Poor managers shift the bulk of the work to their highest performers while simultaneously doing little or nothing to develop or correct the performance of low performers.  This approach can get the job done in the short run.  In the long term it burns out your stars, rewards your low performers, and sends a demotivating message to the general population: there are no consequences for poor performance, and the reward for hard work is more hard work.

This dynamic was not as toxic when the economy was booming, and there were more financial rewards for the highest performers.

The economic downturn has left organizations leaner and flatter, with fewer financial rewards and fewer promotions to recognize our increasingly taxed star performers.  Top talent is no longer waiting for the employment market to improve to take action.

According to the AP, in April 2010 the number of employees voluntarily leaving their companies outnumbered those who were fired or laid off.  This for the first time since the beginning of the recession. 

There is going to be a mass exodus of the top performers as the economy starts to turn around," a consultant told the AP.

Now more than ever, it is critical that your managers are managing: managing low performers–developing their skillsets, correcting poor performance, or managing them out, while supporting work-life balance for top talent, and boosting initiative among the entire staff.

Are your managers managing effectively? Contact GLFordConsulting for management development, both training workshops and one-on-one coaching.

It’s an important distinction, the issue of ability or willingness, for two reasons.  As stated above, it helps you determine the right course of action to help the employee remedy the issue.  It also helps in making a case for termination, should it come to that.

A friend called me up a few years ago and  asked for my advice.  “You’re an HR Manager, “ he began, “tell me what should I do?”  His manager had said that if he did not start doing X, Y, and Z at work, that he would very likely lose his job.  An immediate change was needed.  He was told he had ample time to demonstrate that he could perform differently and that his manager was committed to his  success.  

“Can you do X, Y, and Z?” was my first question.  He replied that yes, he could make the requested changes.  “And are you going to start doing X, Y, and Z?” was my next question.  No.  He had decided that he wouldn’t.  He stated that he did not respect his manager, and that he disagreed that the change was necessary.  Hmmmmm.  I advised him to start looking for another job while he still had the current one.  He wanted to know if there was no other course of action.  There was none that I could see.  If he was unwilling to make the changes requested by his manager, and if those changes weren’t unethical or illegal, than he would surely lose his job if he refused to make them.

He lost his job 2 months later.

This story has stuck with me as a reminder that when we’re addressing poor performance, we always need to assess whether it’s a question of lack of ability, lack of willingness, or both.  As managers, it is in our best interest to capture any clear evidence of either circumstance in our documentation.  If the employee has the ability to meet expectations, but refuses–or chooses not to expend the energy–it’s a matter of insubordination.  And insubordination—even more than the initial pattern of poor performance—may help us to make the case to HR that termination is the appropriate course of action.

Now an independent external trainer, I hear weekly from one or more participants that “my boss (my colleague, my staff member) is the one who needs to be learning this—not me!”

Recently, I was facilitating a leadership series for a corporate client, and the group was so focused on their frustration with the next level of management that we weren’t making progress in the session.  Finally I said, “Look, your organization has made an investment in this learning for you.  You have a choice.  You can bemoan the fact that you’re frustrated with your managers and wish they were here learning with you, or you can focus on the only thing you actually have influence over: YOUR behaviors, YOUR actions, YOUR decisions.  You can be open to engaging in this process, focus on learning something that will make you more effective, and actively look for what you can do to make your organization better—or you can continue to complain among yourselves about people who aren’t in this room.  What is your decision?”

When we work in the same organization for many years, even the best of us develop mental models that explain which internal divisions, departments, levels of management, and individuals aren’t doing what they should be doing to support the company’s mission.  

These “certainties” regarding whom is to blame for organizational shortfalls help us justify our own shortfalls in the results department.  We complain about other departments and individuals within the safety of our own internal tribes, and in doing so, we let ourselves off the hook for any shortfall in collective results, for not trying new approaches to old problems—who can blame us when our colleagues are the insurmountable obstacles to success?   When these beliefs are pervasive, it can be a significant organizational stumbling block.

“We will focus on what we can do.”  Was the answer from the group in the story above.  This came after a short stunned silence that followed my “tough love” speech.    

Whether I’m offering a 4-day leadership series to middle managers in a high-tech firm, offering a 1-day teambuilding session for a manufacturing firm, or a 4-hour session on managing up for a non-profit, I feel my real contribution to these companies is shifting the participants to a place where they are willing to consider what they themselves can do differently to support their staff, contribute to the team, or strengthen the relationship with their managers.  

When we shift people to a place of personal accountability, we accomplish something more powerful than simply sharing a new tool or teaching a new skill: We leave a group that will spend more time taking positive action back at work than pointing the finger away from themselves.  And that—especially in these tough economic times–is worth the investment of your people’s time and your training budgets.  

As you look at how you’ll spend your training dollars in 2009, don’t forget that personal accountability is the foundation of personal–and ultimately organizational–effectiveness.

• Gain insight into your preferred behavior style at work.
• Build awareness of your strengths.
• Explore when those strengths may become a liability.
• Plan for those instances in which you may need to shift gears to be more effective

To register, e-mail gary@glfordconsulting.com

• Shift your employees to a place where they are more willing to tackle their own conflicts
• Coach your employees on how to broach difficult topics effectively
• Create a culture where managers aren’t called upon to referee

To register, e-mail gary@glfordconsulting.com

• Explore the physiological responses that short-circuit our effectiveness when in conflict
• Learn how to defuse your emotional response when co-workers push your buttons
• Learn a method of broaching difficult conversations without creating defensiveness

To register, e-mail gary@glfordconsulting.com

This indirect response (and sometimes lack of any response) to behavior that undermines an employee’s reputation and effectiveness is very common in organizations. Out of fear of demotivating technically strong employees, feedback about unprofessional behavior or underdeveloped interpersonal skills frequently isn’t provided or isn’t provided directly.  And there’s a sucker’s choice at the root of it:

“I can talk to my employee directly OR I can avoid damaging the relationship.”

This is a sucker’s choice because it limits solutions and sets them up as mutually exclusive one to the other—I can be direct OR maintain the relationship. To avoid the sucker’s choice, one must get creative and ask “How can I be direct AND maintain the relationship?” or even better, “How might I be direct in putting an end to unproductive behavior AND strengthen the relationship at the same time?”  The answer lies in conveying one’s positive intent. 

When coaching managers, I help them strengthen relationships with their staff while addressing issues directly.  At the end of 20 minutes, I had helped the manager on the other end of the line come up with a plan, which her “indirect” director approved.  Here’s how the manager planned to broach the issue with her new employee.  “I’m excited to have you as a new member of the team because of your expertise.  As your manager, I see it as my role to help you navigate the culture of this organization.  There are two things I’ve noticed since you started that don’t work here…  Your reputation inside and outside the team is important to me.  I want you to be successful.”  Her employee was very appreciative of her manager’s directness and caring—the relationship was strengthened.

The preceding story had a happy ending.  Unfortunately, it is not unusual for managers to withhold feedback–especially when it’s less directly related to the work, but still reputation affecting.  What are the long-term affects on these individuals and organizations?

•    Behaviors outside the cultural norms frequently continue unaddressed until reputations are irreversibly damaged. 
•    Ideas about what’s expected and what’s appropriate may erode as less-than-professional, less-than-positive interpersonal behavior goes unchecked.
•    HR is frequently called in at the end of a long painful period to provide the mechanics to “document” an employee with strong technical skills out of the organization when they aren’t successful in the company’s culture.

All of this can be avoided when managers provide early and direct feedback to employees, feedback that strengthens rather than harms relationships between manager and direct report.

What can you do in your organization? 

1.    Communicate your expectations to your managers: they are responsible for shepherding employees through the organizational culture.  They must provide guidance early on to new employees to ensure their success, not just on job tasks, but on anything that affects their employees reputations and therefore effectiveness.
2.    Provide skillbuilding for your leadership group so they are skilled at addressing unprofessional behavior, interpersonal skill deficiencies, and behaviors that are simply outside the predominant company culture.  

If you would like to ensure employees with strong technical skills are successful in your organization, make sure their managers are helping them navigate the culture from day one. Contact Gary Ford for assistance in implementing leadership development programs that build these competencies within your management group. 

The articles will reflect my ongoing experience and current thinking about:

• building high-performing teams,
• management/leadership development,
• and resolving workplace conflict  

I’ll also be posting news stories relating to work I’m doing in the realm of training, offsite facilitation, and mediation.  Thanks for visiting the site!  

Join my mailing list to receive updates on trends in human capital development.  Your contact information will never be shared without your consent.