What to do with self-sabotaging people – part 2

What to do with self-sabotaging people? How do you coach/deal with them? In my previous post (here) I explained that self-sabotaging people are basically stuck and not moving forward. They seem incapable of doing what needs to be done.  Can you coach/manage someone like this? The answer is yes, if they are willing and, specially, if you are willing to put the effort required to unstuck them.

One thing first, if you can avoid the relationship altogether is a better course of action. Wasting time on somebody who is doing their earnest to destroy their lives is a bad bet.  Remember that these people are masters are sucking up time and energy, so be wary of their games. But in the case that you won’t or can’t avoid it, then this are the actions that may help you:

• Determine what you want to accomplish: are you there to save a career, save a buddy or just make someone more productive?  Your efforts should focus on that and not on solving everything.
• Recognize that you cannot change anything yourself, they need to do their own work.
• Be very clear about the boundaries in the relationship – define what you will do, what you won’t do and what you expect them to do, and even how to do it – did I mentioned that this requires a lot of time?
• Set clear goals, but focus on the short term. Giving them too many long term goals will cause them to procrastinate. Don’t give them that chance – keep it short and sweet.
• Set meeting guidelines. Your door should be open but be wary of too many unscheduled meetings or emergencies. Keep track of the time you are spending.
• Make sure they are doing their work and making their own choices. It is too easy to fall into the “I-can-solve-anything” mode. You are there to guide and mentor, not do their job.

One last thing, even if you do all of the above perfectly, there is a big chance that they will not respond or, despite what they say, perform what was agreed. So, be ready to drop them if that happens.

Helping a partner regain their performance edge.

An under-performing partner or coworker can bring down the performance of a division or the whole company – this may in turn, affect our end-of-year bonus, profit share or work environment. So, rather than saying that it is her or his problem and letting them be, sometimes it is in our best interest to help the under-achiever.

Recently I was working in a venture with a person that was under-performing and it was bringing the whole partnership productivity down. We were both responsible for parts of the venture that were complementary but mutually exclusive. My problem was how to help her achieve the desired performance without destroying the partnership by being invasive and controlling. The reasons for my decision to help were:

• It seemed fixable (no drug use, alcohol or any of the sorts). 
• Her past performance indicated that she was capable of much more than she was delivering. 
• Dissolving the partnership would have been a complicated and messy affair – and not good for both our reputations. 

My plan was to approach this person and state the problem and my intentions in a clear and respectful manner. I set up an appointment to discuss the situation in a non threatening environment and out of the office. During the conversation I setup myself as a supporter and ally and not a fixer – this is important! You are there to help not do their job (unless it is a problem in your area). At the end of the meeting we established an agreement that we would work on the problems and setup a general plan. Keep it simple.
Over the next few days, we clearly identified the problems, their causes and devised plans to fix and correct each one of them, as well as establishing indicators and goals for each one of them (you have to know when you are done). We identified everything that may be affecting her performance, from rebellious employees to over-dependent clients, and put a plan in place to correct them.
Over time, we tracked our plans and made corrections, while keeping our eyes in our indicators and goals. As problems started to disappear her productivity went back to what was expected and we developed a better working relationship.

Triggering a full reorganization

How often do you stir things up in your company? I was turn to this topic by a conversation I had about operational efficiency. I was thinking about how often you should look at what you are doing and look for ways to improve it. If you go by the Kaizen methodology, then you are doing this constantly... this works great for small changes but not for big ones. Full-on reorganizations can be triggered by traumatic events but the price you pay in organizational stress is great.
I recommend you are always on Kaizen mode; it is a great way to do business and life in general. But, how do you decide is the right time to do a full-on reorganization? The conditions I think could trigger a full reorganization are:

• Financial results are not there for 3 quarters or more. You are underperforming and it is not the result of a disaster, and the recovery trend is not there.
• You tried incremental enhancements and they are not having enough impact.
• Your key decision processes are convoluted or ineffective.
• Key players leave or arrive into your organization (for example, after a merger or acquisition).
• Your market conditions have changed dramatically (new and strong competitors; new business models)

These are a few of the conditions; your individual reasons may vary and add to this list. If you decide that a reorganization is in order, just be careful to fix the issues with a holistic approach.

Too many priorities

When setting priorities people are usually overoptimistic about what they can realistically accomplish. We see individuals trying to do everything at once: lose weight, exercise, eat healthier, be a better spouse, dedicate more time to the children, fix the house, reinvigorate their careers, build a better network. The reality is that you can’t do everything at once. If everything is a priority; then, nothing is a priority.

Companies don’t fare better than individuals. The illusion is that 100 employees should be able to handle 100 priorities. But companies have to understand that the average employee probably can’t handle more than 3 priorities at a time.

The impact on a business is that employees can’t find optimal solutions to problems that satisfy all priorities: should they be focusing on client experience or on cost management? Product innovation or bug eradication? This in turn can create paralysis in an organization while the decisions makers figure out which one is the most important priority.

Another side effect is that the company makes it impossible to do something that would please everybody. If they execute something thinking of customer experience, then somebody complains about cost management. Thus the actions of employees are based not on the priority but on who they do not want to anger.

The way around this problem is simple: first figure out what the top priorities are, then execute on them. Everything else doesn’t get a pass.