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.
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??
Weathering the storm — whether climate or business — requires us to do some things purposefully:
1. Be in charge. Lead, decide. The buck stops with you.
2. Lead now, panic later. Frazzled emotions are human, frazzled behaviors are not ok.
3. Nobody wins the blame game. Get past today, throw rocks later. Or not.
Is there a difference between giving feedback or giving criticism as a leader? What are the main differences?
Huge differences. Most have to do with intent and desired outcome.
Criticism, in its simplest form, is for the giver, not the recipient. To criticize is one of the easiest forms of ego defense, and is generally a display of defensiveness and lack of personal confidence. We criticize most when someone aspires to accomplish what we cannot (or will not), or when their accomplishment could somehow threaten ours.
It’s acting out hurtfully with negative thinking.
Feedback, on the other hand, is principally to help someone grow and improve. To positively change a behavior for the better. In other words, it’s more of what we recommend they do, and less of what they did wrong.
Further, if we include some self-reflection in our feedback — opening ourselves to others — we both grow. Our blind spots will be forever blind without effective feedback from others, and people are more inclined to be open with those who have been similarly open with them.
The Johari Window is a great tool for determining how public or “open” you are to receiving feedback, which is crucial for your feedback to be well received.
The more I increase my “public” or “open” window:
–The less I am blind.
–The less I have to worry about keeping things hidden.
–The more I may discover parts of me that I like, which are hidden.
I can’t reduce my Blind area without help from others (feedback).
If I am to help others, I must learn to give helpful feedback.
This mutual feedback process builds trust and strengthens relations among teams, groups and even individuals.
In short, criticism is selfish, feedback is helpful.
“Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.”
The more I increase my “public” or “open” window: