If an employee makes an error while following your instructions, the instructions are flawed, not the employee. This approach shifts the focus from penalizing individuals to improving systems. It creates a better training process and a psychologically safe culture that values feedback.
Related Insights
A three-step structure for feedback: state a neutral observation ("What"), explain its impact ("So What"), and suggest a collaborative next step ("Now What"). This focuses on the work, not the person, making the feedback more likely to be received well and acted upon.
People won't bring you problems if they fear your reaction. To build trust, leaders must not only control their emotions but actively thank the messenger. This reframes problem-reporting from a negative event to a positive act that helps you see reality more clearly.
To empower teams to act without perfect data, leaders must cultivate psychological safety. This means explicitly framing well-intentioned mistakes as acceptable risks. It encourages reps to trust their instincts and take necessary steps forward in gray areas.
Exceptional people in flawed systems will produce subpar results. Before focusing on individual performance, leaders must ensure the underlying systems are reliable and resilient. As shown by the Southwest Airlines software meltdown, blaming employees for systemic failures masks the root cause and prevents meaningful improvement.
A 'blame and shame' culture develops when all bad outcomes are punished equally, chilling employee reporting. To foster psychological safety, leaders must distinguish between unintentional mistakes (errors) and conscious violations (choices). A just response to each builds a culture where people feel safe admitting failures.
To effectively transfer a skill, first, document the process in a checklist. Then, demonstrate it live for the employee. Finally, have the employee duplicate the process in front of you. This three-step method ensures true comprehension and creates a repeatable system for all future hires.
The belief that people fail due to lack of will leads to blame. Shifting to 'people do well if they can' reframes failure as a skill gap, not a will gap. This moves your role from enforcer to helper, focusing you on identifying and building missing skills.
Employees hesitate to use new AI tools for fear of looking foolish or getting fired for misuse. Successful adoption depends less on training courses and more on creating a safe environment with clear guardrails that encourages experimentation without penalty.
Borrowing from filmmaking, view communication slip-ups not as failures but as different "takes." This reframes errors as opportunities to try a different approach next time, reducing fear and encouraging experimentation and growth.
Leaders who complain their team isn't as good as them are misplacing blame. They are the ones who hired and trained those individuals. The team's failure is ultimately the leader's failure in either talent selection, skill development, or both, demanding radical ownership.