I Rest My Case On C-Performers

However in the VUCA (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous) that we are doing business in, even a two-percent strike rate would come across as an impractical target, given the tightened norms on severance practices and greater awareness about worker’s rights. Underperformers can’t simply be wished away or axed. 

This begs the question – how to effectively deal with C-Performers?

More pointedly, could there be a more humane way of dealing with C-Performers than that suggested by the ex-GE boss?

Everyone loves A-Performers and rightly so. After all, top performers are the mighty engines of a company’s future growth. Even B-Performers are tolerated and can be trained to deliver better-than-expected results. But what of the abandoned C-Performers, whom no one has the inclination to mentor or the time to pat into shape?      

C-Performers make matters worse by sticking to the brief, never exceeding it. They will do absolutely nothing to stretch themselves, plead for more responsibility than what has been assigned to them, and care two hoots about their managers’ appraisal. Secure in their comfort zone, they are like government appointees, who will never innovate, nor have the temperament to deliver on time, forget take bold initiatives, unchaperoned.

Even where their senior manager want to make room for such ‘dead wood’ – pardon the expression - they do not have the time, energy or will to do better; and luckily for them, their managers also often lack the confidence or courage to confront them head-on for fear of being dragged into a messy controversy. Who has the time to invite more trouble into their hectic lives?

At best C-Performers are ignored and sidelined from important projects. At worse, they are ridiculed and left fuming, smarting or doing both. Some may even have lobbies to protect them, so direct confrontation are avoided, as they tend to become emotionally charged affairs, an ideological or practical barrier, and the senior backs out of the scene.

Assuming that there is a system in place to accurately identify the back benchers, take it from a veteran that the possibility that all are trainable is a fallacy that should not be harbored. But if they are not weeded out, even after correct identification, their presence could become a strong demotivation to B and A Performers. Not to forget that a disgruntled, dis-engaged employee can be a potential occupation hazard for others in the organization. The B group may particularly be vulnerable to the belief that they too can get away with similar attitude and performance.

Undoubtedly, corporates need unambiguous policies on performance. They need clearly definition of below-par performance – what is acceptable and what not, irrespective of any other factor. If an improvement plan cannot be worked out because of paucity of will, resources and time, the last resort, as Welch said be to swiftly weed them out before their malignancy spreads to others. Suppressing, ignoring or sidelining them is disrespectful and unfair, as resources, both good and bad, need constant and candid feedback on how well they are performing or not performing.

A rigorous and consistent approach in managing talent is therefore critical. While most corporates talk big about their performance management systems, I’ve discovered during my interactions with CEOs that most still lack the will to make drastic changes and struggle with ways and means of differentiating between trainable and non-trainable resources.

Some of the challenges they admit to facing in setting clear-cut performance parameters based on a manager’s market potential are:  

• Drawing up well-differentiated reward system based ONLY on performance. (Whereas targets could be quantified as in Sales)
• Differentiating relative performance, where key performance indices cannot be qualified, and
• Managing C-Performers who give no hope for improvement

The answer to these challenges is best summed by Beth Axelrod, Helen Handfield Jones and Ed Michaels article A New Game Plan For C Players, “Decisively dealing with C performers isn’t about a one-time house cleaning or downsizing. It’s about constantly holding the company performance bar high and making sure that the company’s leaders live up to that standard. Nor it is about being tough on people. It’s about being relentlessly focused on performance.” (Harvard Business Review, January 2002).

Nothing can be said better.  I rest my case.