My point was that we can just establish that "have a sec?" is (typically) never spooky, this is a different way to combat anxiety and ultimately makes working together more straightforward and simple.
The scary stuff is always meant to exactly resemble an innocuous request in the attempt to exactly not panic the employee even though they have all right to be panicking
> we can just establish that "have a sec?" is (typically) never spooky
I don't think that's true, though. Most times someone higher up the org chart than me has said "have a sec?" or some variation, it's been bad news for me.
If it's good news, they almost always give a quick summary of the news first.
Yes, that's what I mean with establishing it to be normal and not only when there a bad news. That way you don't automatically assume it's bad when someone just wants to pull you by the side for a quick conversation about something complex but harmless.
I'm curious, how would you suggest people higher up in the org chart start the conversation with you otherwise? Would you prefer them outright telling you the bad news directly with a quick summary, maybe even in public? Don't get me wrong, a lot of the typical HR procedures for bad news are pretty messed up, but then again I don't have any better idea which is why I'm asking
> Would you prefer them outright telling you the bad news directly with a quick summary, maybe even in public?
The right way, in my opinion, is the same whether the news is good, bad, or neutral: say what the subject to be discussed is. It can and should be very brief and broad ("Re: X project progress" or "Re: your birthday" or whatever).
Certainly it shouldn't be in public. But the meeting request itself shouldn't be done publicly anyway, in my opinion, whether the meeting is good, bad, or indifferent. It should be in email, chat, or a meeting request in Outlook or similar.
The problem is that this becomes more difficult the more unpleasant the topic is. If you have to talk with somebody because there was a complaint about them, and you send the invite "Re: X project issues" because that's where the original complaint originated from you end up in the same situation - that was what I was trying to say in my OP, because then people will say again that it is too broad and anxiety inducing. If you are upright "Re: Complaints about your behavior in project X" you get the employee all riled up and panicking, potentially overreacting and not getting any rest until the meeting actually happens
EDIT, NB: E-mails are typically archived and have to be produced in case of a litigation, or could be requested by HR. You might be fully on the side of your employee and don't want keep an explicit record of this as it might be misconstructed ("Well there were records that XXX misbehaved before" etc)
> If you have to talk with somebody because there was a complaint about them, and you send the invite "Re: X project issues"
I see your point. But in that case, wouldn't it be "Re: HR issue" or somesuch?
> E-mails are typically archived and have to be produced in case of a litigation, or could be requested by HR.
True. I may be weird, but I count this as a plus. I want a paper trail for everything -- so if I have an important verbal exchange, I will always send an email to the person restating what I took away from it.
Just saying "I need to talk about x. Have a sec?" is plenty good.