Some things at work should take a few minutes to sort out.
Say you just need to check whether the job title was included in the employee list you send out every month.
You check, and here's what you find:
April: no job title
May: no job title
That's it. You now know where things stand.
The next step is simple:
So far, the list has gone out without job titles.
If you need them going forward, I'll add them.
If you're using it for the one issued on the 16th, I'll check when you need it and which date the data should reflect.
That's all it takes.
But in some workplaces, this simple matter somehow gets turned into a hunt for a culprit, or a ruling that somebody made a mistake.
"Maybe it was your mistake."
"I don't want to get yelled at for a sloppy reply."
"First we need to understand the current situation."
"Hurry up. I've got a meeting after this."
"That's a separate issue."
"So you're saying the person who pointed it out was wrong?"
Once it goes this way, the work stops moving.
What you need isn't a guilty verdict on the past.
What you need is a decision about how things will work from now on.
"Not in April, Not in May" Is Just a Status Check, Not Evidence in a Trial
There's nothing wrong with looking at past records.
In fact, sometimes you have to in order to understand where things stand.
In this case, checking
whether April had job titles
whether May had job titles
is a perfectly natural way to find out the current state.
But if the result is
April: none
May: none
then the first thing you can conclude is this:
It's been running without job titles.
That's enough.
From there, all you have to do is decide:
Is it fine to keep going without job titles?
Will we include them from now on?
Starting with this round?
Or starting with the next one?
As of what date should the data be pulled?
By what date is it needed?
But workplaces that are bad at solving problems drift off course right here.
Why wasn't it included?
Who left it out?
Is this the person in charge's mistake?
Is the other department right to point it out?
What did the previous person do?
Now the look at the past is no longer input for deciding how to run things going forward. It has become ammunition for blaming someone.
That's pointless.
If They Ask for Something Extra, the Answer Is Just "Sure, I'll Add It"
In any job, you sometimes find out later that a field is needed.
That happens all the time.
Once another department actually starts using the list, they might realize:
It's hard to follow without job titles.
Department alone isn't enough to go on.
If we're using it for the one issued on the 16th, we'd like data that's a bit more recent.
That isn't a bad thing.
If using it showed you what's missing, that's a chance to improve how you work.
The natural reply is simply this:
I see, so you'll need job titles from now on.
Then I'll add that field starting next time.
And if needed, continue:
If you need it for this round too, I'll redo it with job titles.
If it's for the one issued on the 16th, I'll check when you need it and which date the data should reflect.
And the work moves forward.
But as soon as you mix in "who's at fault," things suddenly go sideways.
So we've been getting it wrong all this time?
Are you saying the person who pointed it out is mistaken?
Maybe it was the person in charge who messed up.
If I reply carelessly, I'll get chewed out.
No.
A request came in.
So you add it.
It wasn't defined.
So you define it.
That's all there is to it.
When "I Don't Want to Get Yelled At" Becomes the Goal, Work Stops Moving
What makes these situations tricky is that the boss's or the person in charge's goal drifts.
The real goal is
to make sure the other department gets data with the fields they need, when they need it.
But in practice, the goal can turn into this:
I want to gather material for my reply so I don't get yelled at.
That drift in purpose piles more work onto the people on the ground.
If you just ask what the other department wants and when, things go quickly.
Do you need job titles?
As of what date should the data be?
By what date should I send it?
Do you need it from this round, or is the next one fine?
Ask these and you're nearly done.
But once "I don't want to get yelled at" becomes the goal, attention goes somewhere else entirely.
What happened in April and May?
Whose mistake was it?
How should I reply so I can't be blamed?
I don't want to get yelled at for a sloppy answer to another department.
Of course, a sloppy reply isn't good.
But what you need for an accurate reply isn't a hunt for a culprit.
What you need is a clear summary like:
Here's how it was.
Here's what we'll do from now on.
I'll confirm the needed date and the reference date.
When "I don't want to get yelled at" sits at the center, work turns defensive.
The goal shifts from solving the other department's problem to making sure nobody can blame me.
That's what wears people out.
The Load on the Person Doing the Work Isn't Just the Work
What gets drained in this kind of exchange isn't only working hours.
The person doing the work gets hit with all of this at once:
- The burden of checking past records
- The burden of figuring out the specs going forward
- The burden of sorting out another department's requests
- The burden of being suspected with "maybe it was your mistake"
- The burden of absorbing the boss's "I don't want to get yelled at"
- The burden of time pressure from "hurry up"
- The stress of having the points that actually need checking ignored
So this isn't just a checking task.
A checking task + suspicion of a mistake + time pressure + emotional cleanup + requirements definition
is being thrown at them all together.
No wonder motivation takes a hit.
Just checking "not in April, not in May" might take five minutes.
But add "maybe it's your mistake," "I don't want to get yelled at," and "hurry up," and it's a different story.
It's not the task itself but the needless pressure that drains your energy bar.
"Understand the Current Situation First" Is Right, But It Means Nothing If You Never Move Past It
Of course, understanding the current situation matters.
Were job titles included in the past?
Was it always submitted at the start of the month?
What was the other department looking at?
There's nothing wrong with checking these.
But understanding the current state isn't the goal.
It's input for the next decision.
April: none
May: none
So far it's run without job titles
So will we include them from now on?
For the one issued on the 16th, as of what date do we need the data?
When is the submission date?
Only when you get this far does it become real work.
If you stop at checking the current state and say
Maybe it was your mistake
If I reply carelessly, I'll get yelled at
First we need to understand the current situation
The schedule and reference date are a separate issue
then that isn't work, it's defense.
Use your understanding of the current state to decide the specs, not to hunt for someone to blame.
Without the "Needed-By Date" and the "Reference Date," You Can't Meet the Other Side's Goal
What the other department is really struggling with is probably this:
They want data that has the right fields, at the right time.
If so, what needs to be asked is clear.
1. Which fields are needed?
Do they need job titles?
Is department alone enough?
Do they also need employee numbers or hire dates?
2. As of what date should the data be?
The start of the month?
Right before the one issued on the 16th?
The business day before the issue date?
The point at which personnel changes have been reflected?
3. By what date is it needed?
If it's for the one issued on the 16th, how many days ahead do they need it?
How long do checking, printing, and approval take?
If you don't ask these three things and just dig through the past, you won't meet the other side's goal.
For example, even if you confirm whether April and May had job titles, that doesn't settle whether job titles are needed from June on.
Even if they weren't there before, you can add them if they're needed now.
Even if they were there before, you can remove them if they're no longer needed.
The past is reference material. It isn't the spec for the future.
This Is All the Reply You Really Need
If you were replying to the other department here, something like this would do:
I checked, and job titles were not included in either April or May.
Until now, we've been submitting the list at the start of each month without job titles.
If you need them going forward, we'll add that field.
If you'll use it for the one issued on the 16th, could you tell us as of what date the data should be and by what date we should submit it?
That's enough.
This message has everything needed:
- The state of the past
- How it's been handled so far
- What will be done going forward
- The points to confirm with the other side
And if you still hear
Maybe it was your mistake
That's a separate issue
First, understand the current situation
Hurry up
then it's no longer about organizing the work. It's about soothing someone's anxiety.
You don't have to carry that.
Short Templates You Can Use at Work
When you're only asked to confirm the current state
I checked.
Neither April nor May had job titles.
When you want to separate the present from the future
As things stand, we've been submitting at the start of the month without job titles.
If they're needed, we'll add them from the next round on.
When you want to confirm when it will be used
If it's going to be used for the one issued on the 16th, I think we should confirm as of what date the data is needed and by what date it should be submitted.
When things look like they're heading toward blame
Rather than someone being wrong, my understanding is that we never had a definition making job titles a required field.
I'd like us to decide whether to include them as the standard going forward.
When your boss is rushing you
First, the current situation: neither April nor May had job titles.
For going forward, we'll decide by confirming the required fields, the reference date, and the submission date.
The key is to separate the facts from the decisions about the future.
Past: none in April, none in May
Present: it had been running without job titles
Future: add them if needed
Undefined: the needed-by date and the reference date
That sorts it out.
Losing Motivation Doesn't Mean You're Lazy
After this kind of exchange, you might lose all motivation.
That's natural.
Because the person doing the work hasn't been slacking.
In fact, they've already done
checking the past
sorting out the current state
proposing what to do next
listing what to confirm with the other department
drafting the requirements
and yet they get told
Maybe it was your mistake
I don't want to get yelled at
Hurry up
That's a separate issue
This wears down the people who are most keen to move things forward.
They can see the right path, but the other person is fixated on "mining for blame" and "avoiding a scolding."
Losing motivation doesn't mean you lack ability.
It means someone who wanted to move the work forward got dragged into a conversation that goes nowhere.
What Management Should Do
If management wants to prevent this, it isn't hard.
1. Turn "something like this" into a spec
Don't hand over just a sample.
Decide the required fields, the reference date, and the submission date.
2. Don't turn extra requests into blame issues
If a new field is needed, add it.
Don't start by declaring a past mistake.
3. Make the purpose of reviewing the past clear
If you dig into the past, treat it as input for setting the standard going forward.
Don't use it to hunt for a culprit.
4. Don't pass "I don't want to get yelled at" down to your team
Don't hand the worry about being scolded by another department down to the people doing the work as pressure.
Management's anxiety is for management to sort out.
5. Ask for the needed-by date and the reference date
What the other side is struggling with is not having the right information at the right time.
So confirming the needed-by date and the reference date comes first.
Summary: When You Find Something Undefined, Don't Blame. Decide.
Not in April.
Not in May.
All this check tells you is how things were handled in the past.
What you should do from there is just this:
It's been running without job titles
Add them if they're needed from now on
If it's for the one issued on the 16th, confirm the needed-by date and the reference date
Turn that into
Who's at fault?
Maybe it was your mistake
Is the person who pointed it out wrong?
If I reply carelessly, I'll get yelled at
Hurry up
and the work instantly becomes pointless.
When you find something undefined, don't blame.
Decide.
Use a look at the past not to find a culprit but to set the standard for the future.
What's needed isn't a raised voice, mining for blame, or dodging a scolding.
It's a definition of the required fields, the reference date, and the submission date.
Don't let a story that ends with "not in April, not in May" turn into a kangaroo court.
