It seems to me that the first step is a one-on-one. But experience shows that it doesn’t always work. Especially from the perspective of a line employee. You can call things by their names in a personal conversation with your manager, but that doesn’t guarantee a result. The system can be deaf and respond to completely different signals. But starting with a one-on-one is a rule
And simply getting rid of the problem can be very difficult. It depends on the situation, but dismissal is not always an option, both for legal reasons and because the system itself tends to preserve stability (well, in it's our perspective)
Most leaders, or anyone for that matter, don't like having poor performance conversations. And of those that actually have them, most don't do them well. But by shifting the responsibility, it has shown to alleviate much of the pressure from the leader and builds a sense of responsibility and control for the employee.
Essentially the "elephant" ends up getting found earlier, and is confronted, typically, by the employee themselves.
A bit tangential to the topic but I think still relevant.
Unfortunately, many managers are not aware of this and other management techniques that are now recognized as best practices. They are not trained to be managers. Also, they don't actively try to learn these things and are forever stuck in misery.
Another problem is that their managers are also not trained and don't know what good looks like and don't set clear expectations or coach.
Totally agree. I think that when a leader doesn’t avoid 1:1s (and actually uses them in a functional way) the elephant rarely even makes it into the room.
This situation is why I’ve always made it a priority to post objective status updates on a regular cadence. If everyone knows project/team/portfolio goals and delivery dates are being posted along with risks and blockers, the elephant is not personal. Of course, a 1:1 conversation should always come before a public post.
I’ve found this disincentivizes bad behavior in all but the most toxic situations.
Do you think that the elephant should be named publicly or this conversation should be a 1-on-1 feedback?
My experience that it is better to do privately but decisively. No change of behavior -> pip -> out.
It seems to me that the first step is a one-on-one. But experience shows that it doesn’t always work. Especially from the perspective of a line employee. You can call things by their names in a personal conversation with your manager, but that doesn’t guarantee a result. The system can be deaf and respond to completely different signals. But starting with a one-on-one is a rule
I understand what you are saying. Many managers will try to avoid an open conflict at any costs.
This is unfortunate. It is very common in Finland as the flip side of overall good working culture (IMO).
Exactly!
And simply getting rid of the problem can be very difficult. It depends on the situation, but dismissal is not always an option, both for legal reasons and because the system itself tends to preserve stability (well, in it's our perspective)
It depends on the will of manager and the organization. You can let people go, for sure.
But regarding the overall point. Setting clear standards and adhering to them is the start 💪
This is where employee-led 1:1s can really be powerful.
https://thereadyset.substack.com/p/flip-the-script-why-your-11s-should
Most leaders, or anyone for that matter, don't like having poor performance conversations. And of those that actually have them, most don't do them well. But by shifting the responsibility, it has shown to alleviate much of the pressure from the leader and builds a sense of responsibility and control for the employee.
Essentially the "elephant" ends up getting found earlier, and is confronted, typically, by the employee themselves.
It is true.
Employee-led 1-on-1s is the way to go.
A bit tangential to the topic but I think still relevant.
Unfortunately, many managers are not aware of this and other management techniques that are now recognized as best practices. They are not trained to be managers. Also, they don't actively try to learn these things and are forever stuck in misery.
Another problem is that their managers are also not trained and don't know what good looks like and don't set clear expectations or coach.
Totally agree. I think that when a leader doesn’t avoid 1:1s (and actually uses them in a functional way) the elephant rarely even makes it into the room.
This situation is why I’ve always made it a priority to post objective status updates on a regular cadence. If everyone knows project/team/portfolio goals and delivery dates are being posted along with risks and blockers, the elephant is not personal. Of course, a 1:1 conversation should always come before a public post.
I’ve found this disincentivizes bad behavior in all but the most toxic situations.