How to counter colleagues who don't answer questions or blatantly lie?

Question

Sometimes I have to deal with people who openly stay silent or blatantly lie. For example, some manager will say A and then do B. When asked why, he/she will either stay silent or produce 'bs'.

If I try to be assertive, saying something like "I remember clearly that you said A, and now that you did B this creates a problem for me", the other person can either:

1. lie again
2. stay silent
3. leave the room

Moreover, these are often managers at various levels of seniority, and they all work closely together. I think they are also trying to get each other fired. Is there a technique to handle such communication problems?

Answer 1

Yes, the technique is called "keeping the minutes".

You write down the results of a formal or informal meeting and then send a copy to the participants, so they can comment or update it.

If there is a change, you again write it down with the consequences. The purpose of the protocol is not to blame people, but to make decisions and consequences visible and recoverable.

So, the first protocol can state:
"Decision manager A: We paint the wall blue."

The second protocol can state:
"The decision to paint the wall blue was changed by manager A to painting the wall red. The expected additional costs of 20 hours repainting the blue wall are accepted."

It is also not really your concern why manager A wants to have the wall red now, instead of blue. A manager who changes his/her opinion all the time and causes damage is a problem of his/her superior, not your problem.

Answer 2

Remembering is one thing. Evidence is another. Everything spoken can be "remembered" differently. When things get written down, it's easier to remember exactly what was said.

If you really are dealing with deceitful people, you should find a better group of people to work for/with. But if this is a communication problem, read on...

When verbal decisions are made, or verbal instructions given, it is often helpful to follow up with a confirmation:

"Just to make sure I understand, we've agreed on X".

If the other party confirms your understanding, you at least have had a point where you both have clarified with each other. It helps the memory.

But, putting it in writing is even better... Follow up with an email, and CC anyone else who may be affected by the decision or instructions:

To: Manager

From: Me

Subject: Confirming instructions about X

Manager,

Just following up our conversation. We agreed that we would do X. Is there anything else we should consider?

Be careful not to get into "show-off" mode. You should be trying to practice good communication skills, not painting your boss (or anyone) into a corner.

Also understand that plans, decisions, and instructions can often change. Good communication skills will help these changes go more smoothly. You may have to train your colleagues in this new way of communicating. Good luck!

Answer 3

Is there a technique to handle such communication problems?

As others have said, there are situations where documenting everything with emails, or enforced workflows and signatures (for example like is done with "ECO" processes) will help. Creating such protocols works for heavyweight "line-work" processes where multiple departments and money and management collide. If you don't have such controls in place for mission-critical stuff, you should.

BUT... the problem is that not everything can be done this way nor are such process controls intended to actually prevent "deceit" (which is what you seem to be complaining about). Regardless of what system you have in place, you're still going to have to deal with people saying they're going to do something and then not following through on it or failing to communicate.

What you really need to do first is find out WHY people are behaving as they are. If you don't understand why, you really can't address the root problem and you're left with clumsy process controls to handle it (or you just have to bully them through ham-fisted management channels).

The most important ingredient to get someone to openly communicate with you about why they're going back on their word is to create a high level of trust. That requires empathy on your part and it means you can't start out by putting them on the spot. If someone feels they're going to lose face, they're not going to admit it, they'll literally "walk out" of the interaction. And, in fact, this is precisely what you noticed as a result of being assertive rather than empathetic.

Instead of saying "you committed to A and now you're doing B and this is a big problem for me" try to soften your approach. This could be done in MANY ways, the best of which are pro-active. For example, that could mean being aware of what their problems are and communicating with them about what your needs are IN ADVANCE, and being open to changes before things become a crisis.

Keep in mind that no one wants to do a bad job "on purpose" or to frustrate you. There are reasons for the behavior you're talking about. If you can find out those reasons, that will put you in a position to solve the problem rather than just "police it" through documentation or indirect attempts at strong-arming accountability.