Making Even the Worst Performers Better

Making Even the Worst Performers Better

A prominent leader once told me, "The most difficult thing I've faced in my professional life has been coping with bad actors." Brent, do you have any suggestions for doing this?

The word "bad actors" needs to be defined before we can begin to address them. You have a working definition of the term in your head. Not the performers you see on stage and television, but the ones you have to work with to overcome your obstacles. A bad actor is someone who contributes to the problem rather than helping to solve it. Sometimes, as a leader, you'll have to deal with bad apples.

Look at it from the standpoint of the 20/40/20 rule. About 20% of the people you have to lead will be your enthusiastic cause leaders in getting it done; about 40% will be on the fence; and approximately 20% will not do or at least not want to do what is required. It's possible to label these 20% as evil actors.

However, there is no universally accepted definition of bad behavior. People who are working against you or destroying your efforts to succeed could be considered "bad actors" from your point of view.

On the other hand, their coworkers might not perceive them as bad actors but as employees who are standing up to the unfair demands of your leadership.

On top of that, the "bad actors" probably wouldn't call themselves that because they see themselves as heroes. Most bad guys don't even see themselves as bad. If you brand someone as bad, they can start seeing you in a negative light.

Given this, one could wonder why the phrase is ever employed. In a word, no, says I. Expressions like "bad actors" or "bad characters" have the potential to become self-fulfilling. The people you are attributing characteristics to may despise them, or they may embrace their new identities and proudly act out the roles you have assigned them.

The "not-yets" are a better name for them than "bad actors," "bad characters," etc. They are "not yet" on your team. Using this label keeps the lines of communication open and reduces the likelihood of hurtful emotional value judgments being made.

Be that as it may, you must take action on the not-yets. The not-yets can be creative and inspiring leaders, but they will be leading the opposition. Most people are lonely and need to have their opinions confirmed by having others agree with them.

When confronted with a not-yet, you can choose one of three actions. A. Just take them at face value. B. Convince them to alter their ways. C. Get rid of them. A fourth option is unavailable. In this hypothetical scenario, let's imagine that choices A and C are off the table. That leaves Option B: convincing people to alter their ways.

It's important to keep in mind that there's a spectrum of persuasion, from merely neutralizing them (so that they stop trying to enlist their own cause leaders against you) to having these leopards change their spots and really become your cause leaders.

Getting the latter can do wonders for your organization, as not only do you get cause leaders, but you also help persuade fence-sitters to become cause leaders themselves when you convince not-yets to choose to be your cause leaders.

Here is a method for handling the currently nonexistent

Define the characteristics that separate the three categories into the 20/60/20 bracket. As an example, "cause leadership" can play a role. The willingness of an individual to serve as a leader for your cause can help you evaluate whether you count them among your chosen group or not.

Step two: classify your potential leaders for your cause into distinct groups based on the factors that determined their inclusion.

Twenty percent, for instance, are already among your cause's most vocal advocates. Forty percent are on the fence and haven't committed to leading your cause yet. There is also the 20% who are "not yet" and could be working against your cause's leaders.

Explain the ever-changing context in which these people are currently migrating.

Incentives for cooperation and punishments for discord should be established. You might incentivize undecideds to take the lead by rewarding them for their support. And you may want to penalize fence-sitters who start drifting toward the not-yet group.

Be sure to distinguish between on-the-fence and not-yet listeners. Those who are on the fence about taking the initiative to lead the cause have not yet made up their minds.

Separate the not-yets, as in . They might be encouraged to continue their ways if we leave the not-yets alone. There must be repercussions for the decision made by the not-yets. If you discover that convincing them to join your cause is draining too much of your time and energy, consider cutting off contact with them. However, keep in mind that there is a nuanced skill involved in isolating them. If you try to cut them off from society too quickly or forcefully, they may become more resistant to your efforts and perhaps recruit supporters of their own.

Three methods exist for separating them: 

Via repercussions, with due attention paid to the fairness of punishments and the public's perception of such punishments' fairness. 

By having others be aware of them as not-yets through recognition. 

By creating a "rising tide" that carries everyone, including the "not-yets," by celebrating your triumphs and using them to attract new cause leaders.

Be sure to keep tabs on both your own and their development.

This is not a straight line but rather a circle, or more precisely, a spiral. Just keep at it.

Every head of state has rotten apples in their ranks. Avoiding the label will allow you to counteract their negative impact and perhaps even win them over to your side. I don't know. You may convert terrible actors into excellent performers.