#22 The Good, Bad & Ugly of Managing Unreliable People at Work

THAT MOMENT WHEN YOU WONDER

• “Is he going to flake out on me last minute?'“

• “What can I rely on this person for?”

• “Should I trust this project to them or not?”

• “What are they really doing…are they even working?”

• “I’m a good employee. I’m on time. I work late. I’m there when my manager needs me. I’m reliable. So, why is someone else getting the promotion?”

…you’re in the Good, Bad & Ugly of Managing Unreliable People at Work.

THINK // 3 insights from the field

😇 THE GOOD THING is if you are worrying about “What if I am the unrealiable person?”, most reasonable and reliable people at work can empathise with moments of unreliability.

We will all have moments at work when we “drop the ball” and “fumble the pass” because we are going though a tough time at home, we are feeling overwhelmed, we got caught off guard etc.

The good thing about these “Fumble” moments is they quickly reveal whether we are genuine performers or mediocre performers.

Reliability is not about being perfectly “on the ball” 100% of the time. That is a ridiculous and unfair expectation. Both the genuinely reliable performer and the mediocre unreliable performer will fumble.

The difference between the genuine reliable performer and the mediocre unreliable performer is

1. the quality of how they handle the fumbles

2. the frequency/familiarity of fumbles.

3. the predictability of how they may handle the next fumble

For the genuine reliable performer:

• Upon realisation of fumble, they will consistently kick-start a process of fixing their fumbles:

  • They disclose and own their mistake.

  • They initiate both relationship and task repair.

  • They course-correct by bringing up possible solutions and adjusting their actions.

• Post fumble, their work shows clear evidence of being able to go above and beyond the initial fumble:

  • Because they persist in growing and learning from each fumble, they seldom repeat the same fumbles. If they fumble, it may be because of unfamiliar situations or circumstances - but you can rely on them to course-correct.

For the unreliable mediocre performers:

• Upon realisation of fumble, they will fumble even the process of fixing their fumbles. 

  • They hide and disown their mistake.

  • They are reluctant to engage in both relationship and task repair OR show an over-preference for repairing one side vs. the other. (e.g. choosing to repair relationships with heart to heart talks but refusing to relook their processes)

  • They risk repeating the same course of actions that got them in trouble because they are reluctant to explore possible solutions or adjust their actions.

• Post fumble, their work shows clear evidence of remaining where they were or even regressing:

  • Because they struggle to grow and learn from each fumble, they may repeat the same fumbles frequently. Their repeated mistakes - and their reactions - start taking on an air of familiarity. Unfamiliar situations or circumstances trigger even worse fumbles.

To discern if you are managing an unreliable person (or whether you are the unreliable person!), you can monitor for Diligence and Competence:

• Competence: Does this person possess the skills, knowledge and experience

  • for tasks required?

  • for relationship building, maintainence and repair required?

• Diligence: Does this person possess the character qualities

  • (like drive, responsibility, strong work ethic, integrity etc) for turning task competence into task action and completion?

  • (like consistency, congruence, empowerment, loving-kindness etc) for supporting healthy relationship development?

Not everyone who is competent is diligent: I can be skillful, knowledgable and experienced and yet lack the diligence to apply it consistently in tasks and/or relationships. This makes me unreliable.

Not everyone who is diligent is competent - yet: I can have great character qualities with high potential to be competent at task and relationship maintainence. But potential is not yet competence. Still, if I am diligent, I am highly likely to apply myself towards being competent. This makes me reliable enough.

Those who are both diligent and competent are your best bets: If I am diligent, I am always looking at how to become more competent. And as I become more competent, I deepen my diligence. It’s a self-enforcing virtuous cycle. This makes me the most reliable.

🤬 THE BAD THING about some unreliable people is they are skilled and experienced at getting away with their dodgy work ethic by using, managing and manipulating reliable people to do the work they do not want to do.

If you are a reliable manager or colleague, you want to watch out for whether that’s what’s happening to you - or to others.

Because the longer they escape being held accountable and reap rewards, the greater the unhappiness among the reliable ones at work who wonder what they are doing wrong.

How do I know if I’m Overly Reliable
& being potentially made use of by the Unreliable?

1. I feel like the Office Pushover who is constantly picking up the slack. If I ever stopped picking up the slack, I suspect they might not like me as much.

• Do you feel people are taking advantage of your good nature?

• Am I consistently doing work that someone else ought to be doing?

• Am I working harder on someone else’ goals?

2. I feel like the Office Go-To Help Desk who is constantly increasing people’s productivity at the expense of my productivity.

• Do I get constantly get hit up for answers to things that people could easily Google for or work on by themselves?

• Do I feel occasionally overwhelmed by requests for help from everywhere and feel compelled to answer them?

3. I feel like the Office Over-Timer who alwsys works more after-hours than others. And when I take time off, people still hassle me.

• Do I feel that I am working more hours on nights and weekends than I ought to be - and I am not being offered any sort of leave or compensation to make up for it?

• Do I feel I am being punished for not being always available at all hours (e.g. answering emails or phone calls)?

4. I feel like the Office Unrequited Lover who is constantly waiting for a raise or a praise that never seems to come. I don’t make noise because I don’t want to be rejected.

• Do I feel there is always something that gets in the way of that promised pay raise, promotion or opportunity?

• Do I feel that I am asked to do work that nobody else wants to do, praised for it - but that’s not the praise or the opportuity I was waiting for?

5. I feel like the Office Therapist who is constantly giving time, space and energy to support other people’s problems and needs.

• Am I so understanding that I find myself soothing and supporting “the wrong kind of people” in the office: the extra needy, the emotionally demanding, the overly negative and even the manipulative and controlling?

• Do I make equal space, time and energy for the confident, high performing and reliable people to talk to me? Are they as attracted to talk to me?

If you feel you are being used by unreliable people at work, the most generous assumption you can make is that they are unaware of what they are doing to you - vs. overtly/covertly using you.

There is no harm in having a direct boundary-setting conversation with people about how you want to change things.

But if you are afraid to raise it up directly to them or feel you can more or less predict their response will be not in your best interests, you can consider:

Is this work environment still working for me?
How sustainable is it for me to keep working like this?

😈 THE UGLY THING is it IS really difficult for us to spot unreliability straight away because we are biologically hardwired to trust people who…

• we just have a ‘positive vibe’ or ‘good gut feel’ for,

• we have had past positive interactions/relationships with

• others have had past positive interactions/relationships with.

However, Robin Dreeke, former head of FBI’s behavioural analysts division, points out the hard truth that anybody (even trained FBI agents) who follows this set of criteria would be 50% right and 50% wrong about the person’s reliability.

To Dreeke, giving all people a blanket “benefit of the doubt” is not helpful. “Benefit of the Doubt” is a big reason why many unreliable people will always keep getting away with things.

In Dreeke’s book “Sizing People Up”, he states:

"Trust, is not a matter of morality. Trust is a predictability...Predictability comes first. Trust follows. If you can’t reasonably predict what someone will do, you usually can’t trust them. Unreliability is a dealbreaker. Don’t hesitate to insist on evidence. Doveryai no Proveryai: Trust, but verify."

In other words -

To figure out whether someone is reliable,
don’t focus on the grey areas of morality.
Focus on the black and white of predictability.

The more unpredictable their behaviour, the less of their behaviour you can consistently trust, and the more potential trouble downstream to expect.

Dreeke’s view is that some of us may see this as a cynical way of working with people. He agrees that life won’t work for you if you enter into all relationships with immediate distrust.

His view is for people to work well with you, you must go in and show trust right from the start. But train yourself to focus on what is predictable and verifiable about their behaviour especially if we feel our past relationships, emotions or interactions may affect our judgment.

Basically:

Doveryai no Proveryai: Trust, but verify.

6 Ways to Tell If Someone is Reliable:

Does he/she…

1. TRY TO EXPLAIN SIMPLY vs. EVOKE MORE COMPLEXITY
   
   When you ask them to clarify the situation, do they keep attempting to use as simple, undecorated and straightforward language as possible to get their point across?
   
   That is a decent sign they are operating on a single truth and are trying to have you understand it.

   
   But if they keep using even more complex language and seem to drive the conversation into even more confusing side-tracks, it can be a sign they are testing out different versions of the truth on you.
   
   We use simple language to reveal.
   We use complex language to conceal.
   
   

2. DESIRE TO SHOW THE FACTS vs. TELL THEIR STORIES:
   
   When asked, are they willing and able to use plain facts, evidence and documentation to back up their claims?
   
   Or do they over-rely on emotive storytelling, generating sympathetic feelings, spreading hearsay and gossip or using flattery to push their narrative?

   Even if what they’re saying is interesting, resist getting emotionally sucked in.
   
   Anybody can tell a good story. The best story-tellers make you forget that’s all it is - a story. When you forget it’s a story, you adopt it as your reality. And unreliable people coast on enroling more and more people who can enforce their preferred story as reality. Don’t be their useful idiot.
   
   

3. OFFER SPECIFIC APOLOGIES + CHANGED ACTIONS vs.
   QUICK GENERAL APOLOGIES, EXCUSES + NO CLEAR CHANGE
   
   Do they apologise for specific errors, show you how they want to change their actions- and not assume you should forgive quickly?
   
   Or do they apologise too quickly and generically and ask for quick forgiveness - before any clear change in actions?
   
   Watch out especially for people who too quickly assign psychological diagnoses to themselves to justify their troubled behavior.
   
   Depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress syndrome are true and valid experiences for millions of people. But many reliable people who really do suffer from such experiences have refused to use their diagnosis as cheap justification for unpleasant or unethical behaviour.
   
   

4. USE POSITIVE-LEANING LANGUAGE TO DESCRIBE OTHER PEOPLE vs. NEGATIVE-LEANING LANGUAGE
   
   Do they attempt to use affirming, nonjudgemental and validating statements to describe other people - even the ones they dislike and disagree with?
   
   Do they course-correct their negative-leaning language when they hear themselves use it - or are called out on it?
   
   Or do they often slip into doublespeak, loaded, invalidating, unflattering, gossipy statements to describe others?
   
   A huge red flag (red banner even) is when they slip into this negative-leaning language about their friends, family or significant others.
   
   If someone’s language is full of descriptions of themselves vs. others, they are harder to size up. But it also shows you their hyper focus on themselves
   
   

5. TALKS OPENLY AND FAIRLY ABOUT THEIR PAST vs. “WEIRDLY” TOO OPEN or TOO TIGHT-LIPPED ABOUT THEIR PAST
   
   When asked, do they share openly about past difficulties and mistakes but not to the point where you feel “this is inappropriate”?
   
   A major green flag is: their versions of past stories never change despite multiple recounts.

   Or do they have these deal-breakers

   • A major red flag: Their versions of stories change in their multiple recounts

   • they aren’t fully transparent about their past OR too transparent in a way that feels “weird”

   • they have a history of irregular behaviour in their personal and professional life (short work stints without character references, broken relationships, multiple divorces, trail of dead bodies)

   • they name-drop and emphasise their many connections to powerful people as external validation

   • they have strange gaps or exaggerations in their resumes.

   • You feel you don’t know them even after close prolonged contact.

   • They are tight lipped about past colleagues.

   • They are overly critical and/or creepy about their colleagues’ personal lives

   
   

6. ENGAGE EACH OTHERS’ MORAL OBLIGATIONS AS REASONS FOR DOING THINGS/NOT DOING THINGS vs. OVER-FOCUS ON THEIR OWN TAKE ON WHAT IS THE MORAL THING TO DO
   

   Do they engage each others’ general moral values and obligations as a way to decide in personal and professional situations? Do they try to consider other people’s moral obligations as reasonably as possible?

   
   e.g. “We must care about X’s feelings here. I get that you have a different opinon about it and it’s fair that you favour accountability.”

   Or do they only engage with their own moral values and obligations as the only/best way forward? Do they cast other people’s moral obligations in a negative light?

   
   e.g. “We must care about X’s feelings here. If you don’t, you’re just being selfish and biased.”

FEEL // 2 links to help you feel less alone

WATCH Common Ground’s podcast episodes that can help you do the work of supporting safe spaces at work to talk about reliability issues.”

I talk to Aaron Maniam & Lye Yen Kai about how to make space for team members to put their diverse concerns and unique desires on the table help us all do better work together.

DO // 1 strategy to try this week

The next time you wonder if someone is unreliable:

TRUST, BUT VERIFY

Extend Trust (even if you are unsure in the moment, you can validate or appreciate something to allow you permission to verify)

• “I appreciate you telling me this.”

• “I do care to hear from your perspective”

• “That is real to you. I get that.”

Use the 6 ways of discerning unreliability to VERIFY

1. CAN THEY USE PLAIN LANGUAGE TO EXPLAIN vs. COMPLEX: “Can you explain that to me in simpler language? I’m trying to understand your key points.”

2. CAN THEY FOCUS ON FACTS vs. STORY-TELLING: “Thanks for sharing your story. I do want to be fair to X and not get into gossip here. Help me by staying focused on the facts.”

3. CAN THEY FOCUS ON SPECIFIC BEHAVIOUR CHANGES NEEDED vs. EASY APOLOGY + EXCUSE: “You don’t have to apologise so fast. I rather we focus on what specifics you have gotten wrong here and what you would like to change moving forward.”

4. CAN THEY USE POSITIVE-LEANING LANGUAGE vs. NEGATIVE: “I hear you have strong feelings about X. What is a more honest yet kinder way you can describe what’s happening with X to me?”

5. CAN THEY TALK ABOUT THEIR PAST HEALTHILY vs. WIERDLY: “Has this happened to you before in your previous workplaces? i don’t need the details but just give me a sense of your past experience”

6. CAN THEY ENGAGE WITH OTHER PEOPLE’S MORAL OBLIGATIONS vs. ONLY THEIR OWN MORALITY:“I get that you feel the best thing to do is……What are the other moral obligations that X may want to uphold?””