Exit or coach? A framework for empathetic leaders

Empathy can make you a great manager, but it can also cause a lot of heartache and sometimes cloud your objectivity on a team member's performance.

• When team members aren't meeting expectations, you genuinely care for and empathize with their challenges. At the same time, you're frustrated at having to deal with the consequences.
• You find yourself swinging from empathy to explosiveness (in your head... and sometimes out loud).

Recently I supported three high-empathy senior leaders who were stressed about what to do with "high performers" who were simply not cutting it anymore. The common denominator: Should I coach them or exit them? Have I given them a fair chance?

This article aims to give high empathy senior managers a quick tool to use to filter through these questions and be confident in their course of action.

The Scenarios & Common Dilemma

These were the scenarios presented to me in the first two weeks of January:

• "She's one of the most responsive, hardest workers I've met. Given the pace of our work, I appreciate that. But in her haste to be the first on every project, she confuses everyone." -- GM at a public company
• "He played a critical role in getting us to Series A, but after that he was sucking up my emotional energy & not showing he could step into the next level of leadership" - CEO at a Series A start-up

In all three scenarios, I asked them to give me a gut sense: was this person producing a net positive or net negative impact on the overall business? Did their outputs outweigh the time and energy spent managing the fallout of their actions? In all three scenarios, they said "net negative" instinctively.

But let's face it - it isn't straightforward nor easy to make a decision to let people go. There are transition issues to anticipate, the responsibility to give them a fair chance, and of course, attachments you formed in previous phases of working together.

Coach, or exit? A framework for empathetic managers

My framework helps you think about the course of action and how much to invest. It has two dimensions:

• X-axis: "Coachability" of the team member, which I will define in specific behavioral terms
• Y-axis: Importance of the team member's skillset to the current stage of the company. This can change fairly frequently.

X-axis: Is this person coachable?

Having coached hundreds of men and women across the US and Asia and held corporate leadership roles in start-ups and government, I've found some indicators of a person's coachability --

• Able to take accountability; does not blame others for their actions. This looks like acknowledging their role and room for improvement, even if multiple other parties/systems also have room for improvement.
• Shows behavioral improvement in response to your feedback. For example, if you point out the impact that his micromanaging behavior is alienating stakeholders and missing deadlines, he meets the expectation of submitting work in a timely way and makes an effort to engage stakeholders earlier.
• Demonstrates curiosity. This looks like seeking out alternative perspectives, not just self-reinforcing perspectives, and seeking to understand the impact of their actions.

It doesn't mean they don't push back in the moment (all of us have defense mechanisms, whether fight or flight). It's what you see as a pattern of response to feedback over time.

Y-axis: Are their skill sets important to the current stage of the company?

Determine whether the team member is performing to current company objectives, not previous company objectives. The high performer may be behaving in the exact same way, but the new stage of the company requires different performance and behaviors. Common situations:

• Rapidly growing companies (e.g. Seed to Series B) where the skills need for early stage are very different from those of growth stage.
• The person has some tenure in the company and expectations are raised, but they continue to perform at a junior level (e.g. fail to delegate).

First, instinctively situate the team member on this framework. Temporarily leave the "have I given them enough opportunity to change?" to the side. I'll address that later.

Who to invest in? How much?

1. Culture-setters: High coachability, high skills fit for current stage

They are the carriers of culture and excellence for this new stage of the company. You should invest time coaching, or even hire an external coach/pay for their coaching. If your org has a limited coaching budget, find a way to focus your budget on this archetype.

2. Test: High coachability, low skills fit for current stage

These are people who have shown willingness to learn and adapt even though there are gaps in their skills fit. While the attitude might be there, their velocity of change matters. If it is not fast enough, they might be layered or scoped down compared to previous stage.?The velocity of change is in their hands: it is their responsibility to find and pay for, or at least co-invest in a coach to support them in evolution.

Who to exit?

3. Mismatch: Low coachability, low skills fit for current stage

This can be a valuable member of the founding team. When presented with the new expectations, they don’t agree that there is a gap, or fail to adapt. You have to let go of the sentimentality, acknowledge their previous contributions and recognize the limits of their potential in this current environment. It is especially hard for empathetic managers to accept this course when the team member is a "hard worker" - you appreciate their willingness to grind at the work. Unfortunately, the impact is not there.

Skillful managers are able to help the person realize that parting ways is better for both sides, but if the person lacks awareness, they will be unhappy with you no matter what.

4. Culture risk: Low coachability, high skills fit for current stage

In coaching start-up teams, I have seen cases of hiring "star" leaders from companies a stage ahead who can bring credibility to the company at this stage, yet their behavioral issues are known (e.g. strident in judgment of others and not quick to take accountability).

An extremely influential and skilled person with low coachability poisons culture quicker than any other archetype. Pre-hiring, back-channel specific situations which demonstrate indicators of accountability and coachability. If you realize there's a cultural mismatch after hiring, I recommend moving towards exit. This is often the hardest decision for CEOs or Boards.

"Have I given the person sufficient opportunity to change?"

When it comes to the exit path, managers wonder whether they have given the person sufficient opportunity to change. This is a good question and should be treated as a hypothesis to test.

• View the question of "are they coachable?" as a hypothesis to test over 3 months. Provide feedback and observe their pattern of response based on my guidelines of "coachability". Define your expected behaviors and give yourself 3 cycles to determine if there is sufficient velocity in their adaptation.
• Give direct feedback which articulates their behaviors, impact and expectations (B.I.E). "When you don't involve other teams early and delegate tasks (behavior), the work has been up to 2 weeks late and other teams feel alienated from the process (impact). I need to see you submit timely work from you this quarter, and include the other teams in a much earlier stage (expectation)."
• Put the ownership for growth in their hands. Instead of directing their growth path (e.g. you should find a coach), articulate the gaps and ask guiding questions: what do you think you need to do to overcome these challenges and meet these expectations? What are you going to try? How do you want me to support you in that?
• Introduce consequences. If velocity of change is not fast enough, it is time to increase the pressure and talk about consequences, such as the potential for down-levelling, reducing scope or even losing their role. Talking about consequences early can be the most 'loving' thing to do, as it helps the person have a clear-eyed view of the stakes involved.

With this framework in mind, all three made their decisions:

• In the case of the public company GM, he reflected that he hadn't given direct feedback and needed to do so as the first order of business.
• In the case of the CEO, he decided letting the employee go was overdue.

None of these conversations are easy. Any normal human being would dread it. You might want to role-play with a coach before you do it. E.g. As an empathetic manager, you might easily slip into being "understanding" when the team member gets emotional, forgetting that you intended to set clearer expectations and consequences.

I have a quick resource that I use in workshops and simulations which outline the heuristics of a coaching and feedback conversation. Happy to share the google link to anyone who asks.

Empathy is a superpower, master it instead of letting it master you.

These empathetic senior leaders were recognized as excellent people managers and business leaders. As I reminded them, you don't have to be "hard-headed" to be a good leader. But how can you be both "be supportive and developmental" and "set clear expectations with consequences" in the day to day? It doesn't have to be either/or. It can be both/and. I hope this tool helps you with that!

I'd love to hear your views and questions!