Most People Want To Do Good Work

This principle has influenced my own leadership philosophy throughout my professional career.

Most associates want to do a good job.

They do not arrive at work hoping to fail. They do not want coworkers correcting their mistakes. They do not enjoy missing schedules or disappointing customers.

Most certainly do not want to leave work carrying anxiety about poor performance.

That observation changes the first question a manager should ask when something goes wrong.

Instead of immediately asking:

Why did this associate fail?

Ask:

What prevented this associate from succeeding?

Sometimes the answer will involve individual performance.

Other times, the answer will be inadequate training, unclear instructions, unavailable materials, poor tools, conflicting priorities, unrealistic schedules, or workplace conditions beyond the associate’s control.

Leadership begins by discovering which one is actually true.

Accountability Must Work In Both Directions

This philosophy does not mean associates are never responsible for poor performance.

People make mistakes. Some ignore procedures. Others may resist training or repeatedly fail to meet reasonable expectations despite receiving proper support.

Individual accountability remains necessary.

However, management accountability comes first.

Before telling an associate to improve, a good manager should be able to say with confidence:

• We provided the proper tools.
• We provided adequate training.
• We provided the correct materials.
• We established reasonable working conditions.
• We communicated clear expectations.
• We provided leadership when problems occurred.

Only after examining those responsibilities can management fairly evaluate the associate’s performance.

The Psychology Of Being Prepared To Succeed

Workplace performance is influenced by more than technical ability.

People also need psychological clarity.

An associate who understands expectations can concentrate on the task. An associate receiving conflicting instructions must constantly decide which direction deserves attention.

That uncertainty consumes mental energy.

The same problem occurs when employees repeatedly encounter missing materials, unreliable equipment, changing priorities, or unclear procedures. Instead of focusing entirely on their work, they must continually compensate for weaknesses in the system.

Eventually, frustration can replace confidence.

Good leadership reduces unnecessary uncertainty.

When associates understand their responsibilities and have reliable support, they can direct more attention toward doing good work.

That benefits the associate.

It also benefits the manager, the customer, and the entire organization.

When An Associate Fails, Management Should Look First

A leadership principle I have carried throughout my career is simple.

When an associate has a performance problem, management should first examine its own responsibility.

That does not mean automatically accepting blame. It means accepting the responsibility to investigate before judging.

Consider an associate who misses a production target.

A weak response might be, “You need to work faster.”

A stronger manager asks what happened.

Perhaps a machine repeatedly stopped. Materials arrived late. Instructions changed during the shift. Training did not cover the problem encountered. Another department created an unexpected delay.

Telling that associate to work faster solves nothing.

Removing the obstacle might solve the problem immediately.

Problems Can Become Management Information

A struggling associate can reveal weaknesses that performance reports never expose.

Repeated mistakes may indicate inadequate training.

Slow production may expose poor workflow.

Quality problems may identify unclear instructions.

Missed schedules may reveal unrealistic planning.

Frustration may indicate conflicting priorities.

A good manager does not merely correct the person closest to the problem. The manager looks upstream and asks what allowed the problem to occur.

That turns failure into useful information.

The goal is not finding someone to blame.

The goal is preventing the problem from happening again.

Leadership Creates The Environment

Managers cannot perform every task for their associates.

They should not try.

Their responsibility is to create an environment where capable people can perform their responsibilities successfully.

• Provide the tools.
• Provide the training.
• Provide the materials.
• Create reasonable working conditions.
• Communicate expectations clearly.
• Remove unnecessary obstacles.

Then allow people to do good work.

When those conditions exist, accountability becomes fair because both sides have fulfilled their responsibilities.

The associate is accountable for performance.

Management is accountable for making performance reasonably achievable.

Practical Application

The next time someone on your team struggles, resist beginning with a conclusion.

Begin with questions.

Ask:

• Was the expectation clear?
• Was the associate properly trained?
• Were the correct tools and materials available?
• Were working conditions reasonable?
• Did management create conflicting priorities?
• Did leadership respond when the associate asked for help?

Only then ask whether the individual failed to meet a reasonable expectation.

This approach does not weaken accountability.

It strengthens it.

Reflection Question

Think about the last performance problem you encountered at work.

Was it truly a people problem?

Or was the person experiencing a system problem that management had the responsibility and authority to correct?

A Leadership Philosophy Worth Practicing

Most associates want to go home feeling good about the work they accomplished.

Managers should want the same thing for them.

Leadership is not demonstrated by demanding success after failure occurs. Leadership is demonstrated by creating the conditions that make success possible before the work begins.

When associates succeed, organizations succeed with them.

And when associates struggle, responsible leadership asks one important question before assigning blame:

What could we have done better to help this person succeed?

References

1. Lacerenza, C. N., Reyes, D. L., Marlow, S. L., Joseph, D. L., & Salas, E. (2017). Leadership training design, delivery, and implementation: A meta analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(12), 1686–1718. DOI: 10.1037/apl0000241. This meta analysis of 335 independent samples found leadership training improved learning, transfer, and organizational results. (PubMed)
2. Hughes, A. M., Zajac, S., Woods, A. L., & Salas, E. (2020). The role of work environment in training sustainment: A meta analysis. Human Factors, 62(1), 166–183. DOI: 10.1177/0018720819845988. Particularly relevant to the article’s argument that training alone is insufficient. Supervisor, peer, and organizational support influence whether employees successfully apply their training. (PubMed)
3. Slemp, G. R., Kern, M. L., Patrick, K. J., & Ryan, R. M. (2018). Leader autonomy support in the workplace: A meta analytic review. Motivation and Emotion, 42(5), 706–724. DOI: 10.1007/s11031-018-9698-y. Across 83 independent samples involving 32,870 workers, supportive leadership was positively associated with motivation, wellbeing, and positive workplace behaviors. (PubMed)
4. Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 981–1003. DOI: 10.1037/a0022676. This research supports the relationship between leadership, management practices, workplace characteristics, psychological empowerment, and employee performance. (PubMed)