Ged: [00:00:00] Welcome back to podcast. The podcast where Milan and I choose a card at random from a deck of cards that Milan has created. A pack of cards just like this. Let’s shuffle the deck and see what pops out.
Milan: Lovable losers. I love that term. I heard it first from Greg Crab. And the whole title is lovable Losers and the other ones when I posted it. But when I wrote it, it was a actual quote from Greg Trape, which says The lovable losers. And the terrorists. And the reason why I couldn’t use that in this title is that the you know, search algorithms looked at the title quite unkindly. So I had to go in a, in a different direction. But who are lovable losers? Who are the terrorists? And what is, [00:01:00] stop again?. So who are lovable losers and who are the terrorists? Have you heard those terms before Jet?
Ged: Yeah, I have, I’m pretty familiar with people who meet those briefs. E exactly. Absolutely. Absolutely. We see those all the time in the teams that we work with.
Milan: Hmm. And so how, how they’re, how they’re defined. You know, you are the model guy. You are a framework person. So tell us.
Ged: Well, let, let’s start with the lovable losers. So, you know, these are the people who are pretty innocuous and people normally love. And if we’re looking at the, you know, the nine box team assessment. Tool that we use with the two dimensions of core values, alignment and performance. The lovable losers are the ones that are probably at the top left now, so by our definition, they’re [00:02:00] C players, although they’re probably thought of as more low performing B players, which is the same as a C player.
Milan: Yes.
Ged: What, what characterizes these people? I mean, they, they just live the core values now. They are always there, they’re always, they’re always shouting for the team, but they’re not particularly productive, you know, and they don’t necessarily meet their performance objectives at all, ever. But they’re nice and everyone loves them, and they probably sh, they probably chair.
The social committee, they’re probably the ones that organize the Friday afternoon barbecues. Yeah. They’re the ones that you know, if you want to know who can do something in the organization, you can probably go to them and they’ll know exactly who to go to. But it’s probably not them because they don’t do much at all.
Hmm.
Milan: Yeah. Well, [00:03:00] and often their main claim to fame is that it’s been, they’ve been always there. Right. They’ve been a part of forming the culture in the first place, and that’s why they fit into it so well. But just because they might have been the right person 10 years ago doesn’t mean that they’re right person today. Right? Like everybody loves them. Everybody cannot imagine the life without them. And that is the problem because once you see the life in the company without, it’s like, oh my goodness. Yeah, I think I just had a conversation. A few days ago, we said, Hey I wish we let that person stick around for three months longer. Said, no, CEO ever. Right?
Ged: Absolutely. Yeah. Mm-hmm.
Milan: Never happens. Never happens.
Ged: Yep. But it’s, it’s never that clear cut with a lovable loser, [00:04:00] is it? Because, well, you know, they’re the life and soul of the organization, so it’s really hard to make a call there, you know, and, and the, the question we often ask is, would you and enthusiastically rehire every single person on your team?
And with lovable, lovable looters, lose. With lovable losers, difficult to say when you’re saying it again and again with lovable losers. The answer to that question is yes.
Milan: Or
Ged: And then there’s a question mark around, ah, would we, would we so it’s difficult. It’s difficult doing anything about the lovable losers.
The key thing is you have to do something. And there’s a, there’s a few strategies that you can, you can use to sort of, to, to work lovable losers either back to where they should be, as in at least a b player with a track to being an A player or maybe somewhere else. Maybe a different role, maybe a different role in a different [00:05:00] organization, but be prepared for a tough conversation because a team won’t necessarily support that I Is that the experience you’ve had?
Milan: Absolutely. Look, if, if we go back to a you know, the coach couch or coach episode the other way around that we had with with Dr. Keto, think about the. Two parts of that problem. One is making the decision that the person shouldn’t be there. ’cause very often you hear, yeah, they’re really not the right but right. And the reason for him them to stay is the but. That’s usually difficult and painful it would be to act on the decision. And you separate those two. The fact that, you know, keeping somebody in a position in which they are not a, is actually not kind to them either. Let alone to their peers, right?
Because hey, if that person can be acting in this particular way, like, why would I try any [00:06:00] harder? Right? It’s really bringing, bringing the whole team, the whole team down. But I think that the strategy really is to decide first. It’s just clear without any, without any baggage decide whether they truly are the right person for the position that the, or for the function that the organization needs. Might not be the position or function that they’re doing today, because they might have built one around them, or there was one actually built around them. And they might be even performing well within it. Right? But what, what you’re saying when we go to the team assessment, they’re the easiest to deal with easier to deal with actually, because there is a potential for a vertical movement. Sorry. Horizontal movement, which is simple. It means that hey, they are the right person for the organization, but not for the role. So now the question is, is there a role in the organization that we would be hiring for [00:07:00] anyway? That’s important. We don’t create a role for them, but if we have a role that the organization needs, that they would be a perfect hire for.
Absolutely. As long as the three reasons, the the three conditions are fulfilled a. That role exists is defined independent on that person, on that candidate. Second, we would be hiring for this role from the outside anyway. And three, if this person shows up outta the outside with everything we know about them and everything that’s on their resume, would we enthusiastically hire them for the position?
If you answer three times yes, then that’s the best possible scenario because you’re retaining somebody who is. Absolutely know, alive with the company values and you’re putting them into position in which they can be a player. A player, and excel of both worlds. Sadly, doesn’t happen that often, but when it does, it’s a beautiful to.
Okay.
Ged: [00:08:00] Yeah. Something that I’ve seen quite frequently is that, you know, the, the lovable loser has actually gone out and found something to do to keep themselves busy. They might not be doing their job well but they’re probably doing something else in the organization. And part of that is because they probably realize they’re not doing their own job well, so they’re.
Trying to look for relevance in the organization and like, you know, they’ve spotted a gap and they’ve said, well, okay, no one else is doing this, or no one else is doing this. Well, I’ll just start doing that. It was never part of their job, but over time it becomes part of them, part of their role, part of what they do.
And. Everyone just accepts that. And sometimes they’re actually taking on something that is really useful to the organization, in which case, you’ve got a pretty easy decision now. Why don’t you make that their job and liberate them from the thing that they weren’t doing so well in the past? And you know, that that’s a, that’s a pattern that I’ve seen a few times.
And, you know, and that you can spot [00:09:00] that now when, when the conversation goes, well, this is my job, but I also do this.
Milan: Mm-hmm.
Ged: Yeah, and it’s not in a job description. It’s not in a job specification, but everyone understands that that’s what they do.
Milan: Yeah. And again, the question is, would we hire somebody else to do that if you were and be doing that, right. That’s the important thing, because just because they do something and just because they do it well, doesn’t mean that it needs to get done
Ged: That’s right. Yep.
Milan: On the
Ged: Mm-hmm.
Milan: Or the, and the opportunity cost of that person not doing their job in the first place. But I think that, I want to stress one more thing. Talking about lovable losers so badly and they don’t deserve it. ’cause very often it’s not their fault,
Ged: Mm-hmm.
Milan: Right? Because they are so ingrained in the culture of the company, they are doing their best to fulfill it and find it and to be helpful and do do all of those things right?
Which is why we love them. That’s why they’re lovable [00:10:00] in the first place. But again, they don’t necessarily fit into the design of the organization the way it needs to be. And going back to the fact that we have those two steps in the decision, one is okay. You know, does, should this person be here? And second, if so, now what we are going to do about it? The, what we are going to do about it is a process. Doesn’t mean we are not going to be gentle about it. Doesn’t mean that we are not going to be human. Doesn’t mean that we will, won’t take into consideration how long there have been here. Doesn’t mean that we won’t help them find the next thing. Doesn’t mean that we won’t be generous in our severance if we can afford it or whatever, you know, whatever that is. This is not inhuman thing. This is not called, this is just the reality because again, keeping somebody in a position, which they can, they cannot excel, is not kind to them either.
Ged: Yep. Yep, yep. And it’s a question about having, of having a plan. You need a plan in place, whatever that plan [00:11:00] is gonna take that individual, hopefully it is to the right, but not always.
Milan: Yeah. Sometimes it’s out, unfortunately. Yeah.
Ged: Yeah.
Milan: Let, let, let’s talk about the other group.
Ged: Yep, yep. So, you know, you use the very SEO unfriendly term terrorist and I, I get that’s language out there and I, I’ve, I’ve also heard them described in other ways, you know, you know, so someone said to me, oh, they’re the toxic A players. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,
Milan: Toxic, you’re not an A player. That’s
Ged: That’s right.
Absolutely. They are toxic sea players. You know? They are the ones right at the bottom right of the team assessment chart. Yeah. So they are high performers. They exceed performance.
Milan: Do you know why Greg calls them terrorists?
Ged: Go ahead.
Milan: ’cause they hold you hostage by their performance.
Ged: Okay. Yeah, I like that. Yeah. Yeah. Mm-hmm.
Milan: The you know, that’s the idea that, that the literally is that because we cannot [00:12:00] get rid of them because we would lose the sales the person is making. Right. Or you know, we cannot, we cannot do that. The performance is us blind to the damage they’re causing. By the other hand, when this one is doing this right it’s, it is crazy. And what is so. Amazing every time this happens, how you feel, the change in the atmosphere in the organization where the person is finally gone. Like when you, when you hear that collective side, you know that, that deep breath coming out say, okay, now we can do this.
Because, you know, the performance can always, always, absolutely, always be replaced, be compensated for, but the culture of fit cannot.
Ged: Yeah.
Milan: Personality, somebody who just makes everybody else life miserable. Right. We’ve seen all of those things. We’ve seen, [00:13:00] somebody who would be belittling their colleagues who would be making fun of them, like mock them. Who would be rude and all of them and just because they were pulling their quota every quarter, they stayed there for three years while seven other people who could have been a perfect A players left in the meantime. Right. That is a typical problem of keeping C players around is you gonna lose the A players because. A players do not want to work with C players. So you need to, you need to understand that yes, those decisions might be tough and you might have to get creative about how to do things right and how to minimize the impact, but the decision needs to be made, and then you make a plan on how to act on it. Doesn’t matter if you’re talking lovable losers or terrorists. The, the flavor is different. The principle is exactly the same.
Ged: Yeah, absolutely. And I, I think the the, the thing, the thing here is that [00:14:00] tolerating. C players tolerating those toxic people now that is being watched by everyone in the team. They are looking at you, not make a decision. So this is reflecting on you as a leader and over time. The trust and the authority you’ve got is being eroded away, and you don’t want that because you want as much trust and authority, an earned authority in the business as you possibly can.
So if you’re delaying that decision, you are killing your own culture. And if you are doing that just to keep a high performer in, then it’s a, it is a bad call. It’s a mistake, and it’s a mistake that’s gonna bite you. It’s gonna come back and bite you at some point.
Milan: Yeah, you are compromising. You’re basically saying, on one hand you’re saying, Hey, these are our company values and we expect everybody to do them. And then we second, hey, and these are our performance expectations that we expect from somebody. Except for these two people who, for whatever reasons, you know, I, [00:15:00] yeah, we know that he doesn’t really do much, but he’s been here for 15 years and we know that this guy is an a-hole.
But you know, what he’s pulling distinctly just means for everybody else that whatever else you say matter. Right,
Ged: Yep. Yep.
Milan: Right? So
Ged: Yep.
Milan: Would I work this hard or why would I let alone if you actually make those people part of your hiring decisions for the next you know, for the next hires, that’s a completely different kind of worms. But yes, if you don’t have a player team, you are not a player yourself by definition.
Ged: Yeah, and it, and it’s not always sales. It’s not always the high performers, the ones that hit their quotas, you know, I’ve seen it happen across all sorts of different areas. You know, they’re the only ones that can configure the report quickly. They’re the only ones that have the technical expertise about the platform that is legacy or you know, the unique and [00:16:00] indispensable within the business.
Now they’re the ones that have that knowledge. That puts them in a position of power, which means they feel it’s okay to be our assholes.
Milan: Yes, very nicely said. You know, I was afraid to use that word. I actually abbreviated Thank you for going there. That’s exactly what I meant.
Ged: Well, I think the audience we have, it’s probably not under 18, so I think we can use words like that.
Milan: Excellent, excellent. So both of those, let’s go back to the lovable losers and the terrorists are people who are. Staying in the organization effectively forcing you to lower your standards. And once you lower your standards, you are lowering there for everybody. One of them is doing it, they are doing it on the performance scale because they are overweighting it by the culture fit. And then the other ones are lowering it on the culture scale because they are holding you [00:17:00] hostage and making your decision really hard. On the performance or out of output piece. Both of them are equally bad. Both of them are really, really difficult to get rid of. For reasons we just said like if somebody is not performing and they’re not culture fit grade, that makes it relatively easy. That’s the third quadrant, which we called. How the hell are they still here? Quadrant, right? There literally isn’t any reason for that.. But these two are are ones that you know, require some care and require some thinking and require careful planning, but they need to be gone regardless.
Ged: Either need to move or be gone.
Milan: Yep.
Ged: Mm-hmm.
Milan: And again, it’s easier to move for the lovable losers because again, all you need to do is to them into position. And I’ll be strict about those words. Put them into position. I’m not saying find a position. I’m not saying create a [00:18:00] position. I’m saying put them into position that you already have and you know, that you require, that they can excel at. If there is such position create that is fantastic. Once you are on the, on the scale, like, you know, you cannot. Take the a outta the you know, it just, it’s just not gonna happen, right? That person just doesn’t fit. Ideal team player you know, is a fantastic book on that, on that particular topic, right?
They’re basically talking about specifically that. And that’s the first criteria, right? Bringing on somebody or keeping, or keeping only, only people who fit and they’re just not a. Burden on everybody else.
Ged: It’s a wrap.
Milan: It. I get it from your silent silence that it was a wrap. Okay.
Ged: Oh. Didn’t need to [00:19:00] do anything else there.
Milan: No, I don’t think so. I think it was pretty good.
Ged: Mm-hmm.
Milan: The
Ged: We gonna do the tease up.
Milan: Good. Yes.
Ged: Well, I don’t think it’ll be that short. I mean, we’ve got 19 minutes here, you know, by the time they’ve taken out that brief bit at the beginning. And when you restart it Yeah.
Milan: Minutes probably. Yeah.
Ged: Easy, easy. By the time they’ve done the
Milan: Yeah.
Ged: Shuffle. Yeah. Bit of like, and subscribe, you know, that’s know, easy be 15, I reckon.
Yep.
Milan: Okay. Excellent.
Ged: Yep. So I’ll do the, we’ve just recorded lovable losers. What did we talk about? Yep.
Milan: Yeah. Mm-hmm.
Ged: Milan and I have just finished recording. Lovable losers card that is, has been published or is it due to be published?
Milan: Oh, it is published, like Ged: It is published.
Milan: Yeah. We, we don’t, we don’t ship the card cast episode until the is out as well.
Ged: Okay, so lovable losers, people in the [00:20:00] organization that lived the core values, but don’t do that much. What do we talk about in this episode?
Milan: So we talked about the two groups of C players, as we call them, that are the hardest to make a change of. And one of them are the lovable losers that which are the ones that are, have a very high cultural fit and everybody loves them. But again, the performance is not there. And then we have the terrorists, for lack of better word, who are holding you hostage with their performance.
Meaning that there might be making life difficult for everybody else. And we are constantly making excuses for them. Yeah, he’s like that, but you know, they’re performing, they are our best in something and, and all of those things. And they’re both equally dangerous to the future of the organization.
You need to be careful about how you deal with them, but to deal with them, you must. That
Ged: That’s,[00:21:00]
Milan: Okay. Alright. We
Ged: Okay, I will.
Milan: Expected on a, on a guested episode.
Ged: Yep. I’ll stop the recording and.
