Dear Bob,

I know this is a rather odd question, but I need your help with ManagementSpeak. No, it’s not translating it, it’s me translating to it!

I’ve been told that although I speak very well to and/or with end-users, I need to work more on talking with upper management. Three different managers have suggested this, so for the sake of my career and IS survival, I’m taking them seriously.

I’m pretty sure the very thing my manager wants is what you lampoon in your columns. Do you have any suggestions on learning how to translate into ManagementSpeak instead of your normal practice of translating from it? Just as important, can you tell me how to not snicker while I’m doing it?

Dancing around issues and trying to put a positive spin on everything, even when they are potential issues that need to be addressed, seems rather hypocritical. However, in the interest of my career, I have to at least try to overcome this particular “weakness.” Any suggestions, thoughts, or comments would be greatly appreciated.

– Talkin’ Trash in Tennessee

Dear Talkin’,

Here are a few suggestions that may help out. They may sound cynical, but they’re intended to help you be more persuasive, not manipulative. Use them with restraint, or you’ll go home every day feeling like you need a shower.

Rule #1: Never say “no.” You can present alternatives and estimate costs. You can explain that you don’t have the authority to say “yes” on your own. You can “see what the committee thinks about it.” “No” wrecks your image.

Rule #2: Never argue. “I think you’re wrong” just entrenches your opponent. If possible, make your own idea sound like a simple modification to your opponent’s moronic notion. If that isn’t possible, you can usually get away with, “I used to think the exact same thing. Then I ran across a book by Irving Slobodkin, and it made an interesting point.” That way you aren’t arguing — it’s Slobodkin who’s arguing.

Rule #3: Never present an idea as new or original. “I’ve read that some other companies are doing this [this being your great idea] when they’ve found themselves in this situation,” is far better. Why? First, new ideas are risky; “others are doing it” reduces the hazard. Second, nobody inside your company is allowed to be an expert. Why? That would make them better than the rest of us — who do you think you are, anyway? By quoting the experts rather than presenting yourself as one, you maintain the appearance of humility.

Rule #4: Find the upside. There are, after all, no problems, only opportunities. To avoid the cliche, make it a question: “How can we turn this to our advantage?” Many problems really are opportunities in disguise. Most are solvable challenges when faced with the right attitude but disasters when faced with the wrong one. (Don’t be asinine, though. The atmosphere gets icky when managers say brainless things like, “Don’t think of it as being unemployed and unable to feed your family. Think of it as an opportunity to broaden your horizons.”)

Understanding why you should follow these rules should help you keep a straight face and stay inside the fine line that separates diplomacy from stupidity on the one side and simple deception on the other.

Management has a lot in common with chess strategy. Each move you make has more at stake than achieving a single objective. Each should help you build a strong position as well. That means your speech should enhance relationships and alliance while avoiding the creation of antagonism or antagonists.

If all you want is to be right all the time, fine — just forget about your management aspirations. Being right is for staff. Leadership roles require you to be effective as well. Among the many skills this requires is the ability to present intrinsically unpleasant notions in ways that make them seem palatable.

Think of it this way: Somebody once figured out how to make raw oysters sound like a delicacy, not a pile of slimy goo. Sometimes, when you’re leading people, you have to achieve the same, seemingly insurmountable goal or nothing good will ever happen.

“John” was given to meetings. He liked to deliver bad news with witnesses.

I reported to John once upon a time. I was running a small account and had offered a position to the company receptionist, who had been planning to leave the company to find a better career opportunity.

The meeting consisted of John, two witlesses … uh, witnesses … and myself. I was on one side of the table, the other attendees on the other side, and the question to be addressed was how this violation of procedure had happened.

Since there were no other possible internal candidates and the receptionist had been planning to leave the company, there was no real issue that needed discussing. The point of the meeting, which I was deliberately too dense to understand, was that I should be afraid of John. Since I didn’t become afraid in that meeting, John held others periodically until I got the message.

Fear is a potent motivator, as mentioned before in this column. (See “The best and worst motivator,” Oct. 7, 1997.) When the situation calls for a sense of urgency, with dire consequences for inaction, scaring an employee can be exactly the right thing to do.

There’s a big difference, though, between scaring someone because of the situation they face (“Shark attack!”) and being a bully who rules through intimidation. The former helps people survive and get the job done. The latter helps nobody, including the bully.

Seem obvious? Maybe, but if it’s so obvious, why do so few bullies recognize themselves? For that matter, why are so many victims of bullying seemingly oblivious to their situation? And are you sure you’re neither bully nor victim yourself? Read on.

Bullies don’t lead employees, although they think they do. Fear of the bully leads the employees, and that’s different. When a person leads, that person sets direction. When fear leads, there is no direction. There is only scurrying around as everyone tries to avoid provoking the boss. Since the boss is a bully, though, the boss’s anger is a given, so attempts to avoid creating provocation are doomed before they start.

Bullies think they’re leaders, because their victims follow orders quickly and without argument, do things the “right way,” and always keep them in the loop so they always know what’s going on.

The bully/bosses are wrong, though. They aren’t leading. Their employees are victims who follow their sense of fear, not the leader. This has several unintended consequences:

  • Victims don’t make decisions if they can help it. Any decision is a potential provocation. Better to wait and ask the boss.
  • The decisions victims do make are usually bad ones, because decisions aren’t about helping the organization move forward. They’re about second-guessing whether the boss would want anyone else to make the decision and, if so, what the boss would do in this situation.
  • Bully/bosses and their victims end up forming an unhealthy, addictive symbiosis, in which the bully/boss depends on the victims to provide an outlet for their continuing need to feel dominant while their victims rely on having the boss’s temper as an excuse for every failure.

Are you still sure you neither are a bully nor report to one? That’s great if it’s true. Being a bully isn’t binary, though, so your management style may include elements of bullyhood without your ever being aware of it.

If your employees ever make decisions by asking, “What would John do in this situation?” you have some warning signs. If they ever say, “We’d better not do that because it would tick John off,” you’ve gone beyond warning signs to the display of active symptoms.

Your manner of interacting with your boss may include an element of victimhood as well. It’s easy to tell. If, in your interactions, you’re more worried about potential criticism than hopeful for potential praise, you’re the victim of a bullying boss.

What should you do?

If the answer isn’t obvious to you, that’s another clear warning sign, because the answer is obvious.

Leave.