One of my clients refers to the dinosaurs she’s discovered roaming the floor of her new workplace.
Another talks about how, at her workplace, the owners feel morally obliged to keep people on. Because of their years of service. Because they’re getting close to retirement age. And possibly because they simply can’t bring themselves to let them go. Even if it would be best for the business. Even if it’s the right thing to do for all their colleagues who pick up their slack.
Are they being lazy, avoiding a difficult conversation and a moral conflict? Or are they being kind?
Yet another client chose not to keep someone on. He was new to the CEO role and wanted to “clean up the leadership team”. Underperformance would no longer be tolerated. Not on his watch. He wanted the business to reach its potential too.
It’s been a painful transition to the new, and high performing, leadership team. One person left of her own accord. Another left, almost two years later.
It can take that long. It wasn’t easy. He left kicking and screaming, and reaping as much havoc in his wake as he possibly could.
Understandably, really. His underperformance had been rated as good for years. Despite the sales figures showing clearly that it was anything but.
This situation could have been avoided if his previous bosses had helped him see his own shortcomings, and helped him improve years ago. Too much was tolerated for way too long.
And frankly, that’s both lazy and unkind.
Do you have examples of underperformance being handled well at your workplace? Let me know in the Leave a Reply comments section.
Photo credit: Fausto García on Unsplash