Question: I am a sales manager for a business services firm in Minneapolis. I am responsible for all revenue of business for my company and I have 5 sales people working for me. Of the 5 sales people only one is a star performer. The problem I am having is that breaks all the rules and create very bad relationships with all the other people in the company. I'm in the senior team and the rest of them are angry that this is repeated. Although I do not like to hear comments from the senior team, I am aware that I can not make my goals and numbers the company can not do there for a year without him. What should I do?
Answer: I call him a terrorist! A terrorist is someone who knows what they have on you and use it to keep you and everyone else in society hostage to their behavior. I like to take my clients through a comprehension questions Goal, location, and the strategy to determine what actions need to be made.
The first question I ask is: "What is the goal around the problem?" This is to ensure that we focus the question of the right. What I call my clients to do is to think before general objective. Then link to the current situation. In this way, what ever you do, you will be in total alignment with what is best for global business.
In this situation you have identified the fact that, in order to make your business unit and company goals, you need this employee. This is a big step and leaders often become so emotionally from situations such act before considering the aims and objectives of the company or department. I commend you for your foresight. In general, leaders who do that are considered high in emotional intelligence. This has been proven to be one of the key components to assess the long-term success, just in their careers.
The next step is to understand the position you and your company are in high level to 50,000 feet to see the whole situation. Go beyond yourself and ask, "How did this start happening? Sometimes we find the root cause embedded in the culture of the organization. 'This kind of behavior is tolerated here?
In the case of Enron when the CEO learned that two of the dealers were stealing from the company did nothing, then immediately said, 'to make money on us'. What they were stealing was minor compared to what they were doing society. He knew that if he took the action, he stopped his car because he needed the revenue that was his ultimate goal. He also gave permission to others that if they were so good at making money for the company could steal from the company as well. It 'was the result obtained, should not be a surprise. This is the extreme case of a terrorist working for the company - and was exaggerated by a lack of moral compass by the leadership. In this case, it is clear that this behavior is contrary to what the leadership is trying to tolerate behavior.
Once you go up at 50,000 feet and see if the company had the complicity of the situation, then you should get off at 10,000 feet perspective and see if "you" have complicated the situation. To be frank, and I want to do everything in one column in which I can not ask questions of qualification, but it's hard to imagine that you will not allow this to happen. This is not to absolve the terrorist by his behavior, because this is wrong, however, if he had stopped cold behavior, this would never happen. I say this because the solution, whatever your choice, you must engage your mentor or be trained in creating boundaries for your team. Without these boundaries will be faced with this problem again.
The third part of our research position is to go to ground level - the same situation. When we are in this situation with an employee we have only two choices, we can either fire, or teach. If an employee makes a mistake, it is because we teach them properly, or because they are not capable of doing the function. Three questions to determine what to choose. The first, the worker is able to learn? Second, the organization or do not have the time and resources available to train these personnel? Finally, this employee is motivated to learn and change? If you answer any of these questions is NO, the decision is chosen, you must let go of this person. The decision is, as Donald Trump would say, You're Fired!
It is not clear from your description if the employee has the ability to change the behavior, then it is assumed that he is pretty good at what he does for the organization and probably has the ability to change. It 'clear that the number one producer should have the resources and time to help him get into alignment with the company. The biggest problem is motivation. Often, a terrorist does not feel the threat of what could happen to them if they begin to fall in line. They have become fat and happy and arrogant! This arrogance is what blocks their ability to realize that they need to change. The company has reached a point where we can no longer tolerate this type of behavior.
Unlike Donald's TV Drama live in the real world, and only release it is a great choice once considered the company's dependence on her income.
In almost all other cases, the move would certainly be a fire, but because it means so much to employee health organizations on the revenue side.
The last part of the understanding of our position is to understand where the decision is to be done and what needs to be done. If the consequences of your actions affect the company's strategic direction, I would like to invite you to consider part of the senior team and that the responsibility is yours to deal with it, and the final decision may actually be the team or call the CEO, given his importance to the organization.
This is truly a strategic decision is therefore not simply let a person go, is to let many people go, if it is assumed in a business service, lower revenue means fewer employees needed to service the customer.
At this point I would like to coach to have a conversation with the CEO and the rest of the team strategy and tell them the steps that are being taken into account and make these strategic questions: Where do we as an organization willing to take a principled stand as well as on the question of revenue? We are clear what the outcome of this will be our employees to others? We will need to cut costs to compensate for this move? What will the industry see the person to lose the most talented sales? Will he go to work for our competition? What impact will that have on your business? Working through these strategic issues as an organization and to raise this issue in its place the senior team - will be aligning everyone to be part of the process and stop complaining about it.
Going through these questions, the conclusion can be reached at the end of this process is that it uses a three-pronged approach to address this situation. Execution of three levels simultaneously.
Plan "A" will need to continue coaching the employee to the behavior that is in alignment with corporate values, beliefs and rules.
Plan "B" at the same time I beg to move the rest of the sales team to lose to a higher level of reliance on this terrorist, and operation of Plan "C" and start the recruitment process for the possible if not probable replacement the employee.
It 'important that the other team's senior sales team and I know you're coaching this employee's behavior in these areas and that it is sitting OK with you. But not any more - it is not appropriate to say more in a public context. It will build your credibility as a leader and not allow people to sink the culture of behavior that society wants to build.
No comments:
Post a Comment