By BLR Founder and Publisher Bob Brady
Who’s really responsible for the bottom performers in an organization? And what should be done about them? BLR’s founder had his say last week. Now he reacts to yours.
Last week’s column advocated “differentiation” among the best, average, and poorest employees, partially based on Jack Welch’s well-publicized theories. The column advocated using pay raises as a carrot and career change as a stick. (Read the column.) A number of readers responded, arguing that it’s unfair to punish a good, loyal employee for a bad year or for being in the wrong place at the wrong time in the company’s life cycle.
Reader Will Isherwood, director, Human Services at AIT Worldwide Logistics, wrote, “I disagree wholeheartedly with Jack Welch’s approach of rewarding the top people, encouraging the middle group to grow and develop, and taking steps to remove the worst.
“Forced choice just doesn’t work and I believe diminishes loyalty. What about the loyal, great 20-year performer who now has a ‘worst’ year? I think this just reinforces the ‘hired gun’ mentality… Getting rid of the worst at the end of the appraisal year is the easy way out.”
Others echoed the sentiment. “Rank and yank” is unproductive and poisonous, they said. The “fear factor” overrides any motivational value.
These comments didn’t change my mind, but they did prompt some thinking.
Forced choice doesn’t mean “rank and yank.” Welch is a lightening rod because of his stark terms, but if you read his books or his columns in Business Week, you’ll find he doesn’t advocate the workplace equivalent of summary execution. He urges thoughtful assessments of people over time, communicated clearly, and attempts to place them in other jobs that make sense for them and the organization. A poor review should never be “news.” Feedback should be regular and honest. That is his real message, and the message I advocate.
What the Experts Say
I reached out to a number of HR experts, including Mike Losey, former CEO of the Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM). Uniformly, they agreed that fairness (and good business practice) require constant assessment and, where appropriate, pruning of the workplace. However, they also uniformly made one point that I ignored: Poor performers are often good people in the wrong job.
Geof Gregory, formerly a manager at Webster Bank and now with Merrill Lynch, advised, “I have a different view of the typical bell curve and the bottom 30 percent. Half of the lower third, let’s say 15 percent, have core skills which can often be redeployed within the organization.
“Once there was a guy in a ‘Relationship Manager’ role who literally trembled in front of prospects. We transferred him to internal audit, where he was ultimately promoted to VP and continues to thrive to this day. On the other hand, the bottom 10 percent is a reality of the business world, and managers are paid to make those calls on a timely basis.”
Brian Gurnham, COO here at BLR, echoed Gregory’s sentiment, “I think a lot of the bad press is around the perception that the bottom 10 percent are somehow bad people, or dumb or stupid, or underperforming. It’s more likely that the person has not been placed properly and has therefore been put in the position of failing by management. The bottom 10 percent is, in part, there because of management’s inability to match the person to the job.”
Mike Losey, who’s long been one of HR’s superstars, took a slightly different turn.
The thrust of his comments is that managers need (and welcome) some process to help them deal with substandard performance—often from their friends and colleagues.
“The biggest employee relations problem is in not promptly and effectively addressing employee performance issues,” said Losey. “Employees know who is not carrying their load – especially those who are performing marginally or unsatisfactorily. A process that helps them—even forces [managers]—to make these hard calls is a good thing.”
Throughout his career, Losey has advocated being proactive. He reached out to managers before the fact, looking for people who needed to be retrained or redirected. But what do you do when there are no retraining alternatives?
Many readers, including Will Usherwood, believe that great leaders are able to “separate amicably” when necessary. “It takes incredible leadership and management skill to turn performance around and to treat someone humanely enough to really level with them,” says Usherwood.
I came away convinced, as Mike Losey said, that our employees know who the real contributors are. They also know where the problems are. They will have more confidence in the organization if managers take the steps necessary to reward performance and deal with problems.
This is my E-pinion. Send me yours. Rbrady@blr.com