Thanks, Chew, for your question. For all readers, please note, below is my comment. I invite you to add your opinion.
My first questions are: Why do you employ people who are unwilling or unable? Or, what have you(r organization) done to them that they became unwilling or unable? The point of these questions is to highlight the importance of the selection process. When employing or promoting staff, much attention must be paid to figure out the competence and the personality of the applicant, e.g. if an employment decision is made based on a 30-minute interview conducted by one, maybe even untrained, interviewer without any assessments, then you are inviting trouble into your team.
Of course, you could also have ‘inherited’ such staff. Let’s deal with that then.
To me ‘unwilling’ or ‘unable’ can be a bit of a subjective judgement. So, we need to make sure that the basics are in place. These are:
1. The long-term goal of the team must be clear to every team member and the values defined. Remember, the values are important as they define the expected behaviour.
2. Each team member must have clearly defined business goals and objectives for personal improvement; all in line with, as mentioned under 1. The long-term team goal and values.
3. Conduct monthly performance reviews (on performance reviews please look for a separate write up in this blog). The regular review will bring up the ‘gaps’, which are either related to performance (not achieving the goals) or not living the values.
Let’s now come back to ‘willing but unable’. The options are simple and as a manager you need to make the, sometimes, tough decisions.
The first ‘duty’ is always to enable your staff by means of training and coaching. The second option is to accept it, reduce expectations, re-assign goals. For this option, ask yourself. Can you afford it? How is this perceived by other team members? Who picks up the slack? Salary development of that staff? The third option is, after having given the staff sufficient time to improve, to transfer the staff or ask them to leave for the reason of under-performance.
Next point. Why would a staff be ‘able but not willing’?
Is it a troublemaker? If a staff is a troublemaker this will show up during the performance review as this staff is not living the values. Not living the values is as serious as under-performance and must be dealt with in the same manner. If you want to have a statement with more authority than mine to this subject, read the book ‘Winning – by Jack Welch’. Staff performing well but not living the values greatly disturb the team spirit and make a farce out of your company value system if you don’t deal with it in the same manner as under-performance.
Is the staff lacking confidence? Try to slowly develop them. Assign special projects. Ask them for proposals to improve team strategy, work processes. Let them teach certain subjects to (new) colleagues. Assign them to be a buddy / mentor of a new staff. Let them tag along with you for meetings or discussions with your boss; don’t forget to explain the others why you do that. You will have a good chance that with growing confidence they are willing to take on more demanding tasks.
Is it that the staff just doesn’t want more responsibility or a career! We need to separate here. Probably every manager needs to churn out higher productivity, hence, job requirements change; often more multi-tasking is expected. As a logical consequence your staff’s goals will change as well. Negotiate decent targets with your boss. Once you have done this, you have no option but to ‘share the burden’ with your staff. If a staff is not willing to change, i.e. not accepting the new personal goals, they would then appear to under-perform and need to be dealt with accordingly.
Another option is that, for some staff, you may see a lot of potential but the staff just doesn’t want any further career advancements. Give it a good effort to develop them; however, they may still choose NOT to pursue a career. This is a personal choice and I have no problem with that, as long as they change within the scope of the job requirements. In fact, I like to have a few of this type of staff as, typically, they provide steadiness to the team, and tend to be more loyal. Make sure to treat them fairly and they will perform well,
Chew, does this answer your question?
My first questions are: Why do you employ people who are unwilling or unable? Or, what have you(r organization) done to them that they became unwilling or unable? The point of these questions is to highlight the importance of the selection process. When employing or promoting staff, much attention must be paid to figure out the competence and the personality of the applicant, e.g. if an employment decision is made based on a 30-minute interview conducted by one, maybe even untrained, interviewer without any assessments, then you are inviting trouble into your team.
Of course, you could also have ‘inherited’ such staff. Let’s deal with that then.
To me ‘unwilling’ or ‘unable’ can be a bit of a subjective judgement. So, we need to make sure that the basics are in place. These are:
1. The long-term goal of the team must be clear to every team member and the values defined. Remember, the values are important as they define the expected behaviour.
2. Each team member must have clearly defined business goals and objectives for personal improvement; all in line with, as mentioned under 1. The long-term team goal and values.
3. Conduct monthly performance reviews (on performance reviews please look for a separate write up in this blog). The regular review will bring up the ‘gaps’, which are either related to performance (not achieving the goals) or not living the values.
Let’s now come back to ‘willing but unable’. The options are simple and as a manager you need to make the, sometimes, tough decisions.
The first ‘duty’ is always to enable your staff by means of training and coaching. The second option is to accept it, reduce expectations, re-assign goals. For this option, ask yourself. Can you afford it? How is this perceived by other team members? Who picks up the slack? Salary development of that staff? The third option is, after having given the staff sufficient time to improve, to transfer the staff or ask them to leave for the reason of under-performance.
Next point. Why would a staff be ‘able but not willing’?
Is it a troublemaker? If a staff is a troublemaker this will show up during the performance review as this staff is not living the values. Not living the values is as serious as under-performance and must be dealt with in the same manner. If you want to have a statement with more authority than mine to this subject, read the book ‘Winning – by Jack Welch’. Staff performing well but not living the values greatly disturb the team spirit and make a farce out of your company value system if you don’t deal with it in the same manner as under-performance.
Is the staff lacking confidence? Try to slowly develop them. Assign special projects. Ask them for proposals to improve team strategy, work processes. Let them teach certain subjects to (new) colleagues. Assign them to be a buddy / mentor of a new staff. Let them tag along with you for meetings or discussions with your boss; don’t forget to explain the others why you do that. You will have a good chance that with growing confidence they are willing to take on more demanding tasks.
Is it that the staff just doesn’t want more responsibility or a career! We need to separate here. Probably every manager needs to churn out higher productivity, hence, job requirements change; often more multi-tasking is expected. As a logical consequence your staff’s goals will change as well. Negotiate decent targets with your boss. Once you have done this, you have no option but to ‘share the burden’ with your staff. If a staff is not willing to change, i.e. not accepting the new personal goals, they would then appear to under-perform and need to be dealt with accordingly.
Another option is that, for some staff, you may see a lot of potential but the staff just doesn’t want any further career advancements. Give it a good effort to develop them; however, they may still choose NOT to pursue a career. This is a personal choice and I have no problem with that, as long as they change within the scope of the job requirements. In fact, I like to have a few of this type of staff as, typically, they provide steadiness to the team, and tend to be more loyal. Make sure to treat them fairly and they will perform well,
Chew, does this answer your question?
Posts
Thanks Gunther. Your answer is as clear as a bright day.
ReplyDeleteChew