Mixed mes­sages cre­ate con­flict and re­duce trust.

Finweek English Edition - - MANAGEMENT -

The sec­ond mes­sage that con­sul­tants and hu­man re­sources pro­fes­sion­als com­mu­ni­cate is: “The sur­vey feed­back ses­sion is an im­por­tant time to dis­cuss the re­sults as a team and seek clarif ica­tion from each other.” But it’s im­pos­si­ble to si­mul­ta­ne­ously clar­ify a re­sponse’s mean­ing while main­tain­ing con­fi­den­tial­ity. Team mem­bers who ex­pect anonymity are likely to feel threat­ened when those who are ex­pect­ing clar­i­fi­ca­tion ask about their spe­cific re­sponses. The lat­ter team mem­bers will in­evitably be­come frus­trated, fur­ther re­duc­ing trust. When used well, sur­veys are a valu­able tool for im­prov­ing team ef­fec­tive­ness. I still use sur­veys with my lead­er­ship team clients to help them in­crease their ef­fec­tive­ness, but I de­sign the sur­vey ad­min­is­tra­tion and feed­back to min­imise th­ese un­in­tended con­se­quences. How do you re­solve the trade-off of con­fi­den­tial­ity and ac­count­abil­ity? Trust is the key, but there is no easy or fool-proof so­lu­tion. As the leader, if you are one of the pri­mary sources of team mis­trust, the sit­u­a­tion is

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa

© PressReader. All rights reserved.