How to talk about a problem
I don't know a lot about this stuff. I have some instincts, some habits, and some things I try to remember, but it's worth noting that the only time I've considered writing at length on interpersonal issues, I wanted to write about listening not telling. It's probably also worth noting that people in a business context often tell me I'm too nice. So, any advice I have to offer about how to talk about a problem is coming from a mild person.
Anyhow.
One way to offer feedback is to lead with "you didn't do this thing right."
If we were blocking a play, our two people would be standing face to face. There'd be something broken between them, and "you did this."
There is not a lot of room to work in those conditions: If you're the one leading with "you didn't do this," you're not suggesting you care much about the context, or the why, or what your part in the failure might be. If you're a leader you need to be curious about those things:
- Did I make my expectations clear and express myself in a way that could be understood?
- Did I make sure I was understood in some manner besides asking a perfunctory "do you understand?"
- Did I help create the conditions that would allow my expectations to be met?
- Is there anything in this person's context right now that would make meeting my expectations hard for them?
If you act in a way that suggests those things never cross your
mind, you're going to get blame-shifting, excuses, defensiveness, and
eventually fairly scalding feedback directed at you about your myriad
failings as a manager.
Another way to offer feedback is to block the scene a little differently, leading with "this thing didn't work and we should learn why."
Our stage direction has you and the other person standing next to each other, looking at the broken thing together, and there's much more room for them to work.
- They have space to suggest what about the operating environment, their personal context, or this particular situation was working against them.
- They are less apt to respond defensively or in a blame-shifting manner, because they're less likely to feel under direct threat. You're more likely to get useful feedback about where you could have done better as a leader.
Now, this strategy to raising an issue can go sideways.
I've worked with people who know how to take a blameless conversation
and use it to distract from their own accountability. So in the back of
your head, it should not be "good job, me, for having a blameless
conversation and we're done here," because all we're doing is proposing
a strategy for getting at the truth efficiently based on what we know
about how humans act when we point at them and blame as opposed to stand
next to them and analyze.
Therefore, having gathered the context, assessed the brokenness in the system or environment, and having assessed yourself for communications gaps or lack of clarity, you still have to uphold the standard.
I know some leaders who govern all this inside a "count to three" loop that borrows from a James Bond novel:
“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action”
Or, as slightly restated by an old manager of mine:
"The first time, it's just something that happened. The second time could be a coincidence. If you get to three it's real signal."
I'd still suggest you shouldn't point a finger and blame. I'd
suggest you ask them what your mutual plan is for not getting to four.
And if you get to four, that probably ought to be the start of a new
loop around expected improvements.