Thread by @andybudd

It's amazing how much of management (and by extension, coaching) is asking people whether the thing they've just shared with you, they've also shared with the person they're talking about. Ideally in the same calm, even mannered and non-judgemental fashion.

What they've shared is almost always some perfectly rational concern, pitched in a way that makes them sound reasonable. Largely because people want to be seen as reasonable by their bosses (and coaches).

If they shared this concern in the same reasonable, rational and caring way with the person they're referencing, things would almost certainly work out fine. However they've almost certainly not tried this.

More often than not they want to avoid the awkwardness of the situation, and potential loss of status or face, and instead use their manager as an implement of control. "Can you tell Dave's boss, Mary to tell Dave to stop acting that way"

Managers regularly play this game (me included) because it feels important, managery and problem-solvery. My report has this problem with this person, and I get to be the one to fix it.

Of course this is usually a case of throwing gas on a burned down fire as you've now elevated a small and easy to solve interpersonal issue into a departmental one between managers.

Invariably that other persons manager is going to want to be seen defending that person. I mean, it's the managerly thing to do. Especially because they've had a similar reasonable, measured conversation with that person and know your report is really the source of the trouble.

This is one of many reasons how and why silos form. To get round this, you need to make sure that your report is able to have a calm, open and generous conversation with the other person. Explaining perspectives rather than attributing blame.

As a side note, most of these problems escalate because the people in questions are wanting to...

1. Position themselves as being right
2. Position the other person as being wrong
3. Do the minimal work possible to solve the problem, which means making the other person change.

If you've done any reading up on effective feedback techniques, you'll know some of the key practices are...

1. Make it about tasks, rather than character
2. Avoid making up stories about others motivations
3. Focus in the future rather than the past

It's perfectly reasonable (productive even) to have disagreements about tasks. However if this slips into personal character attacks, you've got problems. "Barry always does X"

It's natural to try and make sense of a problem, so we make up stories about motivations. The problem is, these stories are almost always wrong or incomplete, and are likely to piss the other person off. Barry: "That's not what I do or why at all"

We also love trying to diagnose problems. Managers more so than anybody else. So we tend to spend far too much time exploring what happened and coming up with theories why. Much more effective to explain the problem, it's effect, and what you can do to prevent it happening again.

As such the key to good feedback is to move through the diagnosis stage as quickly and blamelessly as possible, and instead focus on mutual problem solving. "I understand who that could cause you problems. Here are some things we could try in the future".

While this all sounds reasonable in at Twitter thread, it's bloody hard in reality. As a manager I've tried to solve other peoples problems for them multiple times, and it almost always backfires. Usually because you're positioning yourself as the rescuer in the drama triangle.

(Incidentally this wasn't my diagram so apologies for the gendered language. However I couldn't find a better explanation without the gendered language)

One of the classic feedback models is...

Situation > Behaviour > Impact

Situation: Give an overview of the situation in a straightforward manner

Behaviour: Describe the specific behaviour you want to address in a judgement free way

Impact: Explain the impact of said behaviour

Some models include a 4th step around Actions

For instance..."During last weeks 1:1 (situation) you said that everything was on track for a Friday launch, but engineering didn't get the designs till Thursday evening (behaviour) which meant Jane had to work late (impact). What can we do to avoid this happening in the future"?

It's obviously an artificial set-up condensed for Twitter, and Jane really shouldn't have felt the need to work late, but you get the point.

I've been in plenty of meetings where managers would have speculated over this persons workload, capabilities and commitment, and would have suggested a bunch of process improvements to prevent the problem happening again.

I've also been in plenty of meetings where that person would have given a bunch of very good reasons why the deadline wasn't hit. Almost always relating to other people. The reality is if you get stuck in why, it's blame all the way down. Much better to focus on what next?

Another nice framework, this one from my friend @trentonmoss100's new book, is the PLEASE framework.

andybudd.com/archives/2021/…

Problem is explained
Listen and validate the other person's viewpoint
Explore what success looks like for the other person
Articulate what success looks like for you
Solve the problem by brainstorming a win-win outcome
Enjoy the success together

Lots more feedback models here if you're interested in poking around to find one that works for you.

marketing91.com/feedback-model…

I should add that one of the great things about all these feedback models is they're basically using your design research skills. Ask good, non-biased questions. Be curious about others lived experiences. Understand behaviour in a non-judgemental way, and co-design solutions.