How would they know?

A leader and I were chatting about her frustration with someone on her team. She had been reworking her team member's projects, managing around missed expectations, and carrying a level of irritation that had been building for months. As she described the problem, it was clear she had thought a great deal about her direct report's shortcomings.

So I asked a simple question: Have you told her?

Silence.

She admitted she had not told her anything.

“And you are still irritated?”

“Yes, because she keeps doing it!”

Right.

Like many leaders, she did not want to hurt her feelings. She did not want to seem overly critical or unnecessarily harsh. She did not want to be seen as rude, or worse, as the kind of boss who dictates rather than leads. Her silence, in her mind, was a form of kindness.

I think many of us do this. We become frustrated with the behavior of a colleague or team member, but instead of addressing it directly, we hope they will notice it themselves. We assume they will read the room, pick up on our tone and magically connect the dots from our growing impatience.

We become frustrated with the behavior of a colleague or team member, but instead of addressing it directly, we hope they will notice it themselves.

But how would they know?

Not suspect. Not sense. Actually know.

If we have never told someone that their missed deadlines create stress for the team, or that the way they handle meetings shuts others down, or that their communication leaves people confused, then we are holding them accountable for information they were never given. We are holding their lack of mind-reading skills against them.

So what was “I am disappointed because of their behavior” becomes “I am irritated because they have not read my mind.”

Is that kindness?

Or is it avoidance disguised as politeness?

Is that kindness Or avoidance disguised as politeness?

Feedback is often treated as something negative, as though bringing up a problem is an act of sabotage rather than an act of leadership. But good feedback, offered well, is not an attack. It is useful information. It gives someone a chance to adjust, improve, and succeed.

Most people would rather have clarity than quiet resentment.

Of course, how we say things matters. There is a meaningful difference between telling someone they are unreliable and telling them that the last three deadlines were missed and it created real problems for the rest of the team. One attacks identity. The other addresses behavior and opens the door for change.

Leaders do not serve people by protecting them from an uncomfortable conversation. In fact, they are often protecting themselves. They serve others by being honest enough to help them grow.

If someone matters enough for us to be frustrated by their behavior, they should matter enough for us to tell them the truth.

If someone matters enough for us to be frustrated by their behavior, they should matter enough for us to tell them the truth.

Otherwise, we are left with the question:

How would they know?

More on this from a different angle next week...