Scott was part of a small team of six in a large organization with multiple locations around the globe. His job required a lot of collaboration with other members of the team. But no one on the team was thrilled with the prospect of engaging Scott.
The main reason for this was not far-fetched.
He was always abrupt in his dealings with other members of the team. The way he said things, his facial expressions, and his overall abrasive approach seemed to rub everyone the wrong way. But he didn't care. As far as he was concerned, he was just being himself.
The team leader, Wayne was aware of the impact of Scott's behavior on the team's performance and had tried to address it. Within the past several months, he had told Scott twice that he needed to improve his social skills as he interacted with others on the team. It took some convincing, but Scott eventually agreed to the assessment and promised to improve.
But then, nothing changed. Almost a year later, Wayne could no longer tolerate the situation and decided to show Scott the door.
Scott couldn't believe it!
After the two times that Wayne had told him to clean up his behavior, he had tried to turn a new leaf. In fact, he actually thought he was getting better. Now, this?!
On leaving Wayne's office after being fired, Scott immediately called his attorney. He's going to sue the company for wrongful termination!
What's your assessment of this situation? Who do you think dropped the ball here? Most of us would most likely say that Scott was responsible for his ultimate fate.
But I would argue that Wayne was more culpable.
Yes, it was clear that Scott had issues that needed to be addressed. And yes, he agreed to do better on the two occasions Wayne had discussed the situation with him. So, why do I say that Wayne has more blame in this situation?
I say that because the two instances he brought up the situation with Scott over a six-month period were not enough. Wayne would be the first to tell you that he's not a "confronter." He tries to avoid uncomfortable discussions with his team members. And those two discussions he had with Scott were very uncomfortable for him.
Most organizations have many leaders like Wayne. They steer clear of tough conversations. Even when they summon the courage to engage in such a dialogue, these are very few and far between. In doing so, they miss a vital part of their team members' developmental process: a constant, regular, and persistent reminder to the employee if they are not doing what is needed.
Yes, I know what you're thinking. This can be excruciating!
I doubt if any leader enjoys the thought of reminding a team member for the tenth week in a row that they're still not doing enough of what they had agreed to. It seems like nagging. For many leaders, it's awkward and unpleasant. Yet, this is what is needed for behaviors to change.
Human behaviors do not change overnight, especially ones that had become well-honed habits. Even someone who has realized that they need change with a particular behavior may not have the willpower to effect the change on their own. A lot of support is usually needed, especially during the first few weeks as the new behavior tries to take root.
Scott did not get that level of support. He neither received constant reminders when his old behaviors reared their ugly heads nor encouragements when the new ones were displayed. Had he received constant, weekly reminders, he would not have been surprised when Wayne told him he was being let go.
In his book, The Ideal Team Player, Patrick Lencioni said that "when a manager steps up to this challenge, week after week after painful week, one of two things will always happen."
The employee will achieve a breakthrough once they decide that they don't want to keep hearing those reminders. With this, they're able to embrace the new behaviors long enough to turn them into habits.
They could decide the new behaviors are not for them and decide to leave the team.
Lencioni also noted a third possible outcome: the employee decides to tolerate the constant barrage of reminders and neither changes nor leaves. This can ultimately lead to the employee being fired.
As a leader, you must do your best to ensure that you give your people all the opportunity to change behaviors that have been identified and discussed with them as having negative effects on the team. Failure to do this is tantamount to a dereliction of duty.
One way to avoid this is by giving those constant and regular reminders and reinforcements so the team member knows where they stand. This can be done in a kind, compassionate, but firm approach that should leave no doubt as to what the expectations are.
The key is to remind privately and encourage publicly.
Unlike what many of us may think, reminding someone of an area they can get better is an act of kindness and compassion. We just need the courage and strength of character to follow through.
After all, open rebuke is better than secret love.
