Issue 2

I often recommend what I call the Columbo technique. It avoids embarrassment if the other party has got a good reason, but it also gives them nowhere to go for excuses if they are at fault, because it focuses solely on incontrovertible evidence - things that can't be disputed.

1. Start out by expressing puzzlement.

"Could you help me out here? There's something I don't understand"

2. Present incontrovertible evidence.

"Our contract says X, but what actually happened was Y."

"The meeting is at 10.00 but for the last three weeks you've been ten
minutes late."


3. If possible, say something true and supportive that's in contrast to the problematic performance:

"You bring us excellent stuff when you get round to it"

"You're enthusiastic once you're in the meeting"

"You always used to be here on time"


4. Point out that it seems inconsistent with your legitimate expectations and request that they clear up your confusion

"Which is why I don't get it.. is there something I'm missing that I need
to know?.."


You don't need a cigar and brown raincoat for this, but if you can get the spirit of Peter Falk's eye twinkle and mystified shrug, it does seem to work better!

This is a bit like the idea in Fisher and Ury's classic book on negotiation "Getting to Yes": being soft on the person and hard on the problem. If the problem is out of character, it will often turn out that they have had a crisis for which you can make an allowance or even offer support. If they are genuinely at fault, you minimise the chances of distraction or smokescreen tactics from the other side: just keep coming back to: "It's supposed to be X, but it's Y. How come?"