One of the many topics I tend to revisit through my own work
is that of tradeoffs. Creating clarity of mission and purpose is a profound
experience. In theory, it is an exciting and invigorating process. But in
practice, organizations’ issues seem to persist long after they achieve the
clarity and even after they create a plan.
Working with wonderful institutions, I see time and again
the same dilemma: what
to do with well-intentioned people who simply don’t have the skill sets, or the
mind sets, that the organization needs to move forward. Time and again, I see
leaders struggle with this recognition and try to avoid the implications. They
use words like “eventually” (as in, “they’ll get there eventually”) and
“potential” (as in, “I know that the potential is there”). I see them put hope
before truth. The truth is that there is no “there.”
Consultants respect the desire to be loyal to decent
people—in many cases, individuals with long employment histories and strong
relationships with organization leaders. On the other hand, the job is to help
leadership identify the levers likely to propel the cause forward, and/or hold
it back.
So what can be done to make the tradeoffs easier, and the
subsequent course of action less painful?
Be clear to be
creative. Putting all of the legal implications of dismissing individuals
aside (and you should certainly consult counsel if you intend to do so), here
are some thoughts on how to achieve outcomes that you can live with. In a
smaller organization these steps might be undertaken by the owner/president; in
a larger organization the process might be distributed across a senior
leadership team or, in the absence of those roles, the most trusted members of
the staff.
1.
Assume
nothing. Start at the ground level, and build up. Do not assume that any
individual will be in the role they currently hold at the end of the process,
or that the roles will actually exist, or that any particular individual will
be out of the organization. You may be surprised.
2.
Be clear
about what you need and expect. If this was not part of your planning
process, document the skills and dispositions required for jobs (and careers)
that your organization needs. Keep in mind that these are not necessarily the
jobs that your organization currently has in place. Understand also that if you
don’t know what you need and expect, you will never be able to make a
convincing argument for change—not even to yourself.
3.
Have job
descriptions at hand. Again, if this was not part of a plan, develop good,
thorough job descriptions for all the roles offers, and/or that you think your
organization needs.
4.
Employ a
self-assessment tool. Let your employees tell you what they believe they
bring to the table: specific skills, interests, proclivities—and how they rate
themselves in these areas.
5.
Compare
what you believe you need against what you are told you have. Do they match
up—and do you feel confident that both assessments are accurate (that is, that
you have the right expectations, and that others have portrayed themselves
accurately)?
6.
Evaluate.
If you believe you have appropriate expectations AND that others have portrayed
themselves accurately, do a gut check. Are you ready, or do you have some
nagging feeling that something is off? If there is imbalance, how big are the
gaps? Are they addressable, or not?
7.
Share.
Bring these initial conclusions to the table and discuss them. For some people
and in certain cultures this would be unthinkable; these conversations are
always held behind closed doors. But this is where real creativity can happen.
Examples:
A very talented member of a team faced being let go because there was
insufficient work in his particular division. Another team with adequate work was
holding on to a less gifted colleague in a similar role. It took one
conversation for the managers to agree that they should transfer the more
promising employee and let the other go.
They focused on retaining talent, not on a
particular individual.
A department head created a plan to hire two half-time people to cover different
parts of program administration across her team. At the same time, she had an
employee who was chomping at the bit for more challenging work. With
encouragement, the department head incorporated the disparate pieces into a
cohesive new cross-team role, and promoted the promising employee.
She
dispensed with old, unproductive staffing practices and got a more significant
contribution from a talented individual, strengthening the organization over
all—and ensuring the employee’s loyalty.
A senior leadership team compared the organization’s required skill sets to the
skills of its managers. Steeling themselves to be honest, they acknowledged
that one of the most senior managers had long ago been surpassed by one of her
direct reports. They resolved to begin the process of succession planning, with
the goal of transitioning out the senior manager within the year.
They
chose the future of the organization over its past.
8. Share again. With preliminary
conclusions drawn, have frank conversations with the individuals whose future
you question. Show the data—how the skills and dispositions match with the
needs of the organization. Provide every opportunity to succeed, but also seed
the possibility that these individuals may not have a future with you.
Important note: depending on the circumstances, you may need counsel to do this
appropriately.
And finally, Step 9.
Take action as necessary—and emerge perhaps sadder, but in a better place
to nurture your organization and allow it to grow.
I haven’t been writing prolifically, and I have missed the
opportunity to work on my ideas while connecting with others and adding value
to their (your) life and work. Thank you for returning; I hope you will
continue to do so, and that it will always be worth your while. Always feel
free to let me know!