Ignore these employee behaviors at your own peril

Those who lead people are usually optimistic about the staff they lead. But there are times when we need to recognize that it is not going to work with a specific staff member without significant change. In fact, there are behaviors that if not confronted will hurt your team and by extension your leadership. Many leaders err in allowing the behaviors to exist for too long. 

What are the signs that this is the case?

We keep running into attitudes or behaviors that are counterproductive to the mission of the ministry or the team a staff member is on. I spoke to a leader recently who has a staff member whose behaviors indicate unteachability and a significant amount of hubris. He has coached and told the staff member that his behaviors are counterproductive. But nothing changes. I suggested that he is dealing with someone who doesn't listen or believe that what he is saying is true. Unteachable people are unlikely to succeed as they tend to sabotage themselves. They also negatively impact those around them.

The staff member does not seem to value the mission or non-negotiables of the organization and want to do their own thing. Teams and organizations only work well when everyone is in alignment with the rest of the group. Lone rangers don't work well on a team or within an organization even if they are brilliant. If you have one staff member who is allowed to do their own thing, why should the others be in alignment? It is not ok for staff to be out of alignment with the organization's mission, values or practices.

There are significant EQ issues that keep popping up. The question here is whether the individual can be coached toward greater EQ health. If not, and if their EQ issues create issues within their team or organization, it is unfair to other staff to leave them in place. Further, unhealthy behaviors directly impact the culture of the organization. And a healthy culture is a key factor in your success! Often the result of EQ deficiencies is relational conflict, passive aggressive behavior, and unteachable attitudes, all of which create a degree of chaos among staff and often impacts constituents as well. 

You have tried to get someone into a productive lane but you have been unsuccessful. When there are high expectations for team members and there is an unproductive employee, everybody notices. They not only notice but leaders lose points when they don't address the issue because others are held to a higher standard. You cannot give an individual a pass. Sometimes there is no longer a fit. When I have done employee audits in organizations this issue pops up almost every time. It is noticed and it matters. 

When a significant amount of time and energy has been expended in trying to make it work and it continues to remain problematic it is most likely not a good fit. Optimism needs at some point to be tempered by reality. It is amazing how the exit of one staff member can be the key to freedom, joy and productivity of the rest of the team. It is not always a conclusion we desire to come to but in some circumstances it is the right conclusion.

An important factor in all of this is the impact of problematic behaviors on the rest of your staff. It is fundamentally unfair to the rest of your staff to allow unproductive behaviors to continue. What is often considered grace by a leader in allowing a problematic staff member to remain, is not grace for the rest of the team who are all impacted by the behaviors of other team members. Your "kindness" to one is not a kindness to others!

We cannot solve all the issues of staff members. It is not that they cannot find a place of effectiveness somewhere but sometimes it is not with our team or organization. Learning to be realistic as well as redemptive is a skill all leaders need to learn. After all, when it is not working for the leader it is usually not working for the rest of the team either. When we have done our best and it still does not work we need to take action - for our well being as well as for the well being of the organization.  Ironically it is usually the best for the staff member who does not fit as well. Run good process but don't prolong the pain.

 Creating cultures of excellence
AddingtonConsulting.org

8 responses to change: Understanding who will help you and who will hurt you

Many are familiar with the bell curve that describes how people respond to change: innovators, early adapters, middle adapters, late adapters, and laggards. In my experience in the change process, I have another set of suggested categories to watch for. Where individuals are on this continuum from change resistors to evangelists for change makes a significant difference when considering them for either staff or board leadership positions.

Resisters. Like the laggards on the bell curve, these people will actively resist change because they are wired that way. This individual told me, "T.J., you can bring whatever change you want to the organization, but don't expect me to do anything different." No rationale is going to change the mind of a resister.

Protectors. The protector is also highly resistant to change, but for another reason. They believe in the status quo, the way things have been done in the past, and they will actively try to protect "what is" rather than embrace "what could be." This individual told me and many others that the changes I brought to ReachGlobal would destroy the mission. 

Cynics. This group is simply cynical about change unless the proposed change is their idea. They tend to view change as "the flavor of the month" and are often vocal about their opinion. Cynics generally don't trust leaders, so proposals brought by leaders are quickly discounted.

Loyal followers. These individuals have a deep commitment to the organization and team. They accept change if there is a good rationale for it. These staff say, "Just tell me which direction we are going, and I will go with you." 

Idealists. This is an interesting group with an upside and a downside regarding change. When creating change, one inevitably creates a gap between what should be. Idealists are highly impatient to get to what should be and believe we should be there now. On the upside, they want the change. On the downside, they can become highly critical that we have not arrived. Thus, they can be either an ally or a critic on any day.

Realists. This group supports change, realizes it will take time and process, and is generally comfortable with it. They are helpful in realistically figuring out how to get there and can live with the tension of what should and should be.

Change agents. These individuals support proposed changes and will be active agents in helping the organization get there. They are your front lines in speaking a new language, setting a new course, and helping redesign philosophy and strategy.

Evangelists. These champions of change publicly and privately live the change out, help others understand and get there, and advocate for the new direction.

In my experience, realists, change agents, and evangelists will help drive change, while resisters, protectors, and cynics will actively undermine change. Loyal followers and idealists will go with you but will not drive change. 

Think about the implications of these eight ways that people respond to change: who you hire, who you put into leadership, and who you ask to serve on a board. After hearing these descriptions, one church leader aptly commented, "No wonder so many boards are stuck." He is right. Resisters, protectors, and cynics must be managed, but beware of allowing them into positions of leadership and influence!