Dear Captains,
If we
observe carefully across organisations, a consistent pattern emerges. One of
the biggest drains on managerial time is not the workload itself, but how that
time is allocated.
Many
leaders spend a disproportionate amount of time dealing with low performers.
This often comes from good intentions. They want to help. They want to nurture.
They want to be seen as supportive leaders. But we must ask: is this truly in
line with the organisation’s success?
The truth
is, most managers do not fail because they lack effort. They fail because they
apply the wrong approach, at the wrong time, to the wrong person. Leadership is
not just about intention. It is about making the right judgment calls for the
right individual at the right time.
Spending
excessive time trying to change an uninterested low performer brings limited
returns. Redirect that same time to someone ready to learn and grow, and the
results can be exponential.
As
Captains, this is not something we can leave to chance. We must guide how
leadership time and attention are used across our organisations. We must ensure
that our leaders mentor stallions to run faster, coach eagles to fly higher,
and appropriately supervise those who are not yet ready.
We begin
by seeing our people clearly. Sound judgment must be based on capacity, actual
performance, and future potential.
USING THE BELL CURVE
In most
organisations, performance follows a familiar pattern. While not exact, a basic
bell curve helps us see our people more clearly.
At the
top, about 10 percent consistently deliver and often exceed expectations. These
are our A and B-plus performers. They are rare, highly capable, and often drive
disproportionate results. At the bottom, another 10 percent struggle to meet
minimum standards. These are our E performers. They face both capability and
attitude challenges and often require close supervision.
The real
challenge lies in the 80 percent in between. This group is too large and too
varied to be treated as one. To lead effectively, we must break this middle
into three segments.
First,
about 15 percent sit close to the top. These are our B and C-plus individuals.
They are strong contributors, not far from moving up, and represent a critical
pool of future talent.
Next, the
largest group, about 50 percent, forms the steady core. These are our C
performers. They ensure stability, continuity, and reliability. They perform as
expected. While not all aspire to move up, they remain essential. The role of
leadership here is to sustain performance and, where possible, lift it
incrementally.
This is
where leaders must learn to engage and negotiate effectively. After all, C
performers are already giving us exactly what we asked for. They are performing
as expected.
This is
where strong negotiation skills become important. The challenge is to negotiate
for a little more. Not dramatically more. Just an additional five to ten
percent. If even a portion of this group moves towards C+, the impact is
significant. Because this is the largest segment of the workforce, small gains
across a large group create meaningful organisational improvement.
Finally,
about 15 percent sit just above the lower end. These are our C-minus and D
performers. They are inconsistent. At times, they may perform well, but they
lack discipline and consistency. Left unattended, they risk declining further.
When we
see this clearly, several truths emerge.
A and B-plus
performers are difficult to find and even harder to retain. Yet they remain
critical to performance and innovation. The B and C-plus group is often
overlooked. In reality, this is our most important talent pipeline. With the
right development, they can grow into future high performers and are more
likely to stay and grow with the organisation.
C
performers are the backbone of execution. The C−minus and D group requires
structure and discipline to stabilise performance. And our lowest performers
require firm supervision.
Once we
see our people through this lens, we must accept a simple truth. Not everyone
should be led the same way.
THE THREE HATS MODEL – MENTOR, COACH, AND
SUPERVISOR
Before
deciding when to mentor, coach, or supervise, we must be clear on what each
role requires.
When we
wear the hat of a mentor, our role is to guide and develop the
individual beyond immediate tasks. Mentoring is relationship-focused and
long-term. It is about shaping the person, not just improving performance. It
happens through periodic, meaningful engagement and often begins with the
talent. The mentor helps the individual see what they may not yet see.
When we
wear the hat of a coach, our role shifts to improving performance.
Coaching is task-focused and job-specific. It requires the most time and
attention from leaders. It involves regular interaction to build skills, close
gaps, and move individuals to the next level.
When we
wear the hat of a supervisor, our role is to ensure that work meets
required standards. Supervision is directive and structured. It is immediate
and frequent, but should take the least amount of time. The focus is on
discipline, clarity, and ensuring minimum standards are met quickly and
consistently.
WHEN TO MENTOR, COACH, OR SUPERVISE
With this
understanding, we can now be clear on when to apply each approach.
At the
top 10 percent, our A and B-plus performers, the primary role is to mentor.
These individuals do not need instruction. They need perspective, challenge,
and growth beyond their current role.
At the
bottom 10 percent, the role is to supervise. The focus is on discipline,
structure, and minimum standards. Supervision should consist of frequent,
short, structured check-ins, but it should not consume excessive time. The
objective is to bring them up to the required level as quickly as possible. Put
simply, the goal is to shape them up or shift them out.
The real
work of leadership lies in the 80 percent in between.
For the
15 percent just below the top, our B and C-plus group, a hybrid approach is
required. Leaders must both coach and mentor. Coaching builds capability, while
mentoring provides perspective. This is our most important pipeline into future
high performers and talents.
At the
centre, the 50 percent C performers, coaching is critical. This is where
leaders must invest most of their time, or delegate the responsibility to
capable seniors. Improving this group, even marginally, creates significant
organisational impact.
For the
15 percent just above the lower end, our C−minus and D group, another hybrid is
required. Leaders must combine coaching and supervision. Coaching builds skill,
while supervision ensures discipline and consistency.
This is
where leadership becomes demanding. It is not about choosing one style, but
about knowing when to shift, and when to combine.
Dear Captains, this is why it is critical that our leaders know
when to mentor, when to coach, and when to supervise. The ability to apply the
right approach to the right person at the right time is what separates an
average manager from an effective leader-manager.
Peace,
anas zubedy
No comments:
Post a Comment