Sometimes it's the directive, not the person(s) who missed it
In any organization, there will always exist tension between those doing the work and those directing it. The 'higher headquarters' sends directives downward to a confused, overworked, and disgruntled 'rank and file.' The 'rank and file' does its work each day ignorant of the big picture and the clever work of 'higher headquarters' developing such an impactful task designed to take the organization to new heights. In this battle of us against them, the rank and file, because they are doing the physical labor, seem to get a greater level of empathy. It is a leader's job, therefore, as a member of neither to create understanding and harmony - to remain a neutral figure.
In the Army leaders fell into one of three categories. The first was the commander's commander - a leader who spent most of his or her time interacting with subordinate commanders and the 'rank and file.' The second was the staff commander - a leader who spent most of his or her time interacting with the staff, taking briefings, listening to analysis, and approving orders to send downward. In each of these cases, the commander would be more empathetic and loyal to the place he or she spent the most time. The third was the leader who applied balance between the two camps. Of course, it was the third leader who was most effective - one who could see both sides, remaining neutral but attempting to create understanding and empathy for both.
I recall many times sitting in a meeting with both sides where a directive was misunderstood or a deadline missed. Sometimes a subordinate unit - the 'rank and file' simply failed to comply. Sometimes the directive was poorly distributed or communicated. As the leader, I wanted to know who was at fault so I could address it appropriately. I would ask pointed questions but would start with simple math.
If one subordinate missed a directive, I would focus on them while trying to understand what was directed. When two or more subordinate units missed or misunderstood a directive, I would focus on the headquarters. A defensive staff might rear up and defend its efforts but if two or more subordinates missed or misunderstood a directive, I would counter their defense, "if everyone missed this, then we (signaling my ownership as the leader of the organization) failed to communicate it properly."
I served on the staff of a higher headquarters numerous times in my career and always hated it when my boss called us out for a poorly communicated directive. But I knew he or she was right. The point is, there isn't much to investigate when several people and their teams missed or misunderstood what was directed. That is the point or moment at which you know a directive was misunderstood. The key here is a neutral leader who can see both sides knowing when one or the other failed. The next step for a leader is coaching and mentoring to ensure the error is not repeated.
Make it Personal!
Rob
Rob Campbell