Have you told them yourself?

In a conversation, a colleague tells me about a handover between two teams.

Colleague
“Could you speak to the other team, please? The handover did not happen the way we had agreed. They did not listen to us or take our requests into account.”
Me
“Have you told the team that yourselves?”

The question can sound dismissive. After all, the colleague has come to me because something is not working. Even so, I do not want to take over the problem immediately. It matters to me that colleagues discuss difficulties directly with each other and first try to find a solution themselves.

When I pass on second-hand feedback, something gets lost. I only know the situation from the account I have heard, cannot answer questions about its impact, and give the words additional weight through my personnel responsibility.

When feedback becomes an assignment

“They did not listen to us” does not describe an observable action. It is a conclusion drawn from the handover. If I pass it on to the other team, what may arrive there is: “Daniel thinks you do not listen.” One colleague’s experience becomes a judgment from someone with personnel responsibility.

In “I should have told you sooner” internal Reflacto blog post, I wrote about making feedback specific and naming its impact on me. I cannot do either on someone else’s behalf. I can repeat what I was told. Only the person who experienced the situation can say how it affected them and what was missing.

In a direct conversation, the other team could ask: Which agreement did you mean? What made it seem as though we were not listening? Which requests were left open? If the feedback is passed through me, I have to take these questions back to the first colleague. A triangle forms even though the people involved could speak to each other.

Offering a way into the conversation

When someone does not know how to raise the subject, I usually explain the four components of Nonviolent CommunicationWikipedia opens in a new tab:

Which specific observation is the feedback based on?
What feeling did the situation bring up?
Which need of my own was affected?
What specific request follows from that?

The four questions help turn a judgment such as “You do not listen to us” into feedback that can be discussed. In this example, an opening might sound like this:

“During the handover, we proceeded differently from how I had understood our agreement. That left me irritated and frustrated because clarity and reliability in our collaboration matter to me. Can we go through the timing, process, and conditions together and record the result afterwards?”

The person would still need to decide whether irritation and frustration, as well as clarity and reliability, accurately describe their experience. I cannot define the feeling and need on someone else’s behalf.

I offer to help with the wording. That offer is rarely taken up. Most of the time, it remains an explanation of the framework. After that, the person decides whether and how the conversation takes place.

Checking back later

In the next one-to-one or at another suitable opportunity, I ask each side separately whether they have spoken and how the conversation went.

I ask: Was the conversation satisfactory? Did anything surprise you? Is it clearer now what happens next?

The answers show whether the people involved found a solution themselves. They can also reveal another problem behind the conversation that did not happen.

When the direct conversation does not happen

If someone declines the conversation and still expects me to step in, I first want to understand the reasons. An initial answer such as “There is no point anyway” does not yet explain what is holding the person back.

Sometimes I use the 5 WhysWikipedia opens in a new tab as a guide and ask several times about the reason behind each answer. This can reveal that the right words are missing, earlier conversations went badly, or there is no longer enough trust. In a relationship that has become stuck, mediation with a neutral person may be more appropriate.

The people involved may also be unable to solve the problem themselves. Unclear responsibilities, conflicting goals, or a lack of decision-making authority cannot be removed through better-worded feedback alone. With a strong power imbalance, a risk of retaliation, harassment, or discrimination, pointing someone back to a direct conversation is not enough either.

The structural question behind the complaint

In this handover, it was clear which team would take responsibility for the system. What remained open was when that responsibility would take effect, how the handover would happen, and under which conditions the new team would take over.

Beneath the claim that the other team had not listened was an agreement that had not been fully translated into shared action. As in the previous post internal Reflacto blog post, it helped not to treat different memories immediately as evidence of unreliability or a lack of consideration.

The problem became visible between two teams and also lay in the conditions of the handover. It was therefore clarified once more which team would take responsibility from which point, how the handover would happen, and which conditions would apply.

The direct conversation made visible what the people involved had understood differently. The open structural question also needed a decision beyond that conversation.

What I offer and what I take on

It matters to me that colleagues discuss problems directly with each other and first try to find a solution themselves. For me, that includes showing a possible way forward, offering help with preparation, and checking back later.

Three questions help me:

Have you told the person yourself?
What is stopping you?
What do you need from me to make the next step possible?

For the system handover, the next step was to record the timing, process, and conditions in a binding way.