A funny thing has been happening in my office in recent days. It’s taken me a few days to work out what’s going on.
It all started when I caught the faintest whiff of something, well… a little unpleasant. It made me check my clothes to make sure I wasn’t wearing something which should have gone into the laundry (and feel rather foolish when I realised that everything was freshly laundered). Could it have been a lingering gift from the BT engineer who sorted out my broadband connection recently? No, surely not! But it did smell, well, a little sweaty.
After a few days, I put two and two together and remembered the mouse I saw running across my lounge when I had my kitchen done last winter. In truth, I know that some of the little fellas have been hanging out at my place: recently I had Gary (who did the kitchen for me) block their points of entry. But I hadn’t gone that extra step and set traps. I realised that this faint and persistent odour is a sign that one of them has died. As I sit and write I am aware that, unless I set traps or lay poison (which I am rather loath to do) this may happen again.
When your staff aren’t performing
Now, it may be a little bit of a mental leap and still, the mouse in my study reminded me of an experience I had some years ago, when I was part of an assessment team conducting an audit of leadership capability for a client organisation. One member of the team was markedly less able than his colleagues and – guess what! – it was me who got to conduct his assessment and to give him feedback. I remember outlining the key findings from his assessment and he agreed with them all. Still, there was a moment when he realised that, taken all together, the picture wasn’t good.
What was most striking to me was that the commissioning client had been re-shaping this person’s job over some time, taking away an area of responsibility here and replacing it with the odd project. Gradually business-critical responsibilities had been stripped away until my candidate had a portfolio of do-no-harm projects that couldn’t possibly damage the business. All this had happened without any conversation taking place between my candidate and his boss about the fact that this man wasn’t performing.
What’s the connection? For me, it’s the pervading odour of a task which has not yet been done – noticing and addressing the performance failings of a member of the team because, let’s be clear, the approach of this manager leaves behind it a trail of clues which is increasingly obvious to anyone who cares to look. It’s not just that tasks have been visibly reallocated amongst different members of the team leaving someone with a non-portfolio of not very important projects. It’s also that the boss is seen to have ducked an important issue. It’s also that other members of the team start to invest their energies into (at best) working out how to maintain the fantasy that this is a useful member of the team or (at worst) plotting for the individual’s downfall, or that of their boss, or… or… or…
The truth is, if you don’t address the issue of under-performance, it doesn’t go away.
You need to address under-performance
Over the years, I’ve found that whilst leaders may say they don’t know how to address under-performance, it’s often something else that keeps them from taking action. They find it hard to square a head-on disciplinary approach with their aspirations for compassion or they fear a loss of popularity. Even at the most senior levels, people have been known to say “no, I won’t let it happen – it will ruin his (or her) career”. At a moment like this, it’s important to understand why it matters to the individual who is not performing as much as it does for the team and the organisation.
The truth is, when we don’t address under-performance, we open the road to increasingly difficult circumstances for the employee concerned. At first, with a little flattery as we allocate new projects, we may be able to persuade the individual that we’re giving them an opportunity worth having – at least for a while. More likely, though, is the creeping self-doubt that comes with their growing awareness that they’re struggling to do their jobs. This is compounded by their concern that perhaps they’re not capable of doing any job. And it could get worse and worse as colleagues increasingly express their growing resentment as they have to work a little bit harder to compensate for the weaknesses of the under-performer, or listen to more unworkable suggestions or “no, I haven’t done that yet” updates in meetings. The under-performer loses dignity, self respect, confidence and esteem, and the respect of his or her colleagues.
Equally, when we don’t address under-performance in our team, we fail to open up avenues to a happier and more productive life for the individuals concerned. Of course, some people may initially be shocked to hear that they are not performing well (though most people know this already). Either way, we need to give support as part of addressing the issues involved. Handled successfully, addressing under-performance helps people to connect more fully with what they do want and where their skills lie. Perhaps we’ll be able to support them bridging a key skills gap. Perhaps we’ll help them to find a role in our organisation in which they really thrive. Perhaps we’ll able to help them with some half-forgotten dream. If you have any doubts about this, listen to the stories of people who have found deep levels of satisfaction in their lives and careers. Many of them, at some point in their career, have experienced the challenges of doing a role to which they have not been well-suited.
Look for the gifts your staff do have, as well as the ones they don’t
Observing leaders who handle under-performance effectively (as I have done over the years – by interviewing leaders for research purposes, assessing them for more senior roles and working one-to-one in coaching partnership) one thing I notice is this: that they do not confuse the person with his or her behaviour. The under-performer is under-performing but s/he’s not “useless”, “lacking in potential” or any other negative description you might care to shape around the individual. S/he’s simply someone who hasn’t yet learnt skills he or she has the potential to acquire or someone who is in a role to which s/he’s not well-suited. The task is to find out which and to support the individual in bridging the skills gap or in finding a more suitable role.
So, I want to ask you, are you shying away from addressing the under-performance of a member of your team? And if you are, or even if you’re reflecting on the way you’ve handled such issues in the past, what do you take from reading this article?