So if his rules are "point out what went wrong, describe what he wanted, work with the employee to alter things so it wont happen again", where does "punishment" and "distance" come into it at all? Why is it good that for several days his employee feels unable to talk to him about anything? Who does that benefit?
So his expected and desired situation outcome was different from the actual outcome and he's disappointed, or angry, or whatever. Why does that give him the right to 'punish' someone else? His inaccurate mental model (based on a poor understanding of his employee) -> his problem.
What if his 'punishment' doesn't work because the employee isn't "crushed", what if the employee is indifferent to being shouted at or distanced?
The only thing which matters is how to alter things so it's better next time That's it. That might mean process changes, or not giving that responsibility to that employee, or replacing that employee. Anything else is railing against the unchangable past.
(Also, how to deal with children is not a good framework for how to deal with adults).
Why is it good that for several days his employee feels unable to talk to him about anything? Who does that benefit?
Agreed, I am completely uncomfortable with that. Once you indicate to someone that you do not trust them, why should they trust you?
The sad thing is that he is actually sounding reasonable to himself (and to others I am sure), because he is advocating against an even worse behaviour (like yelling at people).
Also, how to deal with children is not a good framework for how to deal with adults
Agreed, but it's not like his childrearing advice is that great either. Yeah, you can threaten to take the lego away from two fighting children, but it's better to teach them the skills to negotiate possession.
I understand why you would be uncomfortable about it. But I firmly believe that giving an employee time to reflect on what went wrong & why is important. And they need distance to achieve this. If you're immediately chummy with them after a failure then this time of reflection is less likely. I know it doesn't sit well with everybody so I'm not asking you to adopt my style. But it is not manipulative and actually is quite effective.
> But I firmly believe that giving an employee time to reflect on what went wrong & why is important. And they need distance to achieve this.
I agree with you on this but I see a distinction between being 'cold and distant' vs 'not chummy'. The latter seems appropriate but the former seems counter productive (at least it would be with me).
My impression is that you mean the latter but I can see how the original post might be read as meaning the former.
So his expected and desired situation outcome was different from the actual outcome and he's disappointed, or angry, or whatever. Why does that give him the right to 'punish' someone else? His inaccurate mental model (based on a poor understanding of his employee) -> his problem.
What if his 'punishment' doesn't work because the employee isn't "crushed", what if the employee is indifferent to being shouted at or distanced?
The only thing which matters is how to alter things so it's better next time That's it. That might mean process changes, or not giving that responsibility to that employee, or replacing that employee. Anything else is railing against the unchangable past.
(Also, how to deal with children is not a good framework for how to deal with adults).