“I am frustrated at work,” Jarrod said to me. 

“What is the issue?” I asked.

“My manager sets targets—he calls them key performance indicators (KPI’s)—for me to achieve.  He says I need to sell $2.5 worth of services per year and he sets specific metrics for new prospects, selling attempts, repeat business, and revenue collected.”

Jared was convinced that the targets were deliberately high.  He also believed the manager would keep increasing the targets no matter what. “I spend a lot of time documenting my efforts in case I miss a target, and I do not invest time in long-term projects even though they may have potential value.”  Jared also refused to help individuals in other departments. He did not think his efforts would directly impact his personal KPI’s.   

Six months later, Jarrod told me he had a new boss that he really liked.

“What is different?” I asked.

Jarrod said she regularly talked with him about KPI’s but did not set specific performance targets.  Her typical communication was, “What do you need from me?”

Jarrod became more energized; and after two months, his performance regularly exceeded his previous boss’s expectations. 

Without proper support, performance metrics may lower commitment, hamper teamwork and increase turnover. 

“I don’t know why management keeps Harvey around.”

“You cannot depend on him.  He produces little and makes too many mistakes.”

“He misses a lot of work too which makes our jobs harder.”

 What impact do low performers have in the workplace?  A survey by Eagle Hill Consulting reported that 68% of respondents said low performers lowered morale and 44% said they created more work for others.  Top performers rarely reduce their efforts when working with a low performer, but they are more likely to quit.

Managers average between one and three days a week working with low performers.  And they seldom see improvement.   Effective managers spend less than 10% of their time with low performers.  Rather, productive leaders spend 50% of their time with high performers–learning from them, seeking ways to help, and showing sincere appreciation.   

How do you know when to begin the termination process?  Netflix asks two questions:  (1) If the employee got another job offer, would you fight to keep the person?  (2) Knowing what you know now, would you hire the employee again?

If the answer to either question is “No,” it is better for all to part ways.

“How did you rate Alan on the quality of his work?” said a manager to his supervisor.

“I rated him as ‘meets expectations’ and said he could be more careful. I showed him examples where he could improve.”

“Alan’s mistakes have caused extra work for others, and I know the mistakes negatively impact our service. ‘Does not meet expectations’ would have been more accurate.” 

“Probably so but Alan is a nice guy and I did not want to upset him.” 

In his book, Dare to Lead, Berne Brown reports that senior leaders identified the lack of honest feedback as the greatest barrier to leadership courage.  While some said sugar-coating bad news is due to lack of skills, most identified a culture of stressing “nice and polite” as the major culprit.

Too many avoid clarity because they want to be seen as kind, but allowing contributors to believe they are doing OK when they are not is unkind. Artificial harmony produces hallway gossip, distrust and decreased performance.   

The late Howard Cosell, one of the top sports announcers of his day, often used the phrase “telling it like it is” to report unpopular truths. Courageous leaders tell it like it is.

In the process of selecting an internal candidate for a promotion, a concerned emerged.

“I think we should promote the top candidate in our pool,” a manager commented. “The candidate is experienced, has an outgoing personality and is very passionate about the promotion.”

Another responded, “I’m not confident the candidate is a good fit. I believe Gina would be better in this role.”

“She has not applied and she doesn’t say much.”

“I agree Gina is introverted; but she is very analytical, and her analysis and justifications are always clear and understandable. Her peers trust and respect her.”

Liz Mineo, writing in The Harvard Gazette, quotes a study by Professor David Deming that found candidates who have a strong desire to be in charge are often not good selections. They tend to be overconfident and think they understand people better than they do.

Effective leadership requires the ability to make good decisions and gain the trust of team members.  Degrees, certifications, experience and desire to be in charge do not necessarily predict leadership success. 

Analytical and trusted candidates may not apply for positions because they do not recognize their leadership talents. To increase the odds of selecting good leaders, seek smart, trusted candidates even if they do not apply.  

“For some time, we struggled with how to manage work from home requests,” lamented a vice president.  “We clarified a lot of issues by developing a coherent policy.”

According to surveys, about six in ten employees favor companies that allow remote work. Mat D’Angelo in Business News Daily suggests that remote work policies cover the following:

            1. Eligible positions—Criteria for working remotely may include type of job, performance history, personality, and days the employee is expected to work onsite. 

            2. Required “business hours”—Are remote workers expected to be at their workstations for certain hours during the day?  If so, identify the time. For example, remote workers must be available via phone, chatting or virtual meetings 8:00 to 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. 

            3. Cybersecurity—If the organization provides devices for working at home, the devices should be used for work only.  If contributors use their personal devices, the policy should stress password, encrypted data and GPS requirements.

            4. Communication technology—The policy should identify the required applications for communication, information sharing and collaboration.

            5. Abuse—The policy should explicitly state that working remotely is a privilege which may be revoked if abused.