Training & Development Speaking truth


to power ... and to other people at work


Grounds Training Tutor Frank Newberry suggests how we might tackle giving important people honest criticism, without making things worse in the short term or the long term


There are times when we all need to give team members, colleagues and even managers some honest feedback at work. This honest feedback might be about anything, but it is often about promises being broken, decisions not being made and poor communication upwards or downwards.


An honest showdown with someone, particularly with someone in charge, might be a lot easier if you knew that you would never see that person again. However, if you expect to see them regularly in the future, then the risks you take by being open and honest could be a lot greater and the temptation to keep waiting ‘for a better time’ might be harder for you to resist.


Too many people are waiting for someone in charge to raise the issue


In my travels, I can tell that some thorny old work problems have been going on for years because communication about problems is badly lacking or is not happening at all. Too many people are waiting for someone in charge to raise the issue, or to come back to them, and the other parties are forever waiting for ‘a better time’ to raise the matter, or raise it again. Sounds familiar?


How do you ‘speak truth to power’ and maintain a good working relationship or a good business relationship? What are the risks?


At the human level, you risk losing your job or your promotion prospects. At a personal level, you risk hurting people’s feelings or having your feelings hurt in return. Basically, you could be putting at risk any or all your existing working relationships.


The potential threat to team morale and cohesion


To this we can add the potential threat to team morale and cohesion - of badly handled feedback, along with people’s future loyalty to the team, the organisation and the industry.


The problem we ultimately face is that the risk-free work-life most of us desire may never


132 I PC FEBRUARY/MARCH 2017 happen if we do not stick up for ourselves!


I have been testing turfcare professionals for over twenty-five years on this issue and sticking up for ourselves seems to be very hard. We much prefer to accommodate (give way) to others at work or to avoid any conflict of opinion altogether. The ones who do stick up for themselves not only get their own way more often, but also progress well in their careers.


Many years ago, my own problem with ‘speaking truth to power’ was nearly always the same. I would never raise issues. Why? Because I thought my manager and his/her bosses knew what was best for the team and the organisation. They were all very knowledgeable and clever, so what did I know that they did not know?


Some senior managers were not good at their job (most of them)


This situation prevailed until I got into management when I quickly found out that some senior managers were good at their job (a few) and some were not good at their job at all (most of them).


I was not experienced at ‘speaking truth to power’, so I quickly made a few enemies at the higher level. That said, if the people in charge had been any good at their job they would have listened instead of punishing the people (not just me) who wanted to build happier and better performing work teams.


The stakes were high for me then and they may be high for you right now. In my view, it is right to be concerned about the negative impact of criticising and correcting people at work.


In my case, I was fortunate that the worst offenders at the higher level were asked to leave when an enlightened new top manager was brought in.


Every single aspect of the work was attributable to a named individual


The new boss also made sure that accountability and responsibility were pushed


down to the lowest levels. This meant that the quality and output of every single aspect of the work was attributable to a named individual. If anything was not done properly, an individual was held accountable. If things were done properly and well, the individuals responsible were recognised for their good work.


It was great for me and my career because this approach sorted the good ones from the ‘not so good’ ones in the workforce. Better qualified and more talented people were attracted to the organisation and people who did not want to work this way quickly left and were replaced.


You may not be as fortunate as me, but I suspect you might need to find a way to get the work team to adopt a ‘group discipline’ approach so that poor performance and difficult situations are dealt with speedily using fair measures and agreed processes.


You may also need to encourage the people in charge to:


i) Adopt an attitude of healthy self-criticism, and to


ii) Ask for honest and continuous feedback from people at every level in the workplace


The supervisor remains accountable for performance and discipline


Let’s start with ‘group discipline’. Put simply, this is when a supervisor delegates the responsibility for discipline at work and higher performance standards - to the members of the work team. This will be the ‘delegation’ rather than the ‘devolution’ of tasks, so the supervisor remains accountable for performance and discipline.


What it means is that the supervisor is no longer chasing individuals for things like late attendance or unfinished work. Team members do this and report at appropriate intervals to the supervisor.


It is often best to give individual team members individual higher level responsibilities rather than have everybody


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148