Forums

Hello all,

 

I do have the following situation at my job:

I'm the manager of a small team and just started introducing the manager tools trinity to them. This is also my first management position. So far I started with O3s - and the result was surprisingly favorable from almost all of them (4 of 5 were thrilled).

Now, my problem is, that I have one member in this team who is seriously underperforming. And has been that way for a long time. Basically his assignment to this team is his 'last chance' in the company, having been considered twice for simply being discharged because of bad performance and morale.

Personally I'd hate to let him go - it is basically the one weak spot I currently have on the people side, and I believe that improving his performance might reflect a lot more positive on me then asking to replace him would. Besides, I believe laying this person of is not really a solution - just sidestepping the problem. 

So, before hearing about manager tools I would have had a very serious meeting with this person soon, explaining to him the dangers of his current behavior - and what this might mean for his future in our company. I realize it probably wouldn't have been very effective, but it's what I would have done before learning about manager tools. 

The thing that comes to my mind is to give that person feedback - positive and negative of course in order to improve his behavior. Problem being - following the manager tools recommendation I should wait about 12 weeks before doing that. A bit longer actually. 

I'm worried, actually about myself as well, that if I wait 12 weeks before starting to work with that person it might be too late, because I might be very frustrated at that point - as will be others, among those my boss. I do realize that due to my strong 'D' tendencies I might underestimate the problem I might create with giving that person feedback before I start with the rest of the team. So I thought to ask you for an advice on how to approach this matter.

I appreciate your thoughts :D

mattpalmer's picture

 Call for drastic measures.  I believe the MT guidance on taking some time to roll out the trinity in full is to allow a relationship to build before you start slapping people down, to take some of the sting out of it and make sure you're communicating effectively.

If you don't have 12 weeks to turn this person's performance around, I would say that you're better off giving feedback, and possibly causing some problems through lack of a relationship, than just letting them drift into oblivion because "the time wasn't right to give them feedback".

robin_s's picture
Training Badge

M & M have stated in a few places that the parts of the trinity can be used "a la carte" effectively if need be.  The ideal is to follow the roll out advice but if you have someone in danger of losing his job and you DON'T give him feedback, that can't be very effective. 

buhlerar's picture

...by your statement "I believe laying this person of is not really a solution - just sidestepping the problem."  Is the problem lack of coaching, etc.?  Because I would most definitely consider repeatedly failing to perform as the problem.  And firing someone for consistent failure to perform is the appropriate and direct way to address that problem, not sidestepping it.  But maybe there's more to the story?  What do you believe is the problem?

In any event, I agree with the others, you'll do yourself no favors by putting off feedback with this individual.

One caution though: remember feedback is about future performance, so dragging him through his sins of the past is probably not a good starting point as a new manager.  He may be looking forward to having a clean start with a new manager.  If your first words are about what he did wrong in the past, then he may not see much point in improving since his past can't be changed.  I'd recommend you make sure the feedback is about behaviors he's demonstrating now (i.e. since you have been his manager).  If he doesn't respond to that feedback, then you move to late stage and possibly termination, etc.

maura's picture
Training Badge

I'd tread very carefully here.  Part of the reason why we are taught to start Feedback with positive only, and with our best performers first, is so that the team sees evidence that feedback is a GOOD thing, and is truly there to encourage future positive behavior.  If you start with your worst performer and mix in the negative feedback right away, you are giving them evidence to the contrary.  The danger is that the team interprets the entire model as a smoke screen for what they think is your "real" intention: to point out everyone's mistakes.  All of a sudden, feedback is a bad thing and nobody is going to trust the process.  Kind of a penny wise/pound foolish situation. 

12 weeks seems like a long time, but the ultimate goal of the feedback model is bigger than the problem you have with this single low performer.   Could you start talking through some of the issues within your O3's or other normal business processes, instead of calling it the Feedback model? 

flexiblefine's picture

You write "Basically his assignment to this team is his 'last chance' in the company, having been considered twice for simply being discharged because of bad performance and morale."

If he knows he's on thin ice, I don't see why you can't move right to coaching to help with his performance.

I don't know what you could do about his morale, but improving his performance (and getting positive feedback for the improvement) may help his attitude too.

flexiblefine
Houston, Texas, USA
DiSC: 1476

naraa's picture
Training Badge

 You do have a challenge in your hands.  I have come to learn or perhaps I actually need to learn some more, than when a person doesn`t work in one position in the company he/she doesn´t really work well anywhere else.  So it is really not fair to give you a guy that didn´t perform anywhere else and put pressure on you to make him perform in 12 weeks.  So what you need to ask yourself is whether there is really this pressure on you or you are putting the pressure on yourself.  If he has under perform for years, why do you have to solve the guys problem in three months?  Does he do some activity that is really critical that will make your teams performance suffer in the short term?  

If the answer is yes:

I believe you need to start giving feedback immediately and you will need to put more time yourself checking the things that he is doing.   The way I would do it is talk straight forward to him of what his situations is and that you want to work with him, that you believe he can turn the page of whatever happened in the past within the company and ask him if he is willing to turn the page.  Tell him that the work that he does is really critical for the performance of the team and you will be checking it more rigorously as well as giving him feedback on the things he is doing right and on the things that he is doing wrong so that together you can turn things around.  If you don´t openly talk to him, he probably knows it anyway, he will assume that you are only doing it to find the reasons for letting him go.

If the answer is no:

Continue with the one-on-ones and give it time.  You don´t have to change all immediately (might be a good idea to agree with your boss on the time frame you have for improving the guy´s performance).  Rather than giving feedback focus on making him accountable for things in the one-on-ones.  Set clear tasks, objectives for the week and check that he is actually fulfilling them.

Please know that I don´t live in the US and I don´t know what the legal implications of being honest about the whole situation with the guy is.  But I think few things are less ethical and can cause more damage to a relationship that everybody knowing about something but the person that the subject is all about and know body really talking straightforward with the guy and giving him a chance to improve.  Whether he does improve or not is up to him.  But you will have piece of mind that you have actually tried and been honest with him what the situation was.

Of course the above recommendation assumes that you have decided that the guy is actually worth the effort, and your team will in fact be better with him performing than without him.  If he is not worth the effort, or he could be but is not willing to cooperate, then don´t put so much effort in as it will hurt you somewhere else.

With regards to your own and other`s people`s frustration it really only makes sense if his poor performance is actually affecting on their work.   They should not be frustrated because they are working well and the guy is not.  You must do what it best for the improvement of the performance of your team in the short, medium and long term, and remember that you know staff your directs don´t know.  If you haven´t established the relationship with your team just yet and you start giving too much feedback for this guy, he doesn´t improve and you end up having to fire him.  Next time you start giving feedback to someone they will make the association of getting fired next.  So I am thinking out load here, but perhaps if you must give feedback to this guy you should start with all of them?  I don´t know.... the other rule of feedback you will be breaking by starting feedback with him is you will start with your lower performance guy....  

One final thing: "Don´t worry.  Worrying doesn´t help you at all."  Analyse the situation, make a decision and implement it.  Focus on the implementation and not on the worrying.  Visualise where you want to get and the team you want and work through the steps to get you there, one step at the time.  You are jumping too far ahead.  

Nara

derosier's picture
Licensee Badge

M&M  have podcasts for this.  "How to deal with a disgruntled direct" and I recall one about "how (not) to fire someone".

I'm just listeing to the disgruntled one, haven't quite finished.  But basically all of M&M's addvice is similar and follows from the Trinity.  Be patient, roll out the Trinity, and use that to help the direct.  Above all don't treat the direct differently.  Especially if the "problems" are from things you've heard, not experienced.  Give feedback, and coach.

Somewhere I recall them saying to take 6 to 9 months to fire someone, giving them coaching and feedback the whole way.

Listen to those podcasts (if you haven't yet), and follow them.

- Steve

Ralf's picture

 First of all thank you all for the time you spend considering my problem and replying here. I really appreciate it.

<cite>But maybe there's more to the story?  What do you believe is the problem?</cite>

1. A decade of missmanagement. Until I discovered Manager Tools a couple of months ago I didn't really have a word for it. But from where I'm now I'd consider him to be a strong 'S' type person in a department that is dominated by 'I' and especially 'D' types, without any interest in actually motivating him. Especially where the managers are concerned. This person is something of a minority - and the guy that was supposed to manage him was more making crude jokes about this. Which drove two others away (psychological problems). Me standing up to him is a part of what got me into my position.

2. Lack of drive. He is not really interested in making a career. Unfortunately if you do not want to get ahead, you fall behind. At least in our company. Of course he didn't really have a fair chance in developing any sort of drive or motivating, seeing how he was treated under the last manager.

3. Questionable work ethics. We're a team that is very closely linked to sales in our company. Actually, going by chart we're part of the sales team. So a stance akin to "customer satisfaction comes first" is expected. He doesn't share that. Today during our O3 he told me that he feels a customer treated our company unfairly. So he doesn't really like that customer anymore. Unfortunately that customer is probably the most important one my team is in contact with. I tried to give some very careful feedback on this person, not wanting to actually burn the model by using negative feedback too early, but I didn't see how I could let something like this stand without addressing it.

 

<cite>

 You do have a challenge in your hands.  I have come to learn or perhaps I actually need to learn some more, than when a person doesn`t work in one position in the company he/she doesn´t really work well anywhere else.  So it is really not fair to give you a guy that didn´t perform anywhere else and put pressure on you to make him perform in 12 weeks.  So what you need to ask yourself is whether there is really this pressure on you or you are putting the pressure on yourself.  If he has under perform for years, why do you have to solve the guys problem in three months?  Does he do some activity that is really critical that will make your teams performance suffer in the short term?  </cite>

Admittedly, I probably don't have to solve it RIGHT NOW.

BUT...

1. Yes, poor performance will make my teams results suffer in the short term. Because his behavior is reflecting to me from our actual sales people. I already got feedback in this regard. I do not really want to wait until that feedback doesn't come from peers anymore but from our managing director (who I'm reporting to).

2. His poor performance is more and more burning him to other departments. People no longer trust his work. Which creates additional work for me, the team and the sales people we're working with. As our company recently started internal reviews about the quality of work passed down from sales to other departments at least his error rate is getting more and more public. This will also prove to be a political liability for my boss in the future. Politics is a very, very important factor in our company.

3. I am not sure he realizes on how thin ice he treads.

 

Considering your thoughts so far I decided to keep up the O3 (of course) but delay public feedback for the time being. I really want to start with a top performer with feedback. Even if it takes another 5 weeks. I like the idea of setting specific tasks and holding him accountable in the O3s. I do need to give feedback if there is something which I simply can not ignore (see above) - but I will not specifically aim for it.