462: How To Get Mistake Handling Right

THE Leadership Japan Series by Dale Carnegie Training Tokyo Japan

Out of all the things we do as leaders, one of the most difficult is dealing with poor or substandard performance. Inside that broad spectrum there are crimes, sabotage, toxic people, idiocy and people on the wrong bus or on the right bus, but in the wrong seat. The most common recognition points concerning poor performance are missing deadlines, poor quality of the work submitted, not making the sales quota and mistakes. Mistakes tend to be public events and so the team are watching how you deal with them. Your credibility with your people and their consequent loyalty to you can be clearly compromised if you get this wrong.

I joined the rest of the seniors in the firm for the weekly meeting in this quite tight meeting room with the new Group President. With so many people crammed in there, it was a bit claustrophobic on a good day. He had a resume that was platinum, a prince among men, an elite double alumnus of one of the best varsities, highly intelligent and a boot strapped, self-made executive. He arrived into the organisation and quickly had fired our boss, so he was “taking care” of us, until the new head was appointed.

In the first meeting, I happened to be seated opposite him, but ever so fortunately not directly in front of him. I mention this because it became very important in subsequent weekly meetings. He was not satisfied with our results and like one of those amazing super sports cars, he went from zero to 100, in seconds and exploded with rage, decalcifying the spines of those unfortunates who chose the cheap seats directly in front of him.

Observing this phenomena and preferring a better quality of work life, I purposely chose the same side of the table where he would sit and made sure I was well down toward the end of the table. You actually have to lean around and contort your body to excoriate someone seated in my location, so I just calmly observed the weekly humiliation of those seated in the death zone. What was our opinion of this corporate prince? How were the trust levels? What about the loyalty factor? Trust me, they were all exceedingly bad.

I was astonished that someone with his pedigree, in his position, could get to the top, without the ability to control his emotions and anger. As a side note, he subsequently chose the completely wrong person for the job of head of our business and everyone in that room departed from the firm and the business was effectively destroyed. Actually he destroyed the Group and eventually he was shown the door himself, so the radius on the circle of karma is shorter than we all think. I occasionally run into hm and even now, many years later, alI I can think about were those brutal torture sessions

This boss “rage-athon” is clearly what not to do, so how should we handle mistakes so that we don’t blow up the whole enterprise? There are multiple stages to handling mistakes and we will approach an important fork in the road, depending on how the person reacts to their mistake. Let’s investigate the stages.

Stage 1. Research

We have to ignore what we might be told by others about what happened and get the real facts. “Oh, you can’t believe what Tanaka has done now”, is the character assassin’s technique for removing rivals or people they don’t like. They try to mould our opinion about what has happened and poison the well. We simply must ignore this type of talk and take careful note of the motives of the messenger. We shouldn’t have any views on the mistake, until we have gathered all the relevant detail. If the mistake is a large one, we start the research with the question, “Is the person worth saving?” in the back of our minds.

Stage 2. Begin with Rapport

Rapport is like a bank account of good relations and mutual trust built up over a long time. We draw on this when we start the discussion. We want to put them at ease and reduce their anxiety. We give them some honest appreciation about other aspects of their work and we support it with evidence to make it credible. We should be referring to their positive behaviour we have observed. The more specific we can make these remarks the better, because that indicates the comments are sincere, genuine and thought through. We use Dale Carnegie’s Principle #22 “Begin with praise and honest appreciation”.

Stage 3. Reference The Mistake or Issue

It is important we focus on the problem not the human being. We have to depersonalize the problem. We need to let them tell us what happened and then tell them what we know about it, to fill in any gaps or correct any misunderstandings. In reality we are carefully listening to them, to see if they are taking responsibility for what happened or whether they are trying to avoid accountability. Depending on their reaction, we will take a particular pre-determined course of action. To create a more psychologically safe environment we can use Principle #24 “Talk about our own mistakes before criticising the other person”.

Stage 4A. Restore if they accept accountability

We appreciate that they have taken responsibility for what happened and we work with them to fix the problem and make sure it doesn’t happen again. We know that they are feeling bad about what happened and this can diminish their motivation. We are focusing on encouraging them to keep going and stay with the company. We use Principle #26 “Let the other person save face”.

Stage 4B. Restate the facts and seriousness of what they did.

They are not accepting responsibility. They are blaming others and resisting our attempts to help them through this. We will be referencing internal compliance rules and company policy to make it clear that the mistake is not going to be tolerated. We can use Principle # 28 “Give the other person a fine reputation to live up to” and appeal to their nobler side, to face up to their responsibility and not try and push it off on to others. We tell them, “I know you are a real professional and self-confident enough to take accountability for your work, so let’s work together to recover from this incident”.

Stage 5A. Reassure

We know that failure is a bitter experience and motivation and commitment suffers. They are down on confidence and will not be able to work to their full potential. Our job is to reassure them they have a place here, they are valued and we support them. They can come back from this and we will help them to do so. We can employ Principle #29 “Use encouragement. Make the fault seem easy to correct”.

Stage 5B. Reinforce

When people resist taking responsibility we need to make it clear they need to be accountable and resisting is not acceptable behaviour. Often companies have specific policies and actions for this purpose. We have to make it clear, that unless they take personal accountability, these next steps will be triggered.

Stage 6A. Retain

If we have been a skilled communicator throughout this process, the individual will feel they can recover from the mistake and their career is not in jeopardy. They won’t quit the company and will in fact do their best to try harder to succeed. We make some suggestions and use Principle #30, “Make the other person happy about doing the thing you suggest”.

Stage 6B. Replace

If the person continues to deny responsibility, we may conclude they are not a good fit this work or team. If they have strengths and abilities, there may be another area within the firm which may be more suitable for them. They may have reached the same conclusion and may welcome a fresh chance somewhere else in the firm. If we have been coaching them, but they remain a problem, then we may need to release them from the organisation. In today’s job market they will have a good chance of finding a much better suited job for their future. I know from my own personal experience, that if you are working in an organization which doesn’t suit you, every day is excruciating. It is better to find a job where you enjoy the work and can make a contribution and we need to point out some basic truths to the person and let them see leaving as a positive step for all concerned.

We are not handling mistakes in a vacuum. Everyone is watching how we handle them. If we are vicious with one person, then the rapid assumption is we are going to be dishing it out to the observers as well, one day in the future. In this current zero sum game, war for talent, we don’t want to be losing people, because of our inability to properly deal with substandard performance. These are the clear steps for how we can handle mistakes. They are not particularly complex or hard, but they do require superior levels of listening and communication. We all need to make sure we are up to the task.