Tom looked up to see Jonathan, who had just transferred onto the team, standing in the doorway to his office. Jonathan looked red and flustered. “What’s up, Jonathan? Looks like you’ve got something on your mind,” Tom said, waving Jonathan in and pulling up a chair for him.

Jonathan slumped into the chair. “You know I’ve been working with Danielle this week?” Jonathan began.

“Yes, how’s that going?” Tom asked.

“Is she showing you the ropes?”

“I can’t work with her anymore!” Jonathan blurted out.

“Whoa,” Tom said. “That sounds pretty final. What brought that on?”

“She’s always eating cookies, and the crumbs get all over the keyboard. On Tuesday she left chocolate fingerprints on the table,” he said. “And yesterday she put greasy marks all over my printout.”

“Have you talked to her about this?”

“Well, no,” Jonathan admitted. “But I wipe up after her, so she should get the hint.”

Tom took a breath. “If you haven’t talked to Danielle, how is she supposed to know you don’t like it when she eats cookies during your working sessions?”

“Anyone with a clue would know how rude it is to drop crumbs in the keyboard. Besides, giving feedback is your job,” Jonathan said.

“Yes, giving feedback is part of my job,” Tom said. “And it’s part of your job, too, when it comes to improving working relationships. You need to work this out with Danielle. I can coach you on what to say, but you have to say it.”

Jonathan crossed his arms and sank down in the chair. “All right. I’ll tell her,” he agreed grudgingly.

Tom and Jonathan discussed the outcome that Jonathan wanted and developed a script so he could practice what to say.

“Ready to go?” Tom asked.

“I guess so. I’ll ask her if we can talk right after lunch. She’s probably out buying cookies right now,” Jonathan replied.

Tom watched Jonathan walk out the door and then sighed. A year ago I would have fallen into the trap and talked to Danielle myself. Then she would have been hurt and angry. And it wouldn’t have helped Jonathan and Danielle work together—it would have made it worse.

Yes, it’s my job to provide feedback, Tom continued to muse. But it’s not my job to play middleman.

Tom had learned the hard way what happens when a manager delivers feedback for someone else. Last year at review time, Tom had asked everyone on his team to provide feedback for every other team member. He provided a form with a series of questions and a rating scale. At the bottom of the form was a space for additional comments. Tom had gathered up the feedback forms and consolidated the responses. I’ll have some solid information to provide people about how their peers view their skills, he’d thought. But the reviews didn’t go as well as Tom had hoped.

Martha had been mystified to learn her teammates rated her communication skills as poor. “What does that mean?” Martha had asked. “What can I change to do better?” Tom had made some general recommendations but couldn’t be specific.

Ted had been thunderstruck when he found out that Jenny had complained about an incident that had happened back in January. “I had no idea Jenny was upset about that. Heck! I hardly remember what happened. I wondered why Jenny had been cool toward me during that project, and this explains it. If she’d talked to me last January, I could have done something differently.”

Fred had summed up his review experience succinctly. “This feels like third grade—when someone’s upset, he goes to the teacher to tattle.”

Rather than improving teamwork, Tom’s experiment in delivering secondhand feedback had bombed. He could feel the trust level drop as co-workers wondered who had said what. Everyone seemed to be waiting for the next knife in the back. Even the team members who had received positive feedback weren’t basking in the glow—”I’d rather someone thank me directly rather than filling in a stupid form,” one person said.

It had taken months to rebuild trust between team members, and Tom had had to eat crow to do it.

After weeks of watching the team pull apart, Tom had called a special meeting. “I made a big mistake,” Tom began. “I thought it would be helpful for the review process to gather your feedback for each other. But I see now that it wasn’t the right thing to do. You guys aren’t talking and joking like you used to. It’s as quiet as a tomb around here. Most of you are barely speaking, and you sound guarded and careful when you do. It feels like my efforts at second-hand feedback, instead of helping, has destroyed trust.”

Tom had paused. “Do I have it about right?” The members of the team murmured their assent.

“OK, I blew it,” Tom said. “What can we do to move past this?”

Finally, Ted spoke up. “I was hurt and angry to hear that Jenny had complained about me.” Ted turned to Jenny. “Jenny, I really wish you had spoken to me directly.”

“I didn’t know what to say to you,” Jenny said looking at her notebook. “But next time you do something that bugs me, I’ll try.”

“Maybe we shouldn’t save up our feedback ‘til the end of the year,” Fred offered.

The team continued to generate ideas on how to rebuild trust. Tom took an action item to arrange for a training session on peer-to-peer feedback.

It took time, but the team started chatting and joking again. And to Tom’s surprise, team members developed stronger relationships as they learned to give one another feedback directly and respectfully.

There were a few occasions when a team member came to Tom for advice on how to broach a sensitive topic. And Tom continued to provide coaching and feedback based on his direct experience. Tom knew that in some rare instances, he’d need to be involved in a peer-to-peer issue—in the case of harassment, ethics, or safety. And it was conceivable that someday he’d have to step in when peer-to-peer feedback didn’t resolve the issue.

Tom snapped out of his reverie. “These aren’t school kids, and I’m not the teacher,” he said to himself. “No more middleman for me.”

This article originally appeared in Better Software magazine.

I recently read some advice suggesting that when we’re stressed or feeling non-positive emotions because of situations out side work—the illness of a spouse or child, a divorce, or other personal problem–employees should hide their emotions and pretend to be eager and positive.

I can’t endorse that advice.

Let me tell you a little story that shows why.

The other day I had conference call scheduled with a colleague, Alysa. We’d emailed back-and-forth before hand, so we had a rough agenda going into the meeting. It only took a minute to list the 3-4 topics.

“Where should we start?” I asked.

“Let’s start with the conference session. No, I mean the consulting proposal. Did you send me email about this?” Alysa said.

“Yep, last Tuesday,” I said.

“Oh, I guess I lost it. Sorry, I’m sort of spacey today.”

“That’s OK,” I said. “I have it right here,” and started listing the open items.

“Did I tell you my husband’s been laid off?” Alysa blurted.

“No….sounds like we should talk about that first,” I said. “Tell me what happened.”

Alysa told me the about the layoff, how she was trying to give her husband, Harvey, support, and what Harvey was doing to find a new job. She was feeling anxious, worried, and angry. Mostly I listened and offered a few words of commiseration.

After about five minutes, Alysa had finished her story.

“Ok, I can concentrate on our agenda now,” Alysa said.

We continued our meeting, accomplished what we set out to, and ended the meeting on time.

Here’s the paradox: If I had tried to force Alysa to stick to the agenda from the start, and told her that Harvey’s layoff was off-topic, we would not have gotten our work done. Alysa wouldn’t have been fully present or focused. By taking a few minutes to acknowledge what was happening, we were able to move on to productive work.

We all deal with the potential for people to be emotionally pre-occupied at work everyday. It may be an argument with a spouse or a sick child. Perhaps the school has called to report that Junior is up for detention. All sorts of events outside of work come with us when we enter the office door. Work events can cause emotional responses, too. Mergers, re-orgs, new bosses, downsizing, and even mundane events can create emotional situations. We don’t turn off our human-ness or our emotions when we come to work.

For the organization, ignoring emotions takes a toll on productivity—people are distracted and unable to focus. For individuals, it adds to stress and alienation.

Now, I don’t believe that we should let it all out at work—even when we know our co-workers really well, we’re not in the bosom of our family. Consider the context and recognize that we are all human, and our emotions are part of what and who we are. We need to manage our emotions, not hide, fake, or ignore them. Deal with the human first, and it will be easier to get the work done.

Here are some strategies for managing emotions that make it to the office:

Confide in a friend.

Alysa and I know each other pretty well, and it was only the two of us in the meeting. Alysa feels comfortable saying things to me that she might not choose to say in a more formal meeting.

Sometimes it’s enough to tell someone what’s going on, like Alysa did with me. If you have a good friend at work, talk to him or her. Often when we feel heard and understood it’s easier to put the matter aside and concentrate.

Acknowledge emotional responses.

Karen, a team lead in a software company, was upset because her manager, Ted, had countermanded a technical decision she had made. When Karen told Ted she was upset, Ted responded “I’ve thought about it, and there’s no reason for you to feel that way.” Karen was not soothed.

We feel that way we feel, whether there’s a “reason” or not. Ted would have made more headway had he simply accepted Karen’s emotional response and talked about solving the problem… clarifying decision boundaries.

Notice what’s happening.

Earlier this month I was working with a group to surface requirements. I noticed that one of the key experts, Rosalind, was awfully quiet and kept looking down at her hands. When I looked more closely, I could see there were tears in her eyes. When we reached a reasonable stopping point, I called a break and called Rosalind aside.

“What’s happening for you?” I asked. Rosalind had just learned that her husband had cancer. We took the time before the break ended to decide what to do. Rosalind decided she’d stay for the session, and leave to be with her husband as soon as the meeting was over. Having that settled and telling someone what was going on allowed her set aside her worry and distress (at least for a short while) to participate in the requirements gathering session.

Use check-ins.

For a longer meeting or working session that requires everyone’s participation, consider doing a short check-in. A check-in serves as a boundary between outside and inside the meeting and allows people to say just a bit about their background noise, if they choose to. Something as small as being stuck in traffic and feeling rushed can block concentration. Saying it aloud can help to let it go.

Use the resources available.

Sometimes emotional distractions last longer than a few days. Jon, a programmer on my team, went through a nasty custody negotiation when he divorced. He needed to take time off work for legal appointments and mediation. When Jon came to talk to me about it, he was worried that between the emotions, stress, and time off, his work would suffer.

I put Jon in touch with the company’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP). He was able to find a support group for divorcing dads. (I didn’t try to be Jon’s therapist… that wasn’t my job as a manager. I did put him in touch with HR and worked out a flexible schedule with him, both of which were within my job as a manager.) Jon was able to remain productive at work.

If your company has an EAP, you usually don’t need to wait for your manager to bring it up. It’s there for you to use and there’s no shame in seeking support to cope with a difficult life event.

Manage employees who can’t or won’t manage themselves.

Once in a great while I encounter people who are unable to manage their emotions at work. It’s not your job to be a therapist or to fix your employees. When a member of your team is repeatedly unable to focus on work because of emotional issues, coach the employee to obtain appropriate professional help. If the employee continues to be unable to focus and do the work he’s paid to do, coach him out of the job.

What do you do to manage emotions at work? What’s the price of ignoring emotions at work?

An earlier version of this column appeared on Stickyminds.com in 2003.

Authors note: A recent blog post on Bob Sutton’s Work Matters reminded me of this little piece I wrote a while ago.

A simple thank you can make a difference; appreciation builds good will, and reminds people that they are valued as human beings, not just as CPUs (Code Producing Units) or FTEs (Full Time Equivalents).

In a recent workshop, I described an exercise for expressing appreciation. “That won’t go over here,” stated Patty, one of the managers participating in the workshop. “These are engineers; they don’t want that mushy stuff. Besides, they know that we value them.” Patty didn’t notice that several of the engineers were shaking their heads in disagreement.

The engineers in Patty’s company aren’t the only ones starved for notice and appreciation. A recent Gallup Poll report quoted this statistic: “…the number-one reason people leave organizations is that they don’t feel appreciated, notes the U.S. Department of Labor.”

Given the high cost of replacing knowledge workers, reducing the number-one reason for turnover seems like a good investment. And when you consider that this investment doesn’t cost a dime, why not eliminate the appreciation gap?

An Appreciation Primer

When you offer appreciation, appreciate the person, not just the work. Most people like to hear “you did a good job.” But a comment on the quality of work is an evaluation. I like to use this form, which I learned from the work of Virginia Satir:

[Name of person] I appreciate you for [contribution, action, quality].

I might say, “Tom, I appreciate you for moderating technical reviews. It’s really making a difference in our code quality.”

I’ll admit that this felt awkward the first time I tried it. But I also noticed that these words had a very different effect than “You did a good job” or “Thank you.”

Appreciation Guidelines

Be authentic.

Authenticity means that you really do believe what you are saying. Pavlov proved that it’s possible to shape canine behavior by providing rewards for a desired response. People, however are not canines, and they are quick to recognize manipulation. Going through the motions isn’t enough.

Appreciate privately.

Most people don’t need or want their manager to gush over every accomplishment in public. In fact, public recognition is uncomfortable for many people. A word in private will let people know that you do notice and appreciate.

Appreciate weekly.

“Atta boy” once a year during a performance evaluation isn’t enough. Notice and comment on a contribution every week–and keep it authentic. Rote appreciation doesn’t work. If you can’t find a single thing to appreciate, that’s a sign there is something wrong with the relationship.

Traps to Avoid

Don’t dilute the value of appreciation.

Some well-intentioned person devised the “praise sandwich” as a recipe for delivering feedback. A praise sandwich surrounds criticism between two bits of praise. I suspect this person wanted to ensure that the feedback recipient was in a receptive mood by making them feel good. In reality, the praise sandwich conditions people to expect a slap after a positive stroke. If you have feedback to offer, do it! Don’t dilute the value of appreciation by only giving it along with bad news.

Token rewards anger as often as they delight.

One colleague received a movie ticket from his boss after he’d worked well into the evening to fix a critical defect. His response to the reward was one of anger. “After I already spent one evening away from home, he wants me to spend another one… without my wife!” he stated in disbelief.

Don’t wait.

When Sara handed in her resignation, her boss told her she was the best project manager he’d ever worked with. “Why’d he wait until I quit to tell me?” Sara fumed later. “Maybe if he’d let me know that he noticed what I did for the company I’d still be there.” A few simple words a week could have kept Sara on the job.

You may feel awkward when you first try giving appreciations—I know I did. Practice in a low-risk situation, maybe by telling a store clerk you appreciate her for helping you find just the right item. Watch what happens and practice until it feels natural. Then try out this simple practice at work.

I noticed at the recent agile conference that there were lots of people who billed themselves as agile coaches, and several sessions on coaching. Seemed like more of both than in past years.

I consider myself a coach, too, though not with a capital C.  I usually coach managers or teams, and sometimes coaches. Mostly, I’m a consultant and coaching is part of the work I do in that role.  But some people lay claim to “coach” as their job description.  And some of those people have training from a coaching school.

All this, and a little story my friend Johanna told about an experience she had with a coach got me thinking about the different sorts of problems people bring to coaches, and the confusion that results when the coach is a “coaching process” type coach, and the problem is a skills-based problem (which requires content knowledge, in addition to process knowledge). Or a problem that calls not only for a coaching model, and a bunch of other models.

Back when she had a corporate job, my friend Johanna Rothman had the opportunity to work with a coach on a problem she was experiencing at work.  It must have been an enlightened work place, because they employed Johanna AND coaches, whom they dispatched when a manager needed a bit of help. Johanna’s hope was the the coach could help her with the specific problem, which she hadn’t been able to figure out on her own.

Johanna explained the problem to the coach.  The coach responded, “The answers are inside you.”

Johanna tried explaining the problem again.  The coach answered, “The answers are inside you.”

The answers were not inside Johanna (at that time…I bet they are now).  She needed specific information, direction and guidance to develop a new skill that would enable her to solve the problem.  The response Johanna received to the problem she described was woo woo nonsense. It was no help at all. The coach was trying to be helpful, I’m sure. And she was acting out of a coaching model, just not one that fit the situation.

The Range of Coaching Practice

If we’re talking about a skill—whether it’s TDD, interpersonal feedback, or object oriented design, influencing change across the organization—the answer is not inside you.  If you are shifting from a serial mental model of software development to a iterative/incremental mental model of software development, the answer is not inside you.  Willingness to learn is inside you. The desire to maintain a good working relationships is inside you.  The yearning for pride in work is inside you. The desire to see the organization improve is inside you.

The specific skill is not.

You need teaching, training, and  direction, along with coaching and feedback. A coach in this situations needs to have task-specific (content) knowledge, in addition to coaching skills. And those coaching skills are likely different from the skills a life coach or goal coach brings to the table—unless they worked in the content field prior to studying a coach curriculum or taking up the coach label.

Life coaching—finding the answer in side you— is useful when you have a life problem; when you need a skill, you need  skill coaching

Another friend, Don Gray, recently helped three people understand how an interaction blew up. As they unwound personalities and communication styles, two of them heard some information their default preference didn’t deal (well) with.  He helped them recognize how their communication preference helped them, and hindered them. He helped them see additional options. To do this, he needed a coaching model(s), plus content knowledge on communication, human interaction, personality and cognition. Rare indeed.  The answers may have been inside these people, but it took more than a coaching model to bring them out.

And of course, some times the answers are inside us.

Satir coaching assumes that each of us has the resources to be be happy and successful as a human—but may not be using all our resources to their full potential.  Jerry Weinberg’s fab book, More Secrets of Consulting: The Consultants Tool Kit, is inspired by Satir’s self-esteem toolkit, and the book is tremendously helpful.  I’ve studied the Satir model for many years, it informs much of the work I do with individuals and groups (and certainly how I live my life).

Likewise, the Solution-focused Coaching model assumes that the person being coached has some experience solving the problem for which they have sought coaching.  This model assumes that the coachee has all the competencies needed to come to a solution.  I had a little experience of this at the previous Retrospective Faciliator’s Gathering in Tisvilde, Denmark.  Josef Scherer offered a session on Solution Focused Coaching, and since I a little stuck in my writing practice, I volunteered to be coached.  It helped me  a lot—the answer was inside me.  But this sort of coaching wouldn’t have helped if my problem was that I didn’t know how to structure a coherent sentence.

There are other Coaching models:  GROW, Achieve, and many more. More than you can shake a stick at (just google “coaching models”).

When someone is stuck, they may need a jiggle, in the form or a reframe, or a prompt to remember what they do know about solving the problem. When someone is struggling with an interpersonal issue or a life issue, they answer may lie within, and need a little help from inner resources to come out.

But sometimes, the person needs context, information, demonstration, a straight answer, or a skill.

Related:  A Coaching Toolkit

No one likes to be blamed, so why do we blame each other in the first place? What place does it have in our relationships, and how does it affect our problem-solving abilities? A personal experience with customer disservice to highlight our attraction to assigning blame and how it delays us from reaching solutions.

Not long ago, I took my dog to the boarding kennel as I was leaving for a business trip. Usually she stays at home, but this time my husband was going to be out of town, too.

“Can I help you?” the receptionist asked. “I’m here to drop Pudge off for boarding,” I replied, expecting I’d spend minutes to sign the papers, give Pudge a goodbye pat, and head to the airport.

The receptionist pulled up a computer screen and examined it. Then she looked a paper file. “You’re not supposed to be here today. Your reservation is for next week on the 28th,” she declared.

Oh, crap, I thought. This could be a real problem. The first thing to do is determine whether they can fit her in. If not, I need to start making phone calls right away.

“Oh, dear,” I said out loud. “That’s odd. I was sure I made the reservation for today. Is there room to board Pudge for next three days?”

“You’re wrong,” the receptionist asserted. “Your reservation is for the 28th.”

Let’s skip the fact that this exchange is not a stellar example of customer service. What was really interesting to me was that the receptionist insisted on telling me I was wrong, even in the face of the evidence that I was there and had a plane to catch. I wasn’t particularly interested in assigning blame; I wanted to move on to Plan B if I needed to, make sure my dog would be cared for, and make my flight.

What is Blame?

The dictionary definition of “blame” is to find fault with or hold responsible. There certainly are times when people in organizations need to hold people responsible for when their actions cause problems. From a psychological perspective, though, blame is a defense mechanism. It makes the blamer feel powerful by making the person being blamed feel small. But blaming a person (or a system) for a problem gets in the way of solving a problem.

The High Price of Blame

When blame is the default behavior in an organization, bad things happen.

People withhold information because the fear how they’ll be treated when they bring up problems. That makes it harder for anyone to actually solve problems. Of course, problems can’t hide forever. When the information finally comes out, the problems are usually bigger and the options to solve them fewer.

People invest energy making sure that they won’t be blamed when a problem arises (as problems inevitably do). That leads to paper trails, positioning, and creating plausible deniability.

Once problems do surface, people are scared or disengaged and don’t offer their best ideas. That makes it more likely that the fix will be a band-aid that soothes symptoms, but doesn’t address root causes.

When blame is the knee-jerk response, people don’t learn from problems and mistakes. The may try something different, but it won’t be from a deep understanding of the situation. They’ll try the least risky action that will protect them from more blame.

All this makes it more likely that it will take longer for problems to become visible—at which point they will be even hairier and harder to fix, creating a vicious cycle.

Shifting the Blame Dynamic

When someone brings a problem to you, you have a choice. You can blame, or you can engage in problem-solving.

First, slow down and become aware of your own response. Are you feeling scared or angry? Are you worried that you will be blamed? Blaming the messenger won’t change whether someone else will blame you. But, if you move to problem-solving, you will be able to communicate what you plan to do, not just bring bad news.

Ask questions—using a neutral tone of voice—to understand the issue and implications. Questions that start with What and How are likely to sound less blaming than questions that start with Why. (Assuming you don’t ask “What the heck were you thinking?” or “How did you make this mess?” Those questions would not be helpful.)

Figure out what to do about the immediate issue. Ask if the person who brought the problem needs help. If she doesn’t need (or want help), don’t inflict it. Agree on how you’ll assess progress solving the problem.

Ask for the help you need to explain the implications to others.

Later (but not much later), you can investigate root causes. Don’t assume that it’s a problem with the individual; the issue may very well be a system problem. There may be other lessons to learn from the problem—for example, how to set expectations, how to break work into inch pebbles, and how to make progress (and problems) more visible. Be careful of your phrasing. Keep it neutral and on an adult-to-adult level. “What did you learn from this” can sound like a parent or teacher speaking to a child. And don’t call it a “teachable moment”—that phrase smacks of condescension.

In organizations where blame is pervasive, blame is the systemic issue. The only way to work out of blame orientation is to choose not to blame. Instead, demonstrate problem-solving, and gradually rebuild trust with those with whom you work directly.

There are times when we do have to hold individuals responsible for their actions. But usually it’s more important to fix the problem and learn from the situation.

If you find yourself on the receiving end of blame, do your best to stay centered and move toward problem-solving. Articulate what you know about the problem, what you have tried, and where you need help. Remember that blamers often feel small and scared. Blaming is their way of coping with those feelings.

So, what happened at the kennel?

When I made my request to check availability the fourth time, the receptionist finally walked over to a wall calendar that showed all the kennel reservations for the week. There was space for Pudge. It took three minutes for the hand off. I expressed my gratitude that there was a place open and continued on my way.

You could look at this and say the receptionist is a little slow and doesn’t understand customer service. But I think there was something else at play. She didn’t want to be blamed. Fear of blame begets blaming, and blame always delays solving the problem.

This article originally appeared on stickyminds.com.

© Esther Derby 2001 – 2010

This article originally appeared in STQE May/June 2001.

As test and development managers, we pay attention to developing technical personnel, but what about managers? Do we do enough to help manager and team leads develop and improve their leadership skills–especially when we are those managers?

Some companies, GE for example, have a strong tradition of developing managers from within. Promising employees are carefully groomed through a series of increasingly complex and responsible assignments, with formal and informal mentors to guide them along the way. Along with teaching specialized domain knowledge, mentors coach new managers in the “soft” skills that are crucial for top management performance. How often to you hear of managers being carefully trained, developed and mentored in the software world?

I didn’t go to software development or test manager school, and they didn’t teach much about the people side of management in the school I went to. I ended up in management because I had good technical skills. I was originally promoted to project manager because I was a good software developer, and I stayed in management because I hoped I could do a better job than the people who had been managing me. I meet a lot of managers with stories similar to mine.

As a new manager, I got a clear message: Managers are supposed to know what needs to be done and how to do it (or at least act that way). And that message put me in a kind of trap: if I’m supposed to know what to do, it’s harder for me to admit I don’t have the answer or I need help.

The truth is, few people know intuitively how to manage process, projects and people. Like anyone else learning a new skill, new managers need training, guidance and mentoring. And just like technical staff, experience managers need to keep their skills current and evolve with an evolving workplace.

As managers, we spend time and effort improving testing, configuration management and development processes. What about management processes? What can we do to improve our own management processes? The good news is that good managers are often made, not born. Here are some of the things I’ve done to develop my management capabilities:

Get to know “me.” The most important things I’ve learned that resulted in direct improvement in my management capability weren’t about managing other people — they were about me. How do I cope with conflict, what assumptions do I have about people, how do I respond when I feel angry or hurt or scared? How do my emotions effect the way I make decisions? What are my strengths, my weaknesses and my blind spots? These skill have to do with self-management….if I can’t manage myself, I don’t stand much chance of managing anything or anybody else.

Find a model. Like most humans, my first lessons in navigating relationships came from watching and imitating my parents. I got my first lessons in management that way, too, watching other managers. Only thing was, I didn’t have real good management models in my first few jobs. It took a while to find a manager I wanted to emulate: someone who not only got the project in on time, but build decent software and treated people like adults. I try to learn from other managers who get things done and always have a list of people waiting for a position to open in their group.

Find a mentor. A model shows me what to do; a mentor will tell me when I don’t quite hit the mark. Trust is a big part of a mentoring relationship, and it takes a certain amount of personal chemistry, too. My first mentor [Jerry Weinberg] didn’t work for the company where I was employed, though he was consulting in the organization when I met him. He was a willing to provide feedback, answer questions and help me puzzle through all sorts of management challenges. He’s also given me some of the hardest messages I’ve ever had to hear (and I’m a better manager for it!).

Start a book study group. I don’t have the luxury of reading every book I’d like to. But I can usually find an hour to read a chapter. So I divide the labor and get together with a group and read. Each person reads a chapter and reports on it. Everyone gets an overview of the book, and I can focus later on chapters that are most meaningful to me. Sometimes we meet two or three weeks later and discuss how we’ve applied the concepts from the book in our work.

Keep a journal. I find that recording events, decisions and results helps me see patterns and analyze the results of management actions. It’s not always pretty, but it helps keep me from making the same mistake over and over and over. The habit of reflecting on the outcomes of decisions is a simple and powerful way to improve management abilities.

The key really, is to remember that mangers never really arrive–there’s always more to learn. The more effort I put into improving my management capabilities the more effective I’ll be in managing people and projects. And that means better software.

Last summer I participated in a seminar.  The format included group discussion, and discuss we did.  But one member of the group, Bernard, didn’t discuss so much as pontificate…at length, and often on topics that were tenuously connected to the subject matter of the class.  And, when Bernard got to a pithy phrase, he repeated it three times:

Trust (pause) is the essence of change. (Meaningful look around the room).

Trust (pause) is the essence of change. (Meaningful look around the room).

Trust (pause) is the essence of change. (Meaningful look around the room).

Most of us in the group made our point in a minute or two.  Bernard went on for five or six.

I found myself feeling annoyed.

I also found myself waiting for the seminar leader to do something…redirect Bernard, bring him back on topic, give him feedback, something.  But the seminar leader just listened to Bernard, and nodded her head.

When we gave 5 minute presentations, Bernard’s presentation lasted 15.

I still found myself feeling annoyed.

I still found myself waiting for the seminar leader to do something…point out the time limit, give Bernard a sign he was over time, ask him to wind it up.  But the seminar leader just listened to Bernard, and nodded her head.

When I looked at my own motives, I realized that at first, I was giving space to Bernard, since I didn’t know him, and wanted to withhold judgement. But by the second meeting of the seminar, I was keeping quiet because I didn’t want to appear biased, since Bernard was from a different culture.

In short, I was participating in a situation where I felt annoyed (by Bernard), let down (by the seminar leaders), and put upon (by myself, for holding back). I was also withholding information from Bernard, and that was getting in the way of my having a constructive relationship with him. I wondered how many other people in the workshop were experiencing something similar.

Now, often our inclinations in such situations is to look at individual behavior, give feedback, and ask individuals to act differently. Sometimes that’s absolutely the right thing to do.  Other times, it’s more helpful to look behavior of the group as a whole.

One day, after Bernard went on a sententious ramble for the upmteenth time, I had a moment of recognition: we have a pattern here—repeated events that have meaning over time—and I am part of it.  I was colluding with the pattern, helping to hold it in place.

This time, when Bernard started his presentation by declaring he was going to play some music for us and announced “This is your time, I want you to get up and move to music,”  I decided not to participate in the pattern or wait for someone else to change it.

I took Bernard at his word (at least the first part of his sentence).  Rather than swaying to Bernard’s music for 10 minutes (as the rest of the group did), I checked my email.  I responded to a couple of items that needed quick attention.

When Bernard finished (15 minutes beyond the stated timebox) the entire group took a break.  During the course of the break half the group members talked to me about my action.  I was not the only one who was irritated by the way Bernard was interacting with the group—nor was I the only one colluding with the pattern. Bernard was taking up a lot of air time because we let him take up a lot of air time.  We had a choice. We could continue in the pattern, or we could shift it.

And we did.  When Bernard started down a topic that was unrelated, someone would gently remind him of the topic at hand. When he got close to the end of a presentation timebox, some one gave him a signal that he had two minutes left.  The first time it happened, Bernard looked shocked—a shift in the pattern can be disconcerting, especially when the previous pattern worked (at least for Bernard).

And we formed a different pattern. We stopped waiting for our “leaders” to solve all issues with the way our group handled disucssions. One of the people who had a closer relationship with him, spoke to him directly about how Bernard’s tendency to go on affected him personally. And we all started being more honest with each other.

So, you’re on a cross-functional team.

Great.  You’ve got people will different skills and different points of view.  That means conflict is not just likely, it’s inevitable.  Conflict can lead to increased trust and creativity–if you know how to recognize the source, understand your default conflict mode and have strategies to handle the conflict without confrontation.

Don’t let conflicts fester and brew.  Come learn the skills to turn conflict into complementary action.

Sign up now for Secrets of Agile Teamwork or email me if you’d like to learn more.

You’ll also learn how to:

Untangle communications gone awry–before they destroy working relationships

Offer interpersonal feedback to improve working relationships

Make your team leaderful, not leaderless

Recognize the visible and invisible structures that affect teams.

Secrets of Agile Teamwork

June 22-24 in Portland, OR

(c) 2001-2010 Esther Derby

“There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”

William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act II, Scene 2

The other day I was skimming the Harvard Management Update when a section in bold red print caught my eye: “Why don’t more organizations stop and think? Because they don’t want to face the truth.” The article went on to say that the ability to “face the truth” is a critical business skill, and that failure to do so can have organizational and bottom-line consequences. Does this sound familiar? You and I see these consequences in software when projects spin out of control and shaky products are shipped “on time” in spite of poor quality.

What is “the truth”? Truth is a big word, so let’s settle for something more mundane: the current situation or the current state.

First let’s acknowledge that organizations can’t face truth; organizations are configurations of people and can’t really act as one human person would. But we, the people who make up organizations, can grapple with concepts like truth. So why don’t we? If it’s that important, we should all face up to the current situation, right? What makes it so hard for us?

Let’s look at two projects that didn’t go as hoped for, and how their sponsors faced the situation.

Martha was a new vice president in a software company that was growing by acquisition. Martha saw an opportunity to consolidate accounting and customer functions across acquired companies. She made the business case to her boss, Ben, chartered a project she named “One-Account,” and started the search for a project manager.

The hiring market was tight, and Martha couldn’t find anyone with the level of experience and skill she wanted for the salary she was able to offer. After interviewing a dozen candidates, she settled for a bright young man named Steve, even though he didn’t have much experience.

Pretty soon it became obvious that Steve didn’t have the skills to handle the large and complex project Martha had hired him for. Steve wasn’t able to manage scope or build even a basic plan.

“I can’t go upstairs and tell Ben this,” Martha thought. “If I tell him, he’ll think I’m a fake and a failure. I talked him into this, after all. We haven’t actually missed any dates,” she rationalized, “and we aren’t over budget, so we’re not really offtrack…”

When colleagues started suggesting that Martha needed to step in and put the project back on track, she countered by justifying her current situation. “I really did my best to find a more experienced project manger, but Steve was the fourth person I made an offer to, and by that point…what was I supposed to have done?”

The project continued to wallow as Steve frantically hired more contractors to work on the ever-increasing scope. Martha started moving resources from other projects and initiatives to cover the wildly inflating budget. “It’s all coming from my own budget, and I’ve got the One-Account project covered, so technically we’re not really over budget,” she told herself.

Martha’s boss, Ben, looked at his current situation, and realized he had a vice president who wasn’t able to face the situation and take action. Ben fired Martha.

Several times zones away, Jackson found himself in a similar spot. His organization was building a new Web application, the first for his company. He hired a project manager, Stacey, who had a good résumé and who seemed like a good fit for the organization. She was a nice person and did a good job building the initial plan.

Jackson felt things were going okay, so he turned his attention to a problem brewing with a subsidiary elsewhere.

When Jackson came back, he found that Stacey’s project team was still having planning meetings, but there were no results or tangible signs of progress. The delivery date had been moved out. When the team talked about delivery, they were pretty vague. “Sometime in maybe the fourth quarter,” he’d hear, “or maybe early next year.”

“This project isn’t going the way I want it to,” thought Jackson. “Stacey did well at the planning stage, but she isn’t able to define concrete deliverables so people can make progress. I sure like Stacey and I want her to be successful. I need to do something to put things back on track.” Jackson started by coaching Stacey, meeting with her three times a week and giving her more direction. Still, the project wasn’t turning around.

Jackson sat down and had a long talk with Stacey. It wasn’t an easy conversation for either of them. Jackson realized that he wouldn’t be doing Stacey any favors by keeping her on in a position that was turning out to be a poor fit. Stacey moved into a role where she was more comfortable, and Jackson took over management of the project.

On the face of it, both Martha and Jackson faced similar problems—an important project that wasn’t going as they wanted. And Martha and Jackson were each aware of the gap between the desired state and the current reality.

The difference was that Martha became wrapped up in her fears about what the situation might mean for her career, and her beliefs about failure. With all that emotion swirling around, there wasn’t much room left for her to think clearly about what to do. Jackson, on the other hand, looked at the facts as just that: facts—information about the difference between the current state and what he wanted. Does this mean we should suppress our emotions? No, as managers, we need to learn how to manage our own emotional state, so we can focus on solving the problem.

The current situation can seem “bad” when things are not going the way we hoped they would. But really, the situation justis. The ability to “face the truth” and take effective action rests on the ability to be in a mental state where our emotions and fears aren’t running us. And managers like Jackson have learned to face the current situation as neither good nor bad—it just is what it is. From that perspective, we can gauge where we are in relation to where we want to be, and take action to close the gap.

This column originally appeared in STQE magazine, December 2001.

“Nothing is more dangerous than an idea, when it’s the only one you have.”

Emile-Auguste Chartier

There are three states in problem solving.

• Not enough ideas
• Too many ideas
• Just the right number of ideas

In the first case (stuck) the task is to generate ideas.

In the second case (stuck in churn) the task is to prune the number of ideas.

In the third, to test and refine the ideas, then implement and refine.

Stuck in Neutral

Fixing the Quick Fix