Category: Operations

Which is more valuable to an employer, the job skills employees possess or the skill of behaving with integrity. I can appreciate how this is a very unfair question. One can argue that we need both in our employees and that would be a fair statement.  Others may claim that behaving with integrity is not a skill at all but a measure of one’s character.  Job skills are worthless (as well as job knowledge) without integrity and any employer who holds onto an employee who knows a lot about the job but who has a pattern of broken integrity is costing the organization in ways that cannot be measured.

If you have ever had to manage a poor performer you know the stress it can cause and the energy it can drain from you.  To manage a poor performer, it is first necessary to have a clear definition of a poor performer. The most useful definition is: “an employee who demonstrates a consistent and frequent pattern of broken integrity.”  It is their inability or unwillingness to be have with integrity on a consistent basis that makes them a poor performer and a candidate for firing regardless of how much they know.

Adopting this definition helps make firing an employee much easier. Poor performers are shouting with their behaviors “Fire me!” They are “deselecting”. Deselecting means they are making the choice to leave you and/or your organization.  It’s their choice not yours and you merely need to help them to fulfill that wish.  You are merely deciding the timing.

There is another benefit to adopting this definition.  It enables you to take the bias out of the decision making.  With the bias out, the organization is better protected from legal action.  There are two crucial factors required for this deselection strategy to work properly.  First, an embrace of the definition of poor performer is necessary (“an employee who demonstrates a consistent and frequent pattern of broken integrity”).

Second, there needs to be a clear definition of integrity.  If the definition of integrity is clear and the definition of poor performer is clear, these two definitions work in cooperation to remove the bias.  Here is the definition of integrity I use in my business.  It has four parts and is operational.  It describes behaviors which makes it easy to observe and to measure.  The observable behaviors make it easier to remove the bias.

Integrity:

• Make only agreements[1] you intend to keep.
• Immediately communicate when you can’t keep agreements to those who need to know.
• Admit when a mistake is made, apologize, and look at the system[2] as a team for a solution (no blame, make no excuses, no complaining).
• When a mistake is seen from others communicate it respectfully, ask they provide a sincere apology, and work to correct it and prevent it from occurring in the future.

By adopting these two definitions a leader can influence all employees to self-manage their own agreements and to therefore self-manage their own integrity.

Anyone who willing and able to manage their agreements has the basic ability to perform. Anyone either unwilling or unable to manage their own agreements does not have a basic ability to perform.

Behaving with integrity is a basic skill and when it’s missing, the person cannot perform his or her basic duties.  Even if the person has exceptional skills in other areas, the absence of an ability or willingness to keep their own agreements will neutralize the other skills and/or knowledge.  In many respects Bernie Madoff was a knowledgeable and intelligent investor.  His lack of integrity cost his customers their money and cost him his freedom.

Recently a client needed to address concerns with one of the employees.  This employee had worked there for many years and was a bit of a trouble maker. He would often have disrespectful outbursts with co-workers. He often would refuse to follow through on agreements and would often break agreements.

It was brought to our attention by a co-worker he had threatened another co-worker with bodily harm.  He was confronted.  He admitted it and was promptly warned about the policy, and suspended for one day without pay.  When he returned to work he refused to participate in mandatory meetings, and he purposely destroyed company property in protest to his suspension.

This pattern of broken agreements and disrespect was a clear indication of deselection.  For years he had caused disturbances and the leadership would usually ignore them because his job knowledge and experience was in short supply in the industry.  Once the leadership saw the poor performance pattern, and once the organizational leadership saw the waste he was creating, it was easier to see how he was actually deselecting.

Always put integrity first as the list of skills needed to be a high performer.  Putting the job skills ahead of integrity skills will predictably cause more waste for everyone.

[1] Agreement: An activity that is specific, measurable and time sensitive and has a predictable process to achieve it.

[2] System: A series of interdependent processes that achieve an aim.

Manager/employee touch-base meetings were created to be better than yearly or twice-yearly job reviews. But have they turned out to be as good as everyone expected? Sometimes, but not always.

A supervisor usually pulls up a document that was created in the last touch-base and says, “Here are the to-dos we talked about last time. Have you done this . . . have you done that?” And then the final killer question is, “Why not?”

If you conduct touch-bases like that, you are sending the message that you, the manager, know everything and that your supervisee must prove him or herself. Your employee leaves the room feeling blamed, pressured and even threatened.

Yet there are simple, highly effective ways to turn touch-base meetings into opportunities for mentoring, coaching, and positive motivation. The strategy is to reverse the process so you’re letting your employee take responsibility, rather than your catching them at what they’re doing wrong.

Start with a simple open-ended question . . .

Questions like “Has it been a good few weeks since we last talked?” or, “Have you been enjoying work lately?” kick off a give-and-take conversation that allows you to then talk about anything in a safe way. They also offer you a chance to get a general feel for how things are going for your employee.

Replace “Let’s see how you’re doing on your to do list” with “What do you feel good about accomplishing since we last talked” . . .

If you follow this advice, you will start out focusing on positive changes and accomplishments that the employee has made. Next, give positive reinforcement for what they’ve accomplished and let them feel proud of their achievements. Then move on to any items that are still undone, which you can now discuss in a positive and upbeat way. This change drains the blame from your meeting and creates positive, motivational conversations.

Ask, “Are there areas where you need some help?” . . .

This is where you can coach and assist employees. Your offer of help prevents them from feeling bad about something that is undone and lets them feel comfortable about getting the help they need. Be sure to listen for underlying reasons why your employee might not be tackling certain tasks. The issue could be time, meaning they don’t have enough time to do everything – perhaps others in the organization could help?  It could be that they lack some piece of technology that would help them, the services of a consultant, or something else.

The bottom line is, by offering help you are helping someone not feel guilty about not getting something done. Under the old system of job reviews, people would often feel guilty and want to mislead or try to divert blame from themselves. That is very unhelpful. Having a frank and honest discussion, much better.

Let the employee set his or her own “to-dos” and priorities . . .

As a supervisor, there will be times when you need to make firm assignments. But as much as you can, allow your employee to set his or her own priorities and projects. That builds a sense of ownership and enthusiasm.

After the steps I recommend above, ask your employees how they’re doing on their action plan (a better name than a “to-do list”) to see if anything has been missed. Then ask them if they have anything they would like to add to the list. You can follow up with motivational questions like, “Why do you think this is important?” and, “How do you plan to tackle it?”  If there’s something you would like them to put on their list that they didn’t already think of, now’s the time to mention it. Most of the time, they are highly likely to have thought of that idea in the first place.

And to add still more encouragement . . .

Observe the “five to one” rule when meeting with supervisees who could benefit from an extra dose of positive inspiration. How does it work? For every one thing you say that could be interpreted as criticism, say five things that are positive and encouraging.

To sum it up . . .

When you adopt the approaches I recommend in this article, you change the touch-base to an extremely positive experience for encouragement, coaching and honest discussion. It is no longer an inquisition. In essence, you’re reversing the process by having employees take responsibility for their own action plans. Because you are now a mentor and coach, you will create a very strong and positive work bond.