|
Good afternoon,
Your Team Is Watching Your Face
Leadership is easy when the census is strong, the schedule is covered, and the surveyors are nowhere in sight.
The real test comes in the moments we do not rehearse.
A family concern reaches your desk. A department head walks into your office with bad news. The staffing coordinator calls after hours to tell you that night shift is falling apart. Someone admits that something was missed.
| |
“Before you say a word, your team is already reading your face.”
|
They notice the sigh, the tightened jaw, the shoulders dropping, the glance at the clock, or the look that says, “I cannot believe I have to deal with this right now.”
We tend to think of those reactions as private. They are not.
The person standing in front of you is deciding, in real time, whether bringing you the problem was the right decision. They are also deciding whether they will come to you as quickly the next time.
That is where leadership culture is often built.
Not in the mission statement. Not during the annual retreat. Not in the carefully prepared speech about transparency and accountability.
| |
“It is built in the five seconds after someone tells you something you did not want to hear.”
|
When leaders react poorly to bad news, the bad news does not stop. It simply stops reaching them directly.
People begin to wait. They soften the details. They try to fix things quietly before anyone notices. They route the concern through someone else who feels safer. They hope the issue will resolve before it has to make its way to the administrator’s office.
That is how a small family concern grows into a formal complaint. It is how a missed task becomes a larger care issue. It is how a documentation problem sits unnoticed until survey. It is how leaders become the last people in the building to know what is actually happening.
We tell our teams to speak up. We tell them to bring concerns forward. We tell them that we would rather hear about a problem early than after it has grown.
But our reactions may be teaching them something very different.
Think about how bad news actually moves through your community
- When social work has a concern, do they come directly to you, or do they first go through the DON?
- When the staffing coordinator sees a problem developing, do they call you, or do they ask someone else to deliver the message?
- When a department head misses something, do they tell you immediately, or do you hear about it later from a third party?
There may be perfectly reasonable explanations. The DON may be closer to the issue. The department may already have a natural chain of communication. Not every concern needs to come straight to the administrator.
But patterns are worth paying attention to.
|
Take a Moment
Think about the last three unexpected or less-than-ideal outcomes in your community. Not the biggest events — just the last three moments something did not go as planned.
How did you hear about each one? Did it come directly from the person closest to it, or had it already been softened, filtered, or partially managed by the time it reached you?
Be honest: did you listen to the full story before reacting? Did your first question sound curious, or accusatory?
Did the employee leave feeling supported in solving the problem — or punished for being the one who delivered the news?
|
| |
“Did my reaction make it more likely or less likely that this person will come to me next time?”
|
That answer tells you more about your culture than almost anything written in a policy.
Study what already works
And if you notice that people consistently take bad news to your DON, assistant administrator, or another trusted leader first, do not immediately view that as a chain-of-command problem.
Study it. What is that leader doing that makes people feel safe telling them the truth? Maybe they stay calm. Maybe they listen before speaking. Maybe they ask, “What happened?” before asking, “Who did it?” Maybe they thank the person for bringing the concern forward. Maybe they focus first on protecting the resident, supporting the team, and getting the facts before deciding what accountability is necessary.
There may be something worth learning from them.
Being safe doesn’t mean being soft
Being a safe place for bad news does not mean being soft. It does not mean accepting poor performance, ignoring repeated mistakes, or lowering expectations.
It means people know they can tell you the truth quickly, clearly, and completely without first having to calculate the emotional cost.
You can still hold people accountable. You can still say, “This is serious.” You can still expect a corrective plan, follow-up, and improvement.
But there is a significant difference between reacting strongly to the issue and reacting strongly to the person who trusted you enough to bring it forward.
A steady response might sound like this:
| |
“This is serious. Thank you for telling me. Let’s make sure the resident is safe, understand exactly what happened, and determine what we need to do next.”
|
That response does not minimize the problem. It keeps the door open.
Because the goal is not to create a building where bad things never happen. No leader can promise that.
The goal is to create a building where bad news travels quickly. Where people do not hide mistakes. Where concerns are raised while they are still manageable. Where employees know that speaking up is part of the solution, not the beginning of their punishment.
The next time someone walks into your office with a problem, check your face before you check the facts.
The next time the phone rings after hours, check your tone before you answer.
The next time someone admits that something was missed, remember that everyone around you is learning what happens to people who tell the truth.
Your reaction becomes their permission. Your composure becomes their standard. And, over time, your face becomes part of the culture.
— Kevin
|
