Leadership Dilemmas: What would you do? | #88

So welcome back to the Connected Leadership podcast by Zentano. My name is Dave Morris. I'm with Rich Horton. Hi, Rich.

Hi Dave.

Now after our recent series on confidence in leadership and emotional intelligence in leadership, today we're starting a new series. Rich, we're to talk about leadership dilemmas. I can't wait to get stuck into some of these. So we've got a

Okay. Yeah.

new series on the big dilemmas, the common dilemmas that leaders face. And for today, Rich, the one we're going to talk about is the star performer that nobody wants.

right,

okay. Yeah, okay. Interesting. I have. Yeah.

that nobody wants to work with. I'm sure you have you met a few of those in your time. Yeah, so have I.

Coming from a sales background, I did resonate with this quite a lot actually. And I

Mm.

think as part of my intro, I think most leaders eventually do face a version of this dilemma one way or another. Yeah.

Absolutely they do, yeah.

And it's not just sales people. mean, we'll talk about the various different types of people where this might happen. But if you've got somebody in your organisation who consistently delivers results,

They may hit their targets. The customers love them. They value them. Senior leaders notice them. They

Mm-hmm.

could be talented and capable, at least on paper. They are one of your strongest performers. But, and there's a big but here, there's another side to the stories. Colleagues avoid working with them. Relationships have become strained. People feel dismissed or undermined. Trust is beginning to erode and team morale is suffering. OK, so for the leader,

that creates a genuine dilemma you've got to deal with. And the commercial part of that brain says, well, I can't afford to lose them. They're bringing good numbers in. The leadership

Mm-hmm.

part says, we can't afford to keep tolerating this behaviour. So which part of the brain is going to win? So Rich, I want to talk to you today about what should the leader do? And this is not a conversation just about dealing with difficult people. It raises bigger questions about how we define performance, how leaders shape culture, and whether someone can...

really be considered a top performer if their results come at a high cost to everybody that's around them.

Mm-hmm.

And it also raises, guess, Rich, a question about our own judgment. Yeah, yeah. So if we decide someone's

Absolutely it does. Yes, yeah, absolutely.

difficult or destructive or even toxic, and I don't really like that word, but it gets banded around a lot, do we begin interpreting everything they do through that lens? I suspect

Mm-hmm.

we probably do. So Rich, I'm gonna have a sort of starting point of question here for you.

Okay.

Yeah. Is...

You've

got somebody who delivers outstanding individual results, but other people increasingly

Right.

don't want to work with them. What are your first thoughts when you hear that?

So I I think the thing to think about is the reason there's a genuine dilemma here, and we're talking about genuine dilemmas here,

Hmm. Yeah.

is that the person is creating real value. You know,

Yes.

however that might look inside your business, they're genuinely creating real value. I I remember there's a organization that I've been in and

This person was bringing in a huge amount of sales

Mm-hmm.

in in terms of business development. and so there's a genuine dilemma around how he's behaving with with his his his colleagues. So if they were behaving badly and delivering poor results, I mean the leadership decision is going to be fairly straightforward. The difficulty arises when the the person is succeeding according to some of the measures.

that the organization values, but they're potentially damaging other things that the organization also needs in order to thrive. So I

Hmm.

I I think it's really important to resist the temptation to immediately leap into either defending or condemning the person. And it's a genuine dilemma. So the the situation usually contains

Two legitimate concerns.

Yeah.

So on the one hand, the value

You

and the results the individual delivers,

Yep.

and maybe on the other hand, the health, trust and effectiveness of the wider team which is being impacted by this person's behaviour.

I reckon that second point, Rich, is the bit that doesn't get given enough attention.

Yes, absolutely it does. Yeah,

yeah. So the the performance should include both of those things and we'll unpack that a little bit more a as we go. You know, what

Hmm.

somebody achieves in terms of those measurable things that organizations typically measure success by and the impact that the behaviour has on the organization's, if you like, capability and ability to achieve collectively. Yeah.

Hmm.

Yeah.

Yeah, so so if somebody's delivering exceptional results but consistently reduces the performance of everyone around them, then we need to ask, are they really high performer at all?

Well, that's a good point actually, Rich. Yeah, that's a very good point. Yeah.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

How do we define what a high performer is is a really good point. Too

Yes.

often I've seen it's probably just to do with numbers. And I think you're probably alluding to the same thing.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, indeed.

So the dilemma here, as Rich has very eloquently put, is how do we define, how does your organisation define performance? And I think we should explore that because results are usually very visible. Well,

Yes.

the damage happening around, you know,

somebody

in terms of relationships and the cultural issues can be quite hard to measure, I think.

Yeah, yeah.

So Rich, why do you think organisations can be so reluctant to challenge somebody who is delivering strong results? Apart from the obvious, the pangs coming through the door, as it were.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Well, I think that point actually, Dave, is important because organizations naturally pay attention to what they can measure and that's understandable. You know, so things like revenue, delivery, productivity, profitability, customer outcomes, those targets are usually visible in some sort of way. You know, that they're probably some sort of metrics that the organization has around some of those things.

I think the challenge is the relational costs surrounding that potential star performer who's having an impact on others around them, those relational costs are less visible.

Yeah.

So and they would have a tendency to accumulate gradually. So, you know, they potentially damage trust, there's reduced collaboration because of those relational impacts.

Maybe there's suppressed challenge and people quietly deciding it's safer not to contribute because they're worried about the response from this particular person. So it's interesting. I I think strong individual results. Notice the term I use there, strong individual results. Yeah, can

with a key emphasis on individual.

can give somebody organizational protection because that's what

the organization genuinely values.

But also you might

have a senior leader who that person works for who is measured on that. So and it could be that it could be their bonuses measured on that. It could be very

Well, exactly. Yes, yeah.

good reasons. Yeah.

Yeah. So so leaders often fear losing expertise, customer relationships, revenue, all of those things. And the hidden costs are more difficult to see.

Hmm

So people withholding ideas, people avoiding joint work in, y you know, other strong performers becoming disengaged because of this person's behaviour. And

This is another important thing, you know, managers spend in disproportionate amount of time, say, you know, trying to resolve conflicts,

Yeah.

etcetera, et cetera. So it's those it's those hidden costs that accumulate over time that make this such a challenging dilemma.

Yeah,

it really is. Yeah. And I guess, you know, the question therefore is not does this person deliver? There's more to it, isn't there? What is the full effect of how this person delivers? I think is the key thing here. Yeah.

Exactly, yeah, exactly. Yeah, yeah.

So if someone is bringing in significant business or possesses

Mm-hmm.

expertise, for example, that is hard to replace,

Yeah, yeah.

surely the leader has to be commercially realistic.

Yes, absolutely. I would say absolutely. for

Yeah.

those for th for those who listen regularly to our podcast, they will know that we have defined a connected leadership model. That's what we call it.

Mm-hmm.

and it's our version of what good leadership looks like. And a key part of the connected leadership model is all about not ignoring commercial reality.

Yeah.

You know, th th th there are two elements

on our connected leadership model. What one that's focusing on you know vision and strategy and being directive, and the other about challenging poor performance and achieving performance and achieving results and productivity. So connected leadership is absolutely about those things, but we actually believe it needs to be balanced in order to deal with the more relational side of performance.

So, you know, losing a capable person might have genuine consequences. So it's important that when a leader seeks to start to make to start to decide what to do about this sort of dilemma is to

Yeah.

avoid making, say, for example, a symbolic decision simply to appear decisive, you know. So that's that's

Hmm.

it, the one extreme of our our leadership model.

So that commercial realism must include the less visible cost as well. And that's why our leadership model is about a balance of those two things, the commercial realities of business versus the current the relational side. So the decision must be based on the person's net contribution,

Yes.

not their headline output. Okay. So, you know, the first per the first response.

should be to be clear about accountability and give the person the opportunity to change rather than trying to avoid the issue or a knee-jerk response into making this symbolic decision to appear decisive and then this the person's immediate removal. So I I think it's important to be nuanced and considered and intentional about how you respond to these sorts of dilemmas.

think that word is really key. There's always nuance to this stuff. I

Yes, yeah.

I was only talking about this issue yesterday with a client and it was actually a star performer who was a star performer, but hasn't been for some time, but is

Mm. Okay.

also causing other problems in the business and it's

Mm, mm.

still being tolerated and that obviously has got to stop. So think sometimes you have these star performers in whatever capacity they're in the business and they stop performing and they're still getting away with it. That's even

Mm. Yes.

worse probably.

Yeah, yeah.

So

that leads on to my next question, Rich, is what do leaders typically get wrong when they're trying to handle a situation like this?

So we talked quite a lot about the focus on outputs, you know, the

Hmm.

the the visible outcomes.

Hmm.

And I think when when organizations start to think about how they manage and reward performance, they will often reward just the outputs.

numbers.

Yeah, the numbers. So for example, the appraisal process often, in my experience, is geared around

rewarding the outputs, the the tangible things that the person has achieved. Now that's important and that's an im

Hmm. Yes, yeah.

that's an important part of accountability inside a business. But I don't think appraisal systems and the performance management process inside organizations, I think they tend to treat behaviour as secondary.

I totally agree. Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah, so and I think it's important that when you assess somebody's performance, their impact on the collective is is as much rewarded or addressed as the focus traditionally has been on output around performance. So, you know, a as a result, those things, those behaviours

have a tendency to get tolerated. Or yeah. Or

I've seen that enough times.

or perhaps the leader might hope that it just gets resolved in and of itself because you know that there's no there's no mechanism where that sort of thing is is usually dealt with. So they end up tolerating what they would probably challenge in someone who's delivering weaker results.

Absolutely, yeah.

Or they

wait until complaints accumulate or somebody threatens to leave. You know, so you know, by that time, as I said earlier, all of that accumulative effect around eroding trust and collective sort of work in the damage has been done and then it's really difficult then to address. I I think also the mistake people make in this context is they start to make it personal. It's

Okay,

in what way?

So I think it's very easy to use labels in this context. and I I've seen it a lot where a person is described as well they're just arrogant or they're toxic or they're or they're difficult

Yeah. Yeah.

and they're dis disruptive. So in other words, that they have this this label which becomes, if you like, a fixed judgment about somebody's character. You know, so it's

Yeah.

so so the label becomes the interpretative filter through which

that person's behaviour and performance is judged. So labels you know can also make for a constructive com also make a constructive conversation much harder because you know if if a person's being labelled as say toxic or arrogant, they're going to be naturally defensive is if it's challenged through that lens.

Yeah.

So I think it's more useful to discuss observable behaviours

rather than to use universal labels for a person.

Totally agree.

So I you know that so there's a tendency to, you know, when you start to use labels, we move too quickly from evidence to certainty because we look for the evidence to reinforce the conclusions we've already drawn. We'll come to that in

Yeah.

a minute. You know, so I I think it's impur I think it's important that leaders don't confuse interpretation with facts.

Mmm. Yeah.

and and there's also the the squeaky wheel syndrome is as well. So they're often listened to the loudest voices rather than trying to seek a balanced view of what actually is going on and and to to balance out, you know, these nuanced aspects of what really is going on in this situation.

Well, I guess that's where confirmation bias plays a part, isn't it? It's probably worth talking about how that affects it as well.

Yeah.

And we've talked about confirmation bias before in previous podcasts, but you know, our brains look for patterns that help us make sense of people in situations.

Hmm.

And that's useful because, you know, we don't have the ability to take in all of the stimuli and the input from our environment. So so l pattern seeking is the way we make sense of the world. The the challenge is that

Once we form a view that someone is difficult or maybe not a team player or they're a bit toxic, what we're then likely to do because of the way the human brain is wired to look for patterns, we usually start to spot the patterns that reinforce the story or the interpretation that we have of that person.

Yeah.

This happens a lot in performance management. So

you know, you you label somebody as per a poor performer and then you look for the evidence to reinforce your view of that. And I think it's really important for leaders to be aware of confirmation bias in themselves and in the teams and to make sure that actually those labels are not those labels are challenged and not reinforced.

Yeah, because the moment we think we've diagnosed, want a better word, the person, yeah, we actually

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

lose that curiosity, don't we, about diving deeper into what's actually going on.

Yeah, exact

exactly, yeah, exactly. So so for example, you know, when when you start to pattern match and then confirmation bias kicks in. For example, somebody's natural directness could be interpreted as aggression.

Yes.

Somebody's natural confidence could, you know, in somebody else's eyes be seen as arrogance. You know, a a person's challenge in behaviour, okay, and we need challenge inside teams, because

Mm-hmm.

becomes seen as disruption, you know. S and you know, somebody's independence, their ability to to not worry too much about what others others think about what they say, that that sometimes can become interpreted as a refusal to collaborate.

Hmm.

So you might want to, you know, you might want to encourage directness, confidence, challenge, and in independence. But it's it's

Yeah, you might do.

a yeah, but it's about making a judgment ha as to whether those, you know

behaviors in that person is tipped over into something that, you know, actually is starting to have an impact on trust and collaboration inside the team. You know, that net effect that I was talking about earlier. So having a balanced view and, you know, really challenging your confirmation bias. You know, what have I actually directly observed as opposed to what I've been told? What are the facts as opposed to what are the interpretations? Am I s applying the same behavioural standards

consistently across the team. I think it's really important, you know, to make the distinction between observation and interpretation. You know, your interpretation may or may not be accurate.

Well, also,

think as we've talked before about leaders create either positive or negative ripples, I quite like this analogy that we create a ripple as a leader and it can be

Yeah. Mm-hmm.

a positive ripple or a negative ripple. The problem with confirmation bias is if we start to get wrapped up in that, that can become quite collective, i.e. it can ripple out into your team. So I start describing somebody in my team as toxic, so does everybody else, you know, a

Yes, absolutely. Yeah. Yeah, yeah.

few months later. And that's not healthy either, is it?

No. And so you know, one of the things I like to say is beware of sticky stories. Yeah. So

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

a story or an interpretation you have of somebody becomes quite sticky, difficult to remove. You know, once once you start interpret interpreting some someone through that lens, it's very hard for that person to do something that's gonna help you see them i see them differently. You know, so

Yeah.

as a leader I think it's

It's really important to beware of confirmation biased. so confirmation bias doesn't necessarily mean our judgment is wrong, it means

No.

that we have a responsibility to test it. So that that that's in essence what I'm saying here.

I think that's a good point, yeah. Yeah,

no, I think that's a really good way to look at it. So I guess we could talk about some questions that helped challenge confirmation bias. I mean,

just give a

Mm-hmm.

maybe couple of examples of that,

so I I I think it's important to say, you know, so what are the facts? What am I directly observing? I've said I've said this before. What

Hmm.

evidence or s supports my current view? What evidence might challenge it? you know, and and look for actively look for evidence that's contrary to the conclusion you've come about, c come about.

w with this person. So

Hmm.

and try to explore with that person in your conversations with them, you know, what's the intents what's the intention behind, you know, their behaviours, you know, what's potentially causing that. You know, so you can start to explore the motivations behind the behaviour for this person. And hopefully then that helps you to see their behaviour through a different light that helps you make a balanced judgment about actually what's going on here.

And your point, think earlier on, we touched on it, but it's an important point here, is that the fairness. Are you applying the same behavioral standards consistently across the whole team, not just

Mm-hmm.

this one person you've decided that they're whatever label you've given them, And

Yes, exactly. Exactly. Exactly, yeah.

it's also, other people could be experiencing differently to the way you are as well, yeah.

Mm, mm. Yes,

yeah, indeed.

So Rich, if curiosity isn't about making excuses for people's damaging behavior, it is about making sure, like you've just said, that any challenge or decision is based on a fair and accurate picture of that person's behavior,

Mm-hmm.

So where do you most commonly see this situation play out in real organizations?

Well, I can I can say through my my own experience, you know, I've come

Mmm.

from a highly technical background in IT and science and research. And I think technical experts have sometimes knowledge that gives them informal power. Yeah.

Yes, yeah, yeah.

And sometimes it's very difficult to to want to lose a technical expert, even even if their behaviors are

are being having an impact on the on the team. So technical expertise would be one example. You you alluded to it early on in the podcast, high performing salespeople. That yeah.

Well, that's my background, professional sales, and I've seen

it countless times. And not just when I was in that world, but also clients that we've talked to over the last few years, that's a common one. High performing salespeople who they bring revenue in, but there's a bit of chaos behind them. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yes, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah,

you'll get senior managers that, you know, deliver results but create fear or dependency around them. You know, perhaps

Hmm.

you've got founders who've helped to drive and build the business and built it and grown it to what it is now, but their behaviour is now limiting its growth potentially. Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, that's a big one actually. That does happen a lot,

I think long serving employees

They've been sat in their chair for years, yeah? Absolutely.

yeah, I

so it's important to to honour the fact that they've been loyal to the organization. You

Mmm.

know, they brought brought a lot of value over the years, but you know, loyalty and long service doesn't necessarily mean right now in the present moment, actually, that they're behaving in a in a positive way. So

No.

so I I th I think for me that will be

an example of the sorts of people that you might typically typically see. But I think it's important to ex to explore underneath all of those things what might drop be driving the behavior.

Yeah, go on.

So it could be things like, you know, maybe low self-awareness or pressure or emotional overload, fear of failure, fragile confidence, you know, we've talked about confidence

Mm-hmm.

and the impact

that fragile confidence has over a per person's performance. Maybe

Yeah.

there's an over reliance on technical competence and that person has not been developed to understand, you know, the importance of developing the relational side of of of the way the the way they are as a human being. Maybe they've not had the leadership training or whatever to, you know, to enable them to see that. So so I d yeah, I

Yeah, that's

very, very common, Rich.

It

it it is very common. So so I I think it's really important and there's a responsibility on the leaders in these sorts of situations to really try to understand what's happening, you know, behind sometimes, you know, this mask of say technical expertise or or high sales impact, for example, to to look at, you know, what happens to somebody's confidence, for example. They might be confident in a sales environment.

Hmm.

But they

they might feel that their confidence in a in a teen dynamic situation feels quite fragile. And that you know, that that can be quite subtle and difficult to unpack in people. So, you know, these things are not always straightforward to to address and to resolve. Hm. Yeah.

No, they're not. No, they're very much not. No. And

might be that you've had a culture where behaviour used to be tolerated, but the culture is trying to move on, but you're still operating as if you're still in the old culture as well. That's another thing we see all the time, to be fair.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah.

And and I think just before before we move on, I think it's important to understand that, you know, seeking to understand what drives the behaviour of this person is not the same as excusing it. Okay.

No, no, no, absolutely right.

But it helps you decide what kind of intervention or support or accountability might be affected by you have a d a deeper understanding of what's going on.

So

let's talk about what is really going on, if you like, the cultural signals that we have. So you often say that leaders create culture through what they tolerate,

Yeah.

yeah? And I think that's a really important point to make. How does that apply here?

Well, I think this this is the challenge, isn't it? and

Mmm.

why this this is a real dilemma. Because once the behaviour, those you know, inappropriate behaviors become known or visible,

Hmm.

the issue stops purely being about the individual. It

Yeah

is it is seen as a test of leadership credibility and organizational culture. Because if if leaders ignore

Poor behavior that would be seen to be unfair. That starts to send unconscious signals that actually it's okay to behave in this way. It's okay that if if I get strong results, well, that can excuse my poor behavior, you know. So

Hmm.

by tolerating this sort of behavior, you start to form the culture around what people think is okay. So it's important actually that.

To understand, as a leader, you cast a shadow through what you reward, through what you challenge, and through what you ignore and repeatedly allow to happen.

There's another scenario here is that you may well be for whatever reason not challenging this behaviour.

Mm-hmm.

Your team are going, when is he going to start to actually deal with this because we've been

Yes.

waiting and waiting. Actually what you're doing is undermining yourself and your

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

team are losing respect in you because they know that you can see their behaviour, just not dealing with it.

Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Yeah, so

yeah, so your team and the organization, they need to see consistent standards. They need

I do.

to see fair investigation. They need to see clear expectations and proportionate action. Notice I the words I've chosen there, proportionate

Hmm.

action. but also they probably want to see a genuine opportunity for change as well. You know, so y y

Yeah.

you're not just hoiking this person out of the organization. You know, that th there's a genuine

desire and attempt to seek to try and understand what's happening and to seek to address that in a proportionate way.

Yeah, well we've said, haven't we? mean, know, leaders influence environments whether they intend to or not. Yeah. So yeah, so

Absolutely, yeah, yeah.

what you pay attention, whether you realize it or not, is going to shape what other people pay attention to as well.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So so culture is not just affected it's not just by the behaviour we tolerate, but it's also framed by the fairness and and wisdom with which we respond to those situations.

Yeah, totally agree. So you've talked earlier on about, now we've created this model to help clients that we work with understand what we call connected leadership. mean

good,

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

good leadership that's there to serve the many, not just the few.

Mm-hmm.

So if somebody is a connected leader, what would be a good response in these situations? And what would a connected leader do to approach this differently?

I think there's a couple of things I would say. I'm just gonna say say, you know, very quickly. The first thing we s we talk a lot about is is staying grounded. From a connected leadership point of view, this is about, you know, putting that gap between stimulus and response. So,

Hmm.

you know, avoiding responding from irritation or fear or pressure and

Yeah.

and enable to s to stay grounded.

It's what we call returning to the connected center. So you're intentional, you make choices about how you choose to respond.

Yeah.

I think it's really important to build a balanced picture. And sometimes actually you need to hold two truths simultaneously. Yeah. So

I know what you're going to say now.

so the person may genuinely be highly capable and valuable to the organization. Yeah.

Absolutely.

But their behaviour may still be damaging.

and their net impact needs to be considered. and you know you need to think about what you're going to do about challenging their behaviour without dismissing their worth. I think it's also important to separate the person from the behaviour. We talked about l

Yes.

labels before, you know, respect the in individual, honour the individual, but be honest about the concerns that you have.

Describe what you've observed, explain the impact, and don't speculate about about their motivation. And then I think the final thing is is to establish accountability. You know, set clear behavioural expectations, weave behaviours, and you can link this to your organisational values, you know, because behaviours you can link behaviours to values and embed that in your appraisal performance management system.

So you're not just rewarding the visible outcomes, but you're you're rew rewarding or addressing holding the people to account for their behaviours as well.

And you said that in your leadership experience, your work experience that you've seen these situations countless times, I have as well. So

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

if this person worked for you, Rich, what

Yeah. Yeah.

might the conversation actually sound like?

Okay. So I think if I was having a one to one with this person, I think it's really important that you don't shilly shally around, okay? So yes. Do not shilly Yeah.

Okay, so good, a good little phrase. Do not shilly shally. We don't like shilly shallying.

So in other words, state the purpose. You know, s

Yeah.

for example you might say, Okay, so I want to talk to you about the contribution you're making and some concerns I have about how parts of your approach are affecting the team.

So you signal really clearly the value they're bringing, but you know, you're signaling that there's there's some impact issues that you want to to deal with. Then

Yeah. Yeah.

I think so once you stated the purpose, then start to use observable examples. It's not about labelling, so avoid

Yeah. No.

saying you're arrogant or you're toxic or nobody wants to work with you. I mean that that sort of conversation is not gonna end well. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah, defence, defence, defence, yeah.

You know, so for example, you know, in the last three project meetings, you know, colleagues have stopped contributing after their dis after their suggestions were dismissed by you before they were fully explained, for example. So that

Hmm. Hmm.

would be an example of of an observable behavior. Then I

Yeah.

think it's important to either reiterate or explain the impact. And when you explain the impact of their of their behaviours to somebody, it gives them then

A real clear reason to change their behavior. So, for example, the concern is that we may be losing useful challenges and ideas, and some colleagues are becoming reluctant to work with you. So you're stating the purpose, you're using observable examples, you're explaining the impact, and then this is

This is really important. You could start with this next point, but then invite their perspective. Ask them

Yes.

how they see the situation. you know, you could even start with this before you start to give you know, your your observed examples because they may have enough self awareness to understand and see actually what's happening. But I think it's important, you know, however you do it, to invite their perspective.

And then I think it's really important then to listen without abandoning your concerns. It's possible they might say something that could alter your your view on this. You know? Yes, exactly, yes.

Well that's where the curiosity has got to be strongest, isn't it? You must not lose that curiosity.

Yes, exactly, exactly. And then I think the final thing to say is just agree what needs to change. You know,

Yeah.

so so they're they're clear.

behaviors and actions that you agree and then set up a review session. You know, so you build

Yeah.

in you build in this virtuous cycle of accountability.

Yeah. So I think it's important for anybody listening to Rich's examples there, that the aim is not to win the conversation or to prove that your diagnosis that you've made in your head is the right one. Yeah.

No. Yeah, yeah.

I think what you're saying is the aim is to help the person understand their impact. That's really, really important.

Yes. Yes, yes.

Give them a very fair opportunity to respond to the things that you've said to them

Mm-hmm.

and establish whether they're willing and able to change because...

Yes,

yeah, absolutely.

Yeah, they may be willing to. They may not be able to. They

may be. Who knows? Yeah.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Rich, we also know that it doesn't always work. So what if nothing changes? What happens if the leader has been clear, they've offered their support, but the

Mm-hmm.

behavior still doesn't change?

Yeah. I mean I mean just just very quickly, I mean, curi curiosity, I mean we encourage curiosity as we've just talked about, but

Hmm.

it can't become endless avoidance. You know, compassion doesn't remove the need f for for consequences for somebody's poor behaviours.

Hmm.

So I think it's important to follow through on this. you know, perhaps we

You know, we should say that any formal employment action, you know, you should follow your appropriate organizational policies and HR advice. It's important to involve them as appropriate in this. you know, don't necessarily go to HR straight away, you know, deal deal with it if you can, but it's important to to make sure that it's done within that with that within that framework. and the cultural message needs to be that performance.

And behaviour are both part of the standard you expect. Performance and behaviour are both parts of the standard you expect. So, you know, I would summarise by saying connected leadership is not about endlessly understanding behaviour with curiosity, you know, because that can continue to you know allow that behaviour to damage other people. It combines

Hmm.

curiosity with clear accountability.

Yeah, and that's really, really important, isn't it?

Yeah, yeah.

So Rich, let's pull the main threads of all this together. I think there's some really, really important points in everything that we've talked about today.

Okay.

What would you want listeners who are listening to this today to take away as the key points to go and think about and then maybe embed if they're having some of these problems themselves in their organization?

Yeah. So the first thing is don't define performance too narrowly.

Okay.

So it's about the external stuff as well as the behavioural stuff. So embed that

Yep.

i in the way you performance manage. Don't allow strong results to buy exemption to but to buy exemption from behavioral standards, you know.

Yeah. Yeah.

Beware of confirmation bias.

I think it's really important linked to confirmation bias to separate observation from interpretation. Beware of sticky stories

Yeah.

and to balance curiosity with accountability because that gives people a fair opportunity to change.

Yeah, I think it's really, really some really good points there, Rich. Okay, so as we finish today's episode, there are two questions I'd like you to reflect on. First, is there somebody in your organisation whose individual results may be preventing you from looking honestly at their wider impact? I'm sure for many of you there probably is. And second, is there somebody you have already labelled as difficult or disruptive or God forbid the word toxic?

where your judgment may now be filtering what you're actually seeing. Because as Rich has made really clear, connected leadership asks us to hold courage and curiosity together at the same time. The courage

Yeah, yeah.

to challenge behavior that is damaging people, damaging trust, or damaging the culture, and at the same time, the curiosity to test our assumptions before deciding that we fully understand either the person and or the problem that we're seeing.

So because culture is not created simply by what leaders say, it is shaped by what they reward, what they challenge, what they overlook, and the fairness with which they make those difficult decisions. So Rich, in the next episode of Leadership Dilemmas, and I can't wait for this one as well,

All right, okay.

we'll explore another challenge that many leaders face.

All right.

How do you support someone who is generally struggling while still holding them accountable for delivering the work? Yeah.

Okay.

Interesting.

So I look forward

to that conversation. But for now, thank you to everybody for listening to the Connected Leadership podcast by Zentano, and we'll be back next week.

Thank you.

Thank you.