Both Tina and Anil are principal engineers who are really excited about creating a new process for their organization. The implementation might not be urgent, yet it is extremely important to the long-term strategy. In all honesty, it will make their lives much easier.
Tina was really looking forward to joining forces with her colleague since Anil is a very experienced and talented engineer with a strong reputation. He has great ideas and without his input, the process would be much less effective. Despite these assets, and if Tina is 100% frank with herself, she wonders how he got the reputation with his communication issues.
His engagement in multiple areas means his response rate in this project is very low. Sometimes, he doesn’t respond at all. Now a process they were supposed to finalize three months ago is still in the development phase. Anil tends to forget what they both agreed on or suggests that somebody else needs to do a particular part. It has started to sound like an excuse.
Yet, Tina likes him a lot. They are both seasoned employees and Tina knows from experience how many operational tasks they both have on their plate. Still, this strategic process is of paramount importance. Tina has already given Anil feedback a few times, showing him the success of their work relies heavily on delivering what was promised. He either agreed (yet remained unchanged) or suggested somebody else is responsible for things he had not delivered.
Tina feels extremely demotivated now. She is approaching him again saying, “I feel we are both impacted by the delays. What are the obstacles that make you postpone your part?”
Let’s freeze that scene for a second. Because what you are witnessing here is a warm welcome to the excuse wonderland!
With the help of Kim Scott’s books, people began to adopt a radical candor feedback model. This model postulates that only by challenging directly, can you truly show you care personally and support a person in their growth. Unfortunately, many are finding when it is time to give feedback to a peer (or a superior), it is challenging.
The most useful evaluation I have found is based on the observable behaviors of that person. This is how you can help them adjust and grow. However, I tested this case last year and my trainees, as Tina, used delays as observable behavior. They usually said, “I want to talk to you about our cooperation. I feel we are both impacted by the delays. What are the obstacles that make you postpone your part?” before listening and following up with, “And what we can do about it?”
Anil’s behavior and Tina’s inability to correct it impacted their project so much that it was delayed. The delay is the outcome here. Asking a question like “What are the obstacles that make you postpone your part?” only makes it easy to present excuses. This question also fails to show a person their impact on a situation and doesn’t allow them to see their blind spots.
Deeply honest feedback looks at behavior, not only the outcome, to help a person grow.
Yet, let me highlight that saying something along the lines of “You never respond to my emails, and I keep on waiting for ages for any decisions on your side. It is all your fault we are late!” is also not a good way to address issues.
Switch Radical Candor to a Fact-based Approach
I can assure you radical candor is a great mindset to have while sharing your observations with a peer. Nonetheless, some people get overwhelmed when they hear “radical” and “candor” together. Because of that, they might phrase their feedback in a way that offers a person a loophole to external explanations.
On the other hand, others might take those words too literally and become bluntly rude in their feedback.
Besides, sharing deeply honest words when there is no trust or deep relationship can resemble horrible and offensive presents given by family members. There’s no way anybody will use them in the future.
The fact-based approach takes away the fear of going too much in any one way because it starts with exploring the observation part of the feedback. Handy feedback models such as DESK or COIN include this part. The DESK model has it in the first letter: describe. The COIN model features it in the second letter: observe.
Observe and State Facts
The trick is to describe what a witness or a camera would see. Next, objectively say what happened.
In this situation, it would sound like:
At our last meeting, you committed to these actions, and they have not been delivered yet.
I have been waiting for your decision regarding this element for the last two weeks, yet while contracting our work, we agreed to decide within 72 hours.
I sent you a couple of emails, yet there has not been any answer so far.
Notice usage of the passive voice. While it isn’t the best writing tool, it’s valuable when giving feedback to a peer, because it draws the attention away from the coworker. For instance, saying “actions haven’t been delivered” sounds slightly better than saying “you failed to deliver.” It doesn’t guarantee success, yet it might trigger fewer issues.
The next essential part is opening a dialogue. Peer feedback needs to be truly collaborative. Avoid having a monologue with a witness instead.
Immediately after you share, ask:
What are your observations?What could I do better next time to get your attention?What is the best way for us to make this project happen in the future knowing our workload?What can we do next time if we don’t follow these rules?
Finally, focus on a problem, not on a person. This means your goal should be to solve the issue, not to be angry. Don’t waste energy making elaborate plans on how to get back at them. Dedicate your efforts to improving collaboration and effectiveness. Sometimes it might mean changing partners.
