Forums

I've been doing the feedback model for months now, and find it very effective. However, I have consciously been withholding feeback when I don't have a good suggestion for the "what can you do differently?".

I know the behavior the person is doing, and the result, but not how to fix it. [b]Is it acceptable to give the feedback, but not have a clue on how to fix it?[/b]

bflynn's picture

I'm not sure the feedback model implies that you make a suggestion on how your direct will fix the issue. The intent is that they own the problem and the solution. Don't put any more monkeys on your own back by solving the problem too.

Certainly, its good to have an idea in your back pocket if they can't suggest a way to fix the problem. But I wouldn't think that you not knowing how implies that you should not give the feedback.

I'm curious - what kind of negative behavior is not correctable? PM is fine if you don't want to post it.

Brian

jwyckoff's picture

[quote="bflynn"]
I'm curious - what kind of negative behavior is not correctable?
[/quote]

The situation is when there is negative behavior that is partially the person's responsibility, and partially out of their control. For example, the person is late with a project. There are many factors that negatively impact this person's ability to deliver on time [b]consistently[/b].

Some of it is their behavior (not planning ahead, etc.). A solid percentage of it is external factors (production issues that consume a large and unpredictable amount of time), constantly changing priorities from management, etc.

It's like telling one of our junior leaders in the military, "when you don't win the war in Iraq... here's what happens..." Do really say, "what can you do differently?"

Thoughts?

attmonk's picture

I would say the "what can we do differently" still applies. If they are late because someone else missed a deadline then there is still something they can do differently, they could check sooner for example.

Turn it around, if you have missed your deadline because of them, what are YOU going to do differently next time? This may help form an idea for you to use with them.

Andy

Mark's picture
Admin Role Badge

Yes, you can give feedback to behavior you don't know how to correct.

First, as mentioned, you're not responsible for changing their behavior. They are. Even if YOU can't come up with something, it's not unreasonable (though it is rare) that you expect them to.

Second, neither you nor they have to have an answer right NOW. Repeated feedback on an issue is a reminder that something isn't as it should be, and there are plenty of things that aren't as they should be, and that resist change.

Third: Regardless of the intractable nature of any problem, a manager's job is NOT to decide first whether it can be changed. A manager's job is to continue to address it.

Finally, remember that feedback isn't a big deal. It's like breathing...NOT holding our breath. Regular feedback is just regular work...no big deal.

Keep at it. Work at everything you CAN change.

Mark

PattiBarcroft's picture

[quote="mahorstman"]Third: Regardless of the intractable nature of any problem, a manager's job is NOT to decide first whether it can be changed. A manager's job is to continue to address it.[/quote]
Mark,
Would you be willing to expand upon your statement above? It seems futile and sometimes self-defeating to give feedback and then adjusting feed back and then late stage coaching to an employee when the problem is intractable in nature. Is it fair to create a crisis for the employee when the situation does not appear to have an answer and it is outside of my or their control?

Such as: A situation where a department is under staffed and there is too much vital work which remains incomplete. If the responsible employee is unable to keep up with the work and believes there is no relief coming, short cuts become the norm and incomplete projects stack up. Giving feedback on unfinished projects or incomplete work is a challenge for me in this setting. The hard part is that the circumstances turn into an excuse for not controlling what they can and not communicating with me and the team. When feedback is given, there is always a "valid" excuse that something as, or more, important took them off task. It is often true. Yet, other critical work remains half done or worse and they were responsible for it to be completed effectively.

Thanks,
Patti

juliahhavener's picture
Licensee Badge

Patti, I'd focus my feedback in that situation on the communication piece (that's assuming that their 'normal' work is complete and their 'extra' work is progressing).

bflynn's picture

I apologize for losing track of this thread and not responding to the question I asked. Fortunately, I believe Andy and Mark have covered the answers.

Patti - There's a subtle distinction at work. Continue to address it does not necessarily mean continue to give the feedback. The way I read Mark's statement is that a manager never gives up on solving a problem. If you can't go through it, over it, under it or around the problem, then you remove it or change yourself so you don't have to go that way. We don't allow problems to be intractable.

I don't believe any problem is intractable, at least not at the levels we're talking about. Any problem that appears that way is probably being solved at too low a level.

Putting this in the context of the original question - you need to improve the project management. Contingency for additional production issues and changing priorities should be predictable by a sufficiently experienced manager. Risk scenarios can be identified and the impact known from past data. The project manager should be constantly evaluating changes to the scope of the project.

The problem isn't a late project, it is a wrong expectation date. Every time something changes from an external factor, the PM needs to be talking to everyone about the impact. If the externality is uncontrollable, at least everyone knows immediately the new expectation and why. If there is a way to control what is going on, then there needs to be agreement to change the project prior to allowing the change.

It isn't late. It is an improperly managed expectation.

Brian

WillDuke's picture
Training Badge

Patti

I certainly don't think it's fair to hold the DR accountable for not getting all of the work done when you know they are understaffed. If the department is understaffed, and you're the manager, you need to solve it. Either remove tasks or add staff.

If they're scattered and trying to do everything and not finishing anything, that's something you can work with them on. Prioritize and finish. Then move on.

Mark's picture
Admin Role Badge

Patti and all-

I think far too many managers think it's their job to decide what can and can't get done, and that is often their downfall. I think the manager's job is to keep working, versus deciding something can't be done.

I'm not going to bite at your hypothetical, but I have seen many managers say, in that situation, "it can't be done", rather than telling their boss and team, "here are the various ways we can, and here are my recommendations." Too many managers say can't. And yes, sometimes managers are given intractable problems, and they ahve to decide what is going to give...and it's a tough choice. I certainly never said that if all the work isn't getting done, we should late stage coaching/fire someone. That's a very different thing from saying a manager ought not to say can't.

I can't tell you how many client meetings I've led where I've had to sign and say, "okay, okay...but let's assume for just 5 minutes that we HAVE to do this thing. How WOULD we if we HAD to?" And I get really good, WORKABLE answers.

Mark

WillDuke's picture
Training Badge

As usual Mark says something that resonates for me. One of my favorite tools when someone tells me they don't know is "But if you did know, what would the answer be?"

PattiBarcroft's picture

Thanks Mark.

My hypothetical has been very close to my "perceived" reality for awhile and it is certainly the primary excuse my DR's have used for incomplete tasks. My frustration has been that my directs have been deciding, through their actions, of "not doing X" - often blaming me or the organization for their failure to perform. It's been frustrating.

As I look closer I am finding that I have not been leading well in some of these areas. I haven't dealt effectively with the excuses - especially when they have an air of truth. I appreciate your post. It has added to my increasing ability to see that clearer feedback can take the situation out of intractable by guiding the behavior to be more effective. It is a subtle shift in the approach that will make the difference in the results.

I have begun to tightening up these things over the course of the past few months, especially since the MT conference but I have a ways to go. I know that solid feedback continues to be my key tool for this. Also, I have recently changed my staff meetings to a much higher focus on goals and results. I am seeing improved results from that already.

Thanks,
Patti