I’d venture that for 90% of employee performance problems, supervisors focus their solution efforts on the problem employee.

Helping the employee change. Demanding that the employee change. Talking to the employee. Writing up the employee. Training the employee. Disciplining the employee.

What if, though, the employee was not the problem?

What if problems elsewhere in the company were creating a situation in which no employee would look good?

What if their negative attitude was a self-protective response to your harsh, arbitrary and/or imperious leadership style?

What if their uncooperativeness was a response to the competitive bonus program in your compensation structure?

In this week’s podcast discussion, Claudia and I take a closer look at the problem of poor employee performance.

When acceptable performance becomes a problem, are we jumping too quickly to blame and punishment?

Could there be aspects of your corporate structure, culture, or your own leadership methods that might be setting the stage for poor performance?

Listen in.

Just now joining the conversation? Catch up on the entire series here.

Fact 1: People are growing, developing, changing creatures.

Fact 2: If you’re going to employ these growing, developing, changing creatures, you might want to design job descriptions that grow, develop, and change with said creatures.

Obvious, right? NOT!

Most job descriptions are highly focused (a good thing) yet uncritically rigid (a problematic thing) documents. We aren’t taking into account the facts of human development in how we structure our roles.

Furthermore, many supervisors do not want to “lose” their best employees to promotions or department transfers. As a result they squash, quench, and otherwise reject requests for growth, development, and change.

Are you afraid of losing your best workers if you promote them? Fighting their development will only result in either losing them to a competitor or losing their enthusiasm so that you wished they worked for a competitor.

In this week’s podcast discussion, Claudia and I look at the problem of retaining good employees.

Are you losing your best and brightest because there is no way for them to grow, develop or change?

Listen in.

Just now joining the conversation? Catch up on the entire series here.

We’ve all received them. The polite email thanking us for our job application, but with regrets declining the opportunity to meet us in person.

The computer, it seems, decided that since the job requisition form specified a minimum of five years of experience and we only had four years of experience, that there would be no reason to explore our qualifications further. 

Can such talent search methods be serving us well? Could it be that our standardized job descriptions, computerized key word searches, and the use of unformatted text-only resumes are eliminating valuable candidates before we even have a chance to meet them?

In this week’s podcast discussion, Claudia and I look at the problem of finding good employees.

The challenge in a tough economy—when we’re receiving possibly hundreds of applications for any given opening—is how to make sure we’re meeting the unique, real-life people who would be the best fit for our team.

The options at either end of the spectrum aren’t practical. We cannot personally interview every single applicant.  The computerized culling cannot take into account important intangibles like industriousness, team spirit, creativity, working styles, or communication abilities.

How do we make sure we’re meeting and hiring the best people available?

Listen in.

Just now joining the conversation? Catch up on the entire series here.

You’ve met them both.

One is the leader who views their employees as an expense to be minimized.

The other is the leader who views their employees as an asset into whom to invest.

The one is most often at odds with their team. Cracking the whip to make sure no one is slacking off. Squeezing out every last drop of effort, delaying promotions, denying vacations, and doing their best to protect the company from the unfortunate necessity of needing more hands and feet to get the job done.

The other leader is grateful to surround him or herself with a complementary set of skills, experiences, working styles and passions.

This leader is most often working in concert with their team. Building on strengths, strengthening weaknesses, expressing confidence, extending trust, and celebrating aggressive goals achieved.

Working with people, of course, has both its ups and downs. What is significant though is the beginning lens through which you choose to views these problems and opportunities.

Are your employees are an expense to minimize or an asset to maximize?

The lens you choose will have a radical impact on how you deal with four common employee problems.

Employees… What Are They Good For?
Week 1: Expense or Asset?
Week 2: The Problem of Finding Good Employees
Week 3: The Problem of Retaining Good Employees
Week 4: The Problem of Poor Employee Performance
Week 5: The Problem of Stagnant Employee Progress

What lens do you use when addressing employee problems? 

Listen in.

Each week the conversation will continue. Catch up on the entire series here.