Trust in the Workplace part II: Manager vs. Manager

Today's post will discuss another aspect of trust - how trust can help or hinder the relationships between managers at work.  Often when we talk about trust at work, we think about the employee-employer issues, and it is true that this is where many trust problems manifest.  But trust between manager and employee is not the only place trust can go awry.  Sometimes it is more subtle than that.

Let's take the case of Dave (a real person, but this is not his real name).  Dave is an executive within a large services organization, and during a meeting his HR leader (we'll call her Mary) came up to him and said that she had identified a problem within his management group.  Mary said to Dave,  "There are a few managers in this organization who are not doing a very good job at communicating performance issues to their employees.  As a result, I believe we're seeing some excess turnover that we can help these managers curb.  I think there is an opportunity to help our management team get better at performance management - and I'd like to offer a class to them this fall."

Dave replied by saying "Tell me which managers are the problem."  Mary, taken aback by this, refused to say.  She was frustrated that Dave didn't hear her message, which was about the need for training. She didn't trust him to not go yell at the managers in question - and she didn't think that yelling was appropriate.  (Dave had a reputation for yelling at his reports)

Dave was frustrated that Mary wouldn't give him the data he wanted on his own team.  He felt that HR was "stonewalling" him and acting as a "barrier" to his management duties.  The conversation turned into an argument, with both managers feeling righteous and angry.

So what happened here?

1. Mary didn't trust Dave to make good management decisions based upon the data about his team.  Therefore she offered him her own "solution" to the issue but refused to share the data she had with him.   

2. Dave didn't trust Mary's "solution" to the problem and wanted to handle it his own way.  He saw her refusal to share the data as an insult to his managerial authority.

The lack of trust on both sides of this equation resulted in the further erosion of that professional relationship.  Each person didn't trust the other - and acted in accordance with that belief - and therefore the trust continued to erode on both sides.   

Let's look at this situation from Mary's perspective starting from the beginning.  Let's say that you are an HR leader who has some suggestions for improvement for an executive.  Let's also say that you are concerned that this executive will use this information to go and verbally chastise people - and that you find that kind of communication abhorrent.  What might you do?

I'd suggest that a good question to start with is "How can I help this manager get a good outcome for the situation?" and a bad question to start with is "How can I protect these managers from the big bad exec?"  Sharing the information the executive requested (the names of the managers who need improvement) is a small way to build trust.  Refusing to share it is a sure way to kill trust.

Does this mean that Mary should have just handed over the names and let things lie?  Not necessarily.  When asked for the names she could have replied along the lines of "Sure, I'll get you the names. Why don't I put some data together for you and we can spend a few minutes going over it.  I'd like to be as helpful as I can at helping resolve the issue."  She could have also taken a more direct approach and said "Dave, I'll give you the names if you want them.  But frankly I'm worried that if you go yell at these people they'll be less likely to approach me for help in the future.  I'd like to maintain their trust - let's talk about a way to get them on track that doesn't harm their relationship with me."

In this scenario, Mary is not a barrier to information, she is a source of it and a resource for ideas.  She can't force her executive to choose the solution she wants, but she can gradually build up trust so that the next time something like this happens the executive is more likely to start from a perspective of wanting suggestions versus wanting a hit list.

A few pointers for handling mistrust between peer managers.
1. Don't withhold information as a way of blocking the other person.  This is doubly true when the data relates to people that person is responsible for.  You'll simply make things worse.
2. Be clear about your motivators. "I'm hesitant to share this information because I'm worried that...."  If you are honest you'll come across as someone who has a perspective and a plan, not someone who is being irrational.
3. Focus on good outcomes, not winning.  Remember that when it comes to peer relationships good outcomes are based on collaboration, not on being the winner.

Do you have any pointers to add to the list? Post a comment or send an email. 

Comments

[Mrityunjay Kumar]

Cheri,

Good post. I agree with most of the comments above, and having played the role of a manager both in India and US in extended periods of time, I can replay many incidents of the type you describe.

However, I do not entirely agree with the fact that HR should be sharing the names, even though I have been in 'Dave' situation where I would have really liked the names (and no, I do not yell at my people!). However, I have seen the other side of equation, where someone who talked to HR had to pay the price since the manager came to know of it. In my personal case, 1 year after I started my career, I had to talk to my HR manager about some issue I was having with one of my peers (who was recently promoted to be my boss). Even though I told him clearly I do not want anyone else to know about this and that I just want advice on how to tackle this problem, I get a summon from my manager next day about the problem! Maybe HR manager trusted my manager, but where did the trust between me and HR go?
My opinion is that it is more important to preserve the trust between employee and manager, than between two managers, because loss of former can cause more damange than the latter. I say this because I have seen employees close and refuse to give feedback or ask questions because grapevine tells them it is not prudent to talk about these things because you can't trust managers. This is a very hard situation to be in and tough to get out from. Managers are paid to work with (trust?) other managers, in case of employees, it is purely voluntary in my opinion.

-Mrityunjay

[Cheri]

Excellent points. I think there is a fine line that HR must walk when promising confidentiality, and when it is promised it should be honored unless health or safety or the law is compromised.

In the scenario described, 'Mary' had uncovered the management issue on her own and had made no assurances to the supervisors.

I think if a manager comes to an HR person asking for development help - HR is much more effective when they broker getting that help from or with the manager's manager than when they try to take a mother hen role. Great coaching often begins by helping a manager learn to talk to thier own managers without fear or avoidance.

This is probably my own bias that too often HR professionals make the error of facilitating avoidance by keeping leaders out of the loop to 'protect' the developmentally challenged. I know I'm not exempt from having made this mistake.

What I hear you saying is that HR has a place of trust with employees that they violate when they simply become the lapdogs of management. I can't agree more. The lines in these situations are blurry but so important.

Thanks for expanding the discussion!

Cheri