Workers who have been with a company a long time aren’t necessarily being loyal. Why? Because longevity isn’t the same thing as loyalty.
In a business context, loyalty — if it means anything at all — has to assume that the employee is actively following current company strategy. That means staff who are actively lobbying for the status quo or simply biased against innovation are not being loyal. Instead, they are working against you and the company’s progress.
“But I can always count on these folks to show up and do their job every day. How can I fault them?” Good on them for showing up with skills. However, they aren’t doing their entire job. Being a reliable Maintainer may have been good enough during newspapers’ cash-cow days, but today’s scarcity landscape requires Maintainers who also double as Change Makers.
This is true for managers and front-line workers alike. Everyone is responsible for innovation, not just two or three. Otherwise, your whole company won’t be able to pivot fast enough to profitability and growth.
How can you apply the loyalty litmus test? Grab your company roster, and, for each employee, step through the following flowchart:
Is the employee effectively leading or at least supporting the primary leaders of change? If yes, support them even more. If no, clarify your expectations and begin your company’s set process for improving performance (more on that in a moment).
Does the employee lack essential skills? If so, attempt to train them up.
Does the employee seem on board but has trouble executing? If that’s the case, they might need more monitoring and coaching. Show them their progress against goals and give them a reasonable chance to adjust their work accordingly.
After such interventions if an employee still isn’t hitting the mark, you owe it to their colleagues to replace that employee with a high performer who is aligned with the company’s innovation strategy.
A proactive process of improvement
To remain consistent and to give your people a reasonable chance to hit the mark, create a Performance Modification Process (PMP) that gives every employee a reasonable chance to pivot to the new strategy yet ushers them to greener pastures if they can’t or won’t adapt.
I interviewed ORG Detective and HR Specialist Nathan Powers for some helpful tips on constructing a high-performing team roster:
Eric: “Nathan, what does a publisher owe a staff member in terms of the number of chances to get on board with strategy?”
Nathan: “Generally, employers develop a performance modification process that fits in their organization. These types of processes typically include three chances to improve performance. The most important aspect of this process is for supervisors to be clear in these conversations. Let the employee know what they are not doing correctly, set an expectation for improvement, offer tools that may assist the employee and clearly document the conversation.”
Eric: “What’s the best way to ‘prove’ that an employee is falling short of clear expectations, so one doesn’t get sued?”
Nathan: “While organization protection is an important aspect of this work, generally there is nothing you can do to keep from being sued. That said, there are strategies you can use to manage risk. First, set clear expectations that are measurable. Performance management is a daily activity. If the manager fails to measure outcomes, an employee’s poor behavior is normalized. Recognize and talk about deficiencies in performance when they happen and then document. Documentation can be your best tool in avoiding or minimizing litigation.”
Eric: “How should a manager have a ‘final warning’ conversation with an employee?”
Nathan: “The final warning conversation should follow your performance modification policy, which should include a discipline policy. (If you do not have one you need one.) Generally, a final warning is the last meeting/coaching session. If behavior continues to miss the standard, the next step is termination. The employee should have heard about the issue at least twice before the final conversation. There should be a written document that outlines the issue and the employee should receive a copy of the document and should sign the document if willing. The meeting should be conducted with two members of management present, and both should document the conversation and include their documentation in the employee’s file.”
Eric: “Is a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) always necessary before a separation, and do they usually work?”
Nathan: “In the best-case scenario, a PIP is deployed promptly, highlights performance deficiencies, includes concrete improvement strategies/timelines, and has supervisor and employee working closely in earnest to close the gaps. In practice, a PIP is rarely successful in turning an employee around, as it usually comes too late in the process. It may also allow an employee to prolong their employment longer than you as the employer have patience because you have not properly documented or communicated the deficiencies. Note that if legal counsel is consulted regarding a termination, the attorney will generally ask if there has been a PIP and may recommend one prior to termination.”
Eric: “How might a separation go smoothly while minimizing the chances of a lawsuit?”
Nathan: “Generally speaking, if an employer is getting ready to terminate an employee for cause, conversation with legal counsel is advised. Beyond making sure the decision is based on facts and is clearly documented in the employee file, spending an hour with a labor law attorney before terminating the employee may help employers avoid significant issues post termination.
Eric: “Do you see separation agreements as a must?”
Nathan: “One important tool for employers when it comes to termination for cause is the use of a separation agreement. This agreement should be drafted by a labor law attorney and may insulate the employer from future financial remedies. The separation agreement also generally disallows the former employee from negative comments about the employer, which does have value considering the prominence of social media these days.”
The main reason for your company’s existence is to make a profit and/or achieve its journalistic mission. If it needs a new change strategy to achieve its aims, then the staff — all of the staff — need to be aligned to the strategy. Employees are compensated by their wages and benefits, not by having jobs for life. (This isn’t the U.S. Supreme Court, folks!) You owe it to those employees who are in step with company strategy to replace the ones who aren’t. There are things you can do to give every employee an opportunity to succeed without providing infinite chances. Be kind yet firm, knowing that the mission of your company is bigger than any one person.
Become dedicated to creating an energizing culture of innovation and you’ll be surprised at how much easier it is to recruit champions. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people out there — young and old — who are mission-driven, seek a challenge and aren’t afraid of technology.
I promise you that when everyone in the room is eager to improve, the feeling you will experience is electrifying. You’ll wonder why you waited so long.
A former reporter turned businessperson, Eric Larson is the CEO of The ORG Detectives (www.theorgdetectives.com), a consulting company based in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Disclaimer: The information provided is this article is for business/informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult with a qualified attorney for legal matters.
