Issue link: http://lawandordermag.epubxp.com/i/189636
UP-CLOSE Police Management I The Challenged Performer and respect (after all, don't we demand that they treat the public the same way?), the more receptive they're likely to be. Shooting frst and asking questions later makes the turnaround more of a challenge for everyone. Does the Person Know What's Expected? Before you assume that expectations are clear, think it through. Maybe your underperformer should know what's expected, but what seems crystal clear to you may not be clear at all to the other person. Targets are vague; things change; loopholes are left open. The expectation gap may be wider than you think. The law of expectations is a powerful tool for leaders which, simply stated, is that leaders will experience a level of performance from their employees based upon their expectations. Little, or no expectations, will result in poor results. High expectations will more likely than not result in high performance results. A written performance agreement is your frst step in harnessing this law and turning things around, especially when expectations aren't mutually shared or understood. Before moving on to the next question, make an explicit agreement out of what has been implicit. Confrm your expectations, make the details clear and specifc, and put them in writing. Performed to Standard in the Past? The question of performance standards is critical to understanding the direction of your turnaround efforts. It is a proverbial fork in the road: If the answer is no, you can skip to question number four regarding capability. If your answer is yes, that means they're capable of doing it, they have done it, and they aren't doing it now. Assuming they know what performance is expected, the next question naturally follows. Have you Already Addressed the Performance Problem More than Once? Whether the performance problem is a recurring one will determine the tone of the turnaround conversation you will choose from three options. First, problem resolution. If the answer is no, your 70 LAW and ORDER I October 2013 path is toward problem solving. Listen particularly for obstacles that might be blocking performance. Do they have the resources they need to be effective? Are competing priorities creating confusion? If possible, help the performers solve the problem rather than giving them your right answer. Be a sounding board, direct the performers toward better options, but don't do it for them. They will be more committed to their plans than they will be to yours. Second, recommitment. If you have addressed the issue once or twice already, the person's commitment might need to be shored up; a recommitment discussion is in order. As with the problem solving conversation, start as a listener: Ask the person what's getting in the way of keeping the agreement on track. Problem solve as necessary, and make sure they hear a good WIIFM (What's In It For Me) or two before you wrap up. Third, confrontation. If the person can do and has done the task, and you've addressed it more than three times, then you have a signifcant performance issue that requires a more diffcult confrontation conversation. If you do a good job getting up-front agreements, discussing and resolving issues before they become problems, and following up regularly to make sure the person's performance and commitment are where you need them to be, these conversations will be rare. Still, there are times when you'll need to confront members of your team about broken agreements. Three Strikes The reason for this "three-strike" approach is that performance change can be bumpy. People need time to modify past poor behavior and performance, which is not always easy to do. In society where we are immersed in fast-food mentality, we often expect immediate results from the poor performer. Most researchers agree that to bring about behavioral changes involves a repeated behavior for 66 days to convert it to an automatic or unconscious behavior status with a range of 18 to 254 days. In other words, it could take an employee up to two months of daily repetition before a behavior becomes a habit. Even if people are on board with a change, they often stumble before es- tablishing a new rhythm. This approach holds them accountable to the agreement while still giving them the beneft of the doubt. It also mitigates against later claims that the employee was not provided adequate time or chances to remediate their performance. The goal of a confrontation discussion is not to punish the other person, but to get the original performance agreement back on track. It is a hard conversation: you're holding the other person accountable for not following through, and, human nature being what it is, people don't like being held accountable. It is threatening to the person on the receiving end. To keep this conversation productive, you've got to do two things well: Manage the other person's defensiveness, and manage your own. This can be a challenge early in the conversation, but if you stay on-message and don't get hooked, others will eventually realize that you're not out to get them— you're out to get the performance they had agreed to in the frst place. Assuming you reach a common and satisfactory understanding about how the other person will achieve his/her performance goals, then you're back to the beginning of the process. If the person's performance continues to suffer and you determine that the person isn't coachable (see below), then you need to consider the person's ft in the role or initiate disciplinary action. Either way, you've done what you can to turn the person's performance around. But you can't make people change if they don't want to. This is often a cause of frustration for leaders as they cannot understand why after time, energy, and methods that the underperformer remains unresponsive and does not change. Whose responsibility is his/her performance? Get the monkey off your back and onto the employee's where it rightfully belongs. Underperformance is not the leader's problem, it is the individual employee. Once a leader verbalizes to the employee that "you've left me with no other choice," there is a sudden awakening for both the leader and the employee. Capability of Performing to Standard? If you have been dealing with under-