Friday, at the end of the audit's first week. Nadia and Aisha sit down for their monthly one-to-one. Nadia gives specific feedback on the close, asks for feedback in return, and Aisha asks for something she has been thinking about all week.
Thanks for making time on a Friday. I know it's been a long week.
It's fine. Honestly, I was a bit nervous when I saw the invite.
Aisha says how she feels at the start, lightly. It gives Nadia the chance to reset the tone before anything else is said. Many people hide this and spend the first ten minutes guessing.
Don't be. This isn't a review. It's our normal one-to-one, just the first one since the close. I'd like to cover three things: what went well, one thing I'd change, and what you'd like to do next.
Nadia says what the meeting is not, then what it is, then the three parts. "One thing I'd change" tells Aisha in advance that there is criticism coming, and that there is only one. Knowing the shape of a feedback conversation makes it much easier to listen.
OK. Can I ask one thing first? Is the finding going to be about me?
No. Alan said it himself, and he meant it. A finding is about a control, not a person. The control that failed was how payables dated documents. You're the reason we found it.
Nadia gives a clear "no", then the reason, then one sentence that turns the worry around. Short and direct is kinder than a long, reassuring speech, which can sound as if there is something to hide.
OK. That helps. Thank you.
And Graham came to my desk on day three, straight after his meeting with you. He said thank you, in front of everyone. I didn't really know what to say.
What did you say?
I said it was your process, really. And he said, "Processes don't find things. People do." Then he left.
That sounds like Graham. And he's right.
At the end of the escalation, Graham said he would thank Aisha himself. Here we hear that he did, and how. Small promises kept by senior people are what make a team believe the bigger ones.
And while we're on the audit, did you send Alan the answer about payables?
On Tuesday. It's the supplier's label. Payables don't check it; if a supplier calls a document a credit note, it's recorded as a credit note.
So your first guess was right. And that's probably a second point in his letter. We'll deal with it when we see the wording.
So, what went well. Three things, and I want to be specific.
One: on day three, you found a difference you couldn't explain, and you brought it to me the same morning, with the supplier, the amount and your guess. That's exactly what I asked for at the kickoff.
Nadia names the day, the action and why it mattered. "Good job on the close" tells someone nothing. Specific praise tells them exactly what to do again.
Two: you interrupted me. I know that wasn't easy.
It wasn't. I stood outside the door for a minute first. I wasn't sure it was big enough to interrupt you for.
I didn't know that. But that's the one decision I don't want you to make alone. If you're not sure whether it's big enough, it's big enough.
Nadia gives Aisha a simple rule for the moment of doubt: if you are not sure, bring it. It removes a judgement that junior people often get wrong because they don't want to bother anyone.
And you came in, and that's the part that counts. And three: in the walkthrough, when Alan asked you something you didn't know, you said so. You didn't guess.
I think I was just lucky that the Ferrand number was so round.
Can I stop you there? You're doing the thing a lot of good people do. Someone says you did well, and you explain why it doesn't count.
Nadia interrupts gently to point out a habit: answering praise by making it smaller. "Can I stop you there?" is a polite way to interrupt in a one-to-one, and it signals that what follows matters.
Do I?
You do. Next time, just say thank you. The round number didn't walk into my office. You did.
OK. Thank you.
"Thank you" is a complete answer to praise. Explaining why you don't deserve it can sound modest in one culture and unsure in another. In most British and American workplaces, a simple thank you sounds more confident.
Now the one thing I'd change. Can I give it to you straight?
"Can I give it to you straight?" asks for permission and warns that the next part is direct. It takes two seconds and makes the feedback easier to hear.
Yes, please.
On the first fourteen statements, you checked that the balances agreed, and you stopped there. You didn't read the lines. So the credit notes on those statements weren't checked until I asked you to go back. If one of them had been dated December and posted in January, with a balance that still agreed, we'd have missed it.
Nadia's feedback has three parts: the situation (the first fourteen statements), the behaviour (you stopped at the balances) and the impact (we could have missed something). There is no adjective about Aisha herself, only about what she did. This structure is often called SBI: situation, behaviour, impact.
But if the balance agrees, doesn't that mean everything's in?
Not always. Two errors can cancel each other out. A credit note in the wrong month and an invoice in the wrong month can leave you with the same balance and two problems.
Aisha's question is a fair one, not a defence, and Nadia treats it that way. She gives one concrete example of why matching totals are not enough. Feedback lands better when the person understands the reason, not just the rule.
I hadn't thought of that. So next time I read every line, or only the credit notes?
Every line on their statement that isn't on our side, and every line on our side that isn't on theirs. Whatever the balance says.
Every line that's on one side and not the other, whatever the balance says. OK. That's clear.
Aisha does three things: she asks one honest question, she checks exactly what to do differently, and she says the new rule back. She does not apologise at length or defend herself. That is what good feedback reception sounds like.
Can I say why I stopped at the balances? Not as an excuse.
Go on.
It was day three, and I still had six statements to do. Reading every line felt like something I didn't have time for.
That's useful to know. Then the answer isn't to work faster on day three. It's to start earlier. Next year we ask for the statements in mid-December, and you start reading them before the close.
So the time comes from the start, not from the end.
"Not as an excuse" tells your manager you accept the feedback and want to add information. Nadia uses that information to change the plan, not to change the judgement. Good feedback conversations often end with a better process, not just a better person.
And to be fair, nobody had told you that. The definition of "done" I gave you at the kickoff was about differences, not lines. So that's partly on me.
Nadia admits that her own instruction was incomplete. A manager who takes their share of the cause makes it easier for the other person to accept theirs, and makes the next part of the conversation possible.
Which brings me to my question. What should I do differently? Next close, or just in general.
Can I think for a second?
Of course. Take your time.
"Can I think for a second?" is a perfectly professional answer to a hard question. It is far better than saying the first safe thing that comes to mind. Silence while someone thinks is not a problem.
Two things, I think. The first is what you just said. At the kickoff I didn't know what "close" meant until I asked, and I didn't know what "done" really meant until day three. If the definitions were written in the tracker, I wouldn't have to ask.
Aisha gives feedback to her manager in the same structure she just received: a specific situation, what happened, and a practical suggestion. A suggestion is easier to give upward than a criticism.
So: write the definitions down, so that nobody has to ask. Got it.
Nadia receives feedback the same way she asked Aisha to: she repeats the point in one sentence. It shows she listened, and it models the habit she wants from her team.
Would you write them? You know better than I do which ones were unclear.
I can do that. I'll send you a draft next week.
And the second thing?
It's not really a criticism. When you said "you interrupt me", it helped more than you probably think. I wouldn't have come in otherwise. Maybe say it to everyone, not just me.
Feedback to a manager doesn't have to be a complaint. Telling them which of their habits actually helped is useful information, and it is easier to say. Aisha also turns it into a suggestion for the whole team.
I'll say it at the next kickoff. To everyone, Graham included.
I'd like to see that.
Last part. What would you like to do next?
I've been thinking about it all week. The new credit note review, the one you said you'd do every quarter. Could I prepare it? You'd still review it and sign it off.
Aisha asks for something specific, explains what she would do, and shows she understands the limits: Nadia would still review and sign off. A request framed like this is much easier to say yes to than "I'd like more responsibility."
Why that one?
Because I understand why it exists now. And because if it had been there in December, I'd have found Ferrand on day one instead of day three.
That's a good answer. Yes. You prepare it, I review it, and we keep the two roles separate, which Alan will like.
Nadia agrees and states the split of roles in one sentence: one person prepares, another reviews. It is the same segregation of duties Alan checked in the walkthrough, now applied to Aisha's new task.
How will I know if I'm doing it well?
If I have nothing to change after the first quarter, you're doing it well. If I do, we sit down and talk about it, like today.
Aisha asks how success will be measured before she starts. Nadia's answer is concrete and calm, and it links back to this meeting: feedback is normal, not a sign that something went wrong.
And last year's check, next week. Can I do the first pass?
You can do the first pass on the supplier statements. I'll take the journals. And Aisha, read every line.
Every line, whatever the balance says.
Nadia ends with the one change from scene three, and Aisha repeats it. A short, shared phrase at the end of a one-to-one is what people remember on Monday morning.
And longer term, I'd like to understand the committee side. Where the decisions actually get made.
Then start next month. There's a risk committee, and this control will be on the agenda. You'll take the minutes.
The minutes? Is that a good thing?
It's the best seat in the room. You hear every decision, and you have to write each one down in a sentence that everyone agrees with.
Minute-taking can sound like admin. Nadia reframes it as training: to write a decision down in one sentence, you have to understand exactly what was decided. It is one of the fastest ways to learn how senior people think.
Good. Then that's us. Go home, it's Friday.
Thanks, Nadia. For all of it.