Poison

When both attitude and capabilities flash red, take on the tough decision to fire; fast like a bunny. Fire this person immediately, even if it’s a direct report and you have to do his job yourself.  Don’t make the common mistake and leave this person in place for a while, saying to yourself “Well, at least some things are getting done. Besides, I don’t have the time to do his job,” or "I haven't started a replacement search yet", or “I don’t know how to do his job,” or….  To delay is to continue doses of Poison.

Believe me, it’s always better to have an opening and take the time to fill it than to have someone like this in the organization. You don’t know how much disruption they cause, how much time you’ll spend doing repairs, how many screwed-up signals get to the rest of the organization, how far off base the people he influences will be, how your image and message and values get distorted because this person represents you.

I once worked with a marketing manager named Frank. Whenever you were introduced to Frank, you needed a separate introduction to his enormous ego. The organization was facing a lot of change and Frank was supposed to have an active role in that change. But he and his ego couldn’t get any support from the rest of the company.

Manufacturing had a big role to play in this change but they wouldn’t support him. Research had a big role to play but they wouldn’t support him. He exported problems sideways and upwards. His direct team was on his side as he created the always fatal we-they environment to elecit departmental support, but this we-they attitude permeated the rest of the organization in a highly negative way.

Even after lots of coaching and mentoring from his boss (me), some element of his DNA wouldn’t allow him to change. So Frank couldn’t perform. His boss had to run interference and haul everyone else on board. Needless to say, his boss had to field a lot of grumbling.  So, even though I didn’t have a marketing experience base or skill set, and didn’t have a replacement search underway, I took on the task, removing Frank and running marketing. Silent applause came from my new marketing direct reports, ideas for change started flowing, surprising clarity resulted in previously clouded issues, improvements that had been stifled saw the light of day. The we-they, "us against the world" attitude disappeared the moment Frank walked out the door. Hey, "this isn't so hard", I said (at least compared to all the conflicting points of view, destructive nuances, and trauma I had previously faced).

Real weak links, people who can’t do the job and whose hearts are not in the right place, are well known to the organization. Their continued employment is a daily signal that you don’t mind wasting money. Don’t spend a second worrying about getting rid of them. Everyone will support your rapid decision. They’ll wonder what your problem is if you leave them in place. Don’t wait to find a replacement. Do it now!

Comments

[thomas epley]

Thanks Nicholas for your comments and questions. Subjective areas aren't, obviously, structured and by necessity require an experience component to alongside an academic-based component. That's a principal reason why i have, in the personnel matrix and other topics dealing with subjective areas, attempted to establish a structural foundation. You, and others, can take this structure based on my extensive experience, and use it as a foundation to more rapidly create your own experience based judgment.

[Nicholas]

Tom,

As always your insight and commentary are at times so acute and perceptive- if I may be so bold- that you deftly penetrate issue(s) that would leave most others completely blank. Graduate school focuses on problem solving--gathering facts, analyzing data, drawing reasonable conclusions etc.--but offers next to nothing in terms of dealing with ambiguity or gray areas. Many people today would likely consider interpersonal relations a gray area--where personality is a matter of preference and only relevant on non-company time. From this perspective, individuals should work together because they are supposed to do so, end of discussion. However, you present it in a different, and in my opinion more convincing manner. From your perspective- and one I buy- personality has direct work implications. The question then, from the viewpoint of an educator or a student, is how do you train individuals to perform at high levels in areas that seem somewhat subjective (e.g. vs. creating a balance sheet)? Is it so simple that there is a "class" you can take? (If so I will gladly enroll). How does one progress in skill areas like this that are relatively subjective, and therefore tend to be ignored by top grad programs, but which are nonetheless no less important? I ask simply because I can visibly see the importance of the subject. What is less clear to me is how to make this 'skill' equally accessible to everyone who might wish to acquire it.

Thanks as always for your incredible insight Tom.

An avid fan,
Nicholas