Leadership Axiom #4

See it Right, Fix it Wrong
This expression has two levels of meaning for me, paralleling the inverse nature of leadership - that where you lead but you also follow. So at any given time, you can conceptualize yourself as a supervisor or as an employee, and often the two roles can mix. See it right, fix it wrong, is an expression that deals with issues and difficulties at work. Simply stated, this particular version of the axiom means that you understood or saw the problem correctly, but the way you chose to deal with was not correct. A very common phenomenon.
This phrase came to me when I was listening to a friend discussing his frustration with a family member who was also his business partner. He was upset with something she had done, and was venting and perhaps bouncing solutions off of me. As we talked, I realized there were two levels of problems: the dysfunction to the common goals the two had due to her behavior, and the hurt feelings he had personally. Being the linear, logical type I am, I focused on the former and he dismissed each possible solution. It hit me like a ton of bricks that he wasn't interested in a solution (at least initially), he needed his pain validated. I suppose this is a good explanation of male/female communication problems (despite the fact that this was male to male), whereby one party is focused on the logical side, and the other on the emotional. As we discussed possible solutions (I don't think he was aware of his true need at that moment), the only options he recognized involved some sort of mild retaliation, or public recognition of her transgression. I quickly shifted tactics, and began to acknowledge his feelings, and he eventually decided he really didn't need further advice, he was over it.
I should say that I am not a great believer in the "absorption" theory, whereby all you have to do is listen to people and their pain will be dissipated. I had a boss once whose primary tactic was to have us absorb problems - I let him know that you don't truly absorb them, as they will eventually go somewhere (remembering my early physics lessons - conservation of energy), or they will take a heavy toll on you. Occasionally, I suppose it is ok just to let people vent, but often the issues are not anomalies, they are symptoms of larger, more prevalent issues.
I have also learned that there are people who do not want to solve the issue, but rather need to punish the transgressor. I realized this once in a job interview (not good to be thinking about philosophic things during an interview, but hey, I have to seize on a inspiration when I have one), when they gave me a scenario about an employee who had sent out a mean email regarding a department issue. I was to role play talking to the employee as his supervisor. As we began to talk, I realized that he had been trying to hurt the recipient of the email publicly, with no regard to repairing the related issue. I asked him (a committee member role playing the wayward employee) if he was more concerned with fixing the issue or humiliating the person he sent the email to. He paused, I asked him to read his own email and to tell me what it looked like. He sheepishly responded the latter.
This issue of see it right, fix it wrong arises occasionally when helping employees deal with the conflict that often arises at work. Frequently, they themselves don't know which issue they are fretting over: the problem or their own feelings regarding it. Often, the personal injury supersedes their normal sense of decorum - i.e., the passion they are feeling justifies a correlated response, the incensed emotions require an incensed response. This, of course, only makes the situation more difficult. Too often, the response is worse than the original offense.
The key to ameliorating these conflicts (if they can be lessened) lies in pointing out the two levels of issues to the employee, then having a frank discussion about the consequences. There are times when the personal aspect of the situation is more important than the impact to the system, e.g. when someone is publicly humiliated, or treated disrespectfully in the guise of the issue. In these cases, there becomes two problems - whatever the primary issue was, and the personal insult done to the employee. These should be identified and dealt with separately.
There are many cases, however, where the employee's reaction to an issue is stronger than either the intention or a reasonable interpretation of the interaction. These are difficult cases, for the employee might be unlikely to move towards a solution without some sort of redress to the injury. Whenever I have felt myself in this position, I have particularly loathed the response "I hear you" from my supervisor or would be benefactor. It feels and is pedantic. I don't think you can overlook the affective issue, but you can gently challenge the employee regarding a functional solution to the larger problem. As simple as it sounds, we can often be reminded that "being in the right" is only half of the solution. I don't know how many times over the years I have had to deal with a response that was worse than the initial offense. I am sure this is also a comment lament of many judges. I have found that the most powerful response is to persuade the employee to validate her innocence with the proper subsequent actions, not reactions. And although there might not be a public apology, or reprimand, the employee does not make a serious mistake, and telling patterns begin to emerge. This is where supervision is needed most - not fixing out of control conflict, but observing consistent issues over time. When one employee strikes out at another, it is never a good situation. Many supervisors don't want to know about or want to deal with difficult employees, and this type of conflict rarely flares over a single issue, therefore the supervisor is negligent in her ignorance.
By being involved with your employees, and being willing to deal proactively with uncomfortable situations, you will find that many of your folks will seek out your council, not "tattle-telling" but genuinely seeking advice to improve the dynamics of their work environment.