Everybody has to handle conflict at some time.
Occasionally, people fail to do what they should, or they do things they should not. Then you have to give "critical feedback", you need to be able to put people back "on track".
But HOW "critical feedback" is delivered is important.
If a critical feedback message is handled crudely, bad feelings and resentment build up.
If you fail to give the feedback for fear of risking confrontation, productivity suffers and onlookers lose respect for you.
The critical feedback issue is a big problem for many people. In short they have never learned how to do it.
Blindness to bad behaviour is a formula for failure.
Some people, hoping to avoid conflict, ignore bad behaviour in the hope that it will go away...it won't.
Untreated, bad behaviour of a minority becomes a habit and causes resentment in the team members who are doing it right.
Bad behaviour must not be left; it must be treated carefully, according to the seven principles that follow:
Say it soon. Do not leave bad behaviour to fester. Do not "save things up" and blast people for long-past wrongs. Instead, say your message as soon as practicable after the event, preferably face to face and in private.
Be objective in your language, not subjective. "Objective" means state only direct facts, not your evaluative comments or feelings flowing from the facts.
For example:
- "You were twenty minutes late for the meeting" is objective (and a good use of language).
- "I'm furious, you were late for the meeting, that's totally unprofessional" Is subjective, and liable to provoke a hostile reaction!
People tend to act in accordance with their self-image. A person with a good self-image performs well, has good relationships and is productive. A person with a poor self-image acts badly, has fraught relationships and is non- productive.
So it makes sense to build the self-image of those around you.
Restrict yourself to talking about behaviour, not the character of the person "Behaviour" is what the person says and does. "Character" is "the kind of person you think his behaviour makes them"
You may be critical of another's behaviour, but if you criticise who they are, you will either undercut the person's self-confidence or provoke an angry defence.
In either case, you lose.
So do not use negative actions to justify an attack on the character. Instead, state only the behavioural facts.
Your goal is always to preserve the self-image, whilst at the same time commenting on negative behaviour.
Too many people focus on telling the other what they do not like, and why.
Telling a person what you do not like is never enough on it's own. Instead, focus on what you think would be better (and why).
You should tell them clearly what you would like to see in place of what they are doing now.
You should always know what alternative behaviour you expect from the other. Work it out before you speak.
Is there a difference between a "reason" and an "excuse" for not doing something?
You bet there is a difference! A reason is true, logical, based on fact, undeniable and unavoidable.
An excuse is none of these. (i.e. an excuse is untrue, illogical, dishonest or feeble)
What if you ask a person to change, and they say "no"? You will ask "why not?"
When that person answers, listen closely because you have to classify their answer into one of two groups. You will hear either:
- The reason they cannot change, or
- The excuse they use to avoid changing.
In your own mind, when you listen to others, do you consciously distinguish between reasons and excuses?
What happens to the person who does not distinguish between reasons and excuses?
Who should decide for you what constitutes a reason and what is an excuse in any particular case?
Your policy towards reasons and excuses should be different.
If you think the person is giving good reasons, then you should negotiate a good
compromise solution. There is no sanction.
If you think you are hearing unreasonable excuse, DO NOT NEGOTIATE.
Never negotiate with a person who offers only excuses.
You should earn a reputation for being a person that responds only to reason.
What happens to team standards if anyone can come up with any excuse not to do something, and as a result, gain concessions?
Beware of criticising another person before you have got all the facts.
If you speak too soon, on assumption, guesswork or rumour, you may cause resentment in the mind of your listener based on an injustice.
This is dangerous in teams because a perceived injustice is a major de-motivator. Instead, check the facts before you speak. The "best kind of fact" is always direct sense experience. (I saw you X, I heard you say Y)
Be wary of indirect or second-hand facts.
If in doubt, check it out.
Have you ever known someone be unjustly criticised? How did they react?
Fundamentally, we work in exchange for money, but money is the qualifier, it makes us come to work but we are not necessarily motivated by money once we are at work.
Other people, what they say and how they behave, not money, motivate most people.
Social motivations are an important element in successful teams. Good teams have a culture of self-motivation through mutual praise and encouragement. They also give praise and thanks upwards as well as downwards.
Bad teams have a culture summed up in the phrase "Why should I appreciate him? He is getting paid, isn't he?"
Do you ever hear this complaint "I always get told when things go wrong but I never hear anything when things go right". If yes, why does this happen?
Have you ever put in an extra effort to achieve a good result, and then not received a word of appreciation from others. How did that effect your motivation? It is important to praise others for good work. And remember
The lack of appreciation is not a neutral. It is an enormous de-motivator.
So ... catch people doing it right!
- Appreciation for good work is essential but often forgotten
- Tell people when they have got it right
- Do it now, don't wait
- Use achievement to build self-concept
- Praise up the hierarchy as well as down