Team members often talk about each other behind their backs. How you do this can undermine team trust or improve it.

I was consulting to a leadership team whose members talked about each other behind their backs. They acknowledged it was eroding trust and hindering the team from executing their organizational strategy. At one point a team member suggested that they should stop talking about each other behind their backs. I disagreed.

I suggested that they should continue to talk behind each other’s backs. In fact, I suggested that they would be better off if they did talk about each other when they weren’t there. But they needed to change how they talked about each other.

The problem with talking about someone when they aren’t present is that the people you are talking to don’t get to hear the views of the person you are talking about. They usually hear only your negative views about that person because talking about people behind their back usually means speaking negatively. This may seem like an easy way to build your case with the people you are talking to, but it has unintended consequences. It erodes your relationship with the person you are talking negatively about, it sends a message to others that this behavior is acceptable, and it may leave the people you are talking to wondering if you talk about them when they aren’t present.

I suggested to my client that they follow these guidelines when talking about someone who isn’t present:

Represent the person’s views that you disagree with.

If you want to be a leader who brings people together rather than creates divisiveness, tell the people you are talking with what the other person’s views are. For example, after you have explained why you think it’s important to speed up the product launch date, you might say, “Lee sees it differently. he wants to wait until Q3 to launch.”

If you find yourself thinking, “I don’t understand what his problem is,” do some homework. Ask Lee not only what his view is, but how he came to that point of view. If you can’t accurately and fairly represent Lee’s reasoning to others, then you can’t really lead effectively.

Explain the source of your disagreement.

It’s even more helpful if you describe the cause of your different views. For example, you might say, “Lee and I have different assumptions about the timing of the launch and how it will affect our new products. He thinks that if we speed up the launch date, we’ll confuse customers with the products we launched last quarter. I think we’ll actually speed up our new product line identity.” Again, if you find yourself thinking, “I don’t know why Lee disagrees with me,” do some more homework. Talk with Lee.

Explain the person’s views without tearing them down.

Telling people that Lee doesn’t understand the business, is generally clueless, or is trying to make your part of the organization look bad has consequences: it increases unproductive conflict, and reduces trust and learning, all of which negatively affects performance. It’s fine to say that you disagree and why you disagree, but don’t do so by questioning his motives or simply dismissing him as clueless.

Give yourself the “would they consider it fair?” test.

You know you’ve done a good job of talking about Lee if, having heard what you said about him, he can say, “You’ve represented me accurately, it was fair.” So next time you’re about to talk about someone you disagree with, first try this thought experiment. Listen to what you plan to say and ask yourself, “If the person heard what I am about to say, would they say I have represented them fairly?” If your answer is “yes,” you’re leading by building better relationships. If the answer is “no,” what do you need to change to pass your test?

Updated October 2024