You Can't Handle the Truth

Do you remember this line from the movie "A Few Good Men"?  Jack Nicholson told Tom Cruise that average folk couldn't deal with the harsher facts of life, so as a result higher ups would tell them what they wanted to hear.  They would offer excuses, verbal hedges that sidestepped reality and offered the illusion of comfort.

Today we have an economic recession that is causing employee job stress, concern for the future and more than a few sleepless nights.  In these circumstances company management can choose to deal from either the top or the bottom of the deck with their internal communications, as they face the question of whether employees can handle the truth.

The issues raised could be pending layoffs, reduced or frozen pay increases, hiring freezes, reorganizations or other such "bad news."

Management messaging can either be straightforward regarding current events, why it was happening and how circumstances would affect emnployees, or they could toss out a series of artful communication hedges (excuses).  In other words, employees could be fed "corporate-speak."

This would be a headquarters-generated sleight-of-hand communications effort, typically crafted by smooth-tongued professional writers vs. subject matter experts.  The prose, approved by corporate legal to insure that no liability is stated or implied, minimizes the negative and accentuates the positive.  The intent is to say little of substance, while at the same time making a self-congratulatory production of their communication efforts.

Content is usually a combination of feel-good phraseology intended to instill a sense of confidence that, whatever the problem, management is; a) doing the best they can, b) not at fault, c) has the interests of the employees firmly in mind, and d) will be providing more details soon.

When these officious corporate pronouncements inevitably provide little in the way of satisfactory answers, employees turn to their managers to get straight information.  However, when the going gets rough (challenging, complex, contentious), many managers will waffle, dribble their thoughts, obfuscate and make their own excuses.  They may even a point a finger at HR.  Poorly trained managers have difficulty facing issues important to employees, without trying to pass the buck.  Employees want to know why? what next? and what about me?, but managers are rarely equipped to offer an effective response.

When the straight story is not forthcoming, employees will tend to read between the lines and form their own perceptions of the company message, and that view is less reliable than the grapevine for spreading accurate information.  It is also more skeptical.

• "Where are they going to go?": employees are trapped in their jobs, with little choice but to remain, because other opportunities will be hard to find.  Management has implied, "we don't need to do anything for them."

• "Everyone else is cutting back, so we have to as well": this trite phrase only gets dragged out when the circumstances save the company money.  Has the "everyone else" phrase ever been used to support giving something to employees?

• "In anticipation of difficult economic times ahead we are forced to / reluctantly / have no choice but . . . . ": this is a pre-emptive strike while the sun is still shining.  It is a particularly onerous practice if rewards for past performance are cut, and is often viewed by those on the receiving end as a breach of trust.

• "We employ average workers, so they should be satisfied . . . .": perhaps an after-the-fact rationalization, but sometimes your senior leadership feels that most employees are easily replaced, like a commodity.

Not surprising, the reaction to such doomsday communication efforts is always negative, planting seeds in your workforce for a bitter harvest of lowered morale and increasing disengagement.

• The ineffective message lacks credibility with an increasingly skeptical audience, as does the messenger and the organization behind it

• Employee listening (and attention) ceases as insincerity is recognized, so the communication effort is wasted

• Engagement and performance levels drop as trust, confidence and loyalty erode and employees start to ask themselves, "why bother?"

• The supposition gains traction that the company is lying, holding back or not telling the whole story.  It is hard to see the glass as half-full with this reaction.

On the other hand, when the message is honest, straightforward and without guile the opposite reaction occurs:

• Organizational credibility is strengthened

• Company loyalty is fostered

• Engagement levels and management support are improved

The implication is clear; employees can handle the truth, rightly expect same from their employer, and will not take kindly to bland corporate-speak.  So do not get caught making excuses; it didn't work when you tried it with your mother, and it won't work with your employees either.

Chuck Csizmar CCP is founder and Principal of CMC Compensation Group, providing global compensation consulting services to a wide variety of industries and non-profit organizations.  He is also associated with several HR Consulting firms as a contributing consultant.  With over 30 years Rewards experience Chuck is a broad based subject matter expert with a specialty in international and expatriate compensation.  He lives in Central Florida (near The Mouse) and enjoys growing fruit and managing (?) a brood of cats. 

Image: Creative Commons photo by ktylerconk

Comments

[E. James (Jim) Brennan]

Nice job of nailing the basic essential premise behind effective public relations, Chuck: tell the truth, fast and first. Tough to do, but establishing a climate of mutual trust is vital for an organization. Trust, once lost, is almost impossible to restore. Loyalty down creates loyalty up.