“I am still uncomfortable with confrontation,” Lauren explained. “There is a knot in the middle of my stomach.”

“How long have you felt this way?”

“About a week,” she said. “He is not doing his best. I saw that. I only started to feel uncomfortable when I knew I had to say something to him.”

“So, your stomach is your guidepost?”

“What do you mean?” she asked.

“Your stomach is a valuable detector. Here is one thing for certain. If your stomach is upside down, it is likely you are dealing with a real issue. If your stomach feels fine, you can be assured you are avoiding the real issue.”

Lauren felt fine until the point of confrontation. While she observed underperformance, she was fine as long as she avoided the issue. Your stomach is a valuable detector. What issues are you avoiding?

Managers contribute to underperformance by avoiding the issue. Managers hope. I am here to tell you there is no hope. There is only the conversation.

In our Working Leadership Online program, I asked a participant to describe the benefit of the Field Work related to accountability.

“Getting over the fear of having the conversation. I was scared it would spiral out of control. The meeting went nothing like I anticipated.”

We provide a proven model to deal with underperformance, but the biggest obstacle is still the fear of confrontation. Our model not only addresses the underperformance, but also the fear on the part of the manager. Here are the essential steps.

• Describe the behavior (underperformance) you observed, as a manager.
• Describe the impact of the behavior.
• Describe the implications of what will happen if nothing changes.
• Describe your contribution to the underperformance, as a manager. (Yes, as a manager, you are part of the problem.)
• Describe the ideal outcome.
• Ask for an action plan.
• Listen.

Except for the last step, this is a monologue, lasting less than 60 seconds. There are some other ground rules, but this is the core. Now, check your fear at the door.

“Why are you avoiding this conversation with Curtis?” I asked.

“I know I should talk to him, but I just don’t like confrontation. His production is below par. I don’t think he is doing his best. But if I talk to him, he might get upset and his production might get slower,” Lauren explained.

“How do you define confrontation?”

“Curtis screws up and I call him on it.”

“And?”

“And he will try to defend himself with excuses. I will have to argue with his excuses. I will have to force my reasons against his excuses. I just want to avoid it,” she protested.

“What if you changed your definition of confrontation to a search for the truth. Instead of excuses, let’s find out what the real problem is and see if Curtis can fix it?” I suggested.

Sometimes, the way we understand a single word can change the way we see what we do. Many people avoid confrontation because it brings uncomfortable images. If we can see confrontation as a search for the truth, we can have the conversation with a more productive purpose.

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:
I listened with interest at your last Time Span workshop. How come we never heard of Elliott Jaques before? He makes so much management sense, yet he seems to have been a best kept secret.

Response:
Elliott is seldom included in the management literature, yet everything we know about organizations and organizational structure rests on the shoulders of his research. But if you look hard, you will find outposts, practitioners who continue his legacy.

Michelle Malay Carter writes often about Elliott and the principles contained in his research. Here is an excerpt from Mission Minded Management.

“Managers have double accountability. They, as employees themselves must bring their best to bear and give their managers their best advice, but in addition, they are accountable for the output of their team.” Read more.