High-performing teams work according to a set of implicit and explicit rules, or “norms of behavior,” that reduce friction and optimize effectiveness. One of these rules that underperforming and underperforming teams often violate concerns “complaining” vs. “communication.”
Too often, leadership teams in particular are plagued by internal tensions. There is mistrust or misunderstanding laterally between team members, as well as a certain degree of resentment towards the top. Fault lines can be along ethnic or gender divides, between functions, between staff coming from different organizational cultures merging, between old and new staff, or between staff with very different personalities or agendas. Team members develop the dysfunctional habit of complaining to each other or to the higher leader about teammates. They do not address the complaint with the only person to address to resolve it: the recipient of your complaints.
When leaders observe this behavior, they can be sure it’s a sign that there are complaints about themselves as well that they aren’t listening to. Complaining has become acceptable in the culture of the workplace. It has become a courageous, honest, and productive dialogue substitute. In fact, the leaders themselves may be involved in this behavior, complaining about each other to senior staff and thus setting the tone for this behavior.
When team members bring complaints about each other to the leader, one mistake leaders make is listening to the complaints and thus colluding with the dysfunctional culture. In most cases it is preferable for a leader to say something like:
This sounds important. Let’s get ___ (the target of the complaint) here and fix this.
If possible, get the other party to step in at that point and present the issue as a matter of perceptions, not facts. This is a no-fault process for taking the complaint, which is an interpretation of the other’s intentions, behavior, or competence, and breaking it down into an exchange of information about what actually occurred and why the problematic actions were taken. Often, the reasons for the complaint disappear once all the information is available to both parties. If not, enough information emerges to allow this situation to become a learning experience for one or both parties or to clarify the steps needed to resolve it. The leader could ask both parties a question as follows:
_____ (the complainant) is concerned that you appear to have done _______. Could you fill us in on the situation and what you did?
More important than clarifying the particular situation, you are modeling the value of addressing issues directly with each other, which generally makes the team stronger, rather than complaining to other team members, which solves nothing and weakens the team. By making direct communication the expected action, you are supporting a culture of courageous relationships. This will inevitably spill over into team members’ relationships with you.
When you bring the relevant parties together for this type of conversation, it also gives you an opportunity to observe the degree of guilt or defensive behavior that each person brings to this type of dialogue. You can train team members on their dialogue behavior on the spot, or you can arrange for more in-depth training later.
The task of leadership is to build a culture in which conflict is managed through healthy and creative dialogue. Leaders have enormous influence in this regard. If they do not handle conflict well themselves, or allow it to linger below the surface, significant damage can be done to the leadership team’s ability to perform its role effectively. If leaders manage this well, they can have a high degree of confidence that they too are hearing what they need to hear about themselves, rather than everyone but them hearing it.