You are the officer in a station with three other firefighters. One of the crew members, Tyler, has been having trouble lately getting to work on time. Three times in the last six months, Tyler has arrived at the station at least a few minutes late for the start of the shift.
You know you must talk to Tyler about the problem. As you begin preparing for that encounter, you consider which of the following statements might be true about the situation.
- Tyler has reported to work late three times in the past six months.
- Tyler may be having personal problems at home.
- Tyler’s coworkers are covering for his lateness because they are friends with him.
- Tyler is developing a bad attitude toward the job.
All of the above statements might be true. But only one of them is an unequivocal fact: Tyler has shown up to work late at least three times in the past six months. When you as the company officer talk to Tyler about the problem, this fact alone must be the basis for that conversation.
Attitude adjustment
The ability to separate facts from conclusions based on facts or perceptions is a critical skill for effective decision making. The difference between facts and conclusions may seem obvious in the example above, but people confuse these two things all the time.
Consider the bad attitude statement. This conclusion often shows up on performance evaluations, where supervisors are asked to rate an employee’s attitude on a scale of 1-10. Eight or above indicates a great employee, four or less means you have a problem employee on your hands.
But does such a rating really say anything meaningful? What does it mean to have a bad attitude?
For this label to have any meaning at all, it must be linked to indisputable facts. What specific, observable behaviors have led to the conclusion that someone has a bad attitude? Is the person coming to work late, wearing a dirty or wrinkled uniform, or not completing assigned duties to prescribed standards?
These are all things that can be objectively observed and measured, and a better performance evaluation instrument would measure these specific behaviors in their own right, and not the officer’s conclusion about what they might mean.
Even trickier is when the bad attitude label is applied due to less measurable factors, such as “not getting along with coworkers” or “not showing initiative.” What defines good interpersonal skills or acceptable initiative may vary from observer to observer.
Additionally, what seems like a lack of initiative to an officer might be intended as respectful caution on the part of the employee. Attitude is about intention, and it is impossible to completely know someone else’s intentions. Sometimes we are not even completely clear about our own.
Fact-based assesment
A good officer will steer clear of the dangers of acting on conclusions rather than facts. This does not mean that an officer cannot inquire about motivation and cause for behavior.
It does mean that all coaching/counseling conversations must begin with the indisputable facts. After the facts have been clearly established, the officer can take the next step to better understand the underlying cause for the problem.
In the case of Tyler, the conversation might go like this: “Tyler, I have documented you coming to work at least five minutes late three times within the past six months. What’s going on?”
At this point, Tyler can provide whatever further information he sees fit to explain the situation.
If you intend to take disciplinary action for clear violations of rules or policies, it is best to say so up front, before you get into the back story for any particular event.
In this case, you could say, “Tyler, I have documented you coming to work at least five minutes late three times within the past six months. I’m obligated to issue a written reprimand after the third late to work within six months. Are you clear about that policy?”
Once Tyler has confirmed knowledge of the policy that is being applied, it is appropriate to follow up with inquiry that is also based on fact.
“You’ve never been late to work before in the two years we’ve worked together. Is something going on that I can help with?”
Starting with the facts will make any feedback more effective and fair, and will also provide protection from the dangers of immediately jumping to conclusions. Again, this is easy to do in theory, but much harder in day-to–day practice.
Consider the difference in the following statements:
- He slammed a door when leaving the room vs. He is short-tempered.
- She brings her own food to the station vs. She doesn’t want to share a meal with us.
- He did not volunteer to help with a project vs. He is lazy and self-centered.
As human beings, we are wired to see patterns and create conclusions based on our experiences. This tendency can serve us well in making some decisions, but can be a real source of danger in others.
Whenever possible, start with the facts.
