Difficult Conversations Course Recommendations?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by kipperiggy

Lol that’s quite the jump knowing absolutely nothing about me.

I noticed that you stopped short of actually saying I was wrong.

If anything I am too much of a pushover and will just work more to compensate for those not pulling their weight.

Even with the vagueness of your original statement I’d say that’s highly unlikely.

And I should be able to tell someone “hey, you’re not pulling your weight.” Without it becoming a big ordeal.

You have yet to define what you actually consider to be a big ordeal but in any event if you’re struggling with that you should probably seek guidance from some of the people in this thread who don’t feel(key word) that any conversations(which would include terminations, layoffs and harassment issues) are difficult to deal with.

[kipperiggy]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I noticed that you stopped short of actually saying I was wrong.


Even with the vagueness of your original statement I’d say that’s highly unlikely.


You have yet to define what you actually consider to be a big ordeal but in any event if you’re struggling with that you should probably seek guidance from some of the people in this thread who don’t feel(key word) that any conversations(which would include terminations, layoffs and harassment issues) are difficult to deal with.

You're completely and totally 100% wrong.

Did you read my post? I said I should be able to talk to someone about them not pulling their weight, resulting in me or others having to compensate and work more hours, without humming and hawing whether it's a "coaching event" vs. a "verbal reprimand".

Unions are a pain in the ass to deal with and I'm glad I don't have to anymore. Why do I have to set up a meeting with a union rep to reprimand a team member for using the F bomb and swearing at a vendor? No I should be able to just call them in my office and tell them to smarten up. If they want a witness to that sure (they declined) but sure seems like a waste of time for situations of common sense.

Seems like you're one of the bad apples unions fall over themselves to protect. Oh, how does that feel, me jumping to completely wrong conclusions based on your posts?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by kipperiggy

You're completely and totally 100% wrong.

You’re entitled to your opinion but your posts seem to suggest that I’m right.

Did you read my post?

I sure did.

I said I should be able to talk to someone about them not pulling their weight, resulting in me or others having to compensate and work more hours, without humming and hawing whether it's a "coaching event" vs. a "verbal reprimand".

Wow it sounds like you’re really frustrated with some terms and conditions your employer agreed to with its employees but only want to blame one of the parties. I’m still trying to wrap my head around how you being a manger end up having to do their work to pick up the slack when these collective agreements you’re whining about generally prevent managers from doing the employees’ work.

Unions are a pain in the ass to deal with and I'm glad I don't have to anymore.

Every manager has their strengths and weaknesses, I’m sure if you keep at it you’ll get better.

Why do I have to set up a meeting with a union rep to reprimand a team member for using the F bomb and swearing at a vendor? No I should be able to just call them in my office and tell them to smarten up. If they want a witness to that sure (they declined) but sure seems like a waste of time for situations of common sense.

You’re contradicting yourself here. Perhaps your frustration is preventing you from accurately articulating your position. Take a few deep breaths my friend.

Seems like you're one of the bad apples unions fall over themselves to protect. Oh, how does that feel, me jumping to completely wrong conclusions based on your posts?

How does it feel? Fine to be honest.

Some of us don’t get as worked up as you appear to be over what someone they probably don’t even know says about them on the internet, especially when the accuser for lack of a better term explicitly states that their conclusions are “completely wrong”.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

Having had a chance to peek behind the curtain of several HR departments in multiple organizations, one thing I often realize is that depending on the organizational structure, conversations are either easier or harder to do. This is because the structure helps to remove emotion from the conversation. Kinda like a, "This isn't personal, the structure and metrics are showing that objectively, you need to be notified of this to avoid potential consequences."

As a manager, I've noticed this as well that structure isn't pure HR fluff stuff. Structure does significantly affect manager employee relationships and how easy or awkward those conversations are.

This is possibly a reason why someone like girlysports might think these talks are easy/not difficult (and I've been in those scenarios and I concur) vs others of us who don't have these structures and thus many of these conversations are not easy and feel difficult (and I've been in these scenarios too and I also concur).

To me, good company structures/metrics help difficult conversations in work place scenarios like firefighting equipment prior to running into a burning building. Bad or lack of structure feels like having to run into that burning building with at best sopping wet t-short and shorts. It doesn't feel good to feel inadequately equipped for that scenario.



Agreed it shouldn't have to feel difficult, but also depends on how well equipped and prepared you are by your company's situation before walking into that situation. The more you can reference objective metrics and materials (ie: employee handbooks), the better.

There's a huge gap in difficulty between the difference of, "These objective metrics collected on everyone is showing you are below the performance of your peers. I am not singling you out." vs "I need to have a conversation with you because it seems that you're not doing as well as the others" (and not having good data or records to back it up)

Yes, there needs to be HR tools that support the manager but the manager has to develop his or her own tools. Again, not everyone is cut out for management and i know many people who have turned down a lot of money to not have to do it.

There are three types of toxic managers that no matter how much HR tools they have, it will still be a problem.

1. Managers that don't know the day-to-day work of staff
- ever have a manager ask, what is it you do, how is your workload, can you give me some information on this particular project?
- not saying a manager should micromanager every minute of the day, but they have to know the work being done and not be too far removed

2. Managers that want no conflict
- issues of employees fighting, even bullying and the manager hears about it but doesn't address it, sweeps it under the rug.
- ever get a group email for an issue that has nothing to do with you? Two people are fighting but the entire group gets a "reminder"

3. Managers that show favoritism
- I think we've all been there, someone can do no wrong, the manager always takes their side over yours.

Applying for a manager role should be a big decision and people managering is probably the bulk of the job. Too often, companies want to promote from within to keep people around or just hire the wrong person due to favoritism.

The saying goes, people quit bosses, not jobs.

[kipperiggy]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You’re entitled to your opinion but your posts seem to suggest that I’m right.



I sure did.



Wow it sounds like you’re really frustrated with some terms and conditions your employer agreed to with its employees but only want to blame one of the parties. I’m still trying to wrap my head around how you being a manger end up having to do their work to pick up the slack when these collective agreements you’re whining about generally prevent managers from doing the employees’ work.



Every manager has their strengths and weaknesses, I’m sure if you keep at it you’ll get better.



You’re contradicting yourself here. Perhaps your frustration is preventing you from accurately articulating your position. Take a few deep breaths my friend.



How does it feel? Fine to be honest.

Some of us don’t get as worked up as you appear to be over what someone they probably don’t even know says about them on the internet, especially when the accuser for lack of a better term explicitly states that their conclusions are “completely wrong”.

I'm not the first manager to exist that doesn't like working with unions.

I'm more so unsure why my brief posts have garnered your attention so much. I'm not worked up, I'm confused why some rando on the internet is so concerned about my opinion on unions.

My comment was simply that unions can overcomplicate having difficult conversations, you've sure blown up that simple statement and I just don't know why you care so much.

You can think I'm a bad manager, I know I'm not, my employer knows I'm not, and my teams know I'm not. So go on being condescending to me for whatever particular reason I've garnered it.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by kipperiggy

I'm not the first manager to exist that doesn't like working with unions.

No one said that you were.

I'm more so unsure why my brief posts have garnered your attention so much. I'm not worked up, I'm confused why some rando on the internet is so concerned about my opinion on unions.

So much attention? You mean like a simple response? You’re really starting to come off as someone who doesn’t like it when someone challenges what you say. Not really a quality that I personally would associate with being a good manager but what do I know.

My comment was simply that unions can overcomplicate having difficult conversations, you've sure blown up that simple statement and I just don't know why you care so much.

I just think that if someone wants to share a disparaging opinion on someone or something then they should support that opinion with something more than vague examples. You’re welcome to disagree with me on that.

You can think I'm a bad manager, I know I'm not, my employer knows I'm not, and my teams know I'm not. So go on being condescending to me for whatever particular reason I've garnered it.

Well now that I’ve got your consent to be condescending I guess it’s as good a time as any to point out that you telling me that you’re a good boss isn’t very convincing. I mean how likely would it be for someone working as a manager to flat out say they’re terrible even if that were the case?

You’re employer says you’re good too? Gold star for you!

Your employees tell you that you’re good? WTF do you expect them to tell someone who can fire them? Seriously.

I should also point out that I never called you a bad manager, it’s just that you seem to struggle with certain aspects of being one in a unionized environment for one reason or another.

[activeStick]

An observation I have personally is that difficult conversations are easier with executives than below executives. The only times I've had challenges when sharing bad news was with below executive as they had the most fight in them and questions for me. But when sharing bad news with executives, my experience has been that they take the feedback and supporting evidence (maybe they don't care since they'll get a nice exit package) and the discussions go relatively smoothly before I hand it off to HR and leave.

[kipperiggy]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I am on the safety committee at work and we are looking to train staff in managing difficult conversations and difficult personalities.

Does anyone have a recommendation for a course? Alberta based is a a preference.

I had another thought, if you google Difficult Dialogue or Difficult Conversations it probably gives you a slip sheet of questions to ask. Things like: what do you not want to have happen, what are your goals, what is the other person's goals.