Fallout from not following these steps will be one of my first tasks -- I need to fix a situation that was allowed to escalate until problems erupted and someone got punished. I've watched our new director handle problems immediately, privately, straight -on. It feels strange b/c when I made mistakes, I was corrected and gifted a redemption plan, but this person was not. Hence, favorites were played as well. I'll write these rules up and post them on the wall. I'd like remember and practice.
When I receive negative feedback, I will intentionally refrain from responding to that feedback immediately. Out of respect for the "giver," and the risk they are taking by telling me these things, I will wait, think deeply about their comments, take them seriously, and likely have things to discuss about it, … later.
So do we have regular "one-on-one" meetings?
(If not, why not?)
Are those meetings "safe" for clear, honest, open (and not one-sided) discussion?
(If not, why not?)
My later discussion might be about me realizing and accepting a number of my flaws and failures.
I feel that it would also be helpful to mention the importance of regular "one-on-one" meetings here.
Like, how could we end up delaying giving gentile, valuable, and important negative feedback again and again, if we had regular, safe, honest "one-on-one" conversations with our workers?
(And "Sorry! I don't have time for it! I can't fit it into my schedule!" seems like a feeble excuse if "managing your direct reports" is really, honestly, one of your *official job responsibilities.*)
Fallout from not following these steps will be one of my first tasks -- I need to fix a situation that was allowed to escalate until problems erupted and someone got punished. I've watched our new director handle problems immediately, privately, straight -on. It feels strange b/c when I made mistakes, I was corrected and gifted a redemption plan, but this person was not. Hence, favorites were played as well. I'll write these rules up and post them on the wall. I'd like remember and practice.
Maybe it's my personality.
But it might be true of some others too, …
When I receive negative feedback, I will intentionally refrain from responding to that feedback immediately. Out of respect for the "giver," and the risk they are taking by telling me these things, I will wait, think deeply about their comments, take them seriously, and likely have things to discuss about it, … later.
So do we have regular "one-on-one" meetings?
(If not, why not?)
Are those meetings "safe" for clear, honest, open (and not one-sided) discussion?
(If not, why not?)
My later discussion might be about me realizing and accepting a number of my flaws and failures.
And, …
It might be more "complicated" than that.
I feel that it would also be helpful to mention the importance of regular "one-on-one" meetings here.
Like, how could we end up delaying giving gentile, valuable, and important negative feedback again and again, if we had regular, safe, honest "one-on-one" conversations with our workers?
(And "Sorry! I don't have time for it! I can't fit it into my schedule!" seems like a feeble excuse if "managing your direct reports" is really, honestly, one of your *official job responsibilities.*)