Despite the tight job market, most small business entrepreneurs agree: An exemplary employee is a rare find.
However, consider what organizational psychologists have discovered through research: incompetence is actually what’s rare. Most employees are hard-working and diligent, but they seem incompetent because they are mere cogs in an inefficient workplace.
Jane, the company receptionist, is not lazy, forgetful, complacent, or disorganized. A poorly structured work environment likely contributed to her failure at work.
This notion that the workplace, not the worker, is the root of poor performance is difficult for most managers to grasp. After all, small businesses often have trouble attracting the best and brightest. However, unless their hiring practices are totally inept, most workers possess extensive skill and knowledge to competently perform the job for which they were hired.
However, the types of inefficiencies that contribute to employee incompetence are deeply ingrained in the work system and are virtually unnoticeable. An inefficient work environment is demotivating. Even a high achiever will struggle in an inefficient work environment. Furthermore, unmotivated workers are unproductive workers. Reduced productivity decimates the bottom line.
It is well worth your time and effort to identify and eliminate integrated system inefficiencies that frustrate worker performance. Human capital is your most precious and expensive resource, so you definitely want your work team to function at maximum efficiency.
Basically, most employers use two strategies to deal with worker incompetence: retraining or firing. Neither of these strategies significantly improves worker performance. First, retraining and returning workers to an inefficient environment is useless. Second, replacing your laid off employee will undoubtedly find the job equally frustrating.
Before blaming “bad apple” employees for your poor business performance, analyze your work system for demotivating inefficiencies. Here are four possibilities.
one. Lack of clear expectations. To perform at competent levels, workers must know what the boss expects of them.
I hope you get to work on time every day.
I expect a certain amount of occasional overtime.
I hope you follow all the established security policies.
I hope this project will be completed in a month.
The expectations of the waves are confusing. When expectations are vague and uncertain, workers are forced to guess what the boss wants. And in general, what they think you expect and what you really expect are polar opposites.
Clear and explicit expectations are the building blocks of competent employee performance.
two. Bad communication. God, I had no idea! How often do your workers justify their mistakes with ignorant pleas? Certainly, the lack of critical information frustrates efficiency. Worse still, the spread of incorrect information can lead to operational chaos.
Do you communicate regularly with your employees? Is everyone aware? Does your pipeline of information flow in both directions: up / down and down / up? Frontline feedback aids managerial decision making.
Technology has facilitated the dissemination of information. However, ironically, the transmission of technology has also impeded communication, a factor of information overload. The fact that all workers are linked by email does not guarantee that their message has been digested and processed. Expensive telephone networks and the Internet do not guarantee efficient communication.
An informed work team is competent ahead of the competition.
3. Lack of training transfer. Most training, good or bad, does not improve proficiency in the long run. Study after study indicates that 85% to 90% of what is learned in training is never used on the job. In reality, the main cause of training failures is linked to a lack of transfer strategy. To ensure that workers integrate new skills into their jobs, it is critical that training course designs include a skills transfer plan. Without a transfer strategy, learning is limited to the classroom and its relevance to work is limited.
Four. Inappropriate incentives. Basically, if you want to encourage competition, you need to set up a reward system that attracts workers to “do the best they can.”
Isn’t a paycheck motivation enough to encourage workers to do their best? In reality, monetary compensation is only a motivator to the point that it satisfies the need for food, clothing, and shelter. A paycheck lacks substantial power to inspire because workers often feel manipulated by monetary compensation and higher wages are no more of an incentive than smaller wages.
Trinkets like trophies, plaques, and award programs create roller coaster patterns in performance. Once received, the performance increases for several days, then the memory and its meaning are forgotten. The performance gains associated with non-cash rewards are short-lived and unsustainable in the long term.
In reality, verbal praise (a pat on the back, a handwritten note, an ad-hoc acknowledgment) is the best way to influence and affect performance. According to research, leaders who take an informal pause to recognize subordinates for their diligent efforts see significant improvements in employee performance. Workers who feel appreciated are productive, engaged, exhibit high job satisfaction, and experience fewer injuries on the job.
Research shows that when an employer creates the conditions for worker success, error, waste, waste, and rework decrease and end performance improves. Also, small system repairs, such as those described above, are inexpensive. Your investment, a little time and a little effort, has a positive impact on profitability.