|
"Pass a dud"
costs corporations a packet
by Margot Cairnes
"I was new to the company so I didn't
know about `Pass a dud'," an executive told me recently.
"Pass a dud?" I queried.
"When I needed some new staff I was told that there were
excellent people internally and that I should look at
them first. So I asked HR for some names and files.
There were people who had wonderful track records, great
performance reviews. When I checked with their current
managers they gave me good references. All looked fine
until the guys came to work for me. They were complete
duds. But it turned out everybody knew they were duds.
Their managers had given them rave reviews and
references to get rid of them, offload them onto suckers
like me. Now I have a choice: go through the hell of
counselling sessions, dismissal and possible litigation
- made more difficult by years of fudged high ratings -
or give the duds great reviews and pass them on to some
other mug."
What a wonderful mess ludicrous employment legislation
combined with inadequate relationship skills can create.
Most people find it difficult to give clear direct
feedback, to let people know they aren't performing to
expectation - so they avoid honest performance reviews.
After years of being protected from the truth about
their real abilities and lack of effectiveness
nonachievers are understandably baffled and even enraged
if someone eventually has the courage to tell them the
truth. This is when obliging unions and legal counsel
are only too happy to press charges of unfair dismissal.
It is amazing the rationales that leaders spin
themselves to avoid giving honest feedback. I was
speaking to a human resource director the other day
about a problem executive. "Have you told him the exact
problem?" I asked. "Well, he must know," was the reply.
"What makes you think that?" I asked. "Well," I was
told, "everybody knows."
Frightened that honesty might lead to energy- and
time-consuming conflict we fool ourselves that we don't
have to have the difficult conversations, that the
person will undergo some form of instantaneous
enlightenment or that someone else will tell them.
Meanwhile we are really sabotaging our own
effectiveness, the potential achievement of the
nonperformer, and the team's success. If we are to
engage in "pass a dud" or its close cousin "promote a
dud" we are also undermining our colleagues and our
whole organisation. This becomes particularly so given
the current environment of downsizing. Could it be that
the duds, protected by their high ratings, become the
people most likely to retain their jobs?
Avoiding dealing with the tough issues of nonperformance
can reach ridiculous proportions. I once worked with an
executive who was very definitely not wanted by her
organisation. Nobody, however, was prepared to ask her
to leave. They sent her to me. But with no concrete
negative feedback from her colleagues or boss she
couldn't believe that there was a problem. She believed
that she had always performed well and that her results
and performance reviews bore that out. From her
perspective there was no need to change. Eventually her
organisation put her - alone - on an entire floor of a
building in the hope that she would get the hint.
Eventually she did - but it cost them a fortune in
consultant fees, golden handshake, and rent.
"Pass a dud" costs corporations a packet - all to avoid
the pain of honest communication. "You must be joking,"
clients have told me. "Do you know what some people will
do if you speak to them honestly? With the employment
laws the way they are you have to be so careful what you
say."
What a copout! What this really means is that people are
just plain scared of telling others things they need to,
but may not want to, hear. So often leaders hide in the
technicalities and busy work, creating all sorts of
avoidable problems rather than face up to the fact that
they need to improve their skills in communication,
particularly giving and receiving feedback and handling
conflict.
It is amazing how many excuses people can find for not
facing up to and doing their jobs. Surely care and skill
in communication and knowledge of the laws that affect
their decisions is why leaders are paid more! The cost
of good legal advice and investment in developing skills
in giving clear, honest feedback is minimal compared to
the confusion, inconvenience and pain caused by "pass a
dud" in all its various forms.
Copyright
ã Margot
Cairnes
Previous
Next
|
