Requisite Managerial Authority Four – Employee Deselection versus Termination
By Michelle Malay Carter on March 6, 2008
Creating an Accountability Culture
Today is post four on the Requisite Organization model?s four minimum managerial authorities that are prerequisites for creating an accountability culture.
For those arriving late,?welcome, click to read?number one, two, and three.
Managerial Authority Four:
Managers shall have the authority to initiate removal of a non-performing employee from his role.
Once again, this seems relatively straightforward, but there is a subtle nuance here.? We often assign overarching character traits to employees based on their performance in a particular role – an employee is either motivated or lazy, either competent or incompetent.?
Contextual Competence Versus “Go, No-Go” Competence
However, motivation and competence are highly contextual.? Generally, when I am interested in a role and value it, I will be motivated.? When I value a role, have the appropriate knowledge and skills and cognitive capability, I will be competent.?
Motivation and competence are not “go, no-go” traits of employees, but rather reflections of the situation within which?they are?operating.
Granting Authority to Gain Accountability
Back to managerial authority, if we want to hold managers accountable for the output of their team, we must?grant them the authority?to deselect a non-performing employee from their team.
Deselection is Not Termination?
However, this does not necessarily mean this employee should be terminated (aside from conduct issues).? A decent human being could be “lazy and incompetent” in one role and a “star performer” in another.
Organizations supposedly “warring for talent” would do well to attempt to find a better fit for non-performing employees rather than labeling them incompetent and kicking them to the curb.
The Broader Picture – A Win, Win, Win System
If organizations were to embrace the “Contextual Competence” model, deselection would be seen as a part of the learning and development process.? Managers would have an option short of termination, employees could switch jobs without shame, and organizations would turnover far fewer employees.
I’m OK.? You’re OK.? Let’s fix the system.
Have you ever terminated a hard-working but misfit employee?? Would a deselection option have felt more humane?
Filed Under Accountability, Employee Engagement, Executive Leadership, Managerial Leadership, Organization Design, Requisite Organization, Talent Management
Comments
4 Responses to “Requisite Managerial Authority Four – Employee Deselection versus Termination”
Subscribe in a reader
Michelle – Great series of posts…
I especially liked this quote:
“A decent human being could be ?lazy and incompetent? in one role and a ?star performer? in another.”
I think you hit the nail on the head with that one… How often do we negatively characterize others for being lazy, incompetent, stupid, worthless etc. when they are placed in positions where they are bound to fail? WAY too often if you ask me!
The problem is that we don’t recognize an individual’s unique skills and abilities and place them in roles they just aren’t fit for.
Of course they are going to perform poorly… the job doesn’t mesh well with who they are!
I think its time we started honoring the greatness within each and every one of us!
-Chris Young
The Rainmaker Group
Chris,
Thanks for stopping by and for your comment.
Yes, creating systems that clearly define how to match employees to roles would be a great place to start. But part two is ensuring that the criteria we are using to match people to roles are valid.
Regards,
Michelle
Michelle,
Great set of posts, and a forceful enumeration of the rights and responsibilities that managers need to be held accountable – and to be liberated to enable them to be effective.
A lot of the restrictions or constraints on such authority on the ground, though, is imposed by legal departments, others by normal human features found in all of us, including our senior managers, such as insecurity, a tendency toward micromanagement, and the like. These are things that need to be addressed.
But a lot of it also arises from organizational policies and procedures that are designed – or at least, intended – to make product/service production and delivery more efficient, or even the organizational culture more conducive to certain values important to the firm.
So, it can be a real challenge to figure out how to bring the authorities you describe to practical application in different firms. But I certainly agree with the fundamental premise that such authority as you list and elaborate it certainly enables a manager to be effective – or, also important, to reveal his or her inability to be effective.
Thanks for these really thought-provoking posts!
Jim,
Thanks for the comment. Yes you are right. These are straightforward, but implementation is a challenge. It’s messy. It’s awkward. And it can run up against FLMA, etc. But my clients’ generally conclude the effort is worth it.
Regards,
Michelle