Why you can't afford to have mediocre performers - And how to transition them out

Please spend 15 minutes on this topic.

See if it is applicable

THE ART OF DE-HIRING

Clearly, it's important to hire outstanding people. It's just as critical to de-hire people who are

not performing up to the highest level of expectations.

Why not be content to have a mixture of great and ordinary employees? Keep in mind that

every person who works for you makes a statement about you as a manager, especially the best

and worst. Even if you have just one person in your department who is mediocre, that tells

the world that "mediocre" is okay by you.

Also, consider the impact of a poor performer when it comes to recruiting top people. David

Allen, who is now with IBM Engineering and Technology Services, once interviewed with an

aerospace electronics firm located near the city where he grew up. He was eager to join the

firm so he could move back to his hometown.

However, his hopes were shattered when he was introduced to the technical lead of the department

to which he would be assigned if hired. It was his old lab partner from a college physics

course. Allen knew from the moment he recognized him that he would never work for a company

that considered the lab partner capable of being technical or a leader. At the end of the

day, Allen went back to his job far from his hometown and declined the job offer.

You may never know just how much a single person is pulling down your department by

chasing away customers and potential employees.

Also, when it comes to moving together as a team, the group IQ is not the average of all of your

people; it is the lowest individual IQ. Whether you're leading a meeting or mobilizing a team

to execute a brilliant strategy, you can only go as fast as your slowest employee will allow you

to go.

Therefore, a mediocre employee is more than just one mediocre employee. He or she becomes

a human multiplier effect, to the downside. If you have even one poor performer, you are not

only announcing to the world that mediocrity is acceptable to you, but conceding that you are

willing to slow the entire group for the sake of the worst employee.

Thus, allowing that one person to stay is not being kind or generous; it is dangerous. It's dangerous

for the individual, who knows, on some level, that he or she is doing second-rate work

and who is being locked into mediocrity. It's also dangerous for the group, which is slowed and

distracted and can't perform at its full potential.

Refusing to tolerate poor performers doesn't mean you're embracing the destructive act of

indiscriminate firings. Too often, people who are fired feel angry or confused about why they're

being terminated. Many of them never know why they were fired, so they have no learning

curve, repeating the same mistakes in their next job.

Firing is telling people that they are wrong for the organization; de-hiring is helping

employees do what's right for themselves and the organization.

One approach to de-hiring is to ask a series of six questions, developed by Dr. Jonathan

Knaupp for his use in a university setting:

1. Are you happy here? Actually, you know they're not happy or the meeting wouldn't be

taking place.

2. What are you passionate about? That question will get them to think about what they

really want.

3. Does this job do that for you? Again, if the answer were yes, you wouldn't be asking the

question.

4. How can we make changes so that happens? In most cases, it cannot be done or the problem

is a family/personal issue that you can't fix, but you might be able to change the

employee's work schedule.

5. What would you rather be doing? In fact, they've probably given this matter some thought.

6. How can I help you move in that direction? In many cases, all they really need is your

encouragement to make a change.

Typically, mediocre employees would rather be doing something else. By helping them to focus

on their passions, you can help them see that they would be happier in another position at

your firm, or in another company. By asking these questions, you are encouraging them to

have the self-revelations and make the changes that will move them toward their goals.

The essence of the de-hiring process is to lay out with underperformers where their performance

currently is compared to where you think it could be. Tell them, "I know it hasn't

been going well for you, but let's change that. Here's what it takes to be a star performer.

I think you can achieve these goals, and do so in three months. Do you agree?" Once you

have agreement on the goals, then you add the consequences: "Let's agree that you'll either

be a star, or you'll move on and find the place that's right for you. What do you need from

me to accomplish your goals?"

This puts employees in charge of their futures, and if you have come up with quantifiable

goals, there is no question whether they are succeeding or not, especially when you hold

regular meetings to assess their progress.

The bottom line is that instead of being told to leave, or put on "probation" and told how not

to be fired, people who are de-hired are told how to stay and how to thrive. De-hiring assumes

the best about people, establishes goals for success, and works with the employees to reach

those goals.

Doing so, employees are offered the chance to make the decision about their futures. A substantial

percentage of second-rate employees, given clear goals and a boss genuinely eager to

help them reach those goals, will rise to the challenge and become first-rate employees.

When this happens, it is leadership at its best and often creates a lifelong bond between the

two people.

But what happens when the employee does not rise to the challenge? Some never even try.

They might pretend to agree to the new goals, but are really thinking, "I don't want to work

that hard," and find themselves new positions. So they leave, without having to be fired.

Others try to reach the new standards, but realizing they aren't going to get there, move out

before the end of the goal period. Finally, there are a few whose performance doesn't improve

by the end of the goal period and who keep their agreement and leave.

Even then, with the last group, it's not the same as being fired. They leave without resentment

or animosity because they have had time to understand the situation and have already

moved on mentally into a job search or career change. The de-hiring situation isn't negative

and hostile like a "probationary period"; rather, it's an opportunity for self-discovery, figuring

out the right place to thrive. Thus, the gifted boss and the employee are never enemies; they

are working together toward an agreement.

By de-hiring employees, you help them move to new jobs where they can perform at their best.

Meanwhile, the benefit to your organization is two-fold: Not only can you subtract a weak

employee, but you can add a star employee.

Every hour that you spend on hiring star employees and de-hiring mediocre workers saves you

a thousand hours of managing, trying to overcome the weak employees' shortcomings, and

repairing damage to the team's morale.

That's why great leadership often seems effortless…

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chandra Bodapati, CEO / Founder  at  eGrabber Inc.,
Phone: 408-872-3102 – Fax: 408-861-9601

chandra@egrabber.com  LI-Profile   
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

eGrabber - We develop the world's most powerful B2B List-Building Tools