"Looking Beyond the Person to the Behavior" (Chapter 6 in _Unconventional_Wisdom_, by Thomas L. Quick -- LCC # HD 30.29 .Q54 1989) Could there possibly be anyone in America who doesn't remember the scene in _The_Wizard_of_Oz_ in which kindly old Frank Morgan, who plays the wizard, is unmasked as a fake? Dorothy and her three friends are standing in awe in the wizard's chamber listening to his booming voice and seeing the fearful face on the screen above them when her dog, Toto, runs over to a curtained booth and pulls the curtain aside to reveal Morgan working levers and speaking into a microphone. Dorothy, incensed at the deception, accuses the would-be wizard of being a bad man. He replies, "I'm not a bad man; I'm just a bad wizard." That quotation, framed, would be a useful addition to any manager's wall because it's a reminder that what people do is separate from who they are. In managing, we deal with what people do, not with what they are. Or at least we should relate to people that way. Unfortunately, we managers often characterize people by traits and personality rather than by behavior. Centuries ago, the church developed its advice: Love the sinner; hate the sin. Unfortunately, managers do often feel sinned against by others, and it's probably not useful to reinforce the per- ception that there are sinners out there sinning against us. [Not only managers feel that way. -dde] There's quite enough vindictiveness already in our organizations. I've always felt that transactional analysis (TA) conveys one of the healthiest messages a manager can receive: I'm OK; you're OK. A lot of managers don't think that some people they work with are OK; they see them as sinners or adversaries who may be out to get them. The employee who doesn't seem motivated to do a good job is lazy. The manager who disagrees is playing politics and wants to win "at my expense." The boss with whom one does not get along well plays favorites and is un- fair. We personalize our disagreement. We go after the person rather than the behavior or issue. For example, a woman reported to me that she had a problem with her counterpart in another department. She had wanted to consult with him on a project she was in charge of, and he had agreed. She sent him some important documents that he was to review from the per- spective of his expertise. She didn't hear back from him by the deadline she had imposed, so she called his office. (She couldn't make a visit to him because he was located at some distance.) He didn't return the call. She called again and again and again. No response. Angry and desperate, she wrote him a letter, with a copy to me. She described his failure to respond to her phone calls and then said, "Your behavior simply is not professional. I guess you don't want this project to succeed." I criticized her letter. She had, I said, committed two sins. She had labeled his behavior (not professional) and had suggested an uncom- plimentary motive (not wanting this project to succeed). She responded with, "All I did was to describe what he did." "No, you didn't," I ans- wered. Once again, I told her about her labeling and characterizing, but to no avail. She was totally convinced that she had done nothing more than describe his behavior. The question of whether he deserved the label is not the point here. When dealing with others, the only aspect of those people we are truly competent to deal with is their behavior. You can see it. You can hear it. You can describe it. You are an expert in your perceptions. That doesn't mean that another person is going to agree with all of your per- ceptions. Remember the famous Japanese movie _Rashomon_, which describes the differing perceptions of people who were involved in or witnessing a crime? The other person cannot deny that you had such perceptions. He or she can only say, "That's not what I saw." Not--and this is critical-- "It didn't happen that way." While there may be occasional disagreements about what was seen or heard, there's often some common ground that people can come to terms on. But when you enter the world of attitudes and motives, it is murky in- deed. After you express yourself strongly in a meeting, what happens when someone asks you, "Why are you so angry?" If you weren't angry before, you probably are, following that question. Or, in the same meeting, when you respond intently to someone's disagreement with an idea you have pre- sented, and another says, "There's no need to get defensive," you get defensive. People are analyzing you and labeling you. Perhaps you don't see yourself as angry or defensive. If not, chances are you'll argue that you were not. Meanwhile the main issue is lost. And even if you were an- gry or defensive, so what? Remember that analyzing or labeling is one way to deflect you from the issue and, at least for the moment, to ren- der you less effective. When someone believes that he or she can intrude on my person with impunity, that person makes me feel vulnerable. At the least I feel open to harm and at the most I feel violated. Ironically, the other might have had honorable intentions of telling me something about myself that I ought to know. I can recall an incident years ago about which I still feel a residue of irritation. Shortly before, I had taken over the editorship of a weekly publication, an experience quite new to me. Be- tween the staff we had and some freelance writers, I was receiving ample copy to fill each issue. I was concentrating on editing and doing little or no writing. My boss called me into her office and, hesitantly, lec- tured me on my lack of growth since I had taken over the publication. It was for me--and for her, I suspect--a difficult interview. The mes- sage I head was, "Now that you've got this good job, I won't let you coast." In TA terms it was: I'm OK; you're not OK. Today, I would counsel her to give me the feedback in a different way. For example, "I see that you are not writing regularly as you used to do, and I'm sorry about that, for you as well as for us. You have ideas to contribute, and we're not getting the benefit of them. You, I think, get your sense of achievement and growth through your writing. Writing, I suspect, helps you think, as it does me. At any rate, I'd like to see you contribute at least an article every other week." Everything she said during the real interview was true, but I felt bad because I felt as if I were lacking in some important ways--as if I had been accused of being smug, lazy, and content to coast. It would indeed have been much more useful to me and less hurtful if she had sim- ply pointed out that both the company and I needed me to write regularly. It is this unnecessary and unwarranted invasion of the person that causes so many employees to dread performance appraisals. The object of an appraisal should be to help the employee to be more effective. Instead, many evaluations ask the appraiser to pass judgment on mat- ters that have little to do with performance--matters such as person- ality characteristics including maturity or enthusiasm, or inputs such as loyalty, initiative, or working well with others. The proper em- phasis is on what the employee does that is useful to the organization-- the results rather than the activity. If, during the appraisal period, the employee performs unsuccessfully, there should be, in connection with the evaluation, an action plan for improvement. To describe someone as congenial, cooperative, or willing to take on responsibility tells the reader very little about a person's ability to achieve agreed- upon organizational goals. Employees usually have no objection to performance appraisals and interviews that are designed and conducted to make them more effective. In fact, far from having objections, most employees welcome a review and evaluation of their accomplishments. However, they do (correctly, I think) resent evaluations that require the subjective measurement by a boss or evaluations that focus on attitudes and motives that can't be seen or measured at all. The only thing that can be measured is be- havior, and that should be evaluated in terms of goals accomplished rather than in terms of investment of time and energy. In short, as an employee, I may have been unsuccessful in some of my projects or goals, but by no means should an evaluation suggest that I am an un- successful person. Having become almost fanatic in preaching that there is a difference between judging a person by who he or she is and by what he or she does or can do, I'm beginning to appreciate at least some of the meaning be- hind Will Roger's mystifying comment, "I never met a man I didn't like." To say that, you have to be able to see the person apart from what the person may do. (It revolts me to say this, but many people found Hit- ler charming and quite likable when he wasn't murdering people.) I can't say that I'm totally in harmony with Roger's consummate good will, but as I grow older, I do find that I have a lot more tolerance for people--even though I may not like some of their behaviors. In various activities I've found colleagues maddening in their compulsion to pick nits, bor- ing in their long-windedness, shallow in their analyses, reprehensible in their desires to avoid significant issues, and unpleasant in their hostility (sometimes toward me). But I seldom have turned down invi- tations to drink with them after work. I may not have liked working with them, but I saw them as nice, congenial, interesting human beings. I didn't mind socializing with them; I just didn't always like to work with them. If you study Will roger's humor, you will notice that he did not at- tack persons. He made fun of their behavior, and sometimes he did it in such a charming way that his target enjoyed it most. There's a fa- mous newsreel of Rogers roasting Franklin D. Roosevelt in Los Angeles after the 1932 persidential campaign. The president-elect is shown standing a few feet away, frequently throwing his head back in laughter at Roger's sallies. The humorist was not malicious, although foibles were legitimate targets. Coming back froma trip to Egypt in the 1920s, he told reporters about the sights, although he said he hadn't seen the sphinx; he had already seen Mr. Coolidge. Rogers provides a model for all of us. Criticize people's behavior. Disklike it, if you will. Poke a little fun at it. But respect the person behind it. I'm OK; you're OK. But let's talk about your be- havior that I don't like. Organizations would be friendlier to work in if those who are in them observed the distinction. Frank Morgan was right. Do you honestly think that Frank Morgan could have ever played a bad man? Not on your life. (initially typed in 2/4/97, c:\articles\others\paxchris\behavior.txt)