A few people emailed me to object to my last post, An Approach to Chronic Underperformance, saying that “compassionately” manipulating people into firing themselves is horrible.

That’s certainly a possibility. Of course it’s not what I’m talking about.

For me, the question lies in motivation. Are we “getting” someone to fire themselves, or “letting” them fire themselves. If a boss tries to get an under-performing manager to quit in order to cut costs, or for any other self-serving reason, his actions are manipulative and wrong. A direct approach, “To meet my goals, I have to let you go,” is right.

But if our motivation is good, then we genuinely want people to find the situation that meets THEIR goals, that lets them thrive. That’s different. If our motivation is to help a manager see themselves more clearly, it may mean that the manager sees that they are not going to grow into their particular job, that it’s just not a fit. The mis-match isn’t helping the company, and certainly that’s a concern for a boss and part of the equation. But a mis-match doesn’t help the manager either, in their career, or personally.

When the boss in my story asked the manager, “What do you suggest I do next?” the question was genuine. A question like that can serve as a mirror, and in this case the manager saw themselves, through the question, as being in the wrong place. With help from the boss, they were able to find another place elsewhere that fit better. There were no recriminations.

I believe that helping people to see themselves more clearly is the essence of generous leadership. It’s tricky business. If we don’t see our own real motivation clearly first, we may well become manipulative, patronizing, self-righteous, or worse, and sadly we see that in workplaces all the time.

If our motivation is truly good, what is the best technique? Asking questions, if they are genuine, is always better than telling. Inviting people to see for themselves is better than telling them what we think they should see.

For more on using questions to deal with problem employees, click here.

A recent post was about using the “questions only” approach to deal with a problem employee. But what happens when questions aren’t enough, when you need more improvement than you’re getting?

Here’s another real-life example of how to deal with a problem employee. Let me know if you think this intervention went well or not.

The owner and CEO of a marine safety training company told me this story. Their company trains oil rig workers to escape from a helicopter that’s crashed in the ocean, as it capsizes and sinks, and all kinds of other very high intensity marine safety training.

This CEO had a manager who was consistently under-performing. They set clear goals and expectations with each other, but these just weren’t being met. The CEO took the questioning approach to understand what the man thought the problem was. The manager was active in the conversations, seemed to be looking realistically at the situation, said what he would do to change, but nothing changed. He just didn’t seem to have the attitude of accomplishment, of taking the bull by the horns, that a company with as demanding a product requires.

So at their next meeting, the CEO said, “This doesn’t seem to be working. We’ve made these clear goals, and we’ve made them together, and we can both see the goals aren’t being met. The situation isn’t improving. Frankly, I don’t know where to go from here. What do you think I should do next?”

The manager thought a moment, and said, “I think I’m in the wrong place. I should look for another job where I’m a better fit.”

We can’t say the CEO changes the manager’s attitude. Some things won’t change. Not everything is workable. But the CEO solves the problem without any rancor or hard feeling. The manager sees his own strengths and weaknesses for himself, not just as his boss’s opinion of him. He gets a severance package and help with getting another job better suited to his talents. Everyone is happy.

When you reach a dead end with someone, it’s still not too late to let them take initiative for the solution. “What do you suggest I do next?” is a great question.

Is this really just manipulation? Read other opinions here.

What do you say when you have to address someone’s poor performance, but you know that they never listen to criticism and always start blaming the system or other people for the problems? They may even throw it all back at you, saying, “The tracking system, or Joe in sales, (or whatever it is) is such a pain that I just can’t deal with it. You’re in charge, it’s your job to fix that, so I can do my job.”

Here’s a conversation roadmap for what to say, and what not to say, to get this person to start taking a more honest look at themselves.

If they blame something systemic, you can say, “Yes, I know the tracking system has some problems, but I also know that not all of your colleagues are coming to me with the same complaints about it that you do. The system may be a problem, but I’m not sure it’s the whole problem. Are there any other obstacles for you that are making this performance issue difficult?” You acknowledge their concern is valid, but you don’t let them off the hook.

Notice that saying “not all of your colleagues are coming to me” is different than saying “Pete and Sally don’t blame the system” or “no one else on the team does.” Even if those statements are true, they’re much more accusatory. Saying “not all of your colleagues are coming to me” implies that maybe some of their colleagues are, that the tracking system may be difficult for others too, that the person isn’t being unreasonable. They need to be confident you’re listening to them first, before they can start listening to any other suggestions.

If they blame other people, you can say, “Then I’d be interested in talking with them about this issue too. But I think it’s true, the old adage, that it takes two to tango. Do you see any way that you’re contributing to this problem yourself?” 

Note again that this is different than bluntly asserting that it takes two to tango, which has that subtle accusation in it. Look at your language very precisely from this point of view. At this early stage in the conversation, accusations and directives, however subtle, will defeat your purpose.

If the person starts to open up, if they acknowledge something or start to talk about what’s going on with them, express your appreciation, and encourage them by saying, “I really appreciate you explaining this to me. I feel like I’m starting to understand what’s going on. Is there more you want to say about it?”

If they suggest any change to how things are working now, take it seriously. “Yes, I see that that would help. How do you suggest we go about it?” Invite their intelligence. They may have a good point.

But don’t let them divert the issue from themselves to other issues. Ask again, “Apart from that issue with the system, or with Joe, is there any way that you see you might be contributing to the problem yourself?”

Again, this is different than saying, “Yes, but what’s your role in this problem?” Do you see the difference in flavour? It’s not trivial at all. The first question is open-ended, Do you see anything? The second question, what’s YOUR role, is a veiled accusation. It’s like saying, “This is obviously your fault. ‘Fess up.”

If they suggest a change beyond your control, you can say, “That will be hard to change. As you know, it’s not within my authority, but I’ll speak to the boss about it and we’ll see what we can do. In the meantime, what will you do yourself to get things working more smoothly?” You keep bringing it back to them.

Notice, everything ends in a question. You’re asking, not telling. As the conversation continues, more and more the questions head toward two things:

• Asking the person to look at themselves.
• Asking the person to suggest a way forward.

If the person just doesn’t get it, still won’t take responsibility for their own actions, then finally you may need to be blunt. You might say, “I take your concerns about the system or your colleagues seriously, and I’ll pursue those ideas. But you need to take my concern seriously too, and my concern is that part of the problem here is your own creation. I expect you to do some serious self-reflection on this, and we’ll talk again in a week. I expect you to come back with a plan for how you can help change this problem yourself. Because the status quo can’t continue.”

Even here, where you make it clear that the person’s job may be on the line, you haven’t changed the basic approach. You ask them to look at themselves, and to suggest a way forward. You don’t tell them the answers. It’s on them. It’s they who have to take responsibility. That’s the whole point.

And don’t ask, “What can I do to help?” Don’t say, “I’m here to support you.” They need to take their own look at themselves and do their own work to address the issues. Only if they take some useful, concrete steps first, only then do you offer to support them with your help. Do they want a 360 feedback done for them? Is there any training they think would be helpful? Even your help is still asking questions.

Because you can’t tell people much. A direct attack invites resistance. But if you let them tell themselves, they’ll believe it.

For more on the questions-only approach, click here.