Monday, August 30, 2021

Podcast episode about Onboarding

A few weeks ago, I was back on the GovLove podcast, joining ELGL Executive Director Kirsten Wyatt. This time, we discussed effective onboarding practices. You can find my episode here or look up GovLove on your favorite podcast app. This episode is number 458. 

This episode was great fun. Kirsten and I opened things up by talking about time travel and having coffee with fictional characters. Then we got down to business. While the Onboarding Part 1, Onboarding Part 2, and Onboarding Schedule Example posts cover most of the content from the episode, I still encourage you to give it a listen. You get to hear Kirsten's opinion throughout, and we get to go into greater detail. 

ELGL (elgl.org), or Engaging Local Government Leaders, describes itself as an "accidental professional organization" that began as a small dinner group. Today, ELGL has over 4,800 members. The organization provides content for government workers through a wide variety of channels: the GovLove podcast, webinars, daily articles on their website, learning cohorts and conferences.

Wednesday, August 25, 2021

Don't Alter Your Management for Poor Employees

Actions to take: Do not take on extra work (or make others take on extra work) to make up for poor performance. Talk with the problem employee using the usual means that this blog recommends (one-on-ones and routine feedback). Leave it in their court to do the fixing. Accept that things may get worse before they get better.


Way back in the day, libraries used card catalogs to keep track of where they kept the books. It was essentially like a giant recipe box with index cards. Each card had information about each book: title, author, Dewey Decimal number, etc. A cataloger might create thousands of these cards each year. I knew of one cataloger who got a chewing out because, one time, a day's batch of cards went missing in transit from their desk to its final destination. From then on, the cataloger made a duplicate card for every single book they cataloged, doubling their workload. The issue never came up again.

The moral to this story: "Don't create a new procedure based on a single, isolated event."

In the post about what counts as "not public" for feedback, we imagined an employee who was willing to eavesdrop on conversation clearly not meant for them. Let's work through a solution to that problem. The only way to be absolutely sure they are are not overhearing comments meant for others (for instance, feedback to their coworkers) is to stop giving feedback anywhere except your office with the door closed. We need to do everything we can to make feedback feel safe, after all. 

This is the easy answer. We control our actions. We know for sure this will solve the issue. It is also the wrong answer. It completely ignores the moral we just learned. 

When you change your managerial behaviors for one poor performer, you set a bad precedent. It is tantamount to saying, "You, employee, have the power in this relationship. You can force me to be less effective that I could otherwise be, do things I would rather not do." In the scenario we just described, we are making more work for ourselves and making it harder to give feedback, all because some employee is doing an inappropriate and uncourteous thing. 

We accommodate problematic behaviors in countless ways. You are undoubtedly doing at least a few things to work around problems with your employees. Do you have an employee who is a little bit of a bully with their opinions during meetings, and you side-step it rather than coaching them on it? Do you have an employee who always has excuses for missing deadlines, making others rush through other parts of the process? Do you have an employee who claims to be perfectly fine with every plan but quietly harbors resentment when things are done differently from how they would have? We have to get things done, so we do whatever is necessary to work around these little problems in the moment. The thing is, we are always busy. There is never a convenient time to address the root issue. 

We've got a spiral of cause and effect here. We do a little more work to get around these little problems, making us a little busier, making it a little harder to find time to fix the underlying problem. There seems to be no escape. This is the ultimate result of altering your managerial behaviors when you encounter poor performance from your employees. 


So what is the answer? Frankly, you are going to have to let things get a little worse before they get better. You need to stop fixing the problem for the employee. Only then will they feel real pressure to fix the problem themselves. Your job is to provide coaching and feedback and explicitly state expectations of the job. Their job is to do the work within the parameters of that guidance. When you find workarounds for problems, you are both failing to do your job properly. 

You've got an employee who is chronically late on deadlines? Stop rushing other parts of the work to make sure the whole thing gets in on time. Start letting the whole thing be a little late. When your boss asks, be honest about where the issue is (or preempt this by giving your boss the heads up before things start coming in late). You've got an employee who eavesdrops on private conversations? Have a very serious feedback conversation where you explain that it cannot happen again and change nothing about your own behavior. You must allow for the possibility that it might happen again in order for the employee to prove that they will not do it again.

Bonus piece of advice: if you have been accommodating poor performance, it may be wise to fess up to your part in all this. Consider telling the employee that you have realized you are enabling issues to continue and that you will not in the future. 

There is one more major downside that comes from accommodating problematic behaviors: you hide the extent of the problem from other parts of the organization, specifically HR and the management chain above you. They might blithely listen to you complain about a problem employee, but everything is going okay as far as they are concerned. From their perspective, you've got it under control. It must not be that big a deal. Congratulations, through your hard work, you have saddled yourself with poor performers that you will never be able to let go of.

Average bosses find themselves bending over backwards to fix dozens of little problems for their employees. They don't know how to properly help employees improve, so their only recourse is to change their own behavior. "Employee A can't [Blank], so I'll [Blank] instead. Employee B refuses to [Blank], so I have to do [Blank] workaround." So on and so forth. They end up becoming fantastically overworked micromanagers. Better bosses live up to the adage that two wrongs don't make a right. They understand that it is their job to help employees do well through coaching, feedback, and other communication, but it is emphatically not their job to cover for poor performance.


Note from the author: if you enjoy this blog, please consider sharing your favorite posts with others.

Monday, August 23, 2021

Feedback: "What Could You do Differently?"

Actions to take: In almost all cases, stick to the typical feedback formula. When you need to prompt the employee to think critically about negative feedback, change the final question to "What could you do differently?" Keep the ensuing conversation short, and avoid spoon-feeding solutions to your employee.

Better-boss.com advocates for casual, frequent performance feedback using the following formula: 1) ask if you can provide feedback; 2) provide feedback using the format "when you do X, it has Y impact"; 3) finish with a question asking them to change or an affirmation that they should keep it up. Feedback is short, simple, and can be about any work behavior. All posts about feedback assume this formula and strategy.


I start every feedback post on this blog with a blurb in italics that describes the 3-step feedback formula we recommend here at better-boss. It's right there above this paragraph. Those three steps have appeared over a dozen times now. In today's post, we are going to talk about changing step three.

With negative feedback, we typically ask a yes-or-no question to cap off feedback: "Can I give you some feedback? When you turn your back to the audience while presenting, it makes it hard to hear, and some of the meaning gets lost. Can you work on that?" The employee just gives a quick yes, and the conversation is over. 

We do it this way for a couple reasons. First, feedback is meant to be small, so we want to keep the conversation small. No need to dwell on something that isn't a big deal, right? Second, feedback (negative feedback especially), is an emotional hit, despite our best efforts to keep it casual. It is a fact that your employee's heart rate is going to go up a little, their mind will be racing a little, when they get negative feedback. If you try to engage in further conversation about the feedback, it is usually unproductive. A person just isn't in a good mental state for calm, rational problem-solving immediately after feedback.

There will be times in your managerial career where your instincts tell you that the normal yes-or-no question isn't quite enough. Maybe your employee has been blasé and ignored feedback in the past. Maybe the feedback is a bit nuanced, and it isn't obvious what the employee needs to do differently. Maybe you've got an employee who craves more coaching and wants to be led more explicitly. 

For times where it makes sense to do a little bit more with feedback, change step three in the formula. Extend the conversation by asking them what they could do differently rather than simply asking them to do it differently.

"Can I give you some feedback? When you turn your back to the audience while presenting, it makes it hard to hear, and some of the meaning gets lost. What could you do differently to fix it for next time?" This change pushes your employees to engage with the problem directly. You start a dialogue about solving the problem then and there. Let them do most of the talking.  Your half of the conversation should mainly be a few prompting questions.

Do not spoon-feed solutions to your employees. The goal of this change is to get your employees to actively engage with negative feedback, not to fix this particular problem. Assuming they give you any kind of thoughtful answer (e.g. something more than just "I guess I'll look at the audience more" in response to our example feedback), agree that it sounds worth trying and move on. Even with this change to the feedback formula, feedback should not be more than a minute or two at the most. 

This change in the formula is perfect for when you find yourself giving the same feedback to someone the third or fourth time. When employees fail to fix problems after negative feedback, the reason is almost always unintentional. We often think, "Okay, I'll fix it" and assume that's enough to make us remember to do better next time. But it is difficult to rewire those neurons when a habit has set in. "What could you do differently" = "You need to take a minute and actually come up with a plan for fixing this, not just assume it will fix itself because you want it to." 

To be clear, we all fix problems just by saying, "I'll do it better next time." It often works. If you rarely forget your keys, then forget them once, you can fix that problem simply by setting your intention not to forget them again. But if you frequently forget your keys, you probably need to come up with a plan for changing your behavior before the problem will be solved. This change to the feedback formula helps an employee make that plan.

99 times out of 100, the standard feedback formula is the right choice. When you need to get your employee to engage with the feedback a little more, "What could you do differently?" is the quickest, best way to do it. If you try it out, feel free tell me how it goes. Leave a comment or shoot me an email.

Popular Posts