One of the most obvious observations (and challenges) I face when working with leaders and managers, is the perennial problem of dealing with low performance of some employees.
It’s quite common for managers to simply move low performing people around the business, further away from any important work (sadly).
I spoke with someone at a conference who had this strategy as a way to deal with low performers. He spoke about how, instead of being honest and direct about low performance, he simply moved people away from the core team.
Instead of being fair to the business owners (and spending their money wisely), to the direct report, to other people in the organisation and to the customers, he instead chose to shy away from a hard conversation and simply pass the burden somewhere else.
What was funny (and tragic) about his story, was that the low performing person ended up running their own department. This department was a department of one - themselves. Over time though, all of the low performing people were moved here to do low value, none challenging work.
I’ve seen entire teams being built of employees that managers don’t want in their teams, and then work “found” for them to do. Talk about workplace economics, wasting company money and shying away from developing the character and behaviours that leaders need.
It's not fair to pass the burden
To cover the economics side of this debacle is to cover only one angle – and the most obvious. You have costs from employees racking up and very little return. It’s a shambles but it happens often.
The other angle to look at is fairness. Fairness to three different parties.
Fairness – to the low performing employee
Simply moving low performing people around is not fair on the person themselves. Managers do this to avoid a hard conversation, to be kind (we'll come on to that in a minute) and to not risk upsetting someone.
How is this fair?
I often say that one of the kindest things you could do for a low performing employee is clearly, and carefully, tell them what the standard of performance is and how far below it they are.
Most people who are considered "low performing" have often never been told what the standard is, let alone, informed about how far below it they are performing.
In my experience, when I start managing a person considered low performing, and I explain the standard and where they are, they now have clarity. 99% of the time they turn around their performance. They now know what the standard is and why they are not meeting it.
It's so sad when this happens because they have often spent years underperforming with no feedback, no clarity, no yardstick to measure up against. This is not care, nor appreciation, nor fair to them.
- Is it fair that someone has never been spoken to about their performance?
- Is it fair that they are given less important work to do and hidden away?
- Is it fair to deny them the opportunity to grow?
- Is it fair to squander their life energy and time, doing unimportant work?
Of course not.
I often hear from managers who are avoiding these hard conversations because they don't think it's kind to give feedback about poor behaviours.
Kindness is an interesting concept. I see kindness as a reflection of self. Managers want to be kind not because they don't want to upset someone else, but because they don't want to feel bad themselves.
Kindness is about feeling connected, appreciated and valued. We want to look at someone and see something reflected back - a connection, an appreciation, something reciprocal.
A hard conversation about performance may risk that, break that and make that connection hard to obtain. Instead of being "kind" to someone else, it's really an internal struggle about being kind to yourself.
Yet, one of the kindest things you could do is treat the other person with respect, be truthful, be honest and help them. Avoiding a hard conversation because it may make you feel uncomfortable is not being kind to someone else.
When someone spends their time at work being given fewer responsibilities and being moved to another team, that is not kindness. You are not being kind to them because you avoided a hard conversation at the fear of upsetting them.
Kindness is working out how to unleash their potential, help them grow, being honest with them about their level of performance - and working with them to meet the standards.
As mentioned, 99% of the time people rise to the standard. They often exceed it. They feel connected, appreciated, understood and supported. That is kindness.
Be kind to people by being honest and providing help. Be clear about what is expected and what path people need to go down to lift their performance - this is kindness.
It is a hard conversation, you will feel uncomfortable, their is a risk you will upset someone, there is a chance you feel awful. But what's the alternative? You shy away from it, don't take this chance to develop your own character and ultimately, you squander the potential of another human being for your own comfort?
It's not easy being a manager but when you help to lift people from low performance, and you release their potential, that's a magical gift.
Of course, there will be some people who may never reach the standard. Kindness and fairness is about ensuring they know why, have a chance to improve, are supported but ultimately, maybe this company is not right for them.
This shouldn’t be done without proper care, consideration, thought and empathy. This is a decision that needs care and respect. At the end of that path is someone’s income, mortgage, family and esteem.
This should not be done lightly, and is a significant failure of the entire business (recruitment, induction, care, clarity, feedback and management). We've failed at some point if we have to do this, but the alternative, of simply moving them around, isn't the right path either.
Fairness – to investors, shareholders and customers
Is it fair to the investors, shareholders and customers to carry the financial (and time) burden of low performers within the business?
The money for salaries and staff is all cost. Revenue from value is only realised external to the business. It's basic economics. Costs are everything in the business. Value is what your customers pay you for. The costs of production are the costs involved in producing this value.
As such, when you have large costs (and people are likely a major cost) that are not contributing to the external value, or are not involved in trying to reduce internal costs (think process improvement, efficiency etc), or are not involved in license to operate activities (think HR, security, compliance), then how is this fair to those "funding" the business.
To make a profit to cover costs the company may need to raise prices for the customers. Investors may need to invest more money. Shareholders see less of a return.
As a manager you have the obligation to spend the company's money careful. If it was your own money would you be willing to pay a chunk of it to someone who isn't adding any value? Would you be happy to spend money on tasks and activities that have no value to you?
Almost every company has some form of HR/Finance measures relating to "profit per employee". Whether you know that, and have seen it, doesn’t mask the fact someone in HR or Finance is likely working this out. If you have people in your team that you're moving to the side to avoid a hard conversation (or because you believe it is a kind thing to do), you're reducing your profit per employee.
There’s a general belief that 20% of the workforce generate most of the value in a business. I’d say that’s probably the case in many companies. But it doesn’t have to be this way.
Fairness – to the wider team
Thirdly, is it fair on other employees to carry the extra work burden, or to work with people who aren’t performing well? I don’t think it is.
My core ethos with Cultivated Management is to cultivate a company that is successful but is also an enriching place for everyone who works there.
When we don't deal with low performance we are cultivating a company that is likely not enriching to everyone it it. There is always the wider team to consider.
You may have heard the saying that people never leave a bad company, they leave a bad manager.
I think this is kind of true. But I'd also add that people leave a company (and manager) that doesn’t deal with low performance.
When you’re at the top of your game and having to share the outcomes, joy, results and praise with people who don’t pull their weight, it can have a very deleterious effect on your own happiness and commitment.
When you want to work with other high performing people, on a mission that feels right, why would you want to spend most of your time dealing with people who aren't contributing, or can't add much value, or aren't able to keep up with the abilities needed?
Most people want to work with people who encourage us, motivate us, inspire us, challenge us and help us grow. When managers are not dealing with low performance, this is highly unlikely to happen.
If we're trying to enrich the lives of all who work in the business, we must be kind to those who don't meet the behaviours and standards we want our culture to be. We must help people grow and develop. We must provide the right environment for people to bring their best selves to work.
The wider team want to succeed, grow, deliver, see their work connect to something meaningful. They don't want to spend their days dealing with people who aren't contributing, people who bring the team down and people who are not capable of doing the work in front of them.
This is the team to get it done
A simple but powerful question I ask leaders and managers to answer is this:
“With your hand on your heart, look around your team. Can you honestly say that this is the team to get it done?”.
If you can say yes, great. If not, what are you doing about it? How can you be fair to all without passing the burden of low performance to someone else?
