
How to correct a team member: avoid my damaging rookie mistakes - chrismdp
https://deliverydoubled.com/correcting-a-team-member-avoid-my-damaging-rookie-mistakes/
======
matwood
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.

~~~
arikr
\- Only correct for things where the benefit of the correction outweighs the
reduction in motivation that often comes with being corrected (e.g. if it's a
critical correction, do it! but if it's a non-important benefit, consider
skipping it)

~~~
refurb
This is a great point actually. As a manager I had to "let go" of the small
stuff and let the person learn on their own. Happy to share my own opinion,
but left the decision up to them.

Nothing worse than getting "correction" about trivial things.

~~~
nostromo95
Ha. My personality tends towards letting small stuff go, but I work in
management consulting, and so I end up having to be horrifically pedantic
about spelling, formatting, etc. with my reports...

Luckily the entire organization is like this, but it definitely extracts a
moral cost.

------
sequoia
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
> 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
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."

~~~
praxulus
"Direct report" does make some sense, because everyone under a higher level
manager would be their subordinate, but it would be strange for them to be
trying to individually influence the behavior of an indirect report. Leave
that to their manager.

------
torstenvl
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.

~~~
sequoia
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
> 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.

------
loopz
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
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.

------
lmilcin
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.

------
bengale
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
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.

------
stepbeek
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
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...

------
alex_young
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
Are you a manager robot? Who slips "valuable team member" into a conversation?

------
zoomablemind
> ...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.

------
lacker
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.

------
nikk1
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.

------
KKKKkkkk1
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.

~~~
triceratops
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.

------
JoeAltmaier
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?"

~~~
s17n
I've been practicing this for years, I think I'm pretty good at it, and I've
come to believe it's actually incredibly toxic. I think that the primary
effect of this communication style is actually to inhibit real discussion of
the issues at hand, by making the needs/wants of the various parties the
center of the conversation and immediately moving away from an open dialog and
into a negotiation.

I think that there are two uses of this type of communication:

\- One or more of the parties doesn't really give a shit about the other
party's opinions, so a negotiation is the only conversation to be had.

\- One or more of the parties is generally incapable of having a disagreement
with somebody without it upsetting them.

I think that one or both of these describes a large percentage of workplace
conversations, which is why 'non violent communications' is so useful, but
they are both bad situations that we should strive to fix, not work around.

(I treat separately a third case where NVC style is useful - one or more of
the parties is an asshole - since I think it's pretty generally understood
that this is a situation that needs to be fixed.)

~~~
waterhouse
> > 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?"

> [...] I think that the primary effect of this communication style is
> actually to inhibit real discussion of the issues at hand, by making the
> needs/wants of the various parties the center of the conversation and
> immediately moving away from an open dialog and into a negotiation.

Hmm, would a simple fix be to pause at one of the earlier steps and ask for
clarification? For example, after step 2: "Does that seem like a reasonable or
understandable reaction?"; after step 3: "What do you think of all the above?"
Is it really taught to always deliver it all in one go?

(Background: I've heard several people describe NVC and have read a bit, but
haven't taken an official class. I also wouldn't be surprised if there is wide
variance between "NVC in theory", "NVC as taught by this or that person", and
"NVC in practice".)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
NVC in practice is quite useful for a boss to address behavior without
escalation. In that case, its not important to enable discussion. Its
important to get the job moving forward. And to find out if that's not going
to happen, so alternatives can be selected (moving the person to a different
task; providing resources so they can succeed; or even letting the person go).

Remember its a business with business goals. Not to be heartless but to earn
pay, some performance is required.

~~~
s17n
The problem is that it can be and is used in other contexts. It's a dark
conversational art.

------
ideal_stingray
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!

------
5cott0
How to correct a team member? Hold yourself accountable for your own mistakes
first.

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

