Leadership Fail Statements, Gemisode II, Pt.2 (What To Say Instead)

In part 1, we discussed the leadership failure issues associated with the statement, “I’m disappointed but firing them is not an option.” This statement was made by a c-suite executive to an employee who had worked up the courage to report the prejudiced and bias-based behaviors of another leader.

As is true of every statement we will examine in the Leadership Fail Statements series, harmed parties have willingly shared their experiences with the hopes that current and future leaders will learn how to appropriately meet the moments they are called to lead through, while creating better and more inclusive spaces for all.

Unfortunately, the c-suite executive in this case further failed to demonstrate their ability to lead effectively and inclusively as we later learned that they followed-up with the harmed employee to ask, “what made you so angry? x thought it was a safe space to say what they did”.

While the follow-up statement from this executive, particularly the accusation of “anger” and the “safe space” reference could spawn a Leadership Fail Statements gemisode of its own, what we will say now, is that subjecting victims of harm to DARVO (deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender) tactics is never an acceptable approach to solutioning. DARVO, a form of gaslighting is dangerous and can impact a person’s health.

Let’s fix this leader’s first mistake…

Original exclusionary response: “I’m disappointed but firing them is not an option”.

New inclusion-anchored response:

I’m here to support you and want to reiterate my commitment to ensuring that this matter is addressed thoroughly.

How can I/we best support you as we work to address the situation? What outcomes are you hoping for? and what types and levels of communication do you need moving forward?”

The “why” behind this inclusion-anchored response …

“x, thank you for sharing the experience you had with xxxx. What you experienced should not have happened and it is understandable that you are hurt, confused, and now questioning our organizational values”. Thanking someone for their vulnerability and acknowledging and then validating their experience is a crucial step along the path to repair broken organizational trust.

I’m here to support you and want to reiterate my commitment to ensuring that this matter is addressed thoroughly. Confirming your personal commitment to a thorough investigation signals that the issue is important to you and conveys concern for the harmed employee.

How can I/we best support you as we work to address the situation? What outcomes are you hoping for? and what types and levels of communication do you need moving forward?”. By asking (not telling) them to share their needs and expectations, you communicate your respect (something they may have felt robbed of when harmed) for them as a person. This approach also provides you both with the opportunity to outline what is and may not be feasible based on shared expectations or request(s).

#GemAlert

Providing victims of harm with an opportunity to communicate and set the boundaries they need to center their well-being, is one of the most empowering things you can do for them.

Working to develop your leadership, people, and business skills? Join our mailing list to receive our complimentary inclusion-anchored guide, Angst to Anchored and get in touch here to learn about our coaching services.