11 ms·

How to correct a team member: avoid my damaging rookie mistakes

149 points by chrismdp 6y ago

stepbeek 6y ago
I winced reading this. I normally write down what I think needs some feedback then leave it until the next weekly 1:1. I think sleeping on something like this leaves me in a much better state to deal with in a reasonable way.
- chrismdp 6y ago
  It's painful, isn't it. I think about it again from time to time, and it reminds me to take my time as you do...
torstenvl 6y ago
None of this. Correct a deficiency immediately but casually if that's what's appropriate for the severity. "Asking to understand" is toxic and passive-aggressive. I have a hard time imagining a worse management technique than to put someone on the defensive without even telling them what the conversation is about. This is the opposite of openness and transparency and it is what is killing work culture.
- ncallaway 6y ago
  > "Asking to understand" is toxic and passive-aggressive. What if the issue isn't a deficiency? What if it's a case of your employee understanding the problem better than you, and coming to a better solution? Asking to understand is toxic if you're certain that there is something that needs correction. It's not toxic if you have an open mind and accept that the employee might have done the correct thing in a situation for reasons you don't yet understand.
  - buckminster 6y ago
    The toxicity lies in the effect it has on the employee. The employee does not know what is going on in the manager's head. That's the point. The manager may be looking to find fault or may have an open mind, but the employee is not a mind reader so the effect is the same.
    - ncallaway 6y ago
      Sure, it totally depends on the relationship with the employee. And if the manager typically uses asking to understand in a toxic way, then future attempts will be tainted. But if you have a history of asking: "Hey, I'm curious about X? Why did you do that?" and you have a history of 25% of the time responding to their answer: "Oh! Cool! Great idea, I didn't think of that" and 75% of the time responding: "Ah, gotcha. I might've reframed it this way because of Y", then you'll have that trust. The employee isn't a mind reader, but they are a behavior reader. And if you really are asking with an open mind each time, then your past behavior will reflect that.
- Loughla 6y ago
  Ask to understand isn't about trying to lay out a gotcha scenario. You explain what you see as the problem as clearly as possible, and you try to get the other person's view of what went wrong and why. I use this often in a management role. You explain, explicitly, clearly, and carefully what you see as gone wrong, but not your perception of the intention behind it. In fact, you try to avoid having that perception or trying to guess the intention. That's management/working with other humans 101. Then you ask probing questions to get at the why that choice was made/mistake happened. The idea being that most people act in good faith and rarely make a complete fuck up out of maliciousness. They do it because of a lack of information or a lack or perspective or lack of training/knowledge, or because you as the manager lack one of those things and can't see the solution was actually a good solution. You can fix the last four, you can't fix malicious. And asking questions reveals what the deficiency is. If a manager makes that conversation into a 'gotcha' scenario without laying out what the issue is first and immediately, they're bad at their job. And if an employee gets defensive about a fuck up, they're a bad employee.
  - torstenvl 6y ago
    I've had a wide range of work experiences, military and civilian, white and blue collar. "Ask to understand" as described in the article is something I mostly see in civilian white collar circles, and in my experience (both first and second hand), it usually plays out like this: X has a problem with something Y did. X: "So... talk to me about what happened yesterday? Help me understand." Y at this point knows the following things: - X didn't like what happened - X won't tell Y what the problem is - X has been thinking about this - X wants an explanation from Y All of which is far too cloak-and-dagger for effective team-building. Every scholar of leadership from Thucydides to Simon Sinek has come to the same conclusion: that successful organizations are built on trust. Using the power of a supervisory position to coerce your reports into tipping their hands without you tipping your own is bad leadership. Is it possible to ask questions and seek understanding in a more productive way? Sure. But that's just genuine empathy, which can and should be used regardless of management technique.
    - em-bee 6y ago
- cloogshicer 6y ago
  I think the underlying fundamental assumption of "Asking to understand" is that there is an objective, measurable reality. That if we all had the same facts, given sufficient thinking, we would all arrive at the same conclusions. Whether you believe that depends on your world view. I think a lot of people hold this belief without even realizing.
  - filoleg 6y ago
    This. Sure, "asking to understand" can be used as a toxic ploy, but imo that's not the purpose. Just like almost any tool, it can be misused in toxic and damaging ways, so that's beside the point. The reason for why you would want to "ask to understand" is to figure out the root cause of the issue that caused the mistake/bad practice you observed in the first place. Finding the root cause will allow you to help them address the issue effectively, because otherwise, you will just be playing a whack-a-mole game of battling against symptoms instead of the disease.
- chrismeller 6y ago
  I agree. Asking to understand is assuming that everyone could or should feel and act exactly the same way you do. If you’ve only ever worked in one culture that may be fine, but as soon as you start including others in the process you’re going to waste so much time and disillusion so many people that you will end up never accomplishing anything. Dictate how you expect an employee to behave. Sometimes they will strongly disagree. If you or they continue to disagree then either of you can part ways. Explaining to them why you think they should behave that way is valuable, but expecting them to understand and feel that way themselves is too much. If they can act that way, it doesn’t matter how they feel... it’s a job, not a cult.
  - Aeolun 6y ago
    I don’t necessarily expect them to agree, but I do expect them to understand where I’m coming from. If they can’t I don’t think there’s a high chance of them actually listening.
- sequoia 6y ago
  You "ask to understand" their perspective & motivations because the alternative is for you to assume you know their perspective which is always worse. Imagine an employee does X, which is explicitly against company policy and causes a major headache for you. You assume the employee just doesn't care about the policy or worse, is disgruntled and violated the policy on purpose. Either of these motivations warrants a pretty serious reprimand. Instead, you ask the employee why they did that thing when it goes against company policy. "What policy?" Oops, it turns out you forgot to go over this during onboarding and there was no negligence or ill intent on the employee's part, they simply did not know about the policy and are sorry and embarrassed for inadvertently violating it. Aren't you glad you asked them about this before coming down on them with a reprimand, blindsiding and angering them and ultimately making yourself look stupid for blaming them for your mistake? If it turns out the employee did in fact have a grudge or was negligent, there is still time to reprimand them after hearing "their side of the story." But if you never ask you will miss explanations and needlessly escalate conflicts.
  - jldugger 6y ago
    > You "ask to understand" their perspective & motivations because the alternative is for you to assume you know their perspective which is always worse. An interesting counterpoint I've heard from respected management trainers: it _is_ impossible to correctly infer intent and motivation, but fortunately intent doesn't matter here. You don't need to know it, and it focuses on the wrong thing. You don't want to know _why_, and your intervention can easily assume positive intent. What you want is to change future behavior. So assume positive intent, and focus on what to do next time. In your example scenario, where an employee has broken corporate policy you would just say something to the effect "I'm sure you meant well here, but our policy on this is X. What can you do differently next time?" That is the conversation you should be having, rather than the blame distribution game that 'why did you do that bad thing?' invites.
- slowmovintarget 6y ago
  > "Asking to understand" is toxic and passive-aggressive. It is the opposite of those things. The label applied to the approach isn't putting the words in your mouth. You don't lead with the question "I'm trying to understand why you did this. Why did you do that?" You ask questions about the context of the situation. You listen, a lot. Then, when you have sufficient information, you decide how to act, whether it be a simple direct communication to that one person, or a this-is-who-we-are / this-is-how-we-do-things communication to the entire team. Listening, the real technique under examination here, is the opposite of toxic. It shines light on behaviors, and helps a manager achieve the true goals of what would otherwise be a mere surface-correction. Listening is ameliorative. Asking questions, gently, and listening to the person is also not passive-aggressive. Giving the employee a bad review for uncorrected behavior is. Inquiry is one of a set of tools that any good manager should use. Not the only one, to be sure. It is not passive, it is directly aimed at increasing the situational awareness to best support a manager's judgement (maybe there's nothing here, maybe it is small/medium/large). What kills work culture is allowing a problem to fester then blindsiding the person with bad reviews and termination. Explaining to someone early a) what the expectations are, b) how they are doing in relation to the expectations, and c) if correction is needed, how to correct and how to measure, leads to a much healthier work environment.
- Ironlikebike 6y ago
  I agree that you should correct a deficiency immediately, but I think it should be done with utmost clarity.'Casually' implies that you as a manager might not care about the outcome or might not express your true concern about the incident. I always make it very clear that an expectation has not been met. Several years back I took a "Crucial Accountability" course on having accountability conversations. In their process there were four phases to every accountability conversation: 1) Reiterate the expectation 2) Describe the incident in question 3) Ask the employee to describe the gap between the expectations and their behavior in the incident 4) Have a conversation about what we're going to do about it. I've used this model many times and it is very effective. Usually the employee leaves the conversation understanding what I expect and assures me that they will try to do better. Sometimes it requires follow-up correction, or further conversations, and sometimes it requires an action-plan that we work on together. Rarely does it lead to an untenable disagreement in how things should be done (and you can guess where that leads). Also rarely, the expectations will be amended or more clearly expressed to everyone. I do think getting their perspective is necessary to understand if the expectations were incorrect, or if my understanding of the incident was incorrect. But it is essential that the conversation always start with reiterating the expectations.
loopz 6y ago
I've had former manager "correct" my openness to external partners. In those few cases, they never questioned why I had an open exchange, what I get from such or any explanation of benefits from closing down communication. Feedback and judgement may come from wrong or misunderstood context, so sometimes, someone might later admit a different approach was prudent. Professional behaviour doesn't necessarily mean being a dick or hoarding information. In my book, this is playing the organization worse off. You yourself might be better off, to the detriment of everyone else around you. This I view as unprofessional, becoming of some external consultants, not regular employees in a supportive organization. Feedback should not name people. You might name roles or groups instead, preferably just state events as they factually happened, without pointing blame or fingers. What happened happened, and now we deal with that. Just assume people are learning on the job. Some people take things too hard by default, so instead reassure them the company is coping as a business. Sometimes, information is illegal to share, or when personal or too much detail, it is oversharing. But in general, sharing information is a safety net. People work better and do better, when provided enough context to thrive. To know the difference, you must put yourself in other people's roles, what they should know and not. If you overshare technical details, some people will become uneasy, so you share what they are comfortable knowing. Some people abuse information, so they need less information to abuse. To "correct" someone, first make sure you know their intentions and why they did as they did. It's not about being right or wrong always. Treat people as you'd want to be respected. Assume that, given new information, people continually learn or casually, mention good learning resources. Your best efforts won't make others learn. The best teachers let other people draw their own conclusions. Empathy
- man007 6y ago
  I really think it comes down to this. Empathy is so important. Unfortunately, it doesn't come natural to some. Also, sometimes, its not worth bringing up issues - someone could really just be having a bad day.
JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Something called 'non-violent communications' might be in order. Start with an observation - "You show up to standup 5 minutes late". Then a personal reaction - "I'm frustrated". Third, the goal - "I want our group to move forward efficiently". Finally, the 'ask' - "Can you show up on time for each standup?"
- SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
  So: "I noticed that your email had a slightly sarcastic ring to it, I feel a bit unhappy about this, I want communications with external contacts to remain professional, can you review tone and content for anyone outside of our company"
  - freshpots 6y ago
    In that case, rather than bringing my feelings into it which implies that you interpreted it that way I would suggest something like this: "Your email had appeared to have a slightly sarcastic ring to it, while everyone interprets sarcasm differently I found it to be unprofessional towards the clients, can you please ensure that you review the tone of your emails such that they're not misunderstood? Saying you're unhappy about it sounds weak and emotional in this context. Happiness isn't expected from an email in this context. As a note: Grammarly says this is 4/5 in terms of formality (very strong intensity) and dishearting 2/5 (moderate intensity).
    - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
      Slightly different meanings there: > Happiness isn't expected from an email in this context What I mean to say is that I, personally would be unsatisfied (unhappy) with sarcasm as a tone towards a client. > I found it to be unprofessional towards the clients, It is not always understood that it is bad to be "unprofessional towards the clients", do not take it for granted that everyone knows that. In fact this person in the original example probably did not. In my experience, while internally, one can be informal, even joke a bit and still be respected for technical ability, it is necessary to take a more formal approach outside of the org in order to be taken seriously.
bengale 6y ago
I'd love to know what he put in that email to cause a problem that lasted a whole year. A simple "The tone of that email comes across off to me, remember the good nature in humour can be lost in text communications." Seems like a simple enough follow up. I think with managing people its best to be direct but proportionate. As long as your reports know that they can take it up with you if they need clarification or don't agree you should be fine.
- watwut 6y ago
  Apparently it was a long email to someone who was in the same room at the moment. The long email started with "I don’t approve of this type of communication." and author left the room as the recipient was opening it. They never ever spoke about it. So I guess it came across as odd.
- JackFr 6y ago
  I remember very well getting dressed down for being too flippant in a memo 30 years ago (a typed memo, pre-ubiquitous email!) My boss was right, and it affected how I communicate professionally to this day.
nikk1 6y ago
I think it is always a good idea to reflect on your relationships and how you communicate with your teammates. Like the article says, communication is tricky. "We must strive to ensure what we say actually goes in, is understood, and elicits change." Giving critical feedback is something that is very difficult to do right, which is why the author suggests to avoid it when possible. Also, we all underestimate the value of (well-done) positive feedback. There is a lot of untapped potential in positive feedback. It is the best way to bring out the best in your teammates, since they will continue to focus on their strengths.
matwood 6y ago
Some rules I follow: - Correct in private, praise in public. - Correction needs to be proportional to what happened. - Employee level matters. For example, a manager should be gentler with a junior IC than a SVP. - Always be direct and specific. - Keep issues internal. Customers should only see a united front, that also takes ownership of problems. - Think it through, don't correct while being emotional.
- 101404 6y ago
  That's a good list. I would add - Listen, because maybe they are right after all
  - matwood 6y ago
    Of course. Being a good manager/teammate/human is listening and admitting when you're wrong.
- chrismdp 6y ago
  Nice list.
- sulairris 6y ago
  All very good advice, just pull them aside, not out of sight just out of ear shot
- downerending 6y ago
  - Ask yourself whether you really need to take action, especially if you're not the person's manager. There's a lot to be said for keeping your mouth shut.
- bsder 6y ago
  Also, I can praise in email or in person. If I'm admonishing, it will be privately face-to-face unless I absolutely can't otherwise. Quite often I'm trying to be gentle, but email just loses too much context and it comes across as me being genuinely upset.
- arikr 6y ago
zoomablemind 6y ago
> ...one of my team copied me in to his email reply to an external contact > ... I decided to reprimand him for his email It's not clear from the post what's the status differential of the involved. Is the author a manager, mentor or superior to the team member mentioned? If there's not much of the differential, then taking such a formal approach (company emails are records!) is indeed an odd way to react to this. After all, the assessment of the "tone" is a judgement call. If author was a superior by rank, then it's a matter of upholding the internal policies, which should not start with a "reprimand" but communicating the policies, giving training, helping to adopt it. This process can as well be delegated to avoid direct confrontation and unnecessary tension and guilt. Putting someone in a hot seat to "help me understand" is something from Great Inquisitor's playbook. Didn't someone assign that less experienced team member to deal with the reply to the external contact? Let _that_ person deal with the fallout accordingly.
sequoia 6y ago
One major point I'd add in giving corrective feedback and coaching teammates or subordinates away from "bad behaviors" is "Rome was not built in a day." Don't try to correct or address everything all at once. Rare is the person who can hear five criticisms of their behavior all at once and make productive use of the feedback rather than becoming defensive. Effectively influencing people's behavior while maintaining trust takes time. If someone is doing 3 things you don't like, pick the one you want to address in the next 2-6 weeks, and let the other ones slide for the time being. If you're building long-term relationships, there will be more time, and as you build trust giving (and receiving) feedback becomes easier for all parties. Urgency is the enemy in this situation.
- bergstromm466 6y ago
  > Effectively influencing people's behavior Would a more constructive way to describe this be: 'helping people to grow'? To me 'influencing' sounds covert and without consent. They would also personally benefit from using the strategies you'd like them to employ, right? Why try to 'influence' them, when it could be something achieved with their full participation and consent? Then it becomes something you've done together, instead of you having successfully 'influenced' them (read: manipulated). When talking about this I do acknowledge the constraints of modern day workplaces, and I think with that comes the importance of showing them the organizational constraints - the challenges you face as a leader or manager, in your role - and being open with them about how their various efforts can support you in that role.
  - sequoia 6y ago
    Agree that you are helping them grow, but you are trying to influence their behavior. In the interest of honesty I prefer to call a spade a spade. You'll notice I also use the term "subordinate" which bothers some people, but it's the most descriptive and accurate term possible and avoids euphemism. "My employee" if you're a manager they're not your employee; "a member of my team" that doesn't make clear if they report to you or you're on the same level of the hierarchy; "my direct report" I just find this a weird/confusing turn of phrase whose purpose seems to be avoiding using the term "subordinate."
5cott0 6y ago
How to correct a team member? Hold yourself accountable for your own mistakes first.
KKKKkkkk1 6y ago
What do you do about a peer who blatantly and publicly violates company policies? For example, someone who uploads a secret company document on GitHub so that it's easier for them to work from home. And then they share that document with you and ask you questions about it. On the one hand, you can be a dick about it (i.e., do the right thing and confront them) and pay a personal price. Alternatively, you can let it slide, pretend that nothing happened, and risk an escalation of inappropriate behavior in the future.
- em-bee 6y ago
  first, answer the question, the explain why sharing the document this way is a problem. if this never happened before, let it go with a warning (if the rules allow that, otherwise apologize and follow the rules that apply to you in this situation)
- triceratops 6y ago
  You don't have to be a dick to confront them. "Dude...that's not cool. And if HR finds out you'll be in trouble." If they still don't take it down, escalate to your manager.
alex_young 6y ago
I'm impressed that the title of this post points to a better way of delivering feedback than is discussed in the article. This event sounds like a wonderful opportunity to have a 1:1 conversation with the person and tell a story to help them grow. Before talking to your team member, set your own tone internally. This conversation should be friendly, helpful, and constructive. No one should walk away feeling bad about things, but instead leave having strengthened your alignment and hopefully learned something in the process. First, ask them how they think the message they sent was received. Be open to learning new things, such as an intent that wasn't clear to you, or some other details about the interaction that aren't immediately obvious to you. Also be open to and prepared for them to already know there was a problem with it. Paraphrase it back to them if you don't understand something they said. Next, talk through a similar story from your past where you sent a message with similar problems. It doesn't have to be an email, but it's important for you to talk through how you made a similar error. The key is how you identified the problem and identified a better way to handle things in the future. If you honestly and thoughtfully have this conversation with your valuable team member, you will develop empathy and trust that will not only help them learn from the experience, but give both of you a better working relationship for the future.
- gct 6y ago
  Are you a manager robot? Who slips "valuable team member" into a conversation?
lacker 6y ago
It really depends on who you’re talking to. If you are giving feedback to an experienced, emotionally mature coworker who trusts your judgment and knows you respect them, you can just concisely tell them what you mistake you think they made, and leave it at that. If you are giving feedback to a recent graduate who has a lot of raw talent but is inexperienced, still working to improve their own self-confidence, and doesn’t know you very well yet, then it is wise to take the time to communicate very clearly. That means not making them think something is an enormous problem, when actually it is only a small problem. Some people will have teams of only one of these types of people and think “h the right way to handle this is X” but in my experience it is situational and different people work better with different types of communication.
lmilcin 6y ago
So here's the hard way: Ensure people understand, in general, that when you are correcting them you are doing it for a good reason and that it is always intended to help the other person AND the team. Ensure people understand you are always asking for the same treatment. Make a point to regularly show you follow up on constructive criticism. Don't be too serious when giving criticism. The only time to be serious is when the offense is grave and career ending, you are his/hers superior, and even then only maybe. Never give criticism without honestly complimenting for something else. Never give criticism without honestly giving reasons why you think it was necessary and in the best interest of the person you give criticism to. Never give criticism without seriously considering the point of view of the person you plan to give criticism to. Never give criticism immediately. The times you avoid mistakes when giving criticism will make up for the fact you need to exercise your willpower to wait. If you can't do that, you are probably not a good person to give criticism anyway.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ideal_stingray 6y ago
How can I express a preference to have my managers discuss my mistakes over email, instead of by “gently pulling me aside” and talking in person? I am more comfortable expressing myself in non-real-time text format, especially with topics that feel hurtful. A paragraphs-long, detailed email explanation would be the best way for me to receive feedback!
Antoninus 6y ago
I have a few rules. Be nice and be exceptional at your job.

149 points by chrismdp 6y ago

I winced reading this. I normally write down what I think needs some feedback then leave it until the next weekly 1:1. I think sleeping on something like this leaves me in a much better state to deal with in a reasonable way.

chrismdp 6y ago
It's painful, isn't it. I think about it again from time to time, and it reminds me to take my time as you do...

torstenvl 6y ago

None of this. Correct a deficiency immediately but casually if that's what's appropriate for the severity. "Asking to understand" is toxic and passive-aggressive. I have a hard time imagining a worse management technique than to put someone on the defensive without even telling them what the conversation is about. This is the opposite of openness and transparency and it is what is killing work culture.

ncallaway 6y ago
> "Asking to understand" is toxic and passive-aggressive. What if the issue isn't a deficiency? What if it's a case of your employee understanding the problem better than you, and coming to a better solution? Asking to understand is toxic if you're certain that there is something that needs correction. It's not toxic if you have an open mind and accept that the employee might have done the correct thing in a situation for reasons you don't yet understand.
- buckminster 6y ago
  The toxicity lies in the effect it has on the employee. The employee does not know what is going on in the manager's head. That's the point. The manager may be looking to find fault or may have an open mind, but the employee is not a mind reader so the effect is the same.
  - ncallaway 6y ago
    Sure, it totally depends on the relationship with the employee. And if the manager typically uses asking to understand in a toxic way, then future attempts will be tainted. But if you have a history of asking: "Hey, I'm curious about X? Why did you do that?" and you have a history of 25% of the time responding to their answer: "Oh! Cool! Great idea, I didn't think of that" and 75% of the time responding: "Ah, gotcha. I might've reframed it this way because of Y", then you'll have that trust. The employee isn't a mind reader, but they are a behavior reader. And if you really are asking with an open mind each time, then your past behavior will reflect that.
Loughla 6y ago
Ask to understand isn't about trying to lay out a gotcha scenario. You explain what you see as the problem as clearly as possible, and you try to get the other person's view of what went wrong and why. I use this often in a management role. You explain, explicitly, clearly, and carefully what you see as gone wrong, but not your perception of the intention behind it. In fact, you try to avoid having that perception or trying to guess the intention. That's management/working with other humans 101. Then you ask probing questions to get at the why that choice was made/mistake happened. The idea being that most people act in good faith and rarely make a complete fuck up out of maliciousness. They do it because of a lack of information or a lack or perspective or lack of training/knowledge, or because you as the manager lack one of those things and can't see the solution was actually a good solution. You can fix the last four, you can't fix malicious. And asking questions reveals what the deficiency is. If a manager makes that conversation into a 'gotcha' scenario without laying out what the issue is first and immediately, they're bad at their job. And if an employee gets defensive about a fuck up, they're a bad employee.
- torstenvl 6y ago
  I've had a wide range of work experiences, military and civilian, white and blue collar. "Ask to understand" as described in the article is something I mostly see in civilian white collar circles, and in my experience (both first and second hand), it usually plays out like this: X has a problem with something Y did. X: "So... talk to me about what happened yesterday? Help me understand." Y at this point knows the following things: - X didn't like what happened - X won't tell Y what the problem is - X has been thinking about this - X wants an explanation from Y All of which is far too cloak-and-dagger for effective team-building. Every scholar of leadership from Thucydides to Simon Sinek has come to the same conclusion: that successful organizations are built on trust. Using the power of a supervisory position to coerce your reports into tipping their hands without you tipping your own is bad leadership. Is it possible to ask questions and seek understanding in a more productive way? Sure. But that's just genuine empathy, which can and should be used regardless of management technique.
  - em-bee 6y ago
cloogshicer 6y ago
I think the underlying fundamental assumption of "Asking to understand" is that there is an objective, measurable reality. That if we all had the same facts, given sufficient thinking, we would all arrive at the same conclusions. Whether you believe that depends on your world view. I think a lot of people hold this belief without even realizing.
- filoleg 6y ago
  This. Sure, "asking to understand" can be used as a toxic ploy, but imo that's not the purpose. Just like almost any tool, it can be misused in toxic and damaging ways, so that's beside the point. The reason for why you would want to "ask to understand" is to figure out the root cause of the issue that caused the mistake/bad practice you observed in the first place. Finding the root cause will allow you to help them address the issue effectively, because otherwise, you will just be playing a whack-a-mole game of battling against symptoms instead of the disease.
chrismeller 6y ago
I agree. Asking to understand is assuming that everyone could or should feel and act exactly the same way you do. If you’ve only ever worked in one culture that may be fine, but as soon as you start including others in the process you’re going to waste so much time and disillusion so many people that you will end up never accomplishing anything. Dictate how you expect an employee to behave. Sometimes they will strongly disagree. If you or they continue to disagree then either of you can part ways. Explaining to them why you think they should behave that way is valuable, but expecting them to understand and feel that way themselves is too much. If they can act that way, it doesn’t matter how they feel... it’s a job, not a cult.
- Aeolun 6y ago
  I don’t necessarily expect them to agree, but I do expect them to understand where I’m coming from. If they can’t I don’t think there’s a high chance of them actually listening.
sequoia 6y ago
You "ask to understand" their perspective & motivations because the alternative is for you to assume you know their perspective which is always worse. Imagine an employee does X, which is explicitly against company policy and causes a major headache for you. You assume the employee just doesn't care about the policy or worse, is disgruntled and violated the policy on purpose. Either of these motivations warrants a pretty serious reprimand. Instead, you ask the employee why they did that thing when it goes against company policy. "What policy?" Oops, it turns out you forgot to go over this during onboarding and there was no negligence or ill intent on the employee's part, they simply did not know about the policy and are sorry and embarrassed for inadvertently violating it. Aren't you glad you asked them about this before coming down on them with a reprimand, blindsiding and angering them and ultimately making yourself look stupid for blaming them for your mistake? If it turns out the employee did in fact have a grudge or was negligent, there is still time to reprimand them after hearing "their side of the story." But if you never ask you will miss explanations and needlessly escalate conflicts.
- jldugger 6y ago
  > You "ask to understand" their perspective & motivations because the alternative is for you to assume you know their perspective which is always worse. An interesting counterpoint I've heard from respected management trainers: it _is_ impossible to correctly infer intent and motivation, but fortunately intent doesn't matter here. You don't need to know it, and it focuses on the wrong thing. You don't want to know _why_, and your intervention can easily assume positive intent. What you want is to change future behavior. So assume positive intent, and focus on what to do next time. In your example scenario, where an employee has broken corporate policy you would just say something to the effect "I'm sure you meant well here, but our policy on this is X. What can you do differently next time?" That is the conversation you should be having, rather than the blame distribution game that 'why did you do that bad thing?' invites.
slowmovintarget 6y ago
> "Asking to understand" is toxic and passive-aggressive. It is the opposite of those things. The label applied to the approach isn't putting the words in your mouth. You don't lead with the question "I'm trying to understand why you did this. Why did you do that?" You ask questions about the context of the situation. You listen, a lot. Then, when you have sufficient information, you decide how to act, whether it be a simple direct communication to that one person, or a this-is-who-we-are / this-is-how-we-do-things communication to the entire team. Listening, the real technique under examination here, is the opposite of toxic. It shines light on behaviors, and helps a manager achieve the true goals of what would otherwise be a mere surface-correction. Listening is ameliorative. Asking questions, gently, and listening to the person is also not passive-aggressive. Giving the employee a bad review for uncorrected behavior is. Inquiry is one of a set of tools that any good manager should use. Not the only one, to be sure. It is not passive, it is directly aimed at increasing the situational awareness to best support a manager's judgement (maybe there's nothing here, maybe it is small/medium/large). What kills work culture is allowing a problem to fester then blindsiding the person with bad reviews and termination. Explaining to someone early a) what the expectations are, b) how they are doing in relation to the expectations, and c) if correction is needed, how to correct and how to measure, leads to a much healthier work environment.
Ironlikebike 6y ago
I agree that you should correct a deficiency immediately, but I think it should be done with utmost clarity.'Casually' implies that you as a manager might not care about the outcome or might not express your true concern about the incident. I always make it very clear that an expectation has not been met. Several years back I took a "Crucial Accountability" course on having accountability conversations. In their process there were four phases to every accountability conversation: 1) Reiterate the expectation 2) Describe the incident in question 3) Ask the employee to describe the gap between the expectations and their behavior in the incident 4) Have a conversation about what we're going to do about it. I've used this model many times and it is very effective. Usually the employee leaves the conversation understanding what I expect and assures me that they will try to do better. Sometimes it requires follow-up correction, or further conversations, and sometimes it requires an action-plan that we work on together. Rarely does it lead to an untenable disagreement in how things should be done (and you can guess where that leads). Also rarely, the expectations will be amended or more clearly expressed to everyone. I do think getting their perspective is necessary to understand if the expectations were incorrect, or if my understanding of the incident was incorrect. But it is essential that the conversation always start with reiterating the expectations.

loopz 6y ago

I've had former manager "correct" my openness to external partners. In those few cases, they never questioned why I had an open exchange, what I get from such or any explanation of benefits from closing down communication. Feedback and judgement may come from wrong or misunderstood context, so sometimes, someone might later admit a different approach was prudent. Professional behaviour doesn't necessarily mean being a dick or hoarding information. In my book, this is playing the organization worse off. You yourself might be better off, to the detriment of everyone else around you. This I view as unprofessional, becoming of some external consultants, not regular employees in a supportive organization. Feedback should not name people. You might name roles or groups instead, preferably just state events as they factually happened, without pointing blame or fingers. What happened happened, and now we deal with that. Just assume people are learning on the job. Some people take things too hard by default, so instead reassure them the company is coping as a business. Sometimes, information is illegal to share, or when personal or too much detail, it is oversharing. But in general, sharing information is a safety net. People work better and do better, when provided enough context to thrive. To know the difference, you must put yourself in other people's roles, what they should know and not. If you overshare technical details, some people will become uneasy, so you share what they are comfortable knowing. Some people abuse information, so they need less information to abuse. To "correct" someone, first make sure you know their intentions and why they did as they did. It's not about being right or wrong always. Treat people as you'd want to be respected. Assume that, given new information, people continually learn or casually, mention good learning resources. Your best efforts won't make others learn. The best teachers let other people draw their own conclusions. Empathy

man007 6y ago
I really think it comes down to this. Empathy is so important. Unfortunately, it doesn't come natural to some. Also, sometimes, its not worth bringing up issues - someone could really just be having a bad day.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

Something called 'non-violent communications' might be in order. Start with an observation - "You show up to standup 5 minutes late". Then a personal reaction - "I'm frustrated". Third, the goal - "I want our group to move forward efficiently". Finally, the 'ask' - "Can you show up on time for each standup?"

SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
So: "I noticed that your email had a slightly sarcastic ring to it, I feel a bit unhappy about this, I want communications with external contacts to remain professional, can you review tone and content for anyone outside of our company"
- freshpots 6y ago
  In that case, rather than bringing my feelings into it which implies that you interpreted it that way I would suggest something like this: "Your email had appeared to have a slightly sarcastic ring to it, while everyone interprets sarcasm differently I found it to be unprofessional towards the clients, can you please ensure that you review the tone of your emails such that they're not misunderstood? Saying you're unhappy about it sounds weak and emotional in this context. Happiness isn't expected from an email in this context. As a note: Grammarly says this is 4/5 in terms of formality (very strong intensity) and dishearting 2/5 (moderate intensity).
  - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
    Slightly different meanings there: > Happiness isn't expected from an email in this context What I mean to say is that I, personally would be unsatisfied (unhappy) with sarcasm as a tone towards a client. > I found it to be unprofessional towards the clients, It is not always understood that it is bad to be "unprofessional towards the clients", do not take it for granted that everyone knows that. In fact this person in the original example probably did not. In my experience, while internally, one can be informal, even joke a bit and still be respected for technical ability, it is necessary to take a more formal approach outside of the org in order to be taken seriously.

bengale 6y ago

I'd love to know what he put in that email to cause a problem that lasted a whole year. A simple "The tone of that email comes across off to me, remember the good nature in humour can be lost in text communications." Seems like a simple enough follow up. I think with managing people its best to be direct but proportionate. As long as your reports know that they can take it up with you if they need clarification or don't agree you should be fine.

watwut 6y ago
Apparently it was a long email to someone who was in the same room at the moment. The long email started with "I don’t approve of this type of communication." and author left the room as the recipient was opening it. They never ever spoke about it. So I guess it came across as odd.
JackFr 6y ago
I remember very well getting dressed down for being too flippant in a memo 30 years ago (a typed memo, pre-ubiquitous email!) My boss was right, and it affected how I communicate professionally to this day.

nikk1 6y ago

I think it is always a good idea to reflect on your relationships and how you communicate with your teammates. Like the article says, communication is tricky. "We must strive to ensure what we say actually goes in, is understood, and elicits change." Giving critical feedback is something that is very difficult to do right, which is why the author suggests to avoid it when possible. Also, we all underestimate the value of (well-done) positive feedback. There is a lot of untapped potential in positive feedback. It is the best way to bring out the best in your teammates, since they will continue to focus on their strengths.

matwood 6y ago

Some rules I follow: - Correct in private, praise in public. - Correction needs to be proportional to what happened. - Employee level matters. For example, a manager should be gentler with a junior IC than a SVP. - Always be direct and specific. - Keep issues internal. Customers should only see a united front, that also takes ownership of problems. - Think it through, don't correct while being emotional.

101404 6y ago
That's a good list. I would add - Listen, because maybe they are right after all
- matwood 6y ago
  Of course. Being a good manager/teammate/human is listening and admitting when you're wrong.
chrismdp 6y ago
Nice list.
sulairris 6y ago
All very good advice, just pull them aside, not out of sight just out of ear shot
downerending 6y ago
- Ask yourself whether you really need to take action, especially if you're not the person's manager. There's a lot to be said for keeping your mouth shut.
bsder 6y ago
Also, I can praise in email or in person. If I'm admonishing, it will be privately face-to-face unless I absolutely can't otherwise. Quite often I'm trying to be gentle, but email just loses too much context and it comes across as me being genuinely upset.
arikr 6y ago

zoomablemind 6y ago

> ...one of my team copied me in to his email reply to an external contact > ... I decided to reprimand him for his email It's not clear from the post what's the status differential of the involved. Is the author a manager, mentor or superior to the team member mentioned? If there's not much of the differential, then taking such a formal approach (company emails are records!) is indeed an odd way to react to this. After all, the assessment of the "tone" is a judgement call. If author was a superior by rank, then it's a matter of upholding the internal policies, which should not start with a "reprimand" but communicating the policies, giving training, helping to adopt it. This process can as well be delegated to avoid direct confrontation and unnecessary tension and guilt. Putting someone in a hot seat to "help me understand" is something from Great Inquisitor's playbook. Didn't someone assign that less experienced team member to deal with the reply to the external contact? Let _that_ person deal with the fallout accordingly.

sequoia 6y ago

One major point I'd add in giving corrective feedback and coaching teammates or subordinates away from "bad behaviors" is "Rome was not built in a day." Don't try to correct or address everything all at once. Rare is the person who can hear five criticisms of their behavior all at once and make productive use of the feedback rather than becoming defensive. Effectively influencing people's behavior while maintaining trust takes time. If someone is doing 3 things you don't like, pick the one you want to address in the next 2-6 weeks, and let the other ones slide for the time being. If you're building long-term relationships, there will be more time, and as you build trust giving (and receiving) feedback becomes easier for all parties. Urgency is the enemy in this situation.

bergstromm466 6y ago
> Effectively influencing people's behavior Would a more constructive way to describe this be: 'helping people to grow'? To me 'influencing' sounds covert and without consent. They would also personally benefit from using the strategies you'd like them to employ, right? Why try to 'influence' them, when it could be something achieved with their full participation and consent? Then it becomes something you've done together, instead of you having successfully 'influenced' them (read: manipulated). When talking about this I do acknowledge the constraints of modern day workplaces, and I think with that comes the importance of showing them the organizational constraints - the challenges you face as a leader or manager, in your role - and being open with them about how their various efforts can support you in that role.
- sequoia 6y ago
  Agree that you are helping them grow, but you are trying to influence their behavior. In the interest of honesty I prefer to call a spade a spade. You'll notice I also use the term "subordinate" which bothers some people, but it's the most descriptive and accurate term possible and avoids euphemism. "My employee" if you're a manager they're not your employee; "a member of my team" that doesn't make clear if they report to you or you're on the same level of the hierarchy; "my direct report" I just find this a weird/confusing turn of phrase whose purpose seems to be avoiding using the term "subordinate."

5cott0 6y ago

How to correct a team member? Hold yourself accountable for your own mistakes first.

KKKKkkkk1 6y ago

What do you do about a peer who blatantly and publicly violates company policies? For example, someone who uploads a secret company document on GitHub so that it's easier for them to work from home. And then they share that document with you and ask you questions about it. On the one hand, you can be a dick about it (i.e., do the right thing and confront them) and pay a personal price. Alternatively, you can let it slide, pretend that nothing happened, and risk an escalation of inappropriate behavior in the future.

em-bee 6y ago
first, answer the question, the explain why sharing the document this way is a problem. if this never happened before, let it go with a warning (if the rules allow that, otherwise apologize and follow the rules that apply to you in this situation)
triceratops 6y ago
You don't have to be a dick to confront them. "Dude...that's not cool. And if HR finds out you'll be in trouble." If they still don't take it down, escalate to your manager.

alex_young 6y ago

I'm impressed that the title of this post points to a better way of delivering feedback than is discussed in the article. This event sounds like a wonderful opportunity to have a 1:1 conversation with the person and tell a story to help them grow. Before talking to your team member, set your own tone internally. This conversation should be friendly, helpful, and constructive. No one should walk away feeling bad about things, but instead leave having strengthened your alignment and hopefully learned something in the process. First, ask them how they think the message they sent was received. Be open to learning new things, such as an intent that wasn't clear to you, or some other details about the interaction that aren't immediately obvious to you. Also be open to and prepared for them to already know there was a problem with it. Paraphrase it back to them if you don't understand something they said. Next, talk through a similar story from your past where you sent a message with similar problems. It doesn't have to be an email, but it's important for you to talk through how you made a similar error. The key is how you identified the problem and identified a better way to handle things in the future. If you honestly and thoughtfully have this conversation with your valuable team member, you will develop empathy and trust that will not only help them learn from the experience, but give both of you a better working relationship for the future.

gct 6y ago
Are you a manager robot? Who slips "valuable team member" into a conversation?

lacker 6y ago

It really depends on who you’re talking to. If you are giving feedback to an experienced, emotionally mature coworker who trusts your judgment and knows you respect them, you can just concisely tell them what you mistake you think they made, and leave it at that. If you are giving feedback to a recent graduate who has a lot of raw talent but is inexperienced, still working to improve their own self-confidence, and doesn’t know you very well yet, then it is wise to take the time to communicate very clearly. That means not making them think something is an enormous problem, when actually it is only a small problem. Some people will have teams of only one of these types of people and think “h the right way to handle this is X” but in my experience it is situational and different people work better with different types of communication.

lmilcin 6y ago

So here's the hard way: Ensure people understand, in general, that when you are correcting them you are doing it for a good reason and that it is always intended to help the other person AND the team. Ensure people understand you are always asking for the same treatment. Make a point to regularly show you follow up on constructive criticism. Don't be too serious when giving criticism. The only time to be serious is when the offense is grave and career ending, you are his/hers superior, and even then only maybe. Never give criticism without honestly complimenting for something else. Never give criticism without honestly giving reasons why you think it was necessary and in the best interest of the person you give criticism to. Never give criticism without seriously considering the point of view of the person you plan to give criticism to. Never give criticism immediately. The times you avoid mistakes when giving criticism will make up for the fact you need to exercise your willpower to wait. If you can't do that, you are probably not a good person to give criticism anyway.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ideal_stingray 6y ago

How can I express a preference to have my managers discuss my mistakes over email, instead of by “gently pulling me aside” and talking in person? I am more comfortable expressing myself in non-real-time text format, especially with topics that feel hurtful. A paragraphs-long, detailed email explanation would be the best way for me to receive feedback!

Antoninus 6y ago

I have a few rules. Be nice and be exceptional at your job.