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?

  • dingus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    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.

    • MudSkipperKisser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      I don’t think your supervisor is mis-communicating, I think they just don’t know what they want. But they want you to still choose correctly even though there is no correct answer. It’s like when my husband asks what I want for dinner and I tell him “I don’t know, you pick”, there’s definitely a right and wrong answer for his decision but I don’t know it until he chooses it! Yes I know how messed up that is. Anywho, god speed to you