TAKE 1

Commentary by Joe Willmore

A leader in the field of human performance, Joe Willmore is a consultant for a range of organizations and the author of numerous publications on performance improvement.

Thomas Gilbert, one of the giants of performance improvement, talked about the “cult of knowledge,” in which organizations treat knowledge as if it is an end in itself. But just because you have smart, knowledgeable people in your organization doesn’t mean you get good performance, and that certainly applies in this case. Of course, I’d rather have an organization full of bright, talented, and highly skilled people than one of dumb, underskilled performers. But there is a tendency to assume that if only we had “good people” then we’d get good results. And that is not the case.

Prosperity Trust Bank is a great example of an organization that puts so much focus on talent, to the point where branches poach talent from one another. This organizational culture creates internal competition, lack of trust, and a tendency for managers to want to “hang on” to talented performers, even if it means denying chances for promotion or growth. Ultimately, this hurts the organization because it creates a culture of distrust where branches compete against one another. I’ve seen organizations where senior managers actually denied internal promotions or low-balled evaluations because they didn’t want to draw attention to high-potential employees who they intended to keep for their business unit.

In this case, I’d want to talk to senior management at PTB and find out what their business goals are. I’d ask, “What does success look like?” Answers to that question would allow me (as a performance consultant) to identify the business priorities and what the branches need to focus on. While the case references “numbers” for the branches, we don’t know how they fit into business priorities. Always start by identifying “job one,” or what the strategic imperatives are for the organization. Once you’ve done that, you’ll know if what you’re focusing on is a contributor to that priority or just a distraction.

Right now, it’s easy for branch managers to get distracted at PTB. This case brings up a range of issues, but it’s not clear (because we don’t know the strategic priorities) if those issues are relevant or tangential to the business goals.

Absent that direction from senior management, the performance issue I’d focus on is how to improve the Spring Street Branch. Improving suboptimal performance (in an individual, a team, a work unit, or a business unit) is always challenging, but this is what performance improvement is about. And one of the fastest and easiest ways to improve performance is to look at an exemplar—in this case, Monica and the Bank Street Branch.

The idea is to look at the exemplar and determine what makes their performers so good. In many cases, the performers (or in this case, the manager—Monica) may not even know. But you can figure this out by identifying key performance results and doing a root cause analysis or influence analysis to determine what has the biggest impact on their performance and why they get better numbers than anyone else.

We’re used to thinking of top performers (either individuals or business units) as being freaks of nature—born great or with attributes that make them unique. Sometimes that is the case. But in my experience, exemplars are usually better because they do the “blocking and tackling” better than other employees or functions. They may have removed unnecessary process steps. Or, conversely, they may have added steps to a key work process that result in better quality or happier customers. They may do a better job using information that everyone gets, like anticipating customer requests or individualizing service so customers feel special. Or maybe they created job aids that help minimize mistakes or improve service delivery. These actions or solutions could all be put in a box and given to other employees or units.

So, I’d start by identifying what makes the Bank Street Branch so successful. I’d start with Monica. I suspect she’d say, “the quality of the personnel,” but I’d likely discount that. Why? For starters, remember Gilbert’s cult of knowledge. But more specifically, Spring Street Branch has poached lots of talented people, and presumably other new managers were successful elsewhere—but the branch still underperforms. I’d need to dig deeper than just assume that if the Spring Street Branch gets better employees, all will be copacetic. But I’m confident that by doing a root cause analysis, I’d be able to identify what makes Bank Street Branch so successful, and identify some elements that I can transfer to other branches that are lagging.