Already a member?
Welcome to Brazen Careerist!
Michael Cecchin is using Brazen Careerist to share ideas. Join now to become a member and start networking with Michael Cecchin and other professionals just like you. Learn more.
Michael Cecchin is using Brazen Careerist to share ideas. Join now to become a member and start networking with Michael Cecchin and other professionals just like you. Learn more.
There are few magazines that I will read cover to cover and Men’s Health is on that list. Because of this I now can make a healthy dinner if I’m ever lost in the woods, fend off the flu with a mix of bell peppers, and do that special trick in bed solely reserved for gymnasts and Cirque du Soleil performers - someday I promise myself to try it with someone. Thanks MH.
Today, I read their article, “8 Things To Never Say In A Meeting”. It had the sound of a hilarious read but #5 brought a number of thoughts to mind, specifically a missing link on the corporate totem pole.
#5: “I can’t make that number.”
Candor is never appreciated, particularly in financial matters. My bud Spagnola once went into a budget session as a senior vice president and came out as a consultant in charge of nothing. He had the smart idea of telling the chairman that his revenue expectations were “unrealistic in this economic environment.” Was he wrong? No. But in that venue he might as well have hocked a loogie on the boardroom table.
The rules of any financial meeting are clear: (1) All current assumptions are to be accepted. (2) No definitive statements will be tolerated, especially negative ones. (3) Every word should strengthen the impression that senior management is in control.
The time to inform management of your genuine situation is well before the deposition. That way they can scream at you, peel you off the floor, and then say that what you told them was their idea all along.
Sure, I understand the concept, and have unfortunately seen this repetitive one act play in motion but that doesn’t make it right. I can see this mentality making more sense in a small business where Joe Smith will run his paint shop exactly how Joe Smith wants to run his paint shop; but in a corporate environment I think it’s a quick way to repeated failure and sure fire way to build distrust within the team.
And this isn’t the first time I’m seen this advice passed onto the corporate masses. People give advice on how to NOT speak your mind in meetings as gospel; typically it centers around a genuine fear of dismissal.
When did it become wrong to be right? Does middle management even want solutions and answers to their objectives or just a boardroom full of yes-men ready to shower praise on the boss? But these same yes-men hover quietly ready to dive like vulchers when the clearly flawed plans of their managers and VPs fall flat where they were expected to.
Is that this what we’ve all turned into? A group of workers slyly awaiting the guy above us on the corporate ladder to fall off? I feel like we started out playing chess and somewhere along the way we began jumping over ponds and screaming “King Me” on the other side.
If this is the way things are going (as don’t believe we’re exactly there yet), the limited amount of corporate employees able to think for themselves are being advised to follow decision makers that don’t have the presence of mind to take criticism from those they’ve supposedly hired to help them.
The school of thought that says the best leaders surround themselves with people smarter than themselves is an incomplete thought. An ideal leader has the ability not only to select the best roster for his team, but also the intellect and reason to navigate through his own flaws to act on the input from the collective professionals he’s assembled.
Along our capitalist evolution there are facets of our corporate structure that’s afraid to hear what’s wrong with the system; afraid to look into the mirror and make the necessary adjustments. Instead we dismiss those with the courage to speak up - that possibly have the correct answers- as “negative”, “not team players”, and my all-time favorite, “unsupportive”. Employees are so fearful to lose their jobs they’re afraid to step forward when they see their peers or company headed towards disaster.
Now to be fair, I can relate with wanting to hang the guy that no matter what the meeting is about or what the forward strategy might be, finds a way to shoot holes through it. That’s not right either. Its recommended to hold back your feelings of impending doom unless if you’ve come up with a way to save the day. I mean, we all understand its raining, so unless you have access to a dozen umbrellas, or a place to take shelter, keep the weather report under wraps. Don’t just look for errors, do your homework and find solutions. No one likes a Debbie Downer, but everyone loves a home-run in the bottom of the ninth.
Personally, I would rather be on a team that works in unison towards a solution than blindly and “positively” follows a leader who can’t see past his overly optimistic earnings report.
I’m not trying to encourage a mutiny on middle management but perhaps a more open discussion would give those within the process more of a stake within their own positions and lead us away from the “all hail to the chief” mentality.
Because even though the captain goes down with the ship, if the team is firmly attached to his hind parts, they’ve effectively become his life raft.
I suspect this is a class and manners thing more than a business law.In the upper middle class, it seems like this has become a standard assumption: You WILL not go against current assumptions no matter how ridiculous. It's rude.
The thing is, this class generally runs things at work. And they don't like hearing bad news.
The trick is to do some sort of, "Yes you are totally right and everything we thought was right too..." while whittling away at the edges. Either use exceptions, "We were right overall in our strategy, it's only the McCracken account that will take a slightly readjusted approach," and then start adding things that are like the McCracken account... Or you can use incrementalism, "We are totally right and we will continue in this vein by slightly retooling our approach..." to start the trend away from the bad idea. Or sometimes just nonsense works, "We were all exactly right and that's why we're never going to do that again."
People want the social niceties attended to more than they want to make sense. Learning to do it is learning to get along in upper middle class society. If you try to skip steps, it's like holding your fork wrong at dinner. They're offended that you're not willing to try to do it their way. And they'll punish you for it.
Good post.
I agree with the original article in the sense that you should make sure the boss understands the situation BEFORE the meeting. That way he's not going to be making unreasonable requests for high numbers in front of everyone (showing he's out of the loop) without already knowing the situation.
Then, if he makes the unreasonable request, you go along with it. After all, he already knows your concerns. But he's your boss, and wants you to stretch to achieve a difficult goal. That's what bosses should do.
But I also agree that there should be clear communication - especially before those high profile meetings - about what's easily achievable vs. what's unlikely to be achieved. And management should always be eager to know the real story. At the end of the day, they're responsible for it all anyway.
I think the issue the MH article is addressing is not whether you should speak your mind, but rather whether you should undermine your boss in front of other co-workers (something no boss would like, good or otherwise).
However, your point about turning into corporate "yes men" is well taken. I worked at a company where the CEO promised our board of directors financial projections that were impossible to meet, in spite of the fact that concerned employees, both current and former, told him he was setting the business up for failure. He felt he knew what he was doing and ignored all advice.
The company fell short of projection that year--and I'm talking millions short.
Sometimes you just can't save people, especially high-powered executives, from themselves.
I think the article is right that recognizing a stupid culture is an important skill, too. We have a tendency to overvalue loyalty in our culture. Like the ironclad "Never bad mouth a boss," rule, which leads to all kinds of, "I wanted larger opportunities," job interview euphemisms, which no one ever believes, which leads to fewer opportunities for people who were just unlucky enough to be paired with the crazies, because their cover story always sounds fake.
I want to be hired by the person who would laugh if I actually told the truth. But I'm not holding my breath.
Hmmm... the more I think about it, the more I agree with the article. We should just stop following the convention a little bit and see what happens. We're all afraid of the consequences, but the reward for not speaking up is going down with the ship. Screw that.
I used to work in an office of big yet fragile egos. I remember taking on a project for a membership program, having great ideas for how to shore up the program and make it more profitable. I arranged a meeting, presented my proposal, and even worded it in a way that might convince those in charge that they had thought of it. I was basically told that I had no business to change anything, and I obviously knew nothing about how the program was supposed to work, even though it had never had defined goals.
My conclusion is to not work in a place where you're not allowed to make observations for progress, or someplace where everything you say has to be seasoned for the boss' palate.
Email
Print
