+ Project not properly defined/scoped + Ted not put in role that fits what he can do + Ted not given the right help or tools + Ted not given enough time + Ted not getting what he needs from team + Ted is incompetent and/or not engaged + Ted is competent and engaged but has some other issue hindering his work
Only the final two relate directly to Ted, 90% of the time are not the problem, and in 99% of cases would best be discussed 1:1 with Ted.
The others should be proactively raised by Ted and/or the team, and rarely impact only one individual. If they aren't raised, putting them on the table in a team meeting won't fix that problem.
A team discussion meanwhile, 99% of the time, is best focused on how the team can improve or fix what is broken...as a team. For example a functioning team would quickly put most of the possible problems listed above on the table.
Yes, if you don't like Ted, or if you're harried and doing a bad job, why not call the whole thing 'his fault'. He should have read your mind, gone beyond the norm for his job and dreamt outside-the-box solutions to all the problems you didn't know he would face while providing him with questionable tools to do the job. And your word is what counts to HR and other managers.
If you're trying to accomplish the task rather than promote yourself or denigrate Ted, or simply if you're effective, you should take responsibility for defining the goal, setting realistic expectations, creating failsafes to stop things before they affect the whole project, and providing proper support & guidance.
More than any particular answer, bowever, we need a forum for having such conversations.
I feel like the article fails on that point. If a meeting becomes about how the team can better light a fire under Ted's lazy ass, that will be worse for the team than even the private criticism, I think. It doesn't help build trust.
I disagree; I think HBR makes the issue "about the team's working relationships and accountabilities to each other". The only way I can think to effectively discuss such things is with concrete, timely examples.
The problem with TFA, in my opinion, is that it tells the manager the first steps to take towards exploring these issues, but doesn't give enough guidance to help them navigate & facilitate the discussion (which is definitely of the high-risk / high-reward type).
It somewhat reminds me of the speech Steve Jobs was said to give employees when they're promoted to management at Apple, which has been called the "Difference Between the Janitor and the Vice President."
Jobs tells the VP that if the garbage in his office is not being emptied regularly for some reason, he would ask the janitor what the problem is. The janitor could reasonably respond by saying, "Well, the lock on the door was changed, and I couldn't get a key."
It's an irritation for Jobs, but it's an understandable excuse for why the janitor couldn't do his job. As a janitor, he's allowed to have excuses.
"When you're the janitor, reasons matter," Jobs tells newly minted VPs.
"Somewhere between the janitor and the CEO, reasons stop mattering," says Jobs, adding, that Rubicon is "crossed when you become a VP."
In other words, you (a manager) have no excuse for failure. You are now responsible for any mistakes (or delays) that happen, and it doesn't matter what you say.
I've worked with people who see saving face as the most important thing and apportioning blame to them in public was the worst possible thing you could do.
Making it about the problems Ted's having rather than Ted helps people focus on an inclusive solution rather than making people worry about being attacked.
Of course if Ted's genuinely not pulling his weight or is out of his depth, then it's absolutely right to talk to him in private about this and absolutely wrong to air this in a meeting in front of others. At the end of the day as employers we should seek to help our staff get the very most out of what they do in the most positive working environment possible. Anything else makes for unhappy and unproductive staff.
However, if neither the team nor Ted himself brings up the fact that Ted's underperformance is the root cause (and there are uncountable ways of having a seemingly open discussion and still avoid addressing individual issues), you're going to have to step up.
In the end, if it is truly "about Ted", you cannot continue avoiding that and keeping it private if you want your team to hold each other accountable. That is what the author is talking about.
If Ted keeps coming to you in private with his doubts, that may make you feel important, but you're just making yourself unmissable. If your team can't do this without you, you're not empowering your team.
The problem that HBR misses here is making the issue "about Ted" rather than "missing the deadline." If you can credibly talk about what was needed to make the deadline and wasn't there, then you can talk to the solution. Ted may come up to you in private and say "I'm not sure I can handle this" but they don't need to feel like a turd.
I once explained to a person that if I asked them to lift a car off the street would they consider themselves a failure for not being able to do it? or me unreasonable for asking it? They said it was an unreasonable ask. (which in that way it is) and then I asked "Ok, so if I said we need that car up and off the street, can you take care of that?", their response was "What tools can I use?" and I say "What do you need?", they say "A crane, a crane operator" and I say "Ok, the crane company will be in touch." Now they are going to achieve the same thing, "Get the car lifted off the street" but it's not about them, its about getting what is needed to be done, actually done.