Managers contribute to underperformance by avoiding the issue. Managers hope. I am here to tell you there is no hope. There is only the conversation.

In our Working Leadership Online program, I asked a participant to describe the benefit of the Field Work related to accountability.

“Getting over the fear of having the conversation. I was scared it would spiral out of control. The meeting went nothing like I anticipated.”

We provide a proven model to deal with underperformance, but the biggest obstacle is still the fear of confrontation. Our model not only addresses the underperformance, but also the fear on the part of the manager. Here are the essential steps.

• Describe the behavior (underperformance) you observed, as a manager.
• Describe the impact of the behavior.
• Describe the implications of what will happen if nothing changes.
• Describe your contribution to the underperformance, as a manager. (Yes, as a manager, you are part of the problem.)
• Describe the ideal outcome.
• Ask for an action plan.
• Listen.

Except for the last step, this is a monologue, lasting less than 60 seconds. There are some other ground rules, but this is the core. Now, check your fear at the door.

“Why are you avoiding this conversation with Curtis?” I asked.

“I know I should talk to him, but I just don’t like confrontation. His production is below par. I don’t think he is doing his best. But if I talk to him, he might get upset and his production might get slower,” Lauren explained.

“How do you define confrontation?”

“Curtis screws up and I call him on it.”

“And?”

“And he will try to defend himself with excuses. I will have to argue with his excuses. I will have to force my reasons against his excuses. I just want to avoid it,” she protested.

“What if you changed your definition of confrontation to a search for the truth. Instead of excuses, let’s find out what the real problem is and see if Curtis can fix it?” I suggested.

Sometimes, the way we understand a single word can change the way we see what we do. Many people avoid confrontation because it brings uncomfortable images. If we can see confrontation as a search for the truth, we can have the conversation with a more productive purpose.

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:
I listened with interest at your last Time Span workshop. How come we never heard of Elliott Jaques before? He makes so much management sense, yet he seems to have been a best kept secret.

Response:
Elliott is seldom included in the management literature, yet everything we know about organizations and organizational structure rests on the shoulders of his research. But if you look hard, you will find outposts, practitioners who continue his legacy.

Michelle Malay Carter writes often about Elliott and the principles contained in his research. Here is an excerpt from Mission Minded Management.

“Managers have double accountability. They, as employees themselves must bring their best to bear and give their managers their best advice, but in addition, they are accountable for the output of their team.” Read more.

“Why does Taylor think he is getting a raise?” I asked. Dana had talked to Taylor about coming in late everyday, but her Positive Sandwich sent a mixed message.

“I didn’t want to upset him by coming down too hard. I need him to change his behavior, but I don’t want him to be angry at me,” Dana replied.

“Why do you think he would be angry?”

“No one likes to be criticized.”

“How can you deliver the message, the direct message, without criticizing?” I challenged.

“I don’t know,” Dana relented. “Everyone is late sometimes, but this is beginning to have an impact on the rest of the team.”

“So, there is some criticism that needs to be stated. Remember, there are only two people in this conversation. How can that criticism be put on the table without you being the critic?” I pressed.

Dana’s face relaxed. “I can describe the behavior and ask Taylor to describe the impact of the behavior.”

“And what if Taylor’s analysis of the impact is weak?”

“Then I will have to ask him a better question,” Dana nodded.

Most managers feel they have to be the critic and often criticism (a judgment about behavior, a judgment about effectiveness) needs to be stated.

Effective managers get to the same place by asking questions.

“You are looking at longer Time Span goals and creating systems,” I said. “What is Curtis’ goal?”

Glenn looked serious. “Curtis doesn’t have to worry about the system. As a supervisor, he just has to make sure production gets done.”

“Is that why he is throwing you under the bus? You are trying to create a system, and he is just trying to make the production goals for the day.”

“But, I explained the reason for the system. I don’t see why he doesn’t buy in. I expect him to be a team player,” Glenn defended.

“Your longer Time Span goals, the ones that drive your system, are your goals, not his. He has his own goals related to getting production done. And those are shorter Time Span goals. If you are going to get any traction on this, you are going to have to speak in terms of his production goals.”

Often a manager speaks out of both sides of the mouth. On one hand, Glenn wants to drive production to meet output goals. On the other hand, he knows that production must be efficient to meet profitability goals. Until Glenn can explain both requirements as necessary, his decisions will remain a mystery to his team. And when his decisions are a mystery, his team, if pressed, will throw those decisions under the bus in an effort to just get the production done.

“How do you explain your role as a manager, and Curtis’ role as a supervisor, so Curtis understands and can, in turn, explain it to his team? Without throwing each other under the bus?” I asked.

Glenn was thinking, but only to his fallback position. “I am the manager, I design the system. Curtis is the supervisor, he drives the system.”

“Sounds a bit authoritarian,” I observed. “What drives your system, why is it necessary to have a system, in the first place?”

“Because things would be a mess, if we didn’t have a system,” Glenn defended. “I mean we could run around all crazy and put band-aids on things, but we would still have problems over and over. I want to prevent problems, for the long haul.”

“You don’t want to fix the problem over and over, so you created a system. What’s your goal?”

“You’re right. I am not worried about losing a tool on Tuesday. I am working on productivity rates over a long period of time.”

“What period of time? When did you start thinking about productivity?”

“We were in a planning meeting and our CFO showed us a report on labor rates and revenue. He wanted to know if we could improve the ratio,” Glenn explained.

“How long did your executive team give you to make the improvements?”

“The CFO gives me a report every month, and we look at it in a planning meeting each quarter.”

“What’s your goal?” I asked again. “How much improvement do you want, and in what period of time?”

“Curtis just threw me under the bus, when he is the one responsible for the decision,” Glenn explained. “During the day, we give our technicians full access to an inventory of specialty tools, but at the end of the shift, all specialty tools have to be returned. It looks like we are mother hen, but the supervisor, Curtis, checks to make sure all the tools are returned and in working order. If we need one and it’s missing or broken, the down-time costs us.”

“What’s the problem?” I asked.

“Curtis had to explain the rule, again, to some of the crew, and he was getting pushback. Rather than explain it, he just said it was my rule and that if anyone had a problem with it, they could see me.”

“Is it your rule?”

“It’s part of the system I designed. A daily tool check keeps our specialty tools close enough to prevent down-time from a missing or broken tool. An hourly check is too often, but if we don’t do it once a day, the tools get legs and walk off.”

“So, it’s your system?”

“It is my system, but it is Curtis’ role to explain the system and enforce the system. He doesn’t have to design the system, just drive it.”

“So, how do you explain it to Curtis, so he doesn’t throw you under the bus?”

“Not if you look closer,” I insisted. “Andre does make decisions, and that is what you are unhappy about. Right now, you don’t see those decisions, and that’s why you have trouble talking to him about his performance. The discretionary part of every job is where effectiveness lives.”

“But Andre is a machine operator. I don’t see what decisions he makes,” Ruben explained.

“When you can see his decisions, you can help him. And you can help him.” I stopped to see Ruben mentally catch up. “When Andre comes on shift, does he make a decision about how much raw material to pull from the rack?”

“Well, yes, but he has a list of what he has to produce for the day, so I don’t see where the decision is,” Ruben resisted.

“Does he pull all the material for the day, or does he only pull part of the material?”

Ruben rolled his eyes, “I don’t know, what does it matter?”

“You don’t know the answer to that question, because that is a decision that Andre has to make. That is part of his discretion. And it has an impact on his productivity. If he has ten units to produce and he only pulls eight sheets, he will have to make another trip with the forklift. And when he makes the extra trip, he has to shut his machine down.

“Or if he has ten units to make and he pulls twelve sheets, then he has to put two sheets back in the rack. And how easy is it to scratch those sheets as they are handled? The decision he makes has an impact on machine time and scrap.

“Andre is effective, not because he shows up on time and wears his safety equipment (he has to do that) but by the decisions he makes. Effectiveness comes from the discretionary part of his role.”

“Showing up on time, following procedures and completing assignments are the prescribed duties,” I said. “If Andre can’t deliver those, he can’t be on the team.”

Ruben nodded his head.

“But meeting the prescribed tasks, does not mean he is doing a great job, or even a good job,” I continued. “So let’s talk about the discretionary part of his job, which is the real work.”

“The discretionary part?” Ruben looked puzzled.

I nodded. “The discretionary part. Look, Ruben, what is work?”

“What kind of question is that?” he replied.

“It’s a very important question. You could say that work is showing up on time, following procedures and completing assignments, but that would lead us down the wrong path.” Ruben stared at me, not blinking. “Being effective has to do with the discretionary part of your job.”

“I’m not sure I understand the discretionary part.”

“Discretion has to do with the decisions that Andre has to make.”

“But Andre doesn’t make decisions, he just has to do his job,” Ruben gently replied.