So, you had someone who didn’t do what they were supposed to do. Now, you have to figure out why. Were they unwilling to do the task or were they unable to do the task? Are they mean or stupid? When put this way, you are likely to say they are mean because they don’t like you, don’t like the task, or just don’t care about either. They are just a bunch of malicious people who don’t like you and don’t like doing their jobs. This ignores Hanlon’s razor:
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
It is less likely that someone is spending energy to defy you or actively engage in willful insubordination. It is more likely they just did not know how to do the task, did not know when to do the task, or did not know how to ask for help. Some people you expect to be smarter, turn out to be pretty stupid about a lot of things.
So, if we are declaring the problem to be because they are unable, we then have to look at the supervisor who is responsible for training the employee. Are you the supervisor? It is tempting to blame unwillingness.
This type of analysis is sometimes called a zebra test, or black/white analysis. When I use this with first line supervisors, I ask if their employee (or team member) is unwilling or unable to do the task assigned. Most of them tend to say the reason is a little of both. What follows is generally a heathy discussion about the employee and their interaction with the supervisor.
Calling it a test is a bit of a misnomer, since there is not supposed to be a definitive answer to the question, but rather it is to encourage discussion about the problem. The best that can be hoped for is an improved understanding of how people give and receive instruction.
The problem with this kind of analysis is that the two attributes are not mutually exclusive. In the next post, we will explore how it is more helpful to think of this as two interacting attributes.
- AR
No comments:
Post a Comment