communication. That often banal things hamper the actual interview is simply a
fact. As such, it should be natural to keep eye contact with the employee during a
conversation. But it is not so easy to maintain constant eye contact, especially if you
are not the one speaking. A colleague once told me: “For me it is a clear indication
of the ‘cultures of fear’ prevailing in many businesses that the employees run
around with their eyes down.” And I believe he’s right.
In the Handelsblatt, I read the following statement: “This is how annual
interviews should not take place: bosses who have left the factual level have not
understood the purpose of the instrument.” And further: “Nor are these interviews
to tell the employees once a year – as a tribunal – everything that has been building
up, right in their faces.” (Reppesgaard, Handelsblatt, August 19 2005). The author
referred to a study by the management consultants Kienbaum, which observed that,
especially in the DAX 30 companies, but also in medium-sized businesses, the
annual employee interview “has developed from an obligation to an important
human resource and motivational tool.”
But there is the potential for a fundamental misunderstanding here: though of
course it is not a tribunal, the purpose is nonetheless to frankly (though respectfully)
communicate opinions. Of course you should not “stockpile” criticism, but some-
times everyday work life only allows us to address longer-term issues in this frame-
work. And it goes without saying – this point is particularly important to me – that
leaders must sometimes leave the objective level. This does not have to end in
slamming doors, but a manager can only create a good atmosphere for discussion,
if he or she works on both levels: the factual and the interpersonal. In other words:
I will only get to know my employees as people if I am also willing to show myself
as a person (with feelings, speculation, fears, etc.). Many executives may find that
their behavior matches that described in the article above, but unfortunately this
creates a false impression.
In many discussions, the partners each other’s point – precisely because they are
trying to stay on the objective level. This produces unfruitful discussions that drag
on and on, leading to confusion and not to any productive results, and conflicts
between the now even more frustrated partners can arise. These shortcomings can
often be avoided if the topic of conversation is stated clearly, if the participants can
and do prepare for the interview, if the conversation is controlled sensitively and
consistently at the same time, if vague statements are clarified, and if all
participants have sufficient opportunity and are encouraged to contribute their
thoughts.
It is especially important to structure the conversation. Conversation partners
who like to talk must be encouraged to come to the point and not to get
sidetracked. It is equally important to address overly shy speakers. To achieve
this, a conversation needs to be efficiently controlled. A tip based on my personal
experience: when a discussion begins to wander off course, the person leading the
conversation should simply ask the question: “What exactly is the subject we’re
talking about?”
210 4 More Than Just Talking or: The Instruments of Systemic Leadership