Analyzing Staff, Part 2: Hammerstein Window

In part 1, we discussed the value and limitations of using the Zebra test when analyzing staff in terms of willingness and ability.

A more valuable analysis is to think of these traits as two interacting attributes. Willingness is about taking initiative, work ethic, or motivation and can be measured on a continuum that goes from willing (self-starters) to unwilling ("only if I have to"). Whereas ability is on a different continuum about having the skills to do the job well, or at all. Looking at your staff this way will lead to surprising results.

There was a german general in the World Wars who put it this way:

“I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Each officer possesses at least two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Use can be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious must be removed immediately!”*

If you can remember this quote, you are in good shape (I always have to look it up), but it is easier to remember it as a 2x2 table that compares ability to work-ethic. Draw your table where "Clever" and "Stupid" are the row headings, and “Industrious" and “Lazy" are the columns. Now we have four boxes to fill out. The boxes are supposed to look like window panes, that’s why the 2x2 is also called "window analysis".

Obviously, the clever and industrious - shown in the table as “Core Staff” - are the rock of your workforce, and the best of them should be part of your inner circle, but they are not the stuff of leadership. The first surprise, according to the General, is that leadership requires the talents of the clever, but the mindset of the lazy because:

1. They will get it done correctly - they know what needs to be done, but
2. They won't get too excited, over think it, and overdo it.

In other words, they won't panic and will only do what needs to be done. If hardship is the mother of invention, then laziness is the father of efficiency.

Strangely, the stupid and lazy are not the worst. "Use can be made of those who are stupid and lazy." These are what the military call the SLJO's (“Shitty Little Job Officers”), and you can push them along with your core staff. Your core staff will develop the step-by-step procedures, and give them to the SLJOs to follow. Then, the core staff will stand behind them and smack them in the back of the head and yell: Do step one! - smack - Do step two! - smack - ...And so on. You get the idea.

It is the industrious-but-stupid that will jack-up your program as they blunder about making a mess of things. These individuals are a menace and need to be identified early and contained...or according to the general, “removed”.

Depending on how quickly you can fill a vacant position, removing may not be a good option. The long hiring process, that plagues the federal workforce, will push you to consider if the menace is better than an empty chair. It is easier to teach skill than it is to teach work-ethic. And keeping an employee motivated is easier than getting one motivated to begin with. The problem with the menace is that they might be unteachable or require a teacher who is not on your core staff. If that is the case, you must focus on containment.

If you are a manager, you probably have already imagined the names of your subordinates or teammates in each box, or window pane, and had a good laugh... but what box would your manager put you?

• Are you “core staff” and haven’t learned to calm your nerves enough to be the leader?
• Is there a peer, or senior peer, who is always relied upon to organize the work, assign the tasks, and constantly harps on you to get it done? (you are the SLJO!)
• Are you constantly being told to slow down and think it through? (are you the menace?)

In part 3, more windows ...

-AR

*Attributed to Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord in: Dictionary of Military and Naval Quotations, p. 223, by Robert Debs Heinl, Naval Institute Press, 1966

© Aron Ruthe, 2014

Analyzing Staff, Part 1: The Zebra Test

So, you had someone who didn’t do what they were supposed to do. Now, you have to figure out why. Were they unwilling to do the task or were they unable to do the task? Are they mean or stupid? When put this way, you are likely to say they are mean because they don’t like you, don’t like the task, or just don’t care about either. They are just a bunch of malicious people who don’t like you and don’t like doing their jobs. This ignores Hanlon’s razor:

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

 

It is less likely that someone is spending energy to defy you or actively engage in willful insubordination. It is more likely they just did not know how to do the task, did not know when to do the task, or did not know how to ask for help. Some people you expect to be smarter, turn out to be pretty stupid about a lot of things.

 

So, if we are declaring the problem to be because they are unable, we then have to look at the supervisor who is responsible for training the employee. Are you the supervisor? It is tempting to blame unwillingness.

 

This type of analysis is sometimes called a zebra test, or black/white analysis. When I use this with first line supervisors, I ask if their employee (or team member) is unwilling or unable to do the task assigned. Most of them tend to say the reason is a little of both. What follows is generally a heathy discussion about the employee and their interaction with the supervisor.

 

Calling it a test is a bit of a misnomer, since there is not supposed to be a definitive answer to the question, but rather it is to encourage discussion about the problem. The best that can be hoped for is an improved understanding of how people give and receive instruction.

 

The problem with this kind of analysis is that the two attributes are not mutually exclusive. In the next post, we will explore how it is more helpful to think of this as two interacting attributes.

- AR

© Aron Ruthe, 2014