Let’s look at a couple of situations that will surely resonate with most managers. First, consider the problem facing Annette. She is a senior designer at a large publishing and graphic design business, with dotted-line responsibility for Colin, a project team member. Always something of a maverick, Colin nonetheless has a good work history. But the team is feeling the heat because the company restructured it to reduce cost and speed turnaround times. And Colin’s behaviour is becoming increasingly problematic, or so Annette and Dave the project manager and Colin’s other boss, see it. Colin seems to be shirking work, and when he does complete assignments, he doesn’t report back to his bosses. To Annette, Colin’s behaviour doesn’t reflect his inherent disregard for rules and procedures; it also signifies a reluctance to take on further assignments. After discussing the situation with Dave, Annette decides that she will be the one to talk to Colin because she has the better relationship with him.

Annette’s strategy is to motivate Colin by appealing to his sense of responsibility to the project team. When she meets with him and tries to get him to accept this line of reasoning, Colin agrees to do what Annette wants. But she doesn’t get the feeling that her argument has made any impact. In her opinion, Colin is in his comfort zone: He supports the other team-members, even helps them solving their problems, but he does so at the expense of fulfilling his own responsibilities. Annette wonders whether Colin has become a misfit in the new structure and will have to leave.

Perhaps she should give him a formal warning or transfer to a less demanding job, in effect demoting him.

Here is another case. Paolo works in Eastern Europe as a country manager for an international property developer. George, a chartered accountant with an MBA is a direct report whose job is to sell plots of land and develop strategic alliances with local companies. George is fairly new to this position, having previously worked in a back office role overseeing customer accounts. Although George is pleasant and enthusiastic, his performance is subpar and shows no signs of improvement. In fact, George has yet sold a single parcel of land. In his dealing with potential patrons, the garrulous George acts as though his bonhomie is all he needs to cut a deal. And the deals he does manage to make turn out to be ill considered and costly.

Because of these issues, Paolo meets with George several times to try to get him to change his ways. George responds with encouraging smiles, plausible excuses, and a commitment to Paolo that things will change, but nothing does. In the final analysis, Paolo decides, Gorge is slippery and lazy. Despite promises, George refuses to adopt a different negotiating style, and he obviously isn’t prepared to do the detailed research to appraise a deal. Exasperated, Paolo decides to issue George an ultimatum;

“improve your game or get out”. But firing George would be an expensive option; people with his background and skills are difficult to find in this part of the world.

Questions

Poor Paolo. He can almost smell the failure likely to result from a confrontation. He will continue to get reassurances from George, but he will never get George to change his ways and be accountable for his performance. Poor Annette. If only she could convince Colin to improve his attitude, she could hold on to a potentially valuable team-member. But no matter how reasonable Annette’s argument is, will she be able to get Colin to behave differently?