Leaders often encounter strategy and execution problems (“what” problems) that they perceive as insurmountable, almost “supernatural” in difficulty.
In these situations, leaders often suffer from the “Scooby Doo illusion”. In every episode of the U.S. cartoon 'Scooby-Doo,' the “gang” faces a supernatural threat, only to discover that the villain is a familiar face, hiding behind a mask.
In organizational life, just like in 'Scooby-Doo,' the solution often lies in unmasking the problem to get at the true underlying issue: a talent gap aka “who” problems.
Leadership Principle: Unmask “what” problems as “who” problems. Resolve talent dilemmas with pragmatism and urgency.
“What” masks cause leaders to believe that the root cause of a complex challenge is a strategic error or an underutilized tactic or a lack of discipline. But for each of these presenting issues, there are humans responsible for figuring them out.
In fact, 75% of CEOs reflect that their their biggest misfires were “who” mistakes (talent decisions) not “what” mistakes (strategic or execution decisions).1
However, when dealing with a direct report who in “real time” lacks the skill to solve a critical “what” problem, it is often much harder to be decisive.
For example, one big-time “moneymaker” private equity investor I’ve worked with lamented about waiting two years to replace a CEO despite realizing that he was not a great fit within six months. That means they put up with 18 months of sub-par performance, because they couldn’t make the tough call. Even titans of industry with a reputation for being cutthroat have a hard time with these decisions.
At the same time, imagine if Scooby Doo and his pals unmasked the “supernatural” villain, decided not to hand him over to the authorities and then continued to blame the supernatural villain for future problems.
Sounds crazy right? But this is exactly what we do when we don’t deal with “who” problems with urgency.
And while hiring the right “who” is hard, making the hard call to remove an underperformer can be even tougher, because of the emotional tax and the thoughtful planning required.
In fact, a set of common dilemmas can hold leaders back from upgrading talent, even when they realize they have a “who” problem. Here’s four:
The “Culture Carrier” dilemma: “everyone loves this individual and they are friends with the CEO or other influential leaders; however, they are underperformers in what I actually need them to do.”
The Invaluable “Subject Matter Expert” dilemma: “no one else in the enterprise has their expertise and historical knowledge, yet they are a completely ineffective manager who leads a large, dysfunctional team.”
The Diversity dilemma: “an objectively underperforming team member who belongs to an underrepresented group and is one of the most senior people of their demographic in the company (e.g., most senior woman or BIPOC leader).”2
The Stability dilemma: “a member of your team is not meeting your expectations, but everything is so chaotic. Maybe it’s better to have stability than to risk hiring someone else and have the organization reject this person.”
All of the concerns that arise in these dilemmas are quite tricky to address. In fact, each dilemma necessitates a nuanced and pragmatic approach.
At the same time, there are well documented steps to ensure these tough decisions are fair AND legal.
Once you’ve exhausted these avenues and worked with HR and Legal to follow any other appropriate policies, it’s time to formulate a step-by-step plan to remove them from their role.
The costs of not removing them from the role are too large to let fester and if you do not remove them, that unsolved “what” problem will either drive you to burnout or never get solved.
And this presents another risk…you could become someone else’s underperformance problem.
Here are some ideas on how to approach removing underperformers with fairness and empathy, so that you can find the A-player to solve that confounding “what” problem.
Take Action: Practical and Proven Steps
Prepare your mind to take courageous action. Removing an underperformer is one of the most courageous (and compassionate) actions a leader can take. Most of us need to prepare so that we do it in a fair, empathetic and compliant way. First, lay out all the steps you need to take in detail, because clarity will give you the confidence to move forward. Second, set a positive intention for the conversation. For example, your positive intention could be: “There is another role out there that is a great fit to the strengths of this colleague. By making this tough decision, I can support him on his journey to find that opportunity and I will strengthen my team by bringing in someone else that can more effectively deliver on his mandate. Together we will increase our odds of achieving our vision.” Third, role play the conversation so that you can practice saying out loud what might be hard and anticipate potential responses.3
Enlist the support of others to come up with creative alternatives for the transition. It’s time to go back to the “multi-verse of perspective” to make sure you are being exhaustive about ways for the person to transition. Are there ways to “re-craft” their role so it is narrower while still being a good steward of the organization’s resources? Are there other roles in the organization where their strengths are better suited?4 Can you connect them with resources or even other organizations to help them find a role that is a better fit? Before offering them these solutions, take the time to understand and listen to what they want, so that you can ensure these creative solutions are as well tailored as possible. Remember the point of these creative solutions is not to delay your decision, but rather to make the person feel as fairly treated as possible and spur you to action.
Dedicate meaningful mindshare to finding an A-player replacement. Follow the tried and true four steps of the Who method: Scorecard - clearly define what and how you want this person to deliver. Source - Systematic sourcing to build up a bench (consider the Konchalski method) and when needed, partner with the right search firm. Select - have a rigorous and structured interview process; and Sell - persuade them to join by appealing to what motivates them most.
Reflect: Some Questions to Consider
What is one “what” challenge (strategy or execution challenge) you are dealing with that may actually be a “who” problem?
Which of the four “who” dilemmas might be getting in the way of making a hard call on an underperformer related to this “what” problem?
Once you’ve decided to take action, how can you make the transition as free of stress as possible for you, your team and the colleague you need to upgrade?
If this week’s Friday Reflection was practical or enjoyable (or maybe even both!), please share it with your colleagues and friends.
Excellent piece by Geoff Smart with a real life story of a CEO who shifted from solving “what” problems to “who” problems: https://geoffsmart.com/how-one-ceos-shift-drove-industry-leading-growth/
This is one of the trickiest dilemmas and may warrant a Friday Reflection of its own. Let me be clear, structural and cultural problems in organizations often hinder the performance and advancement of leaders from underrepresented groups - these problems appear to be intractable and as Robert Livingston puts in this article: “The real challenge for organizations is not figuring out “What can we do?” but rather “Are we willing to do it?”
That said, there are also times where there’s a mismatch between the skill and will of the individual and the success profile for the role. In these situations, I’ve advised many leaders who were validly fearful of removing an underperformer because they were the most senior woman or the most senior BIPOC leader in a function or company. While valid, this fear can cause real damage both to the organization and in the long run, to the individual.
In the not too distant future, I imagine there will be sophisticated AI tools that can help with these types of role plays.
A word of caution on this question…you need to make sure that they are actually a good fit for another role versus an easy out for you. It is cowardly to let someone else deal with your underperformer problem. And yet, there are so many organizations where B and C players, especially ones who fall into one of these dilemmas, just get passed from role to role.