Tag Archives | performance

When Bad Systems Happen To Good People

Want to know the power of a system? Consider this…if you place a good manager within a bad system, they will founder nine times out of ten. Same goes for individuals; a bad system will dilute a superstar employee’s potential. Yet, how many times are we willing to give up on, demote, or release an individual rather than take a good hard look at our own systems? Right…I thought so. Perhaps because it’s easier to level the blame on a person than do the more intensive work of analyzing and overhauling a system that’s ineffective or downright bad. But by focusing on individuals rather than systems, managers maintain the idiotic charade that makes it look like they’re being proactive by rooting out the crappy people when in reality they’re just reapplying lipstick to the pig.

In Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths and Total Nonsense, Jeff Pfeffer and Robert Sutton write that systems trump individual effort on a regular basis. They argue that “bad systems do far more damage than bad people, and a bad system can make a genius look like an idiot. Try redesigning systems and jobs before you decide that a person is ‘crappy.'”

What are examples of bad systems? Here’s one that plagues non-profits and for-profits alike: silos. I’ve personally witnessed innovative and resourceful individuals rendered ineffective within a siloed organization. Yet, when it was time for the annual review (there’s another example of a bad system), these individuals had to take the lion’s share of the blame for their performance failings. It’s rather like giving a racer a Ferrari and then telling them to perform at their highest level on a dirt and gravel track.

So, then these individuals are labeled as crappy people, the kind you want to figure out how move off your team or out of your organization. But here’s the thing…that outlook will never lead to anything other than mediocrity in your organization. Consider again what Bob Sutton wrote a couple of years ago on the subject:

The worst part about focusing on keeping out crappy people, however, is that it reflects a belief system that “the people make the place.” The implication is that, once you hire great people and get rid of the bad ones, your work is pretty much done. Yet if you look at large scale studies in everything from automobile industry to the airline industry, or look at Diane Vaughn’s fantastic book on the space shuttle Challenger explosion and the well-crafted report written by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, the evidence is clear: The “rule of law crappy systems” trumps the “rule of crappy people.”

If you’re a senior manager and all of this sounds achingly familiar, don’t despair…let’s improve the system. Begin doing something that most organizations don’t do which is take a holistic and deep-penetrating assessment of your people-systems.

  • Review your organization’s structure. Is your organization siloed or structurally ineffective?
  • Review your organization’s social networks. Do your employees have quality relationships with others outside of their working groups? Do they know how to communicate effectively, have constructive conflicts, and build new connections?
  • Review your organization’s knowledge management infrastructure. Can your people access other individuals easily and openly? Can your people access not only the knowledge of others but expertise that may exist outside of the job description?
  • Review your organization’s learning systems. Do your employees know how to learn and share that learning in ways that benefits others in the organization?

These four assessment points of your people-system signal just the beginning of change. There’s still much to do to initiate and follow-through with the changes…issues to be addressed in future posts (or contact me for how I can help your organization). But the next time you rant about the underperforming employee or underachieving team, think first about the systems that got them there.


Let’s Change How We Relate To Future Success

Right now, my new faddish pastime is LinkedIn Answers (I’m a renaissance soul so give it a couple of weeks…it’s likely to change). I dig how some fairly simple questions can generate some interestingly diverse opinions. I’ve been posting some questions and receiving some responses that I’ll likely incorporate into upcoming blogposts.

Recently, someone asked this question:
Does past performance guarantee future results? If not, why it is so often used as a criteria for raises and promotions?

I was surprised by the responses. Many opined that there are no guarantees, yet the past usually indicates the future and this is the only option we have. To which, I must call bullshit. This sounds an awful lot like a collective “that’s just they way things are.” Really? I just can’t accept that. Here’s the answer I offered:

No and this is exactly why the structure used for raises and promotions is flawed. Our own successes often get in the way of future success. See Marshall Goldsmith’s book What Got You Here Won’t Get You There.

However, I think what the responses here show is that few organizations have figured out how to build in raises and promotions. So, we’re still dealing with an old system that may no longer work. Here’s an idea…scrap past performance as the key indicator for whether someone gets a raise. Make it based on the number of new ideas conceived during the year, the number of innovations to improve processes, etc. Something that actually is forward-looking rather than backward facing. And let’s change the idea of promotion. What’s a promotion…change from line employee to manager? How about adding work that fits the strengths of that employee rather than just giving a title promotion.

So, am I on to something here? Completely full of crap? What’s your take? And if you’ve managed to change the criteria for compensation and professional acknowledgment, what’s your story?