Dr. Earl R. Smith II

admin says:

88 Responses to “How do you deal with people who are chronically unprepared?”
1.
July 26th, 2007 at 12:50 pm e
Alfred Rodriguez: I would see this as a personality inherent in that person (no, I do not see it as a disorder). Some people are just like that – it is what is called “tendencies.” As some people have a tendency to be so detailed, there are also people who have a tendency to be so “high-level” that they dont actually see what is going on…
In this case, where the person has a tendency to naturally “wing it,” then I may try to impose “artificial deadlines” ahead of the actual discussion – say, draft/material reviews, etc.
Everyone is naturally different – we have our own ways of dealing with things, even at work. And as such, if we are to be leaders, we must keep this understanding to heart, and act accordingly.
2.
July 26th, 2007 at 12:52 pm e
Robert Fornal:
1. Chronic behavior like this is unexcusable.
2. Some people just do not care enough about their job or the people around them.
3. Given a choice, I would remove them from the team. Micromanaging will only make it worse over time.
3.
July 26th, 2007 at 12:53 pm e
Pat McClellan: Make your expectations and the consequences of failure explicit. Set objective metrics for a specific time period — no more than 6 weeks. Follow through with acknowledgement of success, or dismissal for failure. If they change things in the short term, set long term metrics to prevent regression.
4.
July 26th, 2007 at 12:54 pm e
Hugh Chambers:
1. This is probably a style rather than a clinical disorder – it’s not good for them or your company.
2. They’ve winged it all through their life and have “got away” with it. It’s almost a style of passive abuse, very High School. “See what I can get away with”.
3. Unless their “wing-it” performance is good – say bye bye
5.
July 26th, 2007 at 12:56 pm e
Sujatha Das: I agree with Robert that this is unexcusable. If the are people who are chronically unprepared, and are not changing after providing coaching, then it is best to relook whether it is worth having them in a team, since it aftects team work and morale.
This behavior to me arises from the fact that they do not want to accept responsibility or be accountable of what they do. Probably coming out of an environment where they never had to do it. These people probably, do not understand the value of time, work or are not serious about what they do.
If the situation is that, the person(s) cannot be removed but have to be managed, then one of the best way to handle is providing them tasks and direction and expectations around the deliverables with timelines, rather than looking forward for their participation.
6.
July 26th, 2007 at 12:57 pm e
Jonathan Langley: I answer as a person that used to be chronically unprepared. And now I am one of the most prepared people in my office.
1. I agree with some of these answers in saying that it is a tendency. It’s a natural leaning toward high-level, very impractical thinking.
2. Same answer.
3. The reason I changed was because I had a manager that was willing to be brutally honest with me. He sat me down and basically told me that I sucked and I would fail forever until I got my act together. And he also explained how he thought I could succeed.
So lay it on the line. And then if they don’t respond, fire them.
7.
July 26th, 2007 at 12:58 pm e
Chris Browne: On the one hand, sometimes I get away with it . (But then, there’s enough reading, research, and preparations in both my past and present that I have a certain amount of what might even be called “wisdom,” so that lack of *specific* preparation may not imply being *unprepared overall.* )
But people who are indeed truly unprepared are not doing their job, and, in the long run, the right answer is to let them be unprepared somewhere else.
8.
July 26th, 2007 at 12:59 pm e
Mark Friedgan: I am a “wing-it” kind of guy. I don’t think that necessarily that means I am unprepared but being that I know this behavior in myself I tend to impose deadlines on myself that are slightly ahead of the real ones. I have several people who have or are working for me that are similar to this and I find that the deadline combined with proper roles (i.e. production support vs. auditor) are the best way to deal with this sort of personality.
9.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:00 pm e
Mitzi McGilvray: Does this happen every time? Maybe the person is overextended and just does not have the bandwidth to prepare ahead of time. Perhaps it’s simply an issue of balancing priorities.
I would do this….
1) when they come to the meeting, call on them and ask them pointed questions about the material (make it pertinent to the meeting so it doesn’t look like an attaack!). Trust me, if they have the choice of making preparation a priority, or looking stupid…they will take the first option every time.
2) be sure you give them ample time to prepare and maybe even a little reminder the day before the meeting.
3) if you are their manager, work with them on their workload and setting priorities.
10.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:01 pm e
Geoff Salmon: It depends on their job function, if they are in a role where attention to detail is important, you have a problem.
If they were hired for their creativity and ability to look at the “big picture” and they deliver, just make sure that a detail person is there to take notes.
11.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:02 pm e
Vidya Parameswaran: When you work with or in a team, its bound to have different kinds of people. Every one will have some strengths and weaknesses. Based on situations that I have faced there could be a few issues :
- the person does not know what exactly is expected of him in the meeting.. the nature of his participation/feedback/input.
- the person may not understand the technical or other aspects of the issue that the meeting is going to discuss.
- the person may not agree that the meeting is required in the first place.
- the person may not have the required time management skills to understand that time needs to allocated to ‘prepare’ for a meeting. Quite often, the perception that a meeting needs to be prepared for, may be missing. If he has always attended meetings in the past that required no preparation, then he may not have the prepare-for-the-meeting mentality.
If a person is not prepared for meetings consistently, he/she should not be assigned a position of responsibility in the team. If its a deeply technical team member, he may not be the best person to lead the team or inteface for the team. If his inability to prepare affects his work or that of others in the team, he needs to be warned about a possible boot!
In general, people should be assigned roles that best use their strengths with opportunities to work on their weak areas as long as their strengths lead to significant positive contribution to the team.
12.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:03 pm e
Bob Pasker: I have worked with many people whose ‘wing it’ ideas are better than the most prepared person in the room.
Don’t confuse preparedness for contribution or action for progress.
The real question is: Is this person doing his job and in a manner appropriate with the policies of the organization (eg dress, language, etc)?
13.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:04 pm e
Steve Broadhead: Is the person unprepared to your standard or do they still get the mission accomplished? If they are ‘dropping the ball’ by not being prepared then there is a problem. If they are still being effective then there really is no problem.
This might seem strange to some people BUT not everyone operates the same. Some people are better at winging it then others. If you can not do it that does not make it bad someone else can.
As long as they are not having a negative impact on the mission i would try to use their talents. I also like the idea of telling to have something done before the real deadline! The boss has done that to me a time or two!
14.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:05 pm e
John Kelliher: It depends on your definition of chronically unprepared!
I’ve worked for a whole series of organisations and people who have always struck me as chronically unprepared. But most of them get away with it because the competition is either non-existent or even less well prepared.
As for me I like to have plans and options and to be charting the direction of the hordes of unprepared people. To manage these people, ask them to plan the meetings, it is probably a good starting point.
15.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:06 pm e
Ben Zeloof: The situation described may be too general, and thus a general answer may or may not apply, and my response may assume a few things, but here goes. This could be a function of time management or simply that the individual has too many tasks going on, and that your task is but one of them that the individual has to do. We all go to too many meetings — and quite frankly many of them are a waste of time. Perhaps this person has a deadline to write a report or some other critical deliverable, and maybe preparing for your meeting is viewed like going to the dentist: something he has to do on a regular schedule, then promises to floss so the next appointment goes a little better, and then next time repeats the same cycle.
From personal experience, I’ve been that person. I write software, and if there’s a client deliverable this week, but you need me to attend a meeting to talk about something administrative, or something not due for a few months, time management is going to push your task to the back of the list. Despite its importance to you, its may not be as important to the person who comes unprepared, at least maybe not right now. In a matrix-managed organization, where every project manager feels their project is the most important, someone will likely end up disappointed.
So this has some questions about your organization: Are people overworked in general? Does this one individual have a high workload? Aside from the lack of preparing, what is the quality of the individuals work? Objectively looking at the task/project/committee that you need this person for, is the work close enough to the bottom line of the company that this person should focus more on this? Are the deadlines closer? How comfortable does the indivual feel that he can meet your deadlines if they appear far off? Have you, and your organization, communicated priorities clearly? These could all be mitigating factors.
16.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:07 pm e
Shana Z. Spak: Fire them
17.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:08 pm e
Haim Toeg: I think this is unacceptable behavior and I really do not care why they do it. Doing something about it greatly depends on your relationship to that person – if they are the CEO and you are lower in the prganization, then you can use that to your advantage by being the prepared person and supporting them. If they are employees of yours, give them a chance to get a grip through coaching and guidance, if they do not, then you need to decide on the importance of the person vs. the cost of the disruption.
18.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:09 pm e
Claire Day: Before we look at how to manage them, what are the results like. I come from the organised school personally but I have worked with others who do not. Although the outward show prior to the meeting was often one of disorder, during the meeting / client presentation they were clear and could “pull it all out of the bag”. Order does not always equal results.
19.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:10 pm e
Gina Lauffer: NOT! … We all have limits that we have to respect … our own time and that of others. If you do not recognize this … then any work delegated will result looking the same … We all have choices.
20.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:11 pm e
Mike Sullivan: Very simple rule to learn…
Tell them briefly what you’re going to tell them.
Tell them what you want to tell them.
Lastly tell them briefly what you told them.
Then ask if there are questions. WORD OF CAUTION: Though this is a hard one to judge, you need to be able to read your audience and either speed up or slow down and allow questions if the mood feels that way.
It works and keeps meetings on track.
21.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:12 pm e
Maz Iqbal: The short and simple answer is direct him/her to the fact that he/she is not prepared. Once the attention is there ask he/she what it is that he/she is getting out of being unprepared? Clearly to get at the root causes one must create a context/environment where ‘truth’ can be spoken and one must have the patience to chip away at the surface answers to get at the ‘real’ answer.
How do you know what the real answer is? Simple, it is the one where he/she takes personal responsibity for being unprepared and the answer does not make he/she ‘look good’.
What does the framework I have shared with you suppose? It supposes that you, i, he, she are purposeful human beings. If we do or do not do something it is for a reason. That reason is that either it gets me he what i want or it helps me to avoid what I fear.
22.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:13 pm e
Juha Harkonen: If it’s a client then he/she is giving you an advantage… take lead and drive the meeting to the conclusion that you wanted.
If it’s an employee… cause for termination. Move on!
23.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:14 pm e
Ray Miller:
1) I consider it disrespecttful of everyone else involved and unacceptable.
2) They do it because they can. People don’t hold anyone accountable for anything anymore.
3) The way to manage thes people is to hold them accountable. They suffer consequences for being late and/or unprepared. No raises, poor performance reviews, load them up with more work and do not lem them squirm out from underneath the load.
Set firm timelines for deliverables. meeting, etc. Either they meet them or there are consequences. Document, document, document.
That’s another reason they get away with it. People do not want to take the effort to document poor performance. In fact they often prefer not to so as to pass the problem child on to some one else.
Years later every one wonders, “How did they keep their job?”
24.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:16 pm e
Melissa Pollock: Oh, the angst!
1) How do you view this type of behavior?
Absolutely rude and unprofessional. It personally drives me crazy. I can’t stand waiting for them to show up, having to re-cap information already discussed, having to re-supply physical materials alread provided, etc. (I am very well organized, planned and prepared – perhaps to a fault
2) Why do you think they do it?
I think there are many of us who live in a constructive, productive, well managed “box”. We’re quite happy there, we’re comfortable; we’re highly effective and efficient too. But there are many who don’t live there, and even worse, there are way too many that are as you described, and in my experience, they are often…
a. completely creative
b. the boss (used to having someone else deal with the details)
c. too busy to manage their time and themselves well
3) How do you manage these people? – or not!
I have found that no matter how many times I re-issue, re-cap, remind, etc., it doesn’t change future behavior. Even making my own style difference and resulting frustration doens’t change anything.
All I’ve been able to do is recognize the repetitive nature, and pre-prepare for it… meaning, I now come to the meeting on time instead of early, I now bring new print outs even though I’ve already given them, I now recap the information without assuming memory of the previous discussion etc.
It’s either go crazy, or leverage control in the only way I can – which is to know, and prepare, for the inevitable unpreparedness!
25.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:18 pm e
Patrick Shelton: Being a former Marine and agency employee for GM is that these things are unacceptable. The first key step is not creating an environment where this is acceptable or over looked. In my opinion this only encourages this behavior.
Its important to manage your professional image and also its disrespectful to clients and co-workers. To answer why they do it I can conclude that they either don’t realize how they are acting or have a sense of entitlement that has gotten them that far.
Personally, I am aware of those types of individuals and try to build in time to identify (prior to a meeting) potential shortfalls and adapt. In agreement with other respondents, these people tend to ultimately manage themselves out of the organization in time.
26.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:19 pm e
Victoria Pynchon: Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, FIRE THEM? Or, if you’re a judge, sanction them. That’s the thing about the law business. There are real world consequences for lack of preparation — like — you fall on your face in front of the jury, lose the case and are sued for malpractice. CONSEQUENCES. I understand from HR people that the consequences have to be staged, i.e., first a slap on the wrist, then a suspension, etc. This is why no firm I’ve ever worked in (partner or not) permitted me to make personnel decisions. Quite right too. In my business, lack of preparation is cause for immediate termination.
27.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:20 pm e
Matt Emmott: I take issue with those who say to fire this type of person. There is a place in the workplace for this type of person – Perhaps not upper or middle management, but absolutely in the technician category. I’ve worked in IS for over ten years now, and some of the best Systems Admins happen to also be the worst with social graces. “Winging it” is not always a flaw, and to be honest at times it can be a benefit. It just depends on the individual’s position and expected responsibilities.
Sorry for the semi off topic comment. To answer your questions:
1) See above. You have to ask yourself what this person’s role is in the company, and if they have other benefits that outweigh their shortcomings.
2) Some people just don’t plan ahead. I spent years just winging it, and got away with it because I was (and am) an outstanding technician. It wasn’t until I took a managerial position that I saw just how poorly my planning and organizational skills had become, and that I had to do something about it.
3) Somebody already gave the best answer: Be brutally honest with them. Don’t be mean, just bring it to their attention that it’s damaging their reputation and possibly those of the people around them. I didn’t know, and I’m willing to bet that chronically under-prepared don’t know either.
28.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:21 pm e
Scott Goldman: To me it really depends on the individual’s role in the company. I would live with this much more readily from a top producer or a creative dynamo. Yes, it’s easy to terminate, but much more fun to manage. My sense is that this is a person that is creative and loves to react because they truly live in the moment. Although they may appear helter-skelter, there may also be a sense of calm and ability to switch gears as well.
I’m not sure that I would include this person in any planning or strategy meeting unless absolutely necessary, their strengths lie elsewhere. On the other hand, I might hand over a shorter term project that is of an immediate nature and drive home what my expectations are. I think it also comes down to what other things he/she does exceptionally well and is it worth the aggravation. Get them to do more of what they excel at and less of what they don’t.
29.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:22 pm e
Are you sure they really are unprepared?
I always stop myself to ask if my assessment is really truly on the money especially on evaluative judgements.
Some of my team members have had perfectionist streaks which would not allow them to stop tinkering until the very last allowable minute. Because some of the work I did was often real-time in nature and the flood of incoming data changed conclusions or recommendation; it was very easy for these people to look as if they were still hysterically trying to prepare.
Maybe it comes from having a father who’s an engineer or my own operational background…I really don’t care how it looks or is perceived…as long as the results are solid.
There is no space to wing it because I can and will crosscheck. I also always demand justifiable chain of logic or verifiable data even now that I am in the planning and architect side of things.
So I verify if they really are unprepared or not by checking in while these people work and crosschecking. It take time, focus, and patience from me to do actual verification and not just some superficial check. It also takes knowing more than my subordinates. It means actually having the deep operational experience.
I often find that those most judgemental of “how” someone is doing something are usually the one’s with the least bit of an idea of what those people are actually doing. I also find that to simply just say someone is “unprepared” is pure laziness or negligence on any manager.
Honestly? I haven’t met that many people who are really chronically unprepared but rather those who are not willing to or able to just wrap things up at a certain juncture and just polish. They know their stuff. They know which direction they want to go but they have trouble with the exit point.
So I initially return to the trenches with them even if I don’t have to. It means I spend extra hours actually keeping up to date with each and every member of my team through “project wisdom wikis”, casual evaluative engagement during “blow off steam” gaming sessions, Team retreats.
They may relax and bond but for me I have to be working even then inside my head and with them.
I try to be even, patient and methodically evaluative with individual members but yes I will tear into the entire team as a whole if I do feel that they are unprepared, not thinking, and slow. I find that it works better to give positive reinforcement to each individual..and when negative reinforcement in called for…to the whole.
I have been derided in more uh…office politics-oriented workplaces for being this way when I raise objections to certain unverified evaluations of my team members and other co-workers. For being on one hand touchy feely, laissez faire in regards to not having everyone behave within a protocol range, and for then being too clinical or “complex”.
I have at times requested exactly those members who these “managers” have had issues with to be on my team or to closely work with my team. The truth usually turns out to be very different and rooted in a personalization of what should remain an objective involved evaluation.
30.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:24 pm e
Gerald Lo: People, in my opinion, fall into a normal distribution by default temperament and also by daily circumstance and changing environment.
By nature, I’ve found 80% of my colleagues to be good, solid professionals or craftspeople, capable of consistent performance elicited by reasonable levels of communication, oversight, empathy and general management. 10% of the people I know are spectacular prodigies, whose capabilities, intellect, performance and qualities humble and inspire me. 10% might be better off contemplating alternative career paths than the ones which cause us to see each other, in my humble.
80% of the time, we can all more or less hit the target with more success than failure and get through the day. 10% of the time, we can be superstars, 10% of the time we may consider our performance perhaps as constructive character building experience for future contemplation and object lessons.
For those who don’t get it, I feel it’s incumbent on me to get the word out. I don’t schedule meetings without an agenda. If we have a working session planned, I outline the roles, responsibilities and audio-visual aids required for the representative or alternate for that area.
If we have a progress meeting, I make plain that those encounters are not working sessions. Show up on time or send a designated henchperson, report what you have done or not, tell use where you need to go, thank you.
Whether the individual is a superstar or not, I feel it is my responsiblity to communicate clearly what is needed for which occasion, as the trheshold of a professional courtesy.
If I am to be project manager in more than mere name, I feel it to be my job to then actively manage where required. On a recent project, I had two exceptionally gifted field engineers assigned to my team. One was more junior and voluble, the other a seasoned veteran and taciturn. Both seemed to show up intending to wing it at meetings of all sorts.
I spoke to each individually.
I presented each with a small notepad, with which to make entries.
As our project progressed, I began by constantly saying to each, “Now, write this down. This is important.” Saying this with a little irony can be helpful, as I find a lot of field engineers as allergic to autocratic behavior as they are averse to asking for directions in gas stations.
During meetings, I would gently chide them if they were unprepared, getting a laugh from the assemblage and sustainably making a point with the individuals.
Within weeks, they were beginning to take notes and refer to them.
That project, like all others, came to an end with no casualties. I’m still friends with both.
I feel that leadership sometimes consists of actually leading, occasionally by example. I keep a small pocket agenda on my person and post-its with a pen refill in my wallet, so I can usually write down the important stuff as it occurs.
I can’t pretend I originated this tactic, I copped it wholesale from 記史The Great Historical Record of 遷馬司 Si Ma Chien, in which he recounts the notorious episode of the celebrated Sun Tzu with the King of Wu. Lionel Giles retells the story in his translation of the Art of War. I commend it to your attention.
31.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:25 pm e
Harley Jebens: A simple trick that I try to do – and something that you can do even as the meeting is going on if you haven’t had time to adequately prepare before-hand – is just to jot down the main points you want to make during the course of the meeting, either when it is your pre-set portion of the presentation or when it is your turn to comment on/add to other’s remarks. I find that many presentations themselves come together at the last minute – the more so the more people and/or offices that are involved – so it can be hard to prepare for a presentation that’s a moving target until meeting time anyway.
You have to be well-versed in what you’re going to speak about before the meeting, naturally, but I’ve found that this is a productive way to quickly and silently prep in situations where you’re not as prepared as you want to be before walking into the room.
Just jotting down something quickly in written form helps me, at least, organize my thoughts and be better prepared when it comes time to speak.
32.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:27 pm e
George F Franks III: I have dealt with people of this type for the past 28 years. I find it not only rude and annoying – but an impediment to business.
When I have a prior experience with people who are chronically unprepared I tell them:
- When the meeting is
- What I expect them to have ready by the meeting
- I often ask them to forward me their deliverable one business day BEFORE the meeting
- I also let them know that they will be expected to provide a formal readout at the meeting itself.
Sometimes these things work. Other times people are so chronically unprepared that these steps make no difference.
In that case I notify them – or their boss that they need to find someone else to step up to the deliverables for their role WHO CAN BE PREPARED by the key dates.
33.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:28 pm e
Mark Podulka: Terminate them. Eventually they will cost you far too much in the unpreparedness, then you have no recourse.
34.
July 26th, 2007 at 2:08 pm e
David Dingley: There seem to be some very judgemental people commenting on this question who are making the assumption that their approach (ie a very “in advance” and “structured” approach) is, by definition “best” and that anyone not like that has a weakness.
I suggest that judging by OUTCOME of the meeting or other interaction is better. If that is, on the whole, positive, what is your problem?
Some have commented that they have worked with “unprepared” people who still make outstanding contributions, better than those of the “prepared”. I agree, I have met people like that as well. I know some people who are chronically untidy in a way that annoys others who also make outstanding contributions.
Highly prepared (which can mean “rigid”, “inflexible”, “dictatorial”) is not necessarily always the most effective style. It can be deeply annoying on the occasions when some lateral or creative thinking is needed. Would you chastise or sanction the chronically prepared for inhibiting that?
Different kinds of interactions require different styles. Good leaders and managers know how to harness them all.
That said, it is perfectly appropriate to counsel and mentor both types as to how they can raise their game and how to modify their style somewhat to circumstances. It may be that either style (and others) could be such a poor fit that moving the person on is the only possibility, in the end. But the most important criterion is whether they contribute to good RESULTS.
35.
July 26th, 2007 at 2:09 pm e
Stevie Wilson: One could play it tough by suggesting that the meeting be rescheduled so that they are prepared for the discussion.
If these are employees, you need to ditch them. If they are colleagues, you need to kindly tell them that it reflects poorly on them in front of clients or providers..
If these are clients, you can actually tell them that it reflects poorly on their brand and that certain categories of providers/services/advertisers or whatever their end game is– it won’t get them there..
Why do they do it? They are disorganized entirely in their work lives and/or they are not considering your time worth enough to prepare for it.
I typically don’t wing anything– unless it’s come at truly the last minute and I do everything possible to prepare so that I can speak intelligently.
I do tell people that when they come to me at the last minute — literally with less than 24 hours notice and know nothing about what I am supposed to do, it doesn’t give me the opportunity to serve them best.
If these are staff members, exclude them from the meeting and tell them to come back when they are prepared– and have it reflect in their reviews and also have one on one meetings to explain the import of this
36.
July 26th, 2007 at 2:10 pm e
Dodds Rivera:
1) How do you view this type of behavior?
- We can’t escape this… There will always be someone that we ended up work with or for, who may be like this.
2) Why do you think they do it?
- We have to learn how to use this to our benefit (”Scape-Goat”).
There are many reasons why people are like this, usually it comes from being misguided, and not knowing what to do. It’s not necesarily a lack of knowledge, or education, but these types of people tend to work better being told what to do, and to have jobs that have structure. People displaying this type of behaviour usually have had jobs that were strict in structure, and have suddenly been put in a position that requires them to working alone and unguided. This can also happen when a person is put into a position without their roll being clearly defined.
3) How do you manage these people? – or not!
- As a Manager, we need to find out what this person’s strengths and interests are, and then show them how to exploit them, so they begin to show some interest in what they’re doing, setting small goals, and milestones, followed by frequent praise for their small successes (idea taken from Cesar Milan). Eventually, each person, “should” develop his/her own process, and will learn to make the necessary adjustments to make themselves more proficient, and/or, make them define their roll more clearly.
37.
July 26th, 2007 at 2:12 pm e
Matt Gibbons:
1. I view it in line with the role expected of them. I don´t expect a highly creative graphic designer to be over-prepared (or to shave too much) nor are many go get ´em sales people good at preparing. If they need to be prepared, then be firm and consistent with how you expect them to behave. Some of the most talented people I have worked with would seem disorganised to many…
2. It could be due to overload, stress, issues at home, insecurity about the task ahead or what is expected of them. It´s not just because they don´t care or don´t have training. It can be many factors. Don´t just assume they are lazy, it´s usually not the cause at all.
3. Help them of course, but play to their strengths. Getting out a big stick is not the right option, unless you really know that they have just been slacking off. If they need to be prepared, then be firm and consistent with how you expect them to behave and make them aware of the consequences.
38.
July 26th, 2007 at 2:13 pm e
Vivek Bagal: I had an answer for you, honest .. but I left it in the car…
A lot of times unprepared people are so because they actually don’t know what it takes to be prepared. It could be the product of a scattered mind – short term attention span (my case) or sometimes it really is drive. There are times where that level of effort is all that was needed to get someone to that point.. sometimes they (not meaning to use this derisively) they have reached the apex of their ability. (In that case you just have to make sure that is where they stay – and stay productive)
I come from the “no one is a lost cause” school, so I tend not to want to dump anyone until they show me they are a COMPLETE liability. The couple of people I have had that are like that, I treat them like I do myself. It starts, like anything else, with a plan, with milestones that show me that the employee is showing progress. If they are to prepare for a meeting – we will meet ahead of that and see where everything stands.
If this happens over and over again – - I start publicly asking for people to get onto projects publicly with the statement “I need someone I can trust”. Its hard to say where the breaking point is – but there always is one – and if at that point i see someone with better potential than who is there – then it is time to make the move.
(On a personal note – I tend to embrace my short-term, scatter shot brain. I just adjust my world around it.)
39.
July 26th, 2007 at 2:14 pm e
Michael Morell:
1) This type of behavior is detrimental to team morale and overall team performance and is unfair to those that actually take the time to prepare
2) People usually do it for a few reasons a) They don’t care b) there are no consequences c) in a position that they should not be in
3) You don’t manage this, you put together a plan, set expectations and either they change or suffer the consequences. As a manager, there is no such thing as a “yellow” flag – they are either delivering to expecations or need to be terminated.
Trying to manage underperformers is a effort in futility…do yourself a favor and review the team on a semi-annual basis (or more often) and look to upgrade the bottom 10-20%…you will wonder why you didn’t do it years earlier.
40.
July 26th, 2007 at 2:15 pm e
Eric Sohn: Here’s the thing – you’re failing as a manager if someone is “chronically” unprepared. Fool me once, shame on you – fool me twice, shame on me.
The first time, you can always tell someone you want more of their input the next time – and/or reinforce the level of preparation you expect.
The second time, you bring the hammer down – I asked you to be prepared, and you weren’t. Why?
Now, it may, in some cases, be a matter of time management or other organizational difficulty – in which case, you deal with it in terms of training.
Otherwise, it needs to be made crystal clear that this is part of their job description. Document it, document the next time, etc.
Take disciplinary action as you see fit.
I also take issue with people saying you need people like this. People who bring outside views still have prepared on the issue to the extent that they feel they need to. And, truth be told, you designate them as such. If their role is not that of the iconoclast, they have to be prepared.
Last point: similar to the first point, expectations have to be set up front. If you don’t specify performance measures, where is the employee supposed to get the idea that his/her performance is beyond the pale?
41.
July 26th, 2007 at 3:18 pm e
Frank Gorrell: This is a type of “drama” that some people need in their life. It is not much different from someone who tries to fit six tasks into an hour with little hope of completing four in an hour.
I figure these “unprepared” people believe that they are incapable of being prepared. Whether a parent told them that were “always unprepared” or a teacher, somehow, they have come to believe that this is who they are. It will take some hard work, but they can choose to break the habit.
I would take the approach of trying to help them as best I could to get them ready in advance. Of course, if they can’t handle it, that’s they way they are.
It could cost them their job, as some have hinted above. However, if they do good work, albeit at the last minute, then maybe their “fault” is worth putting up with.
42.
July 26th, 2007 at 3:20 pm e
Andrew Corradini: I’m a Wharton MBA, been VP at 5-6 Silicon Valley startups, 2 rather successful. I have ADD, and am “these kinds (sic) of people”.
Almost nobody thus far (Gerald Lo had many good points) has raised 3 key issues:
1) The buck stops with leaders, not the led.
Are YOU running “good” meetings? (Most managers don’t.) Do you hold regularly scheduled meetings without considering whether they’re necessary? Do you schedule them for an hour (or 2) without considering whether a tight 15-minute would be plenty? Do you cut off sidelines that can be taken off-line? Do you send out clear agendas (with timelines and objectives) in advance? Do you always start and finish on time? Do you communicate structure and expectations? (”Each team manager gets 3 minutes, no questions or interruptions; the key 3 issues this week are x,y, and z, and the successful outcome of this meeting will be blah.”)
Meetings are giant suck-holes in many organizations. Some personality types are far more resistant to time-wasting than others.
Suggestion: look at military models of team leadership, briefings, etc. – particularly the US Marine Corps. Resource: search for “Warfighting”, the core doctrine manual for the USMC – which many have called the best leadership manual ever written. It’s short, it’s free, it’s better than Sun Tzu. (I am not a Marine or military.)
2) There are MANY personality types. Each contributes in different ways. Each has strengths and weaknesses. Using the Keirsey/ Jung/ Meyers-Briggs breakdown — an ENFP like me is never going to be a successful accountant, or tax attorney, or mechanical engineer. (And I’m not well-prepared for meetings. However – my impatience with bad meetings has led to me being able to run OUTSTANDINGLY efficient meetings — precisely because I want to be in and out of there as quickly as possible.) However, I’m VERY creative, and have done great things in roles appropriate to my strengths and weaknesses.
Suggestions: 1) learn about personality types (google/wikipedia Meyers-Briggs and Keirsey). Understand this person’s strengths and weaknesses. Work to shift him/her to an *appropriate* role in the organization (all you folks who said “fire ‘em!” – your Meyers-Briggs type starts with “I” and I’ll bet half of you are ISTJs). 2) Learn to lead. As my friend (an Army major) has taught me – you play the hand you’re dealt – not the one you wish you had. (In the military – you don’t “hire” your unit. In battle – you may suddenly be managing an ad-hoc unit of survivors. In unionized companies or the government or Europe – “fire ‘em” is often not an option.) Resources: google Meyers-Briggs, take a personality inventory (there are lots of free ones on line), and figure out what your problem employee’s type is – read his/her profile.
3) Most of us are winging it. We learned on the job. I have a top-3 MBA – I’m still not sure where they taught me ANYTHING about leadership or managing people or motivation or running a good meeting or time management or planning — or ANY of those damn things that actually constitute 3/4 of my day.
None of us is on top of our gazillion e-mails. Most of us do lousy PowerPoints that we end up just reading to people. We scribble “to-dos” on post-its that we stick to the frame of our monitors and are blind to within 24 hours. We roll undone to-dos over to the next day’s page every morning, swear to spend 15 minutes of planning first thing tomorrow, really, this time!, get control of the paper on our desktops, and the files on our PC desktop, spend some quality time with the label-maker and those tabs in the baggie in the back of our file drawer actually FILING stuff — we don’t.
So – who’s “unprepared”?
(Finally – that unprepared person may just be the one super-creative nut in your organization. Probably not, but perhaps. Silicon Valley is chock-full of people who don’t work well with structure — and who drive Ferraris.)
43.
July 26th, 2007 at 3:21 pm e
Sandra Davis: Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. While is it completely unprofessional to be unprepared, that in itself does not mean that the individual is in any way incompetent.
If your organization equates level of preparation and a tradtional work ethic, then this individual is certainly not a good fit.
But if you are in a creative environment, that employee shuffling papers before a discussion could be a very valuable employee.
1. I view the behavior as a neutral. It depends on the environment. It appears that in your office this worker is not a good fit.
2. Juggling too many other things might be a reason. Could be someone who is more adept at looking at the big picture and has no clue of what “the devil is in the details” means.
3. If discussion isn’t this worker’s thing, then get a better handle on what he/she is better handling. If you can reach a happy median, fine. Of course, in today’s competitive market, you might be better sparing you and the worker. Find someone who is a better fit with your company and perhaps Mr. Unprepared will find a place where he/she will be evaluated on a more suitable set of criteria.
44.
July 26th, 2007 at 3:23 pm e
Amish Parashar: I have our teams over prepare!
45.
July 26th, 2007 at 3:23 pm e
Ghada Richani:
1) Personally, I wouldn’t allow myself to be such a person
2) People might do it because they don’t know better or because they weren’t coached early enough and this kind of behaviour became a second nature
3) If this is impacting their performance and the team in any shape or form, I would go through the three steps of Performance Improvement Planning: Verbal warning, Written Warning and then Pink slip if I see no improvement
46.
July 26th, 2007 at 3:25 pm e
Brad Steeples: If it’s a chronic thing, my answers are:
1. I view it as laziness
2. I do not know, and
3. Fire them and hire someone who prepares better
Make sense?
47.
July 26th, 2007 at 3:26 pm e
Brett Grendahl:
1. This is a pattern of behavior issue. Without their desire to change this behavior your efforts to change it won’t go anywhere.
2. Who knows?
3. The best thing you can do is manage these people out of your organization as quickly as possible and move on.
Just my two cents from experience hiring, managing, and firing people.
48.
July 26th, 2007 at 3:28 pm e
Brian Clark: Seems like there are two key issues at play. One is whether or not they are productive team members despite that disorganization. The other is if they work for you, with you or if you work for them.
So a disorganized and unproductive client might actually be an opportunity to sell more solutions (if they want to pay my rate to read them the Powerpoint I sent them 2 days before, it’s their dime), but the same in a contractor is an embarrasment and waste of your money.
The interesting cases are in the productive but disorganized category. Some of those people are perfect without any changes, but just the addition of the right support people. In other cases, you can actually make their disorganization somewhat charming to others in a crazy artist or absent-minded professor sort of way.
At other times, it might be a cry for help. Sometimes that disorganization and unpreparedness is a symptom of other demons at play behind the scene.
49.
July 26th, 2007 at 7:39 pm e
David Marcotte: Rule of thumb is if you are managing it and look at as something you need to live with then they are valuable as is and the investment in changing them has a doubtful ROI.
If on the other hand it destroys their value to what you are doing either ease them out or find a means of getting them in the structure. If you have the time then assign someone with little patience to task them to being prepared. If no time, then read them the riot act and follow up with public execution.
50.
July 26th, 2007 at 7:41 pm e
Richard Morse: Working with mobile network operators and the general IT industry, I find this behaviour at epidemic levels in South Africa, and we can’t fire them all… or can we…
The worst form of this disease is from ADD technocrats who have found themselves in earshot of someone of importance, they genuinely believe that their knowledge forgives all social disorders and that their speed of thought and decision negates the need for a meeting entirely.
Hence why do they need to prepare for a meeting they didi not think of consequence anyway, … not that they knew the subject of the meeting…
They shuffle their bottoms on their chair and pontificate about something not relevent to the meeting, so I ask you why invite them in the first place.
But to all those attention deficit disorder techies out there, you know and do good stuff, I guess that is why we allow you in our meetings.
51.
July 26th, 2007 at 7:42 pm e
David Atkinson: Is the person brilliant? When they come through, are the results worth the aggravation? If yes, sometimes the management headache is worth it. If not, then I agree with many others here who have recommended progressive discipline, up to and including termination. Remember that you can hire a great college fresh-out who will usually do a better job than the lowest performance quartile of your current employees. Making this known is sometimes an incentive for the type of people you describe.
52.
July 26th, 2007 at 7:44 pm e
Brian Lindholm: My first option would be to talk with the person one-on-one. The conversation would be brief, but focused on expressing concern for the person’s unsatisfactory level of preparation. Even though it is doubtful that this person will change their ways, it does provide them with a warning that (1) you are cognizant of their behavior and (2) allows them some opportunity to mend their ways.
Unless the person is young, I would not be inclined to carefully coach and direct their habits to the point of being better prepared. I suppose I would be more lenient on someone younger since there may be some slight chance the younger person will change. A seasoned professional is not as likely to change any habits. This may be a poor thing to say, but we should face facts that as we get older, people tend to be more set in their ways. If someone’s unpreparedness harmed my organization I would be inclined to remove the person if there was little hope to correct their ways.
Some people do see “winging it” as a true skill/talent. Such a belief will only reinforce purposely NOT preparing for meetings, projects, etc. While being unprepared may actually sometimes be useful, this is not true for every situation. In fact, someone who is unprepared may be better suited for a role that does not require much preparatory work. The world does need its share of free spirits.
It’s challenging to truly understand anyone’s motive let alone address such a broad question as “Why do you think they do it?” As hinted above, I think this may often be a source of personal pride thus reinforcing the behavior. If success has been achieved before without preparation, why change? Maybe this isn’t such a deep question after all…behavior that is reinforced will continue until something affects the person (or creature) behaving in such a way
53.
July 26th, 2007 at 7:45 pm e
Shawn Carter: Fire them.
54.
July 26th, 2007 at 7:47 pm e
James Parsons: I have to agree with the people who posted to say that there are different personalities, different strengths, and it is not simply a question if that is ok in the abstract, but if that person’s particular job requires detail preparation, and how they operate within a team to fulfill the team’s objectives.
I used to be a “detail person” and memorized all kinds of things to be “prepared”. In class the hand was the first up and had the answer to the question, and all follow up questions. Problem is that time is limited, and often the time spent for preparation in some settings is wasted beyond that setting, and becomes simply an academic test. In law school, often the question is not how prepared you are for class (unless the professor assigns a specific grade for class participation) but how prepared are you for the final – or for practice. Since those days, my method has gone to not noting every detail, but looking at the big picture. Now, I find that often the “detail” people of the world may be so tied up with many UBI’s (useless bits of information) to the big scheme of things that they often miss the “big picture” that can be far more efficient and persuasive. They are also not able to think quickly on their feet.
I think the idea of a team perspective, though, is best. You want some detailed-minded people in play, and maybe have them be the presentors/prepared ones in general meetings, and use some of the fly-by-wire people in roles that allow them to shine – for the company. In court proceedings, I have seen many ‘overly prepared’ attorneys so tied to a script – to be prepared – that they are unable to deviate with the judges’ concerns. While they have been fully prepared, they were completely ineffective to the uncertain and instantaneous. The reality is that in many situations you can’t always be prepared, and it is as important to learn to be prepared, to also learn to deal with the unexpected.
I gave an oral argument to the Dallas Court of Appeals about 10 years ago with only a few hand-written notes, and no word-for-word prepared speech. However, I knew the concepts so well and the basic authority required to make the point that the judges held me for 10 minutes longer than my 20 assigned minutes wanting my input on my understanding of the law and the U.S. Constitution. They left the chambers saying “good argument, good argument” and did what I proposed!
If you are going to test those that are fly-by-wire people for the sure sport of it, to point out that they are unprepared, I would probably suggest you test those overly focused detail people with “pop tests” that force them to think on their feet. Rather than sport testing, though, I might try to see what places on the team you can utilize the skill-sets of your people and to the full extent possible, engage them in those areas. The ones that refuse to work with you at all – and show no initiative in any capacity, well then maybe discipline them!
Finally, often underperforming players is as much about bad coaching – as about bad players. You might also look at your efforts of leadership and communication and rather than seeking them as bad employees too quickly, see them as undercoached employees. Try to determine how you can more effectively coach them. The Univ. of Texas Football coach, Mack Brown, did that and helped lead our team to the National Championship, beating USC in what that team refers to in agony as “the Game.” Instead of seeing Vince Young’s weaknesses, he saw and engaged FULLY his strengths!! A lesser coach could have underutilized Vince – and would not have found glory.
55.
July 26th, 2007 at 7:47 pm e
James Fetzner: Your ability to handle this situation is much more a function of the relationship you have built with this person previously through other interactions, than it is a function of any particular technique or way of handling this particular situation. If you have a strong relationship with this person, have been an effective leader, and they are confident that you genuinely have their and the teams best interests at heart then they likely will respond to you.
Assuming you have this foundation with your team, then I would have a heart to heart with the person about the distraction it is, how it looks as though there are seperate standards for people, if they are focused on winging it and covering up the fact that they’re unprepared we’re not getting 100% of your talents and abilities and we need them as a team, etc. etc.
If it is a chronic distraction then they have to go, but hopefully if you have done your job as a leader than it will be unlikely to come to that. Though there are times when there is nothing you can do, this should not be the default thinking.
56.
July 26th, 2007 at 7:49 pm e
Mark Jeyasingh: I guess you’ve figured out from all the posts that there is no single and absolute answer.
The language in your question suggests that these people would not exist in your ideal world … I’d therefore like to focus on your options and not on understanding them.
So here’s a rudimentary framework to guide your approach in the real one:
Classify the person on the following dimensions:
Dimension A: Power
A.1 Boss/Client/Major Supplier;
A.2 Peer/Partner;
A.3 Staff/Minor Supplier
Dimension B: What’s their political capital in the value chain?
B.1 They have the confidence of (or they are the cross borne by) an alpha link
B.2 People are confident of the input/output from this person
B.3 This person has sufficient markers to call upon in need
B.4 They are nice, and this is a nice family sort of place
B.5 Everybody agrees with you, so why is this person still here ?
Dimension C: Effectiveness
C.1 They have a delivery record that’s better than the promise of sunrise
C.2 They have a patchy record, but the shiny spots are visible from deep space
C.3 They have the survival instincts of a badger in a fairground game, and people are paying good money to play cause its fun.
Dimension D: Impact on your world
D.1 The noise of paper shuffling at these meetings is driving you up the wall, but your not sure what it is this person is responsible for
D.2 You’ve revised the document three times to figure out a way that they will find it compelling reading, and then did the same thing to the email, and then to the subject line in the email. You soooo want this relationship to work.
D.3 This keeps you awake at night because you can’t deliver without them, or with their active hindrance (to explain the latter: many a turnaround agent does not prepare for meetings with the walking dead)
Scoring low values (1’s) on the dimension indicates you have to manage the situation. Do all the nice stuff like advancing deadlines, micro management etc.
Scoring high values (3’s) on the dimensions indicates you are likely to use them for target practice, to preserve your sanity and possibly your organization.
Regardless of the score, you can always take it upon yourself to convert them or eradicate them as a general calling. But that might say something about you.
And finally the disclaimer:
This is a rudimentary and suggested framework. If it has any resemblance to pre-published work then treat such work as cited. It is an academic paper and your use of it is entirely at your own risk. By using it you indemnify me against any and all possible direct or consequential damages.
Its highly likely that I came up with this whole ramble in one disorganized flow.
57.
July 26th, 2007 at 7:50 pm e
Makis Chrysanthos:
1) The behaviour can be very frustrating to people who are organised and structured. The question is what are the bottom line outcomes or results generated in (and out of meetings) by these people? Quite often you will find that they are the ones most capable of thinking on their feet and being customer focused and innovative which is their talent – their vulnerability is that they will be sloppy and disorganised. It pays to have the diversity within the team.
2) The best framework that I have come across to explain what makes people tick is Instinctive Drives – see: http://www.idcentral.com.au/content/view/74/106/
This framework can make the practical aspects of managing people of different types into a science rather than an art by providing management strategies.
3) To manage people like this (assuming they are valued contributors):
a) let them know how they are perceived – they will often be sensitive about their credibility but need some straight talking around this.
b) Provide reminders – they will not be set and forget type people.
c) Give them the bottom line – what contribution do you expect them to make?
d) Anticipate the direction of the meeting and ask questions of them prior to the meeting to see if they have got the subject covered or not – this will stimulate some pressure and action within them.
58.
July 26th, 2007 at 7:51 pm e
Ian Millar: Well, since you can’t shoot them….
I interview people like this alot. Usually I begin probing with questions into areas that they are clearly not prepared, to watch them squirm and sweat. Then, if they have the wits to endure it and do well, I sometimes allow them to recover. If not, I just keep the pressure up until I can tell they’ve had enough.
HOWEVER, I also have learned how to “manage” that behavior. I make sure I am clear and concise in my requirements and objectives. Sometimes what appears as unpreparedness can actually be mismanagement. The more effective I am at clear and concise objectives, the more I notice an outcome of prepared people. A good book on this is “the One Minute Manager”. Sounds too simplistic, but there’s some great wisdom in there.
If you want people to be prepared for a major meeting; be sure that you have planned sufficient time for them to complete the work they are already doing, and add in the extra required project. I can’t recall the full number of times management have asked me to have a 10 hour project done in then next 2 days, for an unplanned meeting, without considering that I already have 18 hours of deadline driven work to complete.
59.
July 27th, 2007 at 9:15 am e
Brad Thomas:
1) Creativity and organizational skill are not mutually exclusive. For every person who gets great results but is disorganized there exists another person somewhere who could reach the same standard in an organized manner. Perhaps that organized person presently works for your competitor. From a business perspective, *all other things being equal*, it is hard to argue against the organized person being superior in every field – because no person is an island, optimal business execution requires good teamwork and good teamwork requires a high level of individual organizational skill. Judging the great results of some disorganized people on their merits alone is insufficient because it neglects the negative team impact. Organized people are more reliable. Organized people positively impact the efficiency and motivation of the team. Disorganized people have the opposite effect.
2) People exhibit disorganized behaviour for two main reasons. At one end of the scale there are people who are disorganized because they have simply learnt to live that way, often since childhood. At the other end there are people who are normally organized but under some form of stress which impairs their normal ability to function. Work overload is a common stressor. Even mostly organized people can feel pressured into taking on so much work that it impacts their ability to organize their lives.
3) Having any chronically disorganized team member is not tolerable from a management perspective unless having an underperforming business is tolerable! There are only two possible outcomes: either your teams become teams of organized people or your business underperforms. The first stage is to accurately identify where on the gray scale above the disorganized employee falls. This analysis brings two benefits. Firstly it assists in an identification of the underlying cause which is the first step en-route to solving the problem. Secondly it assists in determining just how much help should be expended on a particular employee. For those employees who are less habitually disorganized it will be much easier to help correct their behaviour. By all means, give everyone a chance but invest the most time and effort in helping those who stand the best chance of really benefiting from that help.
60.
July 27th, 2007 at 9:17 am e
Mohamed Taher: I think you can take the horse to the pond; but you can’t force it to drink.
I have faced this kind of people, and I see these are are a kind of (hate to call names, but they are most of the time: Specimens of a special kind), not because of their attitutde towards me or the co-workers, but by their nature they tend to pose themselves in that way.
If you are able to motivate them with your own action and good manners, there are chances that they may get to understand that weakness. Bottomline: Taming of the shrewed is not a joke, anyways.
61.
July 27th, 2007 at 9:19 am e
Pankaj Shukla:
1. The behavior is not tolerable, not excusable.
2. They do because they are careless; even worse they do not care for others.
3. They must be shown the way out. You can’t respect those who do not value the time of anyone.
(Of course, I assume them that you have warned them enough for their weakness which has not been successful).
62.
July 27th, 2007 at 9:21 am e
Yvonne Larose: These are behaviors exhibited by a person suffering from learning disability and in all likelihood ADD or ADHD.
Speaking from the perspective of a person who provides disability accommodations and has successfully tutored such individuals, it is necessary to keep as many distractions away from their focus as possible. Distractions can be windows with a view, people passing by the open cubicle, other papers on the desk, pencils that need sharpening, a water glass that needs filling. Clear the desk of any and all unnecessary things except what needs to be done. The project is the main focus and should be kept in front of them.
It is also important to give them short, realizable milestones for accomplishing things. If you know that some things can be accomplished within a particular time frame, ask them to do so and hold them to the time limit. Ask them (if a very intelligent adult) to accomplish two small tasks and report back to you. Increase the number of tasks by one over time until they have reached a plateau. Have them report at the end of the designated tasks so they can demonstrate comprehension as well as fulfillment of that phase of the assignment. Have them write a summary that will become concattonated into a full report (sometimes the thought of doing the full job is overwhelming and stiffles getting started).
If the person begins to stray from their focus and project, they should immediately be brought back on task.
How do I view these people? As a practitioner, I view them as very intelligent but in need of support in order to stay focused. Why do they do it? Because their minds are stimulated by too much information and they desire to consume as much of the stimulus as possible. It is quite difficult for them to discipline theirselves.
Before the presentation — a good two hours before if not a day — go over what they will present, its order, the wording, charts, and so on. Call it a rehearsal. This will provide time for tightening anything that’s not in order, getting it organized, and eliminating any embarrassing surprises.
Incidentally, the person with ADH