Leaders tend to assume that sandwiching negative feedback in between a couple of pieces of positive things will soften the blow. This is bulls**t. And Russell’s going to tell us why and lay out the f***ing facts for us.

Episode 5, in which Ken responds to some f***ing listener's feedback while Russell shares some lessons from history provided by Winston Churchill and the Celtic Queen Boudica. 

If we agree that it’s not effective to think of our employees as “fxxxing unmanageable, flawed individuals” for whom there is little hope, then we need a new language; one free of F-bombs and other gratuitous swear words. Let's talk about why we find it useful to think of your employee as wearing a hat that epitomizes the behaviour they’re exhibiting.

Is there really such thing as an employee who is truly unmanageable? or is thinking of these individuals as “fxxxing unmanageable”, unfairly demonizing them, and unfairly positioning yourself as a victim or martyr? Let's talk about why it may feel good, but it rarely positions you as a strong and reliable leader

Do you have someone storming around the office, loudly and belligerently taking up a lot of space? Do you have some people in your workplace whom you choose to give extra space to, or sit at the opposite end of a boardroom table from, or angle your chair slightly away from, or sit just a little further back from? let's talk about how to deal with them.

Too many managers approach a conversation in which they must challenge difficult behaviour with a lot of trepidation. Why? Are you afraid of angry reactions on the part of the employee? Do you know what you want to say, but once the employee is in front of you, you get tongue-tied? Do you beat around the bush and try to soften the blow to avoid an adverse reaction? Let's run down the list and discuss why none of these are good reasons for avoiding what you know you have to do.