So now your top performers are stretching and the top of the middle are kicking in.  Where can you focus next?

Well now would be a good time to focus on the non-performers.

So what about the non-performers? Well if you are Jack Welsh you fire them.  He says people who consistently under-perform are probably doing the wrong job have to go.  He supports John Maxwell’s “Indispensable Law” that weak links create great difficulties in teams.  They don’t deliver and they demotivate the more enthusiastic members who are left wondering why the weak links are tolerated by the leadership.  In GE teams had to fire the lower 10% once a year regardless of overall performance.

But before you go and sharpen your axe. Here is a softer approach to consider.  You may be dealing with resources that are extremely difficult to find.  And remember: you can’t cut your way to performance.  Dealing with non-performance warrants significant self-reflection.  Are there factors in your environment that detract from performance?  Such as:

  • Poor supervision and management
  • Ineffective or badly implemented HR policy
  • Inadequate hiring processes.  Jim Collins says that motivating people is a “complete waste of time”.  We should rather employ motivated people and give them space to do what they have to do.
  • Vague performance criteria.

I found a succinct article for reflection written by Maj. Gen. B.K. Bhatia who suggests the following possible considerations which highlight the costs and possible benefits of a softer approach:

  1. Identify their strengths and provide an environment to nurture these strengths.
  2. Engage behaviour experts to identify attitudes detracting from performance.
  3. Collect 360 degree feed back provide feedback.
  4. Train your managers continuously and frequently to develop subordinates.
  5. Consult with the non-performer to transfer them to a new role.
  6. Consider their value to your team  (mmm I am not sure I agree with these, but here they are):
    • They keep HR and line managers on their toes.
    • They provide continuity in their jobs.
    • Not being over-ambitious, they don’t compete with others.
    • They provide stability and may do well in routine jobs.
    • Though they don’t perform, they may hold valuable organisation knowledge.
    • They provide downsizing fodder in times of recession.
  1. If all else fails, part ways gracefully discuss this well and explore all options.  Do what ever you can to avoid a costly lawsuit.

So, however you decide to deal with non-performance, you have to do something.  By dealing with non-performers you will adjust your performance curve in the following way:

And what about the panel of brokers? How much time, attention and energy do you have for someone who is not returning any of the energy you are putting in?  Here the situation is clear.  There comes a time when you have to decide how effectively you are spending your marketing time.  If you have brokers who drain your time and energy but show no signs of producing, it is time to move on.  If you can’t do this because you like them, you can always make time for them in your free time.