Generosity or Manipulation – What’s the Difference?

Manipulation

A few people emailed me to object to my last post, An Approach to Chronic Underperformance, saying that “compassionately” manipulating people into firing themselves is horrible.

That’s certainly a possibility. Of course it’s not what I’m talking about.

For me, the question lies in motivation. Are we “getting” someone to fire themselves, or “letting” them fire themselves. If a boss tries to get an under-performing manager to quit in order to cut costs, or for any other self-serving reason, his actions are manipulative and wrong. A direct approach, “To meet my goals, I have to let you go,” is right.

But if our motivation is good, then we genuinely want people to find the situation that meets THEIR goals, that lets them thrive. That’s different. If our motivation is to help a manager see themselves more clearly, it may mean that the manager sees that they are not going to grow into their particular job, that it’s just not a fit. The mis-match isn’t helping the company, and certainly that’s a concern for a boss and part of the equation. But a mis-match doesn’t help the manager either, in their career, or personally.

When the boss in my story asked the manager, “What do you suggest I do next?” the question was genuine. A question like that can serve as a mirror, and in this case the manager saw themselves, through the question, as being in the wrong place. With help from the boss, they were able to find another place elsewhere that fit better. There were no recriminations.

I believe that helping people to see themselves more clearly is the essence of generous leadership. It’s tricky business. If we don’t see our own real motivation clearly first, we may well become manipulative, patronizing, self-righteous, or worse, and sadly we see that in workplaces all the time.

If our motivation is truly good, what is the best technique? Asking questions, if they are genuine, is always better than telling. Inviting people to see for themselves is better than telling them what we think they should see.

For more on using questions to deal with problem employees, click here.

Comments

  1. if we use an approach that does not help the person to see themselves more clearly, we are not helping. In fact, if they do not see themselves more clearly they are quite possibly just blame something outside themselves for the situation, become self righteous and not change a thing. That helps no one. This way both the company and the departing employee win

  2. Hi Crane —

    That’s an interesting issue and I can see why people thought it could be manipulative — because it could. I also see your point about motivation.

    One aspect that I don’t think you brought out explicitly, though it’s certainly implied, is that when the boss asks the questions it needs to truly come out of curiosity. The boss is also searching for the answer and doesn’t know what it is. If the boss has already decided the person needs to go and uses the question method to get the person to fire themselves that’s manipulation. If the boss can approach it more along the lines of: “We both want this to work and it hasn’t yet. I’m really curious to see what you think we can do or what you think I should do.” Coming at it from a real place of curiosity is different from knowing what outcome you want.

    I’ve been enjoying your posts — and I loved the book. Thanks!

  3. To work with an employee who has come to the recognition that the job was a poor fit, I have offered to write, with him, a statement of performance which carefully and truthfully detailed his contributions. Can’t do this with each employee who doesn’t work out, but it has been useful to some. Sit and discuss what worked for the employee. Was he polite to others? Did he arrive early and with a good sense of the day’s work? Was he shoe-horning himself into a job he hated to please parents/wife? What kind of work did he feel would be a better fit? Did he need more training? Where did he want to go?

  4. other factors might include an employee’s fear of the unknown and concerns for personal survival; willingness to be in the wrong place doing the wrong things rather than face the prospect of suffering beyond the present measure … all these can impact & complicate the conversation, practically speaking. Perhaps you’d already considered this but it came to mind while reading your article. For example, if they fire themselves have they forfeit unemployment benefits? That level of concern is real for some.

    • Yes, it all hinges on the genuine curiosity that Hazel mentions in her comment. The three practices of generous leadership are generosity, curiosity, and less velocity. To be truly generous we have to practice enough curiosity to learn what’s truly needed, and this curiosity takes time, so we have to slow down enough to ask the right questions. Thank you for all your very helpful comments.

Leave a Reply