How to work with someone that regularly arrives as the wrong answer?
How to work with someone that regularly arrives as the wrong answer?
I work with a person that went presented with a problem, works through it and arrives at the wrong solution. When I have them show me the steps they took, it seems like they interpret things incorrectly. This isn't a language barrier, and it's not like they aren't reading what someone wrote.
For example, they are working on a product, and needed to wait until the intended recipients of the product were notified by an email that they were going to get it. the person that sent the email to the recipients then forwarded that notification email to this person and said "go ahead and send this to them."
Most people would understand that they are being asked to send the product out. It's a regular process for them.
So he resent the email. He also sent the product, but I'm having a hard time understanding why he thought he was supposed to re-send the email.
I've tried breaking tasks down into smaller steps, writing out the tasks, post-mortem discussion when something doesn't go as planned. What other training or management tasks can I take? Or have I arrived at the "herding kittens" meme?
From the way this post is written, I think you don't realize how vague your communication style is. Too many possible interpretations of what you said makes it hard to even follow the story you laid out.
Who emailed who about what?
How did someone resend an email that someone else sent?
Re-sending would mean the same coworker sent the email twice.
On rereading, I think you meant that one coworker sent an email to the client, then another coworker that you are having trouble with also sent the same email to the same client.
So, to answer your question, I think they arrive at a different conclusion because they see things differently. Anything that can be interpreted differently will be interpreted differently. The other co workers think they're giving this person set values when in fact they're handing them a set of variables and expecting only one result.
Have you considered events from their perspective? From what you've described, they were told to wait until a notification was sent, then they were given a notification with the instruction "send this". If it was me my first thought would absolutely be that that's the notification to be sent, the only reason I'd hesitate is because those sort of communications are well outside my job description.
The reason they sent the product afterwards is obvious; they were told to send them after the notification was sent, and they had sent the notification.
From what you've described, you are communicating incredibly poorly then blaming your workers for misunderstanding.
Yes, it was too vague. OP may have set a tone that doesn't allow for clarifying questions, or the coworker honestly thought they were carrying out every step exactly as it was told to them and didn't see the need for clarification.
I wasn’t directly involved in this example, so if the problem was with how I communicate it didn’t affect this situation.
I agree that the request was worded poorly but you correctly hesitated.
Unfortunately they seem to be the only one that has difficulty in asking questions when the instructions are unclear or outside the norm.
I'll join the others here saying that it's very unclear what you're requesting, what your colleagues did, what they were supposed to do, and what actually happened.
It may serve you well to look inwards for a solution to your problem.
Vagueness was intentional.
In this case I was an observer, so my writing style didn’t affect the situation I had described. I’m also not the first to recognize this type of problem with the employee.
If the writing in the post is any indication of the level of writing and communication at work, OP needs to work on their communication skills.
Is he maybe just a really literal person and took the forwarded email with instructions "send THIS to them" as "send this email to them", but then he knows his work responsibility is to send the product, hence why he sent both the product and the email?
Do you have an SOP or exact steps to follow written down in a very clear, concise manner (yes, even something as simple as "after employee A sends the email, employee A will notify employee B to send out the product by forwarding the customer email to employee B"; I'm talking reaaaallly literal steps here)?
Can you give other examples of times he's messed up in a similar way?
Does he have poor reading comprehension? ADHD?
I train employees a lot in my current job and jobs prior and I've learned that everyone interprets things differently and learns at their own pace. Most times you can adapt to their style, but sometimes people are just mentally out to lunch 24/7 and not fit for the job.
Another example:
The product they were sending is only relevant to remote workers.
The product group they were to send it to consists of remote workers and in-office workers.
They are aware that the product they are sending is only for remote workers.
This isn’t the first time they have had to send something to only remote workers.
They sent it to all of them instead of only the remote workers.
While I concede that the instruction could have been worded better, they should have either known to send the product to the appropriate people or asked questions.
Others have said in this post that I need to improve my comms skills, but this person regularly mis-interprets things from everyone, including documentation and guides, and then executes without hesitation. So how do we fix the individual?
It sounds like this person isn't remembering the procedures then, even when you've explained it to them and they've already done the task before (Or they're just a lazy fuck that doesn't care one way or the other and maybe never will). There is no "fixing" the individual, you need to correct their behavior while also giving them plenty of opportunity to get it right and with all the tools and guides they need readily available. How long have they been working in that position? Maybe they just need more time.
As others have stated, if the directions aren't already in writing, you should either write them down for the employee or, better yet, make the employee write them down, then review it for accuracy. This should in theory help them commit the process to memory, plus now they have their own guide to refer to.
Another bonus (for you, not the employee) of getting the process in writing is that if/when this person messes up again, now you have something to point back to and say "Remember when we went over this and you wrote it down and I verified that your notes were correct? Did you follow those notes this time? If yes, why did (mess up) happen anyway? If no, why didn't you follow the notes?" Make this person explain themselves, don't just sit there and be mad and say nothing to them.
This could also be a case of weaponized incompetence/ learned helplessness. If they fuck up a lot, you stop giving them work, but they're still there getting paid anyway, right? Now you're just paying them to either stand around or do menial tasks and not what you actually hired them for.
Start documenting their fuck ups, and tell them you're doing so. You're better off having a paper trail to point to when you have to fire them.
No SOP because no one else has trouble understanding this process. At the level they are at they shouldn’t need written steps for this and every other aspect of their job.
I’ve been suspecting adhd for a while but I’m not sure how to approach that topic.
Some people need structure. It's not unreasonable to provide it to them.
Any company with reasonably involved processes (read: more than three steps) should have clearly documented SOPs, policies and process documentation. This has nothing to do with the level people are at. I'm at senior level and sure as shit don't remember every detail of something that was verbally communicated to me months ago unless I do it every single day, and even that's error-prone. I write step by step instructions on processes for myself and everyone else.
Benefits of this approach:
- It's not stuck in my or anyone else's head, but clearly spelled out
- people can follow the process again and again, no matter how much time passes between each time - you'd be surprised how much people forget if they don't do something on a daily basis
- clear documentation removes doubt
- clear documentation is beneficial to newly onboarded staff. Nobody gives them a half-baked version scraped together from memory fragments
- people can point out potential issues with the process, and the documentation can be amended/updated
- I myself can go back to it if I have even the slightest amount of doubt on a detail.
Drawbacks of this approach:
- someone has to write the document
- someone has to maintain it
My wife told me, "please go to the store and buy a carton of milk and if they have eggs, get six."
When I came back with 6 cartons of milk she said, "why in the hell did you buy six cartons of milk?"
I said "they had eggs."
Sometimes being extremely specific helps some people understand. Anything that could have multiple meanings is always open to some interpretation. And while it would be nice if they asked for clarification, they may not because they think they fully understand the instructions.
Great example/joke. A rational person would either understand that six eggs were wanted, or that six cartons of milk is an odd request and ask for confirmation that they understood the request correctly.
My problem to solve is how do I fix this? While clear instruction should be given, I can’t be there to translate every request this person receives, nor should I have to approve every action they want to take.
You claim you’ve tried and done things to assist this employee but it sounds like you are just looking for advice on justifying them being the problem.
I think you try having someone else explain it to them. Clearly you and they don't understand each other.
being extremely specific
More like being eggstreamly specific
Might be a high functioning autist? If he got sent the notification email, he could interpret "go and send this" as what he is supposed to send, and thus the logic of shipping the product afterwards kicks in and he also sends that. Just my two cents as a fellow high functioning autist...
Sounds like the instructions were unclear so the person implemented all possible interpretations in order to avoid any misinterpretation causing problems. If they were forwarded an email and told to send "this" to someone, I can easily see that being interpreted as the email itself. Especially if this wasn't the first time your instructions were unclear and they got in trouble for not guessing the right interpretation. Being more clear and saying "the product" instead of just "this" might help or even saying the name of the product. Good communication is about being precise, but brief.
If people are always having to guess your intentions, then some are going to get it right and some won't. Some will learn how you think and how to interpret your vague instructions and some won't. But if you learn better communication skills to be more direct in your instructions and leave fewer things open to interpretation, then there won't be any need for people to guess your intentions. Remember, no one else has the information in your head, only the information in your communication.
I agree, but here is some more info:
Employee seems to misunderstand requests from most people and published documentation at a rate much higher than others.
Employee has had years to figure out how people communicate with them.
In this case I wasn’t the one that worded the request poorly, it was someone else. I have adapted to using lists when making requests, and avoiding vague statements, but I can’t expect everyone to adapt to this person and I can’t be there to translate everything for them.
Is that employee autistic? One of the things that management requires is learning to communicate with all types of people and help others communicate. After all, your job isn't producing something, it's making sure your employees that do the actual work are able to do their job effectively.
I'm just using autism as an example because I happen to be on the spectrum, though I've learned to mask well over the years. Autism has tons of advantages in the way we think. Great at analysis, great at handling emergencies, etc., but our communication style is a little different. We tend to need communication to be direct and precise because we analyze things too much sometimes. Problem is that because we're so used to being misunderstood or misunderstanding people and getting into trouble for it and being scolded for asking clarifying questions because we "should just know what they meant", that we often don't ask the questions and try to interpret things in all the possible ways.
And maybe it's not even at this job that they were scolded, they just are used to neurotypical people scolding them for the way they think, that they no longer even try to ask questions. So my advice is to make sure the person is not only able to ask questions, but is encouraged to do so if they need to. Make sure to be very positive when they do and make sure the other people they interact with are positive as well. It's a very small accommodation that could help them thrive and end up being one of your best employees if given the right atmosphere.
Again, I'm using autism as an example because it's a commonly misunderstood condition that is not a disease and not curable, nor should anyone try to cure it, it is just a different way of thinking and is a spectrum of various types of ways of thinking that people are often forced to mask and so is commonly undiagnosed or misdiagnosed. Heck, I didn't figure it out until a few years ago and I'm in my mid-40s. But it took me decades to learn to effectively communicate without knowing why some people just couldn't get me. Even now I tend to over-communicate as you can see from this wall of text.
But as a manager you should try to get to know your employees' strengths and weaknesses, communication styles, etc., and help them to communicate more effectively with each other. It has helped me to be effective at coordinating people.
Employee has had years to figure out how people communicate with them.
Maybe your employee does have more difficulty understanding than the average person, but this is such a bullshit excuse.
Everyone communicates differently. What is obvious to someone may not be obvious to others. Some people need a little more precision in the instructions you give to them. I don't see why it would be unreasonable to provide that.
I'm reminded of an interaction with my supervisor the other day...
Me: Hello. This case has <issue>. Am I ok to proceed with <issue> or does it need to be corrected first?
Supervisor: Have <Company name> figure it out.
<Company name> has literally thousands of employees so I have no idea why she said it like that.
Me: Uhh...do you want me to ask <Name of specific higher up person>?
Supervisor: No, have them figure it out.
Me: Who is them?
Supervisor: <Lower level assistant>.
For context, <Lower level assistant> usually asks us if they are ok to proceed, not the other way around.
Me: I don't think they will know the answer. Who should I have them ask?
Supervisor: <Company name>
Me: ?????
Supervisor: Have them ask <Name of a specific manager>
Me: Ok.
In this whole interaction, she was getting increasingly rude and irate with me for not being able to read her mind. If she would have just said she wanted <Name of a specific manager> to figure it out, she could have just told me to begin with instead of getting huffy and curt with me and unnecessarily prolonging the interaction.
Here's another example...
Supervisor: Hey, do you want me to move X out of the way somewhere?
Me: Nah, I don't mind it being there!
Supervisor: I don't want X there.
Me: <Supervisor>, I am not a mind reader. If you want something, you have to tell me.
Sometimes what is obvious in your brain is not obvious to those around you.
intended recipients of the product
Do you mean "the customer"?
The way you communicate (at least in English) is needlessly convoluted.
You already know they interpret your instructions incorrectly. You admitted yourself that, that is the problem. The solution in my world would be to give better instructions.
Yeah, it’s vague on purpose. No, not customers.
Intended recipient of the product doesn't have to mean customer. Could simply be sending something to a coworker or any number of options. The provided information seems completely understandable. It's possible that what we are getting vs the person being told could be very different though.
Have we started to get reddit style bait on lemmy now? There's no way someone can communicate so poorly in this and multiple responses while blaming someone else for not understanding.
It's pretty funny, I'll give you that.
I wish I knew. I have a coworker who flat out doesn't understand anything about his job and causes others to do all his work for him. He has been employed with us for a year and has barely improved. I personally would never give him a task because I know he'd fuck it up royally, causing a day task to be become a 5 day task while wasting hours of other people's time.
I have tried talking to managers about him and they won't listen. I cannot understand how he's not been fired. The motherfucker clearly is not working 90% of the time. His slack status shows him offline almost always, he doesn't respond to emails or GitHub notifications. He opens about 1 pull request per two weeks, and most of them have 50 or more comments from other developers pointing out the same mistakes he always makes. I think every single task he's successfully completed has been via pair programming, and when I've been involved it's been painful how little he gets. Baffling shit.
Not sure why so many people here comment that your communication style is vague.
Both instructions and issue are clear. Send product after notification was sent via mail. Colleague did that and aso sent the mail again, which had already been sent.
Why people are talking about the product being sent as the issue in thus scenario is beyond me.
As for a solution: Let them repeat back to you what they're supposed to do in their own words to verify you're both on the same page, before the do what they need to do.
If you have tried this unsuccessfully, I have no further suggestions without a whole lot more detail except for: ask theco worker in question how they would have phrased the task if they had given it to someone else. Try and learn what their style of communication is and adjust for that particular colleague.
some people hate legalese, but after reading the situation, I think legalese is made for this sort of problems.
some people learn by example better than following instructions.
also context plays a lot when it comes to instructions. try to see things ahead if played in different contexts.
Though language is an effective means of communication, it's not perfect.
To use an example, there was a meme about a literature professor quoting from a book and telling students what the author meant by mentioning the curtains being blue in a scene. As they go on and on about the melancholy and sadness the author was known to experience at the time, Samuel L Jackson busts in through the door and yells "The color was blue because the curtains were blue, motherfucker!"
Or am I remembering it wrong? Anyway, language is open to interpretation and as such, people will interpret it openly.
Saving this to see if there is an answer.
Side note : just my opinion, but some people will never understand basic logic.
It's fine if they get it wrong, you explain how you actually wanted it so they understand and then get it right, sometimes you have to spell out what you mean.
If you explained and showed what you wanted and how, after their mistake, then a 2nd or 3rd time they screw up in the same way that's an issue. Words can mean different things to people.
If it's a different screw up each time, and they aren't intentionally being obtuse, then you could probably be clearer or explain yourself better.
Maybe try and see if they are suffering mentally? Mental illness like depression can slow down brain processes.
How to work with someone that regularly arrives as the wrong answer?
Yes.