TBM 299: Underperformer

There is a huge difference between labeling people as "underperformers" and labeling their "performance" as not meeting expectations.

"Lia is a __________" vs. "Lia's performance here at Acme is __________". 

“Lia’s potential is __________” vs. “Lia’s potential here at Acme is __________”.

This seems trivial, but it isn't. Imagine the beliefs and behaviors we reinforce when people imagine they are primarily assessing people rather than their performance in context. Or when we put ourselves in a box.

The problem is that one frame acknowledges the other, but the other frame does not. When we say, "Lia's performance here at Acme is ______," we recognize that Lia brings skills, experience, and attitudes to the table. We acknowledge the individual and the environment. But when we say "Lia is a _______," we are explicitly talking about Lia.

---

Like the newsletter? Support TBM by upgrading your subscription. I’m cooking up some supporter goodies like an AMA, Slack community, etc. More info soon.

---

Two things can be true (Lia may lack skills, and the culture is not conducive to her success), but one frame insists that one thing is true. By focusing on performance in context, we accept complexity. By focusing on the person, we pretend it doesn't exist.

Note how this also pervades ideas like "Lia's superpower is _______" vs. "In this context, and perhaps in other contexts as well, Lia is amazing at _________." Same idea.

Managers and leaders can have a hard time with this. It is far easier to call someone an underperformer than to accept that someone's performance is a function of their skills, experience, attitudes, AND the environment. Managers and leaders are ultimately responsible for the environment. Accepting that an employee might thrive in another environment is accepting that you could have done a better job and that the current environment isn't ideal. Ego threat; beware!

This is a difficult distinction for people who have made a career of navigating corporate politics and dysfunction to get where they are. Their definition of expertise (and professional identity) includes making progress—at least as defined by seniority and influence—despite the environment.

All companies are dysfunctional! But if you play the game the way I played the game, you can advance!

In dysfunctional situations, you effectively select people who have evolved skills at managing dysfunction—perhaps at the expense of other skills. Or people who have learned to shut their mouths and check out (which is an important skill). No wonder the number of people raising issues goes down after successive layoffs!

There is a personal angle to all this as well.

By all means, question your performance, rip it apart, invite feedback, and strive to get better. Understand how your strengths and weaknesses vary in different contexts, and challenge yourself.

But fight like crazy to resist efforts—your own and others—to put you/yourself in a box. That is when our beliefs can become self-limiting.