Time to Transition?

Ralph has been a consistently mediocre performer for your company "forever".  He shows up for work each day on-time, occupies his cubicle with an eye toward anonymity, tackles his responsibilities as if they are chores to be checked off a list, and invests in his relationship with others to the minimum extent possible.  At the table stake level - attendance, behavior, task completion, ethical conduct, basic learning - Ralph meets expectations.  Beyond that, he's a non-performer.  He never exceeds expectations nor goes the extra mile.  He does not serve as a role model.  He isn't respected.

As Ralph's manager, you have always viewed the time, effort and cost of terminating him as greater than the value you would bring to your organization from his departure.  His job can be rather tough to fill, he never really does anything wrong, his output isn't particularly measurable, you've become adept at relying on his teammates to make up for where he is lacking, and you haven't had a ready supply of successors.  Until now!

As you assess your talent landscape, you realize that Ralph is what HR people call a "blocker". This means that he occupies a role in your organization that is at a level that makes it desirable to the people earlier-in-career and looking to move up.  Ralph's presence denies your up-and-comers the opportunity to elevate their impact and progress against their career plan.  Meaning, by tolerating Ralph's mediocrity you are incurring a cost in terms of productivity and employee retention.  Some are vocal about Ralph, stating that if he is an example of employees at the next level then perhaps they are working in the wrong place.

You wake up at 3am and realize that it is time to take action.  But how?  Where would a manager in such a circumstance even begin?

My years of study and experience teach that this case study calls for something I refer to as "participative firing".  Do this well and one of three outcomes will occur, namely: (1) You will terminate Ralph; (2) Ralph will terminate himself; or (3) Ralph's performance will improve to the point where you are no longer motivated to fire him.  

Here's how it works:

1. Describe the Desired State.  The number one reason why managers tolerate mediocrity is that they haven't defined the desired state.  What is it that you expect of Ralph?  How productive must he be to yield value in excess of the costs of having him in the job (value creator vs. value consumer)?  What metrics have you instituted that enable you to quantify success?  Have you communicated them in a manner that he understands?
2. Describe the Current State.  What do you observe from Ralph each day?  How productive is he?  What does he do well?  When does he struggle?  On what opportunities to differentiate himself has Ralph passed?  To what extent does he present himself as a positive or negative role model?  Examples and anecdotes are valuable here.
3. Depict the Gap between Current State and Desired State.  When you juxtapose what you observe from Ralph each day with what you need from him as a value creator vs. value consumer, what do you see?  Can you quantify this?  Do you have data?
4. Articulate the Business Impact of the Gap.  Now this step is often the hardest for managers and may be a point of contention between the business and HR.  If there is no business impact of the gap, then you need to leave Ralph alone!  A business impact can mean lost opportunities with customers, partners or suppliers, or lost momentum with the rest of the team.  Doing the minimum necessary to meet expectations impacts the business, even if only in opportunity cost.  This kind of cost is grounds for action.
5. Assess the Likelihood of Closing the Gap.  As the manager, you need to assess the likelihood that things will change.  Perhaps you have reconfigured the work and Ralph will need to attain knowledge and skill that he does not now possess.  Can he get there?  Or perhaps you are looking for a level of effort and commitment that is inconsistent with Ralph's engagement.  Will he re-prioritize?  Maybe you need to re-set key customer relationships that Ralph manages.  Will your customers stay with you as you work the change?

As the manager, it is your job to describe the current and desired states, depict the gap, and articulate the business impact of the gap.  Your thoughts in this regard, if adequately supported with observation, data and example, are non-negotiable.  Ralph may not like what you are telling him, and he many even disagree or think of you as unfair, but your description of items 1, 2, 3 and 4 are your own.  You certainly want to be open to data or examples that contravene your thinking, but in working these items you want to be more declarative than participative.

In item 5, Assess the Likelihood of Closing the Gap, comes the concept of participative firing. How does Ralph see the likelihood that things will change?  Perhaps he will see the added effort and commitment needed and ask you about employment alternatives.  Or he will see that he will need to gain knowledge and skill that is beyond his own sense of attainability.  In this admission you'll have a window to explore options.  

Ralph may tell you that he's 100% committed to closing the gap. In this case you might give him a day or two to reflect and come back to you with his own plan as to how he'll accomplish this. You'll want to see specifics.  What will he do?  When will he do it?  How will he measure success? Who will he engage? If his plan is acceptable, then your job becomes monitoring Ralph's performance against HIS plan. He may perform well and mitigate the need for you to take further steps.  Or, he may fail to meet the measures of success of his own plan and, with this acknowledgement, look for your help in exploring options.

If his plan is poorly conceived or less than thoughtful, you can push it back to Ralph and ask for re-work.  You don't want him working on a plan that doesn't have your confidence and commitment.

What if Ralph declines the invitation to complete the plan?  Well, then you are left with a gap between current and desired states that is negatively, quantifiably impacting the business and your assessment of the likelihood that Ralph will close the gap is not good. In that assessment lies the start of your formal, progressive disciplinary steps. 

Paul E. DuCharme. October 2013