I found this to be a very interesting article, thank you for sharing!
I was, however, left with the question - What should we do when we detect them early on? Does the article imply that with the coaching questions, we will be able to support them early on so the performance does not become cyclic but constant? Or does the article suggest we should identify them early and not spend time on trying to help them perform better?
What I'm thinking is it's great to enable the person with better tools/coaching but also consider what they do with it. And if that doesn't work out, guiding them in the right direction which might be outside of the organisation or simply stepping into another more fitting role...
But then, if we say that the person could improve and achieve a more consistent high performance in line with expectations based on the guidance of their manager, then isn't this suggesting that the responsibility for that person's performance is in the hands of the manager? So then, to have high performing mid-level managers, we need to have well developed higher-level managers who can support them in the right way. I think ultimately, it's the skill of the leader(s).
As you say, the article is focused on detection but not what to do with a signal once you have it. To keep things brief (given how varied performance management situations can be) we'd usually suggest having the coachee learn the questions the coach is asking around performance cycles. The coachee should develop the ability to offer a frank, open assessment of how they think they're doing in addressing the "meta-problem" that the coach has identified.
Put simply, if someone isn't a good fit for a team, it's vastly better that they "fire themselves" by reaching the relevant conclusions themselves. Such a process will tend to unfold with a more natural rhythm for that individual and allow them to ask for help all the way up to job-seeking assistance. In that spirit, it's well worth having companies be conspicuously supportive of employees who have the courage and honesty to self-select out of the team.
As a coach, if you find you can't get the coachee to show they're capable of running this kind of process, that might be the key signal that you should consider ending the relationship more quickly (obviously with deference to what the local employment law requires).
I found this to be a very interesting article, thank you for sharing!
I was, however, left with the question - What should we do when we detect them early on? Does the article imply that with the coaching questions, we will be able to support them early on so the performance does not become cyclic but constant? Or does the article suggest we should identify them early and not spend time on trying to help them perform better?
What I'm thinking is it's great to enable the person with better tools/coaching but also consider what they do with it. And if that doesn't work out, guiding them in the right direction which might be outside of the organisation or simply stepping into another more fitting role...
But then, if we say that the person could improve and achieve a more consistent high performance in line with expectations based on the guidance of their manager, then isn't this suggesting that the responsibility for that person's performance is in the hands of the manager? So then, to have high performing mid-level managers, we need to have well developed higher-level managers who can support them in the right way. I think ultimately, it's the skill of the leader(s).
Thanks for the thoughtful comment Elena.
As you say, the article is focused on detection but not what to do with a signal once you have it. To keep things brief (given how varied performance management situations can be) we'd usually suggest having the coachee learn the questions the coach is asking around performance cycles. The coachee should develop the ability to offer a frank, open assessment of how they think they're doing in addressing the "meta-problem" that the coach has identified.
Put simply, if someone isn't a good fit for a team, it's vastly better that they "fire themselves" by reaching the relevant conclusions themselves. Such a process will tend to unfold with a more natural rhythm for that individual and allow them to ask for help all the way up to job-seeking assistance. In that spirit, it's well worth having companies be conspicuously supportive of employees who have the courage and honesty to self-select out of the team.
As a coach, if you find you can't get the coachee to show they're capable of running this kind of process, that might be the key signal that you should consider ending the relationship more quickly (obviously with deference to what the local employment law requires).