way.
· I’m angry that people are not doing a thing the way I think they should do a thing, even though I have no particular expertise in the thing.
I’m sure we can all add to the list.
The distress of the individuals saying these things is real. They are experiencing genuine discomfort. And we can empathize with their discomfort.
The problems arise when someone looks to you or the organization to solve something that isn’t solvable, or is not solvable by you or leadership. I’ve seen people unwittingly play out old family dynamics here.
It is reasonable for a parent to seriously consider a child’s distress flags. Whether they are reasonable or not, most parents of young children will address a distress flag with some attention, a hug, or reassuring words. That’s part of our job. When our spouse or partner is distressed, we might be similarly comforting. Also, part of the partnership. But I don’t think the automatic “poor baby” sympathy is part of our job as leaders.
Triangulation is a risk. When Person A is angry with Person B and complains to Boss C, there needs to be a good reason why A can’t just go to B and sort it out. Keep that triangle in mind – anytime two people are talking about a third person there is a risk of triangulation. Sometimes it is necessary – where there is abuse or aggression from B to A, for example. But often the best thing to do is to try and get A to talk with B, with or without help from HR or leadership.
Fixers often feel compelled to treat every distress flag as a place for them to jump in and help. They usually don’t consider the source or validity of the person’s concern or complaint. Which makes it difficult to assess the level of urgency. If you have a person on a leadership team who is excessively worried about any drop in morale, any person expressing discomfort, that is going to be challenging. Leaders who are less reactive may get real push back from fixers if there is a downgrading of the institutional reaction to distress.
If you have this conflict in your team between a fixer and a more avoidant or neutral person, here are some things to try to name and discuss.
1. Review or discuss your group agreements about distress from employees. Are there circumstances where distress isn’t actionable? What are they? What do we as a leadership team need to prioritize?
2. How tolerant are we of discomfort in ourselves, others, or team members? What are the implications of that for our leadership?
3. Can we do a quick self-assessment as a team? Who is a fixer? Who is an avoider? Who is neutral? Each person should assess themselves. Write it down. What are the positives and negatives of this configuration? A team full of fixers might get distracted by every complaint. A team that’s all avoiders might be seen as unresponsive or insensitive. A team with both might need stronger group agreements or understandings to set up some guardrails about the inevitable conflicts that will arise.
If you are a fixer, and see the value of becoming more neutral, try getting curious. Here are some useful questions if someone on your team is complaining to you about an issue that is not solvable or not solvable by you or the organization.
· I’m sorry to hear that. What have you done to try and resolve this issue?
· What specifically do you think would resolve this? Is it resolvable?
· What would you like me to do? Is that realistic?
· Let’s consider the business/macroeconomic reality that’s causing this. What systems or factors are at play here that are not ours to solve or address?
· For interpersonal conflict where there is no threat, just irritation, have you talked to the person you are challenged by? What would you like them to do? Does that seem reasonable? How would you feel if someone asked something similar of you?
If you are an avoider, try to understand what the person talking to you wants you to do. You don’t have to do it, but it can be grounding to understand what they are asking. You can be empathetic without agreeing with someone. I often tell clients to “validate, validate, validate.”
“I hear that this is very concerning to you.” “This must be difficult.” Then you can ask what they want. “How could I help you? What would be a good solution for you?” You aren’t agreeing to do it, you’re just listening.
Next week, we’re doing a Bad Boss Brief podcast on this called the Bring Your Authentic Self to Work show, that will also address how to accurately assess where and when you should be focusing on the comfort and happiness of your team, and where you should inure yourself to the inevitable discomfort that work can generate. If you’re reading or listening to this, you should also be subscribing to the Bad Boss Brief podcast I do twice a month with Eugene S. Robinson, also on substack.