
How Criticizing in Private Undermines Your Team - nikunjk
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/03/how_criticizing_in_private_und.html
======
ChuckMcM
And rather than publicly criticising Ted (see the article) you talk about ways
to avoid these deadline misses in the future.

The problem that HBR misses here is making the issue "about Ted" rather than
"missing the deadline." If you can credibly talk about what was needed to make
the deadline and wasn't there, then you can talk to the solution. Ted may come
up to you in private and say "I'm not sure I can handle this" but they don't
need to feel like a turd.

I once explained to a person that if I asked them to lift a car off the street
would they consider themselves a failure for not being able to do it? or me
unreasonable for asking it? They said it was an unreasonable ask. (which in
that way it is) and then I asked "Ok, so if I said we need that car up and off
the street, can you take care of that?", their response was "What tools can I
use?" and I say "What do you need?", they say "A crane, a crane operator" and
I say "Ok, the crane company will be in touch." Now they are going to achieve
the same thing, "Get the car lifted off the street" but it's not about them,
its about getting what is needed to be done, actually done.

~~~
bguthrie
I love that anecdote and it's a great illustration of the difference between
demanding and empowering. Thanks for sharing.

~~~
gz5
Extending that anecdote, let's consider typical reasons for Ted's failure:

\+ Project not properly defined/scoped \+ Ted not put in role that fits what
he can do \+ Ted not given the right help or tools \+ Ted not given enough
time \+ Ted not getting what he needs from team \+ Ted is incompetent and/or
not engaged \+ Ted is competent and engaged but has some other issue hindering
his work

Only the final two relate directly to Ted, 90% of the time are not the
problem, and in 99% of cases would best be discussed 1:1 with Ted.

The others should be proactively raised by Ted and/or the team, and rarely
impact only one individual. If they aren't raised, putting them on the table
in a team meeting won't fix that problem.

A team discussion meanwhile, 99% of the time, is best focused on how the team
can improve or fix what is broken...as a team. For example a functioning team
would quickly put most of the possible problems listed above on the table.

~~~
BHSPitMonkey
Not to be too harsh on Ted, but in all the above scenarios, isn't he still
responsible for not bringing the issues to discussion some time before the
deadlines passed? That lack of communication on his part is a pretty big
liability, assuming the deadlines are at all important.

~~~
droopyEyelids
Thats the beauty of being in management. The answer to this question is
entirely within the manager's interpretation.

Yes, if you don't like Ted, or if you're harried and doing a bad job, why not
call the whole thing 'his fault'. He should have read your mind, gone beyond
the norm for his job and dreamt outside-the-box solutions to all the problems
you didn't know he would face while providing him with questionable tools to
do the job. And your word is what counts to HR and other managers.

If you're trying to accomplish the task rather than promote yourself or
denigrate Ted, or simply if you're effective, you should take responsibility
for defining the goal, setting realistic expectations, creating failsafes to
stop things before they affect the whole project, and providing proper support
& guidance.

~~~
lifeguard
Someone has worked for Amazon!

------
ebbv
I completely disagree with the approach being suggested in this blog post.
Calling people out by name in the middle of a team meeting is not productive,
it's only going to cause everyone to be uncomfortable and the person called
out to feel terrible and embarrassed. Depending on their personality they may
not be able to function well or think clearly for the rest of the meeting.

It will also cause people to feel a ton of anxiety about missing a deadline
because they know what follows is being called out in the meeting in front of
everyone.

It's much better to talk about these things in private. It's less stressful
and allows you to have a more in depth conversation if necessary without
everybody being present. In particular if the problem is stemming from the
interactions between team members, having everyone present will make it harder
to get to that point.

Let me give an example; say the problem is like that in the article, that Ted
has missed two deadlines. But say the problem is due to Ted needing something
from Joan he didn't get in time, which pushed him back. Or Joan's code was
buggy and Ted had to spend time debugging it, etc.

If you call out Ted in the middle of the meeting one of two things happen
depending on Ted's personality:

1) Ted clams up and just takes the blame as a pariah for the team, not wanting
to make further waves.

or

2) Ted says it's all really Joan's fault and the whole meeting degrades into a
shit storm.

Neither of these is good.

Calling people out in public is a horrible practice, and it's amazing to me
it's being seriously suggested here.

You can absolutely make the team feel included and feel responsible to each
other to deliver without calling people out by name. In the meeting you can
say "We've had some slipped deadlines lately, and after talking to everybody
it seems like the problems are stemming from A, B and C. Do you all agree? Is
there anything else? Ok let's find some solutions to these problems. My ideas
are X, Y and Z." etc.

~~~
lifeguard
ebbv is correct. NEVER criticize a worker in front of others. ALWAYS praise a
worker in front of a group; or better yet -- do not single individuals out at
all.

TFA is a false dichotomy. Publish metrics to promote team accountability.

~~~
MartinCron
_NEVER criticize a worker in front of others_

Especially if that "worker" is your boss, and the "others" is the entire team.
I figured that one out exactly one day too late.

~~~
lifeguard
I advise one only have "frank exchanges of ideas" with one's boss!

------
rgbrenner
"In the case of Ted, you could start by saying something like, "I'm noticing
two patterns in our meetings. First, Ted, this looks like the third time in a
month where you haven't met a deadline for the team. Am I off? [Assuming Ted
agrees, you continue.] The second pattern is that each time Ted says he hasn't
met a deadline, I notice the rest of you — Fran, Alex, and Sheryl — sigh or
shake your head, but you don't say anything to Ted. Am I on target? [Assuming
people agree, you continue.] Since these meetings are the place for solving
problems and the team can't meet its deadlines if Ted doesn't meet his, I'm
curious, what leads you not to say something to Ted in the meetings?""

If I'm Ted, this is a very uncomfortable meeting... and from the sound of
things, will be going down hill very quickly.

~~~
rgbrenner
(Guess I could add a little more to this.) Not only is the manager shaming Ted
publicly, but he also assigned some blame to Fran, Alex, and Sheryl for not
saying anything to Ted when he missed the deadline. Fran, Alex, and Sheryl
aren't going to think that is fair -- it's Ted's responsibility.. so they are
going to shift the blame back to Ted during the meeting.

The first thing they say is: If Ted needed help to meet the deadline, he
should have asked us for help.

So now Ted is being criticized for missing the deadline, and not asking for
help from his teammates.

This would be a very bad day for Ted; and Fran, Alex, and Sheryl are not going
to appreciate being included in the criticism of Ted's missed deadline by
their manager (ie: they'll have a more negative opinion of their manager for
not assigning the blame properly/fairly).

~~~
kevingadd
That's not how a healthy team should work. If your team is actually working
properly, there is absolutely shared responsibility. Peak productivity is way,
way lower if things only happen when your manager tells you to do them.

~~~
rgbrenner
That is the way I imagine that meeting would go if it started off with the
quote from the article. I don't imagine a team with a manager like that is
'healthy'

I agree with the idea expressed the article (shifting accountability to the
team as a whole instead of putting it solely on the manager).. but the way
they suggest going about it is terrible (IMO).

------
run4yourlives
Woah - Stop.

This is horrible advice, for more than a few reasons.

First - there is almost _never_ a dynamic of "equals" at a boardroom table.
There is always a recognized hierarchy, defined or not. Given that, a senior
member critiquing a member junior to him but senior to others at the table
undermines that person's position in the group. Unless you are into discarding
team members, that's not a smart thing to do.

Second - Nobody likes to be critiqued, and it takes a lot of maturity to
accept it and more importantly to properly (and positively) correct the
behaviour in the future. A "private" situation where the person doesn't need
to worry about saving face creates the best possible environment for this
happening.

Third - If being "outed" is a consequence of action, the result is that action
itself becomes less desirable and behaviour more conservative. This is a bad
thing if you are trying to create a business that grows. If you aren't making
mistakes, you aren't doing anything at all. The goal is not "no mistakes",
it's "as few mistakes as possible".

Forth - High performers are already harbouring guilt when they fail. They are
their own worst critics. There is nothing served by reinforcing these negative
feelings. Poor performers and/or slackers are only going to rebel against
being made a fool of.

Fifth - The assumption is that "Praise publicly, critique privately" is
somehow commonplace. I can tell you that outside of the military, nothing I've
seen seems to indicate that, and I've been working for some 20 years now.

I could continue but I think that's long enough. I must say though that I'm
disturbed that the author is a psychologist.

~~~
pnathan
> Fifth - The assumption is that "Praise publicly, critique privately" is
> somehow commonplace. I can tell you that outside of the military, nothing
> I've seen seems to indicate that, and I've been working for some 20 years
> now.

Were you in the military? If so, how did the _"Praise publicly, critique
privately"_ work out in practice?

~~~
run4yourlives
Yes, 5 years in the Infantry (Canada). Both sides of the spectrum from a team
perspective.

I think one thing the military does really well is critique. Nothing you ever
do is perfect. There's always something someone will find for you to do better
next time,even if it's the best piece of tactics anyone has ever seen. This is
particularly for team leaders.

People see the yelling and screaming of bootcamp and figure that's just the
way life in the army is. It isn't. These are shock courses specifically
designed for stress purposes. Real learning takes place calmly and with a more
cooperative technique, particularly when training leaders, but also when
learning more advanced weapon systems and/or techniques, and almost always
when discussing tactics.

Thinking back now, there are many periods for peer-review (never lower than
peer), but in these instances are almost always done in collaborative training
sessions, where it is recognized that people are going to make mistakes and
that everyone will receive both positive and negative feedback. One thing I
realize is that while they are teaching a future leader on receiving critique,
they are also teaching future leaders on how to critique. In the army it's
very similar to a post game report of a sports team. I've not seen too much of
that in a boardroom... everyone looks to deflect blame instead of improve the
team performance.

Your personal performance reviews - where it counts - are always done
privately, usually over a set discussion between you and your direct
superiors. Publicly shaming a leader in front of junior troops is pretty much
forbidden. Regardless of how much of a fuck-up a person may be, you can't have
his troops thinking that he's not worth listening too.

~~~
tomjen3
Based on what you wrote it seems that the military has a "we are all in this
together" mentality whereas the board has a "what is in it for me" attitude.
If so, can you transfer your military experience to civilian life?

~~~
run4yourlives
Heh, we try to... it's difficult. (And the military isn't exactly all roses
either).

------
RyanZAG
What the author of the article is advocating is to use a failing team member
as a method of rallying support and cooperation from the rest of the team by
publicly throwing them under the bus. This really is fairly effective, at
least in the short term, and a large number of very successful leaders have
used this practice well. Giving the rest of the team a common enemy and a
'mark' they need to make sure they stay ahead of is effective and commonly
used in military training.

However, it's just morally awful and I doubt (hope?) it's not actually more
effective than just building a team where you don't have to do this.

If an employee is consistently missing deadlines, it's the fault of whoever
put that employee in that position - either the employee was mis-hired, the
tasks given to the employee are not do-able with his skillset, he hasn't been
given enough support to accomplish the task, etc. Criticizing in private is
just as bad as in public here - you need to stop criticizing and fix the
problem at the root cause!

~~~
run4yourlives
>Giving the rest of the team a common enemy and a 'mark' they need to make
sure they stay ahead of is effective and commonly used in military training.

Of course where you see this used to its most effective form is when the
person that is "marked" is expendable. You'll see it in basic training where
everyone knows that person is doomed and it's either the team pulls them
through or they are failed. You'll never see it once you get to a proper unit.

If you are doing that in the boardroom of your team, you should probably
review your hiring practices more than anything else.

------
mikeyouse
HBR is a perfect reflection of the management consulting world.

Both will suggest something completely contrary to popular opinion in an
effort to remain relevant and edgy. Much of the research is performed by or at
the behest of the organization which stands to benefit from it. After they
make the case and sell people on the new 'paradigm', even newer research will
show that the old way is better after all.

See:

> Vertical vs. Horizontal markets

> Flat vs. Hierarchical org structures

> Outsourcing vs. Insourcing

> Specialization vs. Generalization

> Pretty much everything that HBR has ever printed

~~~
digikata
Maybe they're just stimulating the Hawthorne Effect:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect>

Or, as one of my more cynical co-workers put it, they're blurring the lines of
management so that no one ever knows who or what exactly failed.

------
jtbigwoo
I've noticed an interesting pattern in my management style. When I'm in a
dysfunctional organiation, I have to focus so much energy shielding my people
from the dysfunction that my team is generally self-organizing and fairly
efficient. When I'm in a functional organization, I can spend more time on my
team and I end up putting myself in the middle of everything rather having the
team organize itself. I have to keep reminding myself to let the team members
handle their own intra-team issues. In some ways it's a tougher assignment
because I'm not just reacting to whatever ridiculous issues are coming out of
the other groups.

------
onemorepassword
I find it shocking how negative people here react to the simple act of saying
out loud what everybody in the room already knows but doesn't dare to say.

IMHO there is something seriously dysfunctional about a team in which
addressing what everyone already knows constitutes "publicly throwing someone
under the bus".

We're dealing with adult professionals here, not a bunch of kids.

OTOH, not being able to deal with anything remotely resembling criticism in a
mature way is one of the reason people find it so hard to work with
developers.

I think there are some areas in which we shouldn't be expecting "management"
to pander to our specific quirks, and this is one of them. People who want to
be empowered, independent and not micro-managed should be able to deal with
some gentle criticism.

~~~
tunesmith
I think this phrasing is really slanted.

Premise 1: everybody in a room knows it

Premise 2: Nobody is saying it

Conclusion: It must be that no one dares to say it, as in, people are afraid.

Next conclusion: The premises mean they are a bunch of kids, not adult
professionals (because adults will say sensitive things out loud while kids
won't?)

Next conclusion: The premises mean that the participants are unable to deal
with anything remotely resembling criticism.

Next conclusion: Failure of management to say it out in front of everyone is
an example of pandering to quirks.

Final (implied) conclusion: The participants should not reasonably want to be
empowered, independent, and not micro-managed (since they are unable to deal
with anything remotely resembling criticism).

The obvious counterpoint to all these conclusions is that there may very well
be a better way of handling the situation other than saying it out loud in
front of everyone.

~~~
onemorepassword
In defense of premise 1: if the team members in the room are unaware of the
fact that one of them is under performing, it's not a team. You have an
entirely different kind of problem.

In defense of premise 2: that's pretty much the whole premise of the article,
if people do bring it up then whatever problem you may have, team members not
holding each other accountable isn't one of them.

But this really, really annoys me (and not just me, it's one of the thing I
keep hearing from people find it hard to work with us geeks): _"a better way
of handling the situation other than saying it out loud in front of
everyone"_.

For fuck sake, it's not like you're outing someones sexual preference for pink
ponies in front of their parents and loved ones!

It's about the work, the stuff you're getting paid to do, and it's not even a
criticism, it's an observation, nobody is blaming anybody.

------
MattRogish
I agree that criticizing in private creates a situation where group
accountability is lost. It's not that Ted is accountable to the Boss (or by
proxy, the organization) but primarily to the team.

This is why we tend to not have individual deadlines but self organizing teams
that commit to deadlines, and then the team is collectively on the hook for
something.

That said, sometimes it's obvious when someone messes up, and it should be the
team that provides accountability and support to help.

It's not that everyone in the team should nag Ted but that anyone should be
able to go "Hey Ted, we said that we were gonna have those copy changes pushed
to the website by 5p, and it's 3p and I haven't seen the commits yet. Do you
need some help?"

If Ted says "No, I got this" and then misses the 5p, it's up to the team to
figure out what happened. Was it Ted slacking off, in over his head? Or did
Bob break the build so it was all-hands trying to fix it?

And, it shouldn't be "found out" in a meeting a couple of days later. Close
the feedback loop as soon as possible and that'll ensure it won't get out of
control.

------
DanielBMarkham
Oh boy. Bit of overgeneralizing in that article.

First, if you have direct reports, especially if they are mangers, odds-are
that you don't have a team. You are a middle manager. I conclude you're not a
team because you're having special meetings to communicate, instead of letting
communication happen organically (because you are already working informally
in close physical proximity)

In this case, if you don't have a team, you need one. So follow all that
advice in the article. Plus there's a bunch more advice about creating a team
that you should find and follow.

But if you have a team, you need to separate two things: the failed promise of
performance from one of your team members, and the underlying reasons this
might be happening.

You should absolutely hold people publicly accountable for the things they
have committed to doing. Invite the team as a whole to own the problem instead
of just one person. Many heads are better than one. The team is a
tremendously-powerful problem-solving machine. Give them this problem to see
what they can come up with.

However -- and this is a big caveat -- people might be missing commitments for
reasons they do not want to share publicly. They may have a health problem.
They may be having domestic problems in their marriage. They may have a
private issue which prevents them from doing well in a certain type of work.

In this case, after publicly acknowledging that there is a performance problem
with the team (which should probably happen on a continuous basis until the
team either adapts or it gets fixed) you absolutely should comfort and counsel
your friend offline in these other areas, assuming your conversation is
welcome. And this counseling will probably consist of reminding your friend
that either this obstacle is overcome or their relationship with the team
could terminate.

------
ropman76
I have been criticized in front of the team and the only thing it helped me do
is start searching for a new job faster. It sounds like a good idea in theory
but I would like to see a few more practical real life examples of how to make
this work before I would dream of implementing something like this.

~~~
jtbigwoo
What do people think about offering first time criticisms in private? I've had
pretty good results with employees by saying something like, "We have you here
for a reason. We know that you're good. So far on this project you've been
learning/on cruise control/ramping up/adjusting but we can't afford that now.
Now is the time to produce."

If that doesn't work, then bring it up in a team meeting while focusing on the
task rather than the person.

------
ChikkaChiChi
If you are conducting a team meeting, then the subject at hand is the team and
the tangibles and intangibles associated with that team.

If you are changing the narrative to focus on one individual member of the
team, you are off agenda and losing productivity for no good reason.

In a positive work environment, the team chemistry should allow for peer
review and correction. Only when its clear that a person needs more help
should the team manager step in.

If you are doing your job right and you are dealing with a professional, the
person receiving the critique should already have the situational awareness to
know they were having issues. Therefore, nobody benefits by dragging the
person out to be humiliated in front of their peers.

At best, you'll make some egotist in the group feel superior and everyone else
will begin positioning themselves to not be the slowest wildebeest on the
savannah next time you get hungry.

If you lead through feer and persecution, you set the bar for the barest
minimum needed to get by. If you empower your talent, you hand them the keys
to the Ferrari and ask them to go as far as their limits will allow.

------
Ovid
Thank you, Harvard Business Review, for letting everyone else know that having
Ivy League credentials doesn't mean you walk on water.

When you have the leader, in the example shown, publicly dressing down "Ted"
and then asking for validation from the rest of the team ("Am I off? Am I on
target?"), you're not only saying to everyone "I'm willing to publicly
humiliate you, too", but you're also saying something which can easily be
misconstrued as "I need your validation because I'm a bit unsure of myself"
and leaving yourself wide open to revolt from the team with the validating
questions. Just one or two disgruntled employees can cause things to spin
rapidly out of control.

Instead, when I have a situation like this I take Ted privately off to the
side and say "Ted, I expect X, but I saw that you did Y. Why is that?"

When said appropriately, Ted might say "actually, I did Y because of Z" and
then if you find out that Ted had a good reason to see the situation
differently, you didn't just charge in guns-a-blazin' to publicly humiliate
him only to make an ass out of yourself (I've seen this happen more than
once).

If you're good at your job, Ted is usually wrong, so you explain to Ted why X
is important and the consequences of Y and work to eliminate the underlying
problem (which may very well be Ted himself). Once your team learns that
you're willing to hear them out but you're going to take corrective action
when needed, you can earn their respect. Publicly humiliating them by calling
them out in a team meeting, however, is completely unprofessional.

------
btilly
First reaction, why is Ted missing deadlines?

In software development, the #1 reason why this happens is that the schedules
were initially decided not on the basis of what is reasonable, but as the
first date that nobody could disprove. After that it is guaranteed that
schedules will be missed, and that is used as a club to beat the developers
into working faster.

The only thing is that it doesn't work. If you try to motivate software
developers with schedule pressure, you get worse software and demotivated
developers. This is connected with personalities and type of work. For example
a similar approach applied to sales people does improve sales. However
research indicates that accurate schedule estimates improves development
speed.

Therefore an article that accepts that missed deadlines are primarily the
fault of the manager who cannot make the deadlines, without stopping to think
about whether the schedule might not be reasonable, is deeply flawed when
applied to software.

------
Torrents
Ugh...this reminds me of the last Apprentice I watched where Trump asked
everyone on one of the teams who their weakest player was. None of them wanted
to answer but they all ended up naming Gary Busey. Staged or not, the entire
exchange was _incredibly_ awkward and seemed like a sadistic management style.
Busey afterwards was hurt and withdrew socially.

Similar to what others have said, I think any feedback given in public needs
to be productive and very careful to avoid shaming people. Pointing out that
Ted missed his target and finding out why in the meeting is uncomfortable, but
it's not labeling them as the weakest or as a serial failure.

I would probably ask Ted in the meeting why he missed his target and what
tools or resources he needs to not miss it next time. The meeting is the
perfect time to find out what resources or assistance others can or should
provide to hit the goal.

------
Millennium
The problem with this approach is that there's a difference between public
criticism and public shaming, and most people (myself included) have an
imperfect grasp of that difference. There's a time and a place for both, but
the workplace is usually neither the time nor place for a shame session.

This is not only a problem for team leaders, though they see it through a
different lens than others. For a team leader, the problem lies in figuring
out how to publicly criticize a team member without obliterating team morale,
which can over time do even more damage than the original problem. If the
article's examples are any indication, its own author is not very good at this
either: the meeting comes across grossly inappropriate if not outright
sadistic in its treatment of Ted.

But that's a leadership-specific thing. If we're going to say that public
criticism is part of good leadership, then we can say people who aren't good
at it are not good leaders. There is, however, a flip side: it counts on team
members to be able to split some very fine hairs, to take criticism without
allowing it to affect morale. Almost no one can really do this well, yet this
management style requires all team members to be able to do so. It's the team-
full-of-rockstars mentality all over again, except that this time they need to
be rockstars at something that doesn't actually have anything to do with the
task at hand.

------
bcgraham
Has anyone seen a situation like this before where it turns out Ted just
wasn't really up to snuff as a team member? In my (limited) experience, this
has never turned out to be a recoverable situation; the team basically hobbles
along a) until Ted quits, b) until Ted is fired, c) forever.

~~~
RougeFemme
This is exactly what I've been thinking as I've been reading through the
comments. Yes, I've been in this situation a number of times. The manager
can/should do whatever can be done (training, etc.) to bring Ted up to snuff.
The last time this happened, the team really tried to help Ted, but ended up
working around him so that we would _not_ be hobbled, but we all resented Ted
_and_ and the manager. . .and all the previous managers who had allowed Ted to
hang around. We did become somewhat more self-managing as a team, but we kind
of staged a mini-revolt against our manager - and _her_ manager to do it.

~~~
asthasr
The key is that, most of the time, good team members don't _need_
reprimanding. They bring up problems to their manager and teammates on their
own. If they aren't going to meet their deadlines, they tell people.

------
16s
So what do you do when you have a guy who continually fails to complete his
tasks? I mean you can't praise him publicly. It's obvious to everyone that he
fails.

You need to let him know that he is not meeting expectations and I feel that
should happen privately. And if he continues to fail, then there has to be
consequences, otherwise the team will think it's unfair. Other team members
have to meet expectations, but Ted is special and can repeatedly fail and get
away with it... so the whole team starts slacking off too and cite Ted as the
reason _why_ they can slack off.

Sooner or later, someone has to convince Ted to change or fire him.

~~~
xb95
In my experience with an underperforming employee on my team, it was exactly
like this. Everybody knew what the problem was; they were constantly talking
about him in my one-on-ones. "Man, Ted did this thing and it pissed me off."
"Ted didn't do his job again." "Ted dropped the ball on this project." There
was a lot of frustration.

I don't think that publicly shaming him in the team meetings would have done
any good. There would have been blood in the water and that would have just
been a bad meeting. I've certainly been in meetings where that's happened and
nobody walks out feeling good -- it's so easy to let the fire catch you and
out come the pitchforks... it's just ugly. People should have the chance to
redeem themselves. If you've chosen to humiliate them them in public, though,
that becomes a serious long-shot.

In my case, after several months of working with my particular Ted I did let
him go. It was the right call for the team -- and for him, I think. (Although
I admit that might be hubris; I hope it was the right thing for him.)

------
gadders
I get the point they are trying to make, but I think there is a middle way.

On one extreme you have not comment, and then challenge Ted privately. At the
other extreme, you have the option of telling Ted in his meeting his
performance is poor.

I think, in a status update meeting, there is a middle path which is to
challenge Ted on the reason his deadlines were missed, and to drill down on
those reasons and further challenge them if they're not adequate. That way
you're not personally criticising Ted, but you're letting him (and the team)
know that he has things that need to improve.

------
mprovost
This is one of the problems that the Agile/Scrum methodologies address. The
team is a self organising group where each individual commits to a certain
amount of work and the team periodically presents their results to management
(aka the Product Owner). There isn't a layer where Management assigns
individual tasks and measures performance, it is all done within the team and
the team is judged as a whole. Which places the responsibility on the team
itself to manage their own performance, which is what the article is saying
should be the goal. If Ted isn't pulling his weight and getting through the
tasks that he has agreed to do, it affects the whole team and there should be
peer pressure (which can be positive) to perform better. The Scrum Master is
there to remove any obstacles that are preventing him from getting things
done. The article is talking about building a self managing team which is what
Agile is all about.

------
SworDsy
i think this has an interesting parallel (isomorphism if you enjoy abstract
algebra) to society in general;

if you shame someone like that, they won't feel good and it probably won't
make them perform better at work. you have to be reasonable with them too, if
you're too mean they won't like you which doesn't foster good teamwork. except
here the company is the country and deadlines are economic achievements and
such.

that being said i appreciate the sentiment here, you have to feel responsible
to the team because you're a part of it, upon doing that you'll get the best
out of people i find, although thats never an easy balance to find either.

~~~
re_todd
Yeah, I think it often backfires. Long ago I thought I did a good job on one
of my first projects, would work after-hours on it for fun, and my co-worker
said I was doing a good job. But the client started to publicly shame me in
the meetings, which would just demoralize me. I stopped working any extra
hours. The hours I was at the job I spent half the time worried that I was
going to be fired not getting much work done.

------
drucken
This is common in much of the finance industry, well, at least banks anyway.

In fact, I would be surprised if anyone could come up with a more systematic
and brutal example of this method than that practiced, oddly enough, at the
world's largest hedge fund, Bridgewater Associates.

The founder even has a manifesto that represents the basis of the "radically
transparent" workplace culture called _"Principles of Ray Dalio"_ :

[http://www.bwater.com/Uploads/FileManager/Principles/Bridgew...](http://www.bwater.com/Uploads/FileManager/Principles/Bridgewater-
Associates-Ray-Dalio-Principles.pdf)

------
tbatterii
i might have missed it but where's the leaders accountability in this
scenario?

Maybe I'm lucky but, throughout my career I have witnessed or have been a part
of teams that pulled off the miracles under ridiculous conditions that were
the direct result of poor planning and unreasonable timelines. The occasion
where an individual worker bee was not pulling their weight has been a very
rare occurrence compared the number of times managers failed to plan
appropriately and they rarely have held themselves accountable.

------
joecomotion
I hate being in team meetings where we're discussing a failure and avoid
talking about individual actions/responsibilities leading up to the issue.
Don't make it personal, but do make clear what went wrong and who made
mistakes.

If everyone is responsible, no one is responsible.

Principle #15 here weighs in on this:
[http://www.greenwichharborpartners.com/uploads/Principles_by...](http://www.greenwichharborpartners.com/uploads/Principles_by_Ray_Dalio_-
_Selected_Sections_5-30-12.pdf)

------
rjzzleep
i can't believe the amount of negative responses here.

in my experience, when more people criticize it makes teams nicer to work
with. someone screws up, you can tell them, and they'll fix it no harm done.
usually this dynamic goes away with a real "manager" thrown into the mix.

take dynamic young companies for example. the boss has no qualms being called
out by his coworkers. "hey, you did that wrong", "oh xyz is right, thanks for
correcting me". in case of basho that was a public tweet. does it mean people
think that guy is stupid? I think that guy is probably nice to work with.

don't forget that conflict exists. it always does. treating your employees
like stupid kids that, and every negative emotion as non existant is
irrational.

every war/major conflict happened because people have tried to suppress these
natural conflicts in a sea of false happiness.

------
AmrMostafa
I see many comments disagreeing with the article about criticizing Ted in
public, and I also disagree with that. However, the article makes a fine point
which is to make the team members accountable to the team and not to you (the
leader).

------
alexqgb
This seems like atrocious advice. Here's the bit that seemed especially
misguided:

"Ted may tell you that other team members made it difficult for him to meet
his deadlines, that it's not his fault; at that point, you're likely to become
a human ping-pong ball, shuttling back and forth between Ted and other team
members trying to understand the problem. The information to solve this
problem lies with Ted and the other team members."

Note the pejorative way Roger characterizes the effort needed to understand
the operations of what is (ostensibly) his own team: "Shuttling back and forth
like a ping-pong ball trying to understand the problem."

That's one way of looking at in. Another way is "doing your (expletive) job."

If the manager doesn't understand what's happening with the way his team is
working, that's a serious problem - even in cases where the team isn't
failing. "Researching" the issue by herding everyone into a room for a round
of mutual recriminations has got to be the worst approach possible.

Far better to grasp the problem discreetly through a series of private
conversations in which people feel they can be candid, work out possible
solutions from there, and get everyone together when you're ready to discuss
viable solutions. That way, the team participates in the decision, while the
manager retains control of the situation by displaying a vital combination of
leadership and situational awareness.

At no point should any manager undermine his own authority by running a
session like the one described here, in which the clear subtext is "I have no
idea what's going on with my team, and I'm too lazy and/or incompetent to
figure it out myself, so I'm just going to tell them to lace into each other
and observe from the sidelines." Aside from fostering intense distrust among
colleagues, the manager undermines the respect and authority that his own job
depends on.

So no, this isn't a good argument against the normally solid rule about
delivering criticism in private.

The only exception I can think of to the "criticize in private" rule is when
what's called for is actually punishment for abuse of colleagues. For
instance, if Ted had no trouble meeting his deadlines, but couldn't talk to
women without making sexist remarks, then it's entirely appropriate to shut
him down in public - preferably in full view of whoever he demeaned, along
with anyone else who witnessed his affront. Concluding by saying that you'll
fire him on the spot if you catch him doing it again will not only get through
to Ted, it will also light up the grapevine, putting everyone on notice that
the No Asshole Rule is in full effect.

But again, that has nothing to do with performance, except to the degree that
people perform much better when they feel that their managers are looking out
for them, and are fearless about protecting anyone on their staff from
humiliating attack. This is the stuff that deep loyalty is made of. Roger's
advice points in the opposite direction, fostering the "everyone look out for
themselves" climate that leads to major losses when the "team" that operates
this way goes up against a truly solid team with a strong and respected
manager.

------
LatvjuAvs
At some point in life you have to step out of diapers and accept challenge,
accept disagreement, accept envy, accept talk-down, accept criticism.

Either way, there is no correct way.

------
alekseyk
If he is the'boss', he should bring Ted into his office and explain him what
is going on and suggest improvements.

If this happens to a co-worker who you are friends with you can freely talk to
them about the issue.

In most cases I experienced, I tend to distance my self from people who 'do
work with their mouth' and are generally full of shit if I do not manage them.
It's up to their superior to recognize those faults.

Good manager/boss should recognize such issues and address them. You don't
want half of your team growing desperate and frustrated that a single member
is not pulling their weight.

------
andyl
I've got a different approach.

1) Train staff how to define SMART objectives (Specific, Measurable,
Actionable, Relevant, Timely) 2) Let them create and present their objectives
to the group periodically (weekly, monthly, quarterly) 3) Then let them self-
report the outcomes for the prior period, and give the group a chance to
discuss and give feedback.

With this practice I can put more focus on training and standards, get less
involved in operational details, and worry less about my performance as
meeting ringleader.

