Creep

The challenge of negativity isn’t new.  We fight it everyday.  When we are faced with it, what is our normal response?  Walk away?  Join in?  Yikes.

Kit, the pitcher in A League of Their Own, is negative throughout most of the movie.  Manufacturing sympathy for her is tough.  She is a whiner.  She brings down those around her.  She is frustrated with the sister who seems to have everything.  She is obnoxious to her teammates.  She is negative about her life and wants to bring others down around her.

Think about how critical the pitcher is to the team.  What does it do to the team to have someone like this at the mound?  How many of these people work with or for us?  And while you might want to fight this person, just as happens in one scene of the movie, work policy is likely to prohibit you from doing so. 

Confrontation is appropriate.  You do not need to allow this person to monopolize your time or to jeopardize the flow of the rest of the team due to such negativity.  It is not okay.

Make the business case first.  Log the hours given in support of this negative person, to try to move him/her beyond the perceived issues.  Log the hours given in support of correction of the frustrated team communication.  Log the hours given in conversation with other team members who struggle to work with that negative person.  Those hours have a cost, with very little ROI. 

Often the pattern for a manager is to have all of these conversations, but the functional team dynamic remains the same.  The cycle of engagement is not impacted and the status quo returns a day after addressing the issue.  Management does little usually to course-correct the department.  The symptom gets address – frustration, lack of communication, hurt feelings – but the cause – the negativity of a person – is left because we don’t know what to do.

Sit with Mr./Ms. Negative and share the logged hours.  Show him/her how much time has been spent because of him/her.  Let the time be a factual example that the behavior has caused.  You’re not saying the classic, “I spend so much time dealing with your stuff.”  That’s too general and will likely cause the negative employee to be remorseful for a moment but with no lasting repercussion.  When management is specific to the time, a line can be drawn in the sand to say enough.

A manager should further make the business case regarding lack of productivity.  In all of the hours spent by the manager in dealing with the situations caused by the negativity, rest assured it’s about the same for the team members involved.  They are not on task because of having to address the related issues of the negativity.  And every member of the team is valuable.  It should be very easy to show the negative employee that the team is not here to deal with these issues; it’s not part of their job description.  The cost of lost productivity is real and can be shared as an amount based upon time, hourly rate, cost of goods, and other operational & production costs.  

Giving the negative person truth and fact is the most respectful way to engage.  It will allow the conversation to move away from feeling, which is the default position, and rest purely on fact.  Management must engage on a level that moves the negative person out of his/her own perspective and into one that includes the company’s purpose.  Often, the negative individual sees his/her role as unappreciated at the company.  By sharing factual information, the negative person is offered a different (and more correct) view of how the company sees him/her.  When confronted with such information, management can be deliberate about the path of engagement moving forward.

Management will need to follow through on this.  If we’re serious that the waste of time is enough, then we must act upon that.  No more resources of time, team members and operational productivity will be wasted on such negativity.  Everything isn’t terrible, everything isn’t against you and everything isn’t about you.  Clearly act on this.

And while management may feel that the negative person is too tough to handle, a better view is to think about the team members that aren’t receiving such attention despite the great work being done.  The squeaky wheel getting the grease isn’t a long-term strategy for success.  Affirm the right behaviors more than the wrong; look at the time you’re spending on the wrong and make corrections.

Keep in mind, too, that this negative person can follow the path that Kit did.  She got traded.  Don’t wait too long to trade your Kit.

Problem

Healing.  It’s a gift.  In my life, I have experienced mercy and grace which has allowed healing to take place, mostly in myself and in relationship to others.  The ability to offer such a gift to others has no monetary price tag, but I know it comes at a cost.

When I have given a road for healing to others, it’s not always what I might want to do.  I defer to being bitter, angry, vindictive or self-righteous.  It’s my nature, and I don’t think I am alone in that.  I have a right to be hurt.  That person was callous, egotistical or just plain wrong.  And now, the relationship is damaged.  This damaged relationship is now impacting situations, workflow or other relationships.  The impact of this problem is tension, a rift or brokenness and it is far-reaching and, for businesses, costly.

As the week’s events between SHRM and HRCI have unfolded, I kept coming back to this idea of healing.  HR professionals know that we are often (if not always) called upon to mend relationship and change the course of brokenness in the workplace.  We converse with the injured parties; we bring our affirming communicative skills to bear on the situation; we coach the parties to seek resolution.  We recognize that there really can be someone in the wrong, but that does not have to be where the situation ends.  Now that error is seen, what are we doing to mend it?  We push for repair and then growth to learn how to deal with similar facts in the future.

SHRM and HRCI feel a little like Mom and Dad fighting.  This week, I have felt like the kid from the marriage watching, listening and being heart-broken.  I love both of my parents.  I have demonstrated allegiance to both sides and expressed love equally.  Just as in most divorce situations, Mom and Dad’s individual needs and wants have evolved for some time.  Both sides are looking back and trying to pinpoint when the complimentary paths diverged.  And regardless of fault or blame, they are now dealing with the gap that has widened between them and their expectations of each other.

The kids in a divorce situation want to help.  They want things to go back to how they were.  They want healing.  For us, as HR professionals, we must not choose sides but appreciate each side independently of the other.  It’s not our job to fix their relationship; these two sides consist of big girls and boys who can and should find their way to common ground for the sake of the professionals they serve.  Just as kids often cannot fix mom and dad’s relationship, we find ourselves heartsick observers. 

What we can choose to do is be a conduit for healing as opportunity strikes.  Share with each side how we feel.  Maintain the integrity of our roles as HR professionals.  Continue to be proud of the growth and accomplishments we’ve achieved that both sides have afforded, whether PHR/SPHR/GPHR certification or volunteer leadership positions in SHRM.  We have been cared for by both organizations.  Let’s return that care back to the two sides that are in need now.

Again, healing is a gift.  It’s not a wussy, feel good sentiment, but a willful decision with measurable results.  That kind of decision ought to be the type that we’re already used to making as HR professionals.  Listen up, Kids! There's a problem. Mom and Dad need us now.