Two years ago, I wanted to share this flexible process about how to improve the team performance when a team member makes repeated mistakes or affects the team morale. However, I put it on hold. It was too close to the stressful situation we’ve been through, even the outcome was positive for the organization.
Similar situations occurred five times since I’ve started that organization (2018) and got involved in different leadership roles with it. Those situations called to develop and improve a process for dealing with team members who underperform and/or behave in ways detrimental to both the team and organization.
Although the process was created to help the Board of Directors, it has direct applicability to other teams for sustainable organizational growth.
It would be nice to say that I developed this process and improve it in time. But the truth is: it was a team effort. Even if I brought in the system coaching perspective the process relies on, and I was the only “constant” in a leadership team that had different members over time. Their input was as valuable as mine, every time, because such situations and process require a team effort.
My contribution? Infusing system coaching* concepts and techniques that allow a flexible process to emerge, both in length and outcome. The process gradually reveals more information, based on the results of every step, providing opportunities for personal growth for all involved and better outcomes for the team and organization.
So, shall we give a second chance? Or start fresh, without a team member that affects the team’s performance?
The correct answer: it depends!
That’s why a flexible process is better than a rigid one, which leaves many frustrated … blaming … wondering “what if?” … or not providing enough learning opportunities.
The system concepts I infused in the process
To better understand the process, let me highlight first a few system coaching concepts that were considered in this case.
1. Roles vs People
Any team is a subsystem of a bigger system: the organization. There are different roles in each (sub)system, all important for the organization to function well and advance toward its mission—even those less popular or considered less valuable. For example, the Meeting Minutes note taker role. If the Minutes file ends up being shared weeks later, contains inaccurate information or not enough (missing decisions, deadlines, and responsibilities) … the team members miss valuable information that affects their work performance and the team’s progress.
Additionally, we must differentiate a role from the person who occupies it (whether assigned or assumed). Since the role does not exist in isolation, when the person underperforms, the entire system (team, organization) is affected. Even if the individual is a good person, and did great in a previous role, there is no certainty the person will perform well in the new role or have the appropriate behaviour for it.
No hiring process—poor or not so—can totally predict someone’s performance in a new role.
2. A system (team) is more than the sum of the parts (its members)
Think of an orchestra, for example. It’s a system formed by musicians, conductor, their behaviours, the atmosphere created together, the quality of their interactions and performance, the events and history they’re associated with, etc.
Each musician occupies a role. How well they occupy their roles and harmonize with the other musicians influences the concert’s outcome; and how the system (orchestra) develops in time. What would the outcome be if the main violinist is missing or plays another melody than the rest of the orchestra? Even if he’s a talented musician. Or if someone else takes over the conductor role?
What’s happening both inside and outside the orchestra affects the outcomes and how it develops. The system is like a living entity, which has an intelligence itself.
If a musician gets defensive and blames others when someone (conductor or else) provides feedback, how those behaviours affect the entire orchestra’s atmosphere, outcome, and reputation?
Similar, a team is more than its members. Their interactions, the situations they’re part of or contribute to, their behaviours and attitudes, … all contribute to the team’s performance, which is directly related to the organization’s outcomes.
Or, if the team tolerates poor performance of one member, the other members need to step in to ensure it doesn’t affect the overall team performance and outcomes. Adding extra burden to them. Depending on circumstances, one or two situations like these might be acceptable. However, tolerating more will lead to accumulated frustration and stress, decrease the team’s morale and overall performance. Especially if the team member who underperforms blames others, instead of trying to understand how he contributed to the situation and improve.
Minor mistakes made repeatedly and poor attitudes not addressed in time can have the snowball effect. Waiting until the annual performance review is a leadership mistake. By then, it might be too late to reverse the damage that was done to the team/organization.
3. Deep Democracy
In system coaching, Deep Democracy means inviting and allowing all system members to express their opinion about the situation.
Even the negative ones are worth hearing; there might be a valuable perspective behind their message, which other system members didn’t consider yet. Same with those who rarely express themselves; encouraging them to share their opinion (speaking or in writing) adds to the collective knowledge, enhancing it.
In system coaching, we consider that someone’s “voice” belong to both the person and the system (that intangible living entity, which is bigger than the sum of its members). When people share their perspectives, it’s like the system tries to reveal various aspects of the situation to those members who might not have considered all of them yet.
Thus, the outcome of Deep Democracy—increased awareness about the situation and its implications—leads to finding better solutions together.
If you replace “system” in the above phrase with “team,” you’ll see why the flexible process I’m about to share—which relies on Deep Democracy and commitment—can create better, result-oriented outcomes.
When the first situation occurred, the Board was unprepared to handle it. As a relatively new organization, the Board had not developed a specific procedure to rely on for such situations, and the bylaws lacked sufficient detail.
So, how can you address a board member’s poor performance in this case?
The critical issue was: the person in charge of the financial reports was making mistakes, although he claimed to have an accounting background. Even worse, when I called to inform him and understand what’s going on, he started blaming others and was not willing to admit or reflect on his mistakes. He even took it further. After the call, he turned toward the rest of the team, talking negatively about the rest of us. Lots of messages, which poisoned the atmosphere to a point that the team productivity dropped and some considered withdrawing. All in just a few days.
What did we do?
Instead of letting the situation get worse, and affect the organization even more, the Board quickly created and voted a Disciplinary Policy.
With the input from the other board members, I prepared a document that included: details about the mistakes and behaviour noticed, how they affected the organization in such a short amount of time, and the potential negative impact if the situation continues.
I sent the policy and the document to that person, requesting to respond (by a due date) with his comments about to the actions and behaviours mentioned. And to add any steps he’d like to take to address the situation. According to the organization’s bylaws and the new procedure, the Board was entitled to call for an Emergency All Member Meeting to discuss the matter and make a decision if the situation didn’t improve. The email informed him about this as well.
In parallel, I sent the documents to the other board members to gather their comments on the facts shared or what else they want to add. Same due date to respond.
What happened?
He sent his resignation a few hours before the scheduled start of the Emergency Member Meeting. It was his decision.
Soon after, the Board got back to the important tasks that were put on hold due to this situation. If he was willing to collaborate and improve, the Board members were open to work on overcoming the challenge together. This decision also depended on his choice, instead of being imposed.
The lessons learned from that situation became useful throughout the years that followed. Although the next situations were not quite similar, the flexible process we designed—which allows the person’s input to influence the outcome—became a staple process for the organization.
It helped every time. Even when two board members paired up, and tried to push the other members out of the board so they can take the organization in a different direction—which was against the bylaws. While I was no longer part of the Board at that time, I was asked by other two Board members to help deal with the situation. Committed to the organization’s mission, they courageously stood up for it when they realized what was going to happen.
What I found the most interesting: confronted with their own mistakes (documented with proof), and the potential impact of their actions for the organization … in all five cases we used this process the result was the same: they resigned and stopped any communication.
Have we created a process that can reveal a side of their personality that wasn’t initially obvious?
In time, we fine tuned this process, which is shared below (in a customizable format).
The Process “Second Chance or Fresh Start?”
We all make mistakes. However, repeated mistakes—without willingness to recognize them and improve—create the “weakest link” in the “chain.”
Same for inappropriate behaviour, like blaming others or putting personal objectives above the team and organization’s goals.
Did you experience such situations?
They poison the team environment and affect the team’s productivity.
The following flowchart represents the flexible process I talked about. You’ll find more details below, and the connection with the three system coaching concepts I mentioned earlier. The process includes some of the techniques I apply in live team coaching sessions.
As you noticed, this is not a sequential process—as many organizational procedures suggest. Nor a process that involves only the employee and the supervisor—as in common performance reviews.
Like any system, the team is more than the sum of its members. The ripple effect of someone’s action or behaviour permeates several levels, both tangible and intangible: work-related outcomes, interpersonal communication, team’s performance, work environment, trust … with short- and long-term implications.
So a process that gathers input from more sources (through Deep Democracy) is prone to better outcomes, which emerge naturally. They’re not imposed. Encouraging Deep Democracy allows the increased awareness gained (at both individual and system levels) to inform the decisions at every step of the process.
This is done by providing feedback (inform the person), asking open-ended questions (to understand where the mistake comes from), and paying attention to answers and the person’s reaction. Both verbal and non-verbal input are valuable.
The process encourages using Deep Democracy with all team members, especially if the person repeatedly makes mistakes and starts showing negative behaviour.
Keep in mind that a system (team, organization) is a live entity. Everyone can speak on behalf of the system. This can happen when you detach yourself from your role and imagine that you’re the entire system (team), so you can see things from a big picture view. From this perspective, you can better understand the implications and potential impact if the team continues to tolerate mistakes and negative behaviours.
How to tap into the system’s intelligence?
One way to do this is to create a table, and ask those who provide input for the column 1, to also specify in column 4 the actual or potential impact on the system if no action is taken to address the situation.
This table becomes part of the document created, which is sent to at least those team members who work directly with that person, or whose work performance was affected by the mistakes and negative behaviour they were exposed to.
None of us has the complete picture, so a collective input helps to get a more accurate view of the situation. Gathering the information for column 1 and 4 should be a teamwork, not just the leader’s task. This process allows the team members to express their voice and share what they noticed in writing—since both introverts and extroverts need time to gather their thoughts and find the specific information that backs up what they share.
After compiling all the information from columns 1 and 4 based on the responses received, the updated document is sent to all team members (including the person who triggered this situation)—to fill out the columns 2, 3, and 5 by a due date. This step also helps, because the second round of input will bring to light additional aspects (previously missed or ignored).
Two factors could influence the outcome when we use this flexible process:
- The team member’s decision: resign or improve
- The team leader’s decision based on the collective input and the comments received.
The benefits
While this flexible process aims to bring the best outcome for the team dealing with such a situation, it also provides value and learning for all:
- The team member gets the opportunity to understand better the impact of his actions and behaviours on the team and organization. The process also invites to self-reflection and enhances strategic thinking. And, more importantly, it gives the employee the freedom to decide what wants to do next—instead of being forced to accept an imposed decision.
- The rest of the team members became more aware of the implications of such actions and behaviours, how important it is to hear all voices and perspectives when you’re part of a system, and what they should pay more attention to regarding their own behaviours and actions, and those of others.
- The team leader gets a better understanding of the situation and its (potential) impact before making a decision—which leads to better outcomes. He could also learn about his leadership style’s blind spots, operational and interpersonal communication aspects that were missed or ignored, and how to deal with the situation respectfully. Also, allowing the members’ perspectives to be heard builds trust and creates a more positive environment. And the leader might be more at ease to share the decision and the process outcome.
- The system (team) functions better when people take into consideration the different aspects of the situation, and pay attention to the individual, collective, and overall (potential) impact. Since the system members feel more valued when they’re allowed to add their input, they’ll be more open to share. Which helps reveal the system status more accurately. It will also signal how things could unfold if no appropriate action is taken in time. By learning from these situations, the system (team, organization) can create and improve processes on how to deal with difficult situations in the future or at least how to decrease their negative impact.
Reacting to a situation that negatively affects the system slows things down and wastes resources, making it longer to achieve the goals. However, a system that goes through this process when such a situation occurs can to stop things from getting worse or out of control.
What if …?
Ok, you might say, this process seems to work when the management is open to this “democratic” process. Or when I’m in a leadership position. What if I’m not?
Leader
I hope leaders with a less democratic leadership style are open to and understand the value of using this flexible process in their organization. Because adopting this process doesn’t mean they’re not strong enough or incapable of deciding.
On the contrary: it allows them to make better decisions, while facilitating the learning and getting the benefits mentioned above (not only for themselves).
If leaders want to use this process, they can find ways to introduce it—which will help their organization get ahead by maximizing the (human) resources they already have, and move faster through the internal roadblocks. When employees feel valued, they’re more productive and less inclined to live. Also, they love to work in a well-functioning team, and a work environment that facilitates learning.
Team member
If you’re a team member and think you don’t have the power to change things, I have good news for you. You have power!
As I mentioned earlier, any role is important—including yours—because it’s a voice of the system. When you notice actions and behaviours that don’t serve the team or organization, keeping everything inside will help no one (including you). The frustration you accumulate leads to stress, which can affect your performance, and even your health. What you noticed is also a sign that the system chose you to reveal those aspects to the team, because they don’t help it move forward. Chances are you’re not the only one who noticed, but if no one has the courage to talk about this, the “elephant” in the room will affect the performance of the entire team, maybe even the organization.
There are ways to speak up that align with your communication style and are appropriate to the situation. Doing this will allow you to bring to others’ attention (including the leader) what you noticed and your concerns regarding the (potential) impact.
Sometimes we’re so busy with our tasks that we forget or ignore signs of malfunction at the team or organizational level. If someone points them out, especially if they’re important, it makes us a service. You can be that person. At least you’ll feel relief that you didn’t ignore the signs, and you tried to raise awareness about the issue—even if you don’t have the power to deal with it all by yourself.
If you don’t know how to do this, speak with someone you trust first. It will also help you structure better what you want to say and get feedback to improve your approach. Then you can start working on the process mentioned above and go as far as you want and can. You’ll do more than nothing, which will make you feel good that at least you tried to help others understand aspects of the situation they didn’t notice yet or didn’t have the courage to share.
There’s power in opening up. It invites and encourages others to do the same. And the situation will benefit, no matter how further you get into the process.
If, for whatever reason, you don’t want to share with others what you noticed and the implications it might have for the team, at least write your thoughts and perspective about this situation (even if you keep them for yourself). This also helps, more than you might think! Taking it “out of your head” brings some relief and new ideas. Even stopping at this point can be useful, since you’re taking steps to decrease your stress … and both your colleagues and work environment will benefit.
Now your turn
- What do you think of this process?
- If you’re in a leadership role, are you willing to implement this process?
- If you don’t hold a leadership role, how far are you willing to go in this process?
Have a question about this process?
Looking for a facilitator or system coach to help with it?
Contact us
Gabriela Casineanu, MSc, MBA, ORSC, MBTI
GabrielaCasineanu.com • IntrovertsAcademy.org
*System coaching—short of Organizational & Relationship System Coaching (ORSC)—is an advance and robust coaching approach that helps systems (teams, organizations, partnerships) transform challenges in opportunities, and become more resilient and successful.
