New Manager gets a personnel “Lay of the Land”.

A prior colleague of mine (let’s call him Tim) from over a decade ago, just landed a great opportunity with a new company.

Today, his 3rd day on the job, he received his team’s personnel files and had a “lay of the land” discussion.?He left the discussion with 2 directives:

(1) Get these 3 team leaders out the door, they aren’t performing well.?

(2) These 3 people are your rock stars. Promote them to team leaders.?We’d like you to get this done in the next 3-6 months.

Tim has walked into a situation where issues haven’t been dealt with and he isn’t given the opportunity to evaluate the situation for himself. The decision has been made. He is just there to execute the command. Hopefully, the cultural reflag stands out here – but in case it doesn’t, THIS IS A CULTURAL RED FLAG!

So, he calls me after work, mostly to vent.

I have been placed in this situation many times in my career, but I’ll just tell you about one.

I was given 3 names of people who “I’d probably have to deal with in the next 6 months” and the names of 6 people who were my “all-stars.”

Thankfully, I wasn’t given a directive like Tim. They were simply sharing information and allowing me to decide how to handle it.

When I step into?a new role, a new company, or lead a new team, I do not initiate changes for around 6 months. I spend this time listening and learning. ?Changes I make during that time are at the request of my team. I do my best to minimize change from the top during this period as well.

This extends to forming an opinion on personnel.?Reading their personnel file helps me understand what “we” think of them, but it doesn’t tell me what they think of “us”. In the first 6 months I will learn what is motivating them, what is frustrating them, and what training, tools, and resources they need. Most importantly, I will learn what their perspective of their performance is. It is not unusual for me to learn “we” are the problem, not the employee.

Fast forward:

• 2 of the 6 “rock stars” were the lowest performers.?Significantly underperforming. And on purpose. They were very skilled at making themselves look good by highlighting the right accomplishments and sweeping other important things under the rug.
• 2 of the 3 “at risk” employees were promoted within the next 2 years.

No one intentionally miscategorized these employees.?They just didn’t take the time to reflect on leadership’s role in the situation and made assumptions.

My advice to “Tim”, ask your leadership team to give you 6 months to assess the situation and make recommendations.?They’ve let it go on for years, apparently, so what are 6 more months to let you be involved in the decision and showcase your leadership skills.

Imagine this scenario:

Your manager isn’t the best leader. Because of this, you have conflict.?Your manager informs people that you are ineffective. Your manager transitions to a new role. A new manager is hired, and the information they are given is all from the perspective of your prior manager. Your new manager now has the perception that you are ineffective.

Question:

Do you want your new manager to be someone who trusts the information from your prior manager, and immediately treat you as if you are ineffective

(OR)

Would you like your new manager to be the type of person who takes time to assess for themselves, making their own decision based on actually working with you?

Be the type of leader you just picked!