Another input from someone regarding the “Mediocrity” piece in the newsletter At C-Level
Very interesting newsletter, Kevin. Thanks for keeping me on the distribution list. I liked the article on the dearth of management talent, but the piece on mediocrity hit home for me, and not just because I suspect that I might know the “secret” identity of your client.
Much of the frustration managers seem to have arises from the fact that management teams not only reward mediocrity, but we also seem to tolerate unsatisfactory performance and insubordinate behavior, even when those two deadly viruses infect the same host. That kind of culture makes it increasingly difficult to motivate star performers on a consistent basis.
What medicine could we use to cure our managers of this illness.
Thanks for the comments.
Interestingly, there are now 4 past or current clients who thought I was talking about “them.”
The necessary “medicine” for recovery is much like any other enabled behavior: First, you have to realize there’s a problem, then believe that removing the problem is a “better place.”
After that, it’s simply a process – a step-by-step (12-step??) process to alleviate the issue. Not complicated (as in ‘complex’) but not easy to pull off, either.
Mediocrity is typically so ingrained in an organization, it’s being substituted for “satisfactory” performance. Becomes quite insidious, and difficult at times to extricate surgically. Sometimes, it may take a “smart bomb” to laser in on the problem, blow it up, then start rebuilding.
The sooner the bomb drops, the faster we can move forward.
Okay, okay. I’m not calling anyone stupid, per se.
I just want us all to remember that usually the simplest course is the best course to take. Certainly it is usually the quickest and most efficient, and it prevents slow-downs in decision making that irritate our staffs and cost us in lost opportunity.
Occam’s Razor is the word child of a Franciscan Friar, William of Occam (does that make me Kevin of Spring or Kevin of Berchelmann?) Paraphrased, he said that all things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best. Fewer assumptions, fewer hypotheticals, fewer “meteor strike” what-ifs?
Yes, we do need a model for decision making. Something replicable, that can withstand pressures. Some form of consistent methodology to determine criteria or theories for making decisions. Why not choose the simplest? After all, it is the decision and the execution that hold real complexity. Must we also make the act of deciding complicated as well?
I think not. In fact, hell no is a better response.
In its truest form, decision-making is, well, simple. Identify a problem (something that needs deciding), determine that problem’s cause (since we don’t want to simply create the need for more decisions), develop possible solutions (potential decisions), then use some analysis method to determine risks, possible problems, and likely outcomes.
Then, decide.
The simplest explanation is often the best. Not always, but usually any methodology that leads us to faster, yet equally educated decision making is a good thing. Truth be told, our role as senior leaders is much more about making decisions than critically evaluating them beforehand.
Generally speaking, providing we have surrounded ourselves with solid people (there’s that “talent management” thing again), our decision making role is regularly reduced to choosing the most satisfactory options for those already intent on making an outcome successful regardless.
Given that, keep the process simple, eliminate undue assumptions and knock off the incessant ‘what-ifs’ that beleaguer those unwilling to act. After all, that’s not us, is it?
Think. Reduce. Decide.
After all, when you hear hoof beats… think horses, not zebras.
There clearly are several significant workplace trends looming in front of us that we would do well to recognize. I’ve mentioned many of them here in this blog. Additionally, other authors, consultants, and practitioners have also done a good job of trying to predict the future.
As with all pseudo-science, however, some of it is pure bunk.
For instance:
Baby-boomer retirement, and its purported “sucking sound” on available talent, is quite possibly much ado about nothing. Let’s look at it logically: The definition of a baby-boomer is someone born between 1947 and 1963 – spanning almost 2 decades. Couple that with the current trend of later retirement, and you have a group of people born over a 20-year timeframe, retiring individually 55-75 years later at various ages. At best, it’s a non-event; at worst, it’s generational in nature, and very specific to population demographics — for instance, it’s clearly more prevalent in the midwest than in either coast, or in the top 10 most populated metroplitan areas.
Organizations are realizing that generational issues are not materializing as expected. No big surprise, really. We’ve been dealing with diverse workforces for a hundred years, including race, gender, and age — “generational” differences aren’t any more significant, and merely require purposeful thought to overcome. Workers do not have to view society, the world, and the workplace equally to be productive. Frankly, I believe we’ll see more of employees just “coming to work to work,” and less senseless attention on those things that don’t directly effect their ability to be productive.
So, when futurists write columns and books, and read the tea leaves to determine where we’re headed, use your noodle and some common sense before blindly drinking the Kool-aid.
A big trend that does needs attention – there is clearly a growing dearth of leadership talent available. This isn’t as much a function of baby-boomers leaving as it is our desire for new, fresh leadership at a time when the leadership “bench strength” is at its weakest. Many hyper-performing employees don’t necessarily view management as a logical progression from their current assignment, and we haven’t done a good job of painting a favorable picture of becoming a leader (think SOX requirements, jail terms, bad publicity for poor performance, etc.). Further, many of those extended-career boomers don’t necessarily want to work that “extension” as a high-stress leader. We better start growing managers and leaders – and fast!
In short, many real trends, contrary to those consistently broadcast like chicken little’s falling sky, are as much a “movement” in the workplace as they are trends.
Interesting. In my newsletter as well as a blog posting here recently, I mention the growth and seeming acceptance of mediocrity in organizations today.
Must’ve struck a nerve.
I’ve received almost a dozen comments on that specific topic, and several emails from current or past clients who believed I was referring to their firm in my example!
This should give us some insight to the general ubiquity of mediocrity in the workplace and its acceptance as a norm, or at least a tolerable cost of doing business.
One such email, from a highly-decorated senior military officer (edited/paraphrased for length):
Okay, so your management talent musings speak directly to those of us who are forced to hire someone based on how they look on paper and then have only a matter of months before we have to make a decision about whether they can go beyond management and into leadership. Sometimes we strike gold, but only if the individual’s talents were developed before we inherited them. More often than not, we end up with someone who “just doesn’t get it” and have to spend extra time keeping/getting them out of trouble. Too bad most of our informal mentorship efforts don’t occur until late in the process.
To that I must respond:
First, corporate USA doesn’t do much better than the paper instance you describe, even with headhunters, behavior interviewing and “free choice.” In fact, I could argue that they could potentially do worse, as they pull from a pool that doesn’t have a general – albeit sometimes inconsistent – initial standard.
And if my experiences are anywhere near “normal,” the clear majority of executive hires “don’t get it,” and I can’t clearly say I know exactly why. I’m sure it’s institutional/systemic, but nailing down the precise cause is difficult.
Another…
You’ve done a good job of paraphrasing “First Break All the Rules.” I assume you’ve read the book… treating everyone the same may be conventional wisdom, but it doesn’t make an organization any more successful than fool’s gold makes you rich.
Treat your good folks like good folks and your superstars like superstars. If the slugs don’t like it, they can improve or move on. Like stratifying on performance reports, not everyone can be #1 or a “top performer.”
Well, I’m ashamed to admit I haven’t read the book, but there’s certainly nothing I can add to that last paragraph, except maybe, “Here, Here!!”
Great comments, Kev.
(No, I’m not complimenting myself — the input above came from someone with the same equally distinguished name)
If the topic of Performance Mediocrity is so charged, why aren’t we addressing it head-on??
We need speed. Not the breakneck, uncontrolled, sitting-your-ass-on-a-rocket kind of speed, but the speed necessary to move quickly and smartly. Given consistent data and input, faster is almost always better than slower.
We’ve been stressed, haven’t we? New craziness pops up almost daily, certainly monthly. We feel justified in being somewhat overwhelmed, and at times that feeling can slow us down – or even grind us to a halt.
That’s not helpful, and we shouldn’t do it. We aren’t forced into it, we have options. Here are some suggestions when the pace of change feels like The Enterprise in a Federation wormhole…
Play the cards you’re dealt. Yeah, I know, sometimes they suck. We’d like a different hand, some new cards. Suck it up, buttercup; they are what they are. It is what it is. Que sera, sera. Deal with it. Or my favorite, “be that as it may…”
In other words, take what you have, figure out how to make it work, then violently execute. Sometimes you’ve got to work with what you’ve got and take what you can. This is one of those times.
Pick a lane. Add speed. This one sometimes gets a bad rap. There are those out there (they walk among us) who will tell you to slow down, move methodically, deliberately. Slowly. I say bullshit. Pick a lane, add speed. With consistent data and insights, speed trumps stalling. 100% of the time.
Some fast decisions hit the bullseye – great! Others act as tracer rounds so we can keep firing, each time getting closer and closer to our intended target/result. A tracer round you can see is a small win – take it, move on to the next. Quickly.
The faster you decide, the faster you can act. The faster the action, the more responsive you can be to change, both planned and “not-so-much.”
Practice Predictive Resiliency. This is a new one, so if you haven’t been on the edge of your seat up to now (and you should’ve been), you’ll need to pay attention to this.
Resiliency is great. It’s a wonderful characteristic to have, but by nature it’s passive. Take a change or unexpected force, absorb it, then bounce back, no worse for wear, ready to meet that next change with some more springy emotions. That’s resiliency, and we’ve preached it for years. This is not that. Well, it’s a little of that, with a twist.
Predictive Resiliency is seeing the change coming, like the light of an out-of-control freight train, deciding what would work better for you that that, then pivoting with the train’s momentum, using it like a flywheel to accelerate in a better direction. Taking unplanned change and making it proactive by pivoting.
Sound crazy? It’s not. An example: Uber faced a near-fatal challenge in California, where the state passed a law making their thousands of contract drivers into employees overnight.
Never mind where you stand on the issue; Uber had a choice: accept the change and spring back gently, changing their business model entirely for a single state, or pivot hard – taking the momentum and public attention the issue was receiving and forcing a voter referendum. No passive resiliency here… it was Predictive Resiliency, pivoting from the passive into a “proactive reaction,” not an oxymoron in this case. It paid off for Uber.
There are myriad examples of taking anticipated change, seeing a more successful direction to go instead of the proposed change, then pivoting hard to execute. Try it sometime. You’ll like it.
And remember: Be Brazen. Grace and accountability can coexist.
