Finding good leaders can be hard - Removing bad ones is even harder

These things happen

Two leaders in the large organization both applied for the same position. In their current roles, one was reporting to the other. During the process, the senior leader indirectly made the other (her direct report) know that he should withdraw his application. As a result, the junior leader actually withdrew his application.?

That actually happened. So did the following:

In a leadership team, one member often puts the interests of his own function ahead of the organization he’s part of. Other behaviors include avoiding speaking up openly, "keeping cards close to the chest," and frequently skipping team meetings.

Those are just two very different cases. The former being an example of unethical behavior and misuse of power, and the latter about poor performance as a leadership team member.

Are the leaders in these examples worth keeping their jobs? Yes or no?

What if I tell you that based on traditional measures of performance, both were top performers? The organizations they led consistently exceeded their targets. Both deeply understood the corporate systems, products, politics, and unwritten rules that enabled them to get things done.

Asking again. Knowing the above, are these leaders worth keeping their jobs? Yes or no??

Answering these questions may seem easy when just reading this, but in real life, there are other factors, and things may not appear as black and white as I put them here. There are many shades of gray. Circumstances, hearsay, immediate priorities vs. long-term success, pragmatism vs. idealism, etc.

How did we get here?

Around 85% of first-time managers in F500 companies are promoted internally. There's nothing wrong with that, as there are many valid reasons to prefer internal candidates over external ones.

The problem lies in the lack of due diligence when it comes to internal promotions, compared to the scrutiny we apply to external hires. The fact that someone is already employed by the company doesn't guarantee their character or suitability to lead others.

Mistakes happen in both promotions and hiring. The more emphasis we place on "performance" rather than character, the higher the likelihood of having leaders who negatively impact the culture.

Promotions

In traditional "Nine Boxes" reviews, we map employees based on their performance and potential. Unfortunately, performance is often assessed solely based on targets and numbers, while the potential is evaluated using factors like ambition and age.

These criteria are shallow and lead to decisions that may be easy to justify in the short term but fail to build a foundation for long-term success.

The right criteria for long-term success is more related to character. The right things to look are are:

• Quality of judgment
• Willingness and ability to have difficult conversations
• Ability to deal with ambiguity
• Discipline and consistency
• Clarity of communication
• Honesty and Integrity
• Kindness

Dealing with the situation at hand

Back to our couple of examples in the beginning. What should senior leaders do when they see signs of potential misconduct or consistently poor leadership performance? It is pretty obvious, right?

Why, then, in many cases, or even most, nothing is done? Unethical behaviors or poor performance are allowed to continue until something so bad happens that it cannot be ignored, or the person eventually moves along. But by that time, the damage may already be extensive, in the form of good people leaving, a high level of politics, and low morale, i.e., all the signs of an unhealthy organization.

Deciding that someone needs to go can be hard. It is very easy to find excuses for not taking action. Here are some popular ones:

• "He/she meets or exceeds the targets."
• "This is not the right time."
• "We need to make our numbers this quarter."
• "It takes long to find a replacement."

The following ones also exist even though we never hear anyone saying them out loud:

• "I am not sure how to explain this to him/her."
• "He/she is not that bad really - maybe he/she is just going through a rough patch..."
• "Maybe I have not been giving him/her enough feedback earlier, and this comes as a surprise."
• "What if he/she gets difficult and sues the company?"
• "Is my manager and HR really going to back me up on this one?"
• "He/she knows some very senior people in our company..."

It's like facing any hard thing in life. We have to do what we know is right. Not doing so will cause damage to our company, our valued colleagues, and ultimately, we let ourselves down.

Things often get worse before they get better.

Taking an easy route rarely leads to a better place.

Anything worth pursuing in life only comes through hardship.

Wrap

There seems to be a greater emphasis on hiring and promoting rather than eliminating bad leadership. Anyone can be a leader in good times and when dealing with inherently positive things like talent acquisition and promotion. It is during challenging times, tough decision-making, and difficult conversations where true leadership is tested.

As a leader, ask yourself:

• Am I promoting and hiring for short-term or long-term success?
• Am I avoiding making tough decisions and making excuses for myself?
• Have I been consistent in giving timely and direct feedback to my direct reports?
• When evaluating the performance of leaders reporting to me, am I putting enough emphasis on their capability and willingness to have difficult conversations?