Stephen H Baum Leadership

AN INCITING INCIDENT

Sometimes a very brief exchange with one of my CEOs seems worth sharing. How about this one stimulated by reviewing the idiosyncrasies of high-performing direct reports, some of whose occasional behavior is seen very negatively by the rest of the team:

CEO: “I believe it is really important for leadership to be able to accommodate very different contributors and personalities.”

Coach: “You have one under-performing direct report you see as critical to success over the next year whom you fear will quit if you set clearer expectations. You have never laid out where he has to be a lot more proactive, take more initiative.”

CEO: “I just am not sure how to do it in his case and not have him take offense. And yet my tenure may not run more than a couple more years so there is some urgency. I just keep putting it off.”

Coach: “You have someone else on your team who is capable in a key (financial) area but is toxic to those around him. No one on the team wants to work with him or help him.”

CEO: “He is better than a year ago and it would take a long time to replace him with someone as good. Even though he did something overt to undermined a decision I had already made last week and I sent an email with very specific ground rules on the topic. Now is not a good time.”

EVIDENCE THIS IS WIDESPREAD

Other CEOs have delayed addressing:  a severely under-performing regional chief who would take time and money to replace; a field leader who fails to implement the agreed upon strategy and instructs people to stonewall and not escalate problems; a senior professional all about himself and publicly criticizing most of those around him; a group executive with one business sinking and another flat who will not ask for or accept help. And other similar stories. These are not uncommon, judging from the number of situations where I have a “ringside seat.”  Other coaches in the CEO peer -dvisory membership organization in which I spend half my time report similar experiences. For more on this visit: http://vistage.com

Are you a lot slower to have “fierce conversations” with people you fear will quit as well as people you don’t want to fire because they are contributors (or have great potential?) with negative behaviors?

ROOT CAUSE & CONSEQUENCES NOT EASILY SEEN

Why is this? One CEO says that there are so many urgent matters on his plate it is easy to let the fierce conversation slide. Another would rather wait until the problems become so acute he hears about it.  A third assigns trusted people to deal with it in his stead though they may not have the power to resolve the problem, only to do damage containment.

Clearly, some CEOs have a bias for action. Why? “To get it off my list;” “To send a message about the culture and raise everybody’s game;” “There are always better athletes out there who will be team-players. We have repeatedly been surprised at how good the new people are and how liberated the rest of the organization is when we outplace a B-player or someone with poor attitude.” “A-players want to be around other A-players when they play well as a team. It lifts the boat.”

What is not visible to those who procrastinate is the impact on good people’s morale, energy and, ultimately, stickiness to the organization. And the culture as defined by what behaviors people believe you will or will not tolerate. Not to mention the quality and speed of results.

CALL TO ACTION

There are precious few people on whom the boss an rely to tell them the truth, unvarnished and early. So the boss tens to see the problems only after the fire is well advanced. It can only help to cultivate your “listening system” of people who will tell you the truth and to take action early to put those on notice who need it and set new expectations and timelines. Or give authority to those on your leadership team to do it in your name (and back them up when the howls start).

That’s just my view. What’s yours?