--- Katherine Graham

Devoted and determined talent comes in different forms and sometimes misperceptions cause managers to fail to recognize the difference.  Don't make this mistake. 

In her book, I Quit, But Forgot to Tell You, Terri points out that some employees are hungry for results, impatient for promotions and willing to sacrifice life for work as part of how they identify who they are as individuals.  Their engagement is highly visible and she calls them "A" players.  But there are also "B" players who are just as loyal and dedicated, but their focus is to shed the spotlight on others.  These are the "worker bees" that rarely, if ever, make personal demands or try to stand out. 

"B" players are an enigma to "A" players; "A" players truly do not understand them.  As a result, "A" players tend to stand out while "B" players and their values are frequently overlooked and their contributions minimized. 

Hiring managers routinely pass on "B" players because they simply don't interview as well as "A" players.  Yet, despite their humble demeanor, they are the foundation of an organization's productivity.  Their natural and highly developed listening skills make them a great sounding board for other's issues and concerns.  And their caring nature frequently puts them behind-the-scenes as coaches and counselors to others.  Because of their non-overt style of performing, they are sometimes mistaken for being disengaged-generally the result of an "A" player's false perceptions. 

To make sure that you don't overlook your valuable "B" players, here are a few distinguishing characteristics of the two:  

B Players

There is a significant difference between "B" workers and disengaged workers-it's within their hearts.  "B" workers genuinely care about their co-workers, their company and its customers.  They are mentally present-in contrast to disengaged workers who tend to be more self-focused and often mentally absent.  "B" workers add to your company's value-disengaged workers take away.  Be careful of perceptions and be sure to take the time to recognize the difference-because "B" players make a significant difference.

Trends indicate that when bad hiring decisions are made, or when the wrong person is promoted, there's a cost-both intrinsic and tangible costs.  According to a Right Management Survey, when bad hires or wrong promotions are made it leads to a variety of negative issues: 

• 68% showed lower morale
• 66% experienced lower productivity 
• 54% lost customers
• 51% incurred higher training costs
• 44% incurred higher recruiting costs

On the other hand, a Towers Perrin Global Workforce Study found that the primary reasons for employees staying with their companies and remaining engaged were: 

• Working for a manager who understands and motivates them
• Having challenging work
• The opportunity for career advancement
• Visibility, honesty and consistency from their manager
• A demonstrated interest in the employee

Our own firm's survey supports these findings.  When surveying more than 4000 employees in full-time positions on why employees would stay with their current employer rather than be tempted by a new job offer, a solicitation from a competitor or being approached by a headhunter, the critical factors were: 

• 62% passed on the job offer because they felt a caring connection with their boss - a genuine concern about their well-being, growth and development.

Nearly half (49%) of those who said they would leave their position for another job, despite the fact that they enjoyed what they did, would do so because of politics, favoritism, and a perceived lack of caring by the company or their boss. 

Another perception:  38% perceived that their company was somewhat dishonest with its customers.  This was based on a fine line between what the company directed employees to say to customers vs. what they felt was actually the right thing to do. 

A couple of important conclusions: 

• Engaging employees is not just about what you do with them, for them, or to them - a broader perspective is involved.  Employees recognize how honest you are in your daily interactions with customers, vendors, and partners as well as with each other.
• Engaged employees are honest employees with high standards.  When dishonesty or double standards are perceived, it can lead to disengagement.

Problem:  Martin seemed to be the right person for the job, but after a few months he has become a laggard and it's obvious he no longer enjoys his job.  He continually expresses dissatisfaction to his colleagues, yet when confronted, he says everything is fine.  As the manager, you've talked with Martin, offered him additional training and probed to make sure nothing outside of work is contributing to his attitude.  Nothing seems to make a difference.  What would you do?   

Solution:  If you have made a wrong hiring decision, recognize it early and deal with it.  Either change the position or change the person.  Don't ponder it; don't postpone it; just recognize that you've made a hiring mistake and fix it.  In the long run, you'll be doing as much of a favor for the wrong-fit employee as you'll be doing for yourself and your department.

• Do other employees a favor.  They usually know before you that a co-worker is ineffective or a detriment to the company.
• Do yourself a favor.  How much time are you spending with the poor performer?  Your time is costly to you and your company.  Make better use of your time by developing engaged employees with potential.
• Do your customers a favor.  An unhappy worker does not deliver satisfying and happy service.

Dissatisfaction, frustration and constant griping from an unhappy employee creates a vortex that sucks the enthusiasm out of even the most productive and engaged workers.  When a manager delays the inevitable, additional damage is done. 

Our research identified that it takes the typical manager nine months before recognizing unacceptable work patterns.  Then, this typical manager lingers another three months before addressing the issue.  This allows the employee to remain actively disengaged for twelve whole months-one full year!  Even worse, after trying to address the performance problem with the disengaged individual, it takes the average manager an additional six to nine months before he's willing to fire the employee.  This is especially damaging considering that many company policies state that before an employee is "separated" he must be put on a three-month Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). 

If the employee agrees to be placed in PIP-and most employees do simply to buy time-he must show improvement by meeting set goals and demonstrating a renewed commitment to his job and the company.  If he does not meet the requirements after the three-month period, he can then be fired. 

While this may sound reasonable, consider this:  If the employee continues to be disengaged, his disengagement period now totals eighteen to twenty-one months-a period during which he has continued to negatively affect co-workers, customers and reports.  Thus, trying to "fix" people can actually yield negative returns in productivity, morale and customer service.  That's why it's better for all involved to know when NOT to retain an employee and why. 

Every time I work with a client or visit a prospect I learn something new.  Recently I was having lunch with a prospect in a very nice restaurant.  The acoustics were not terrific so both of us couldn't help but overhear the man at the next table who was speaking quite loud.  The ensuing conversation gave great food for thought: 

"He may be the boss, but he doesn't know ____," the man insisted.  "He doesn't understand that I'm NOT in SALES and I couldn't give a ____ about customers." 

Could I have asked for a better example of an employee who must be totally mismatched to the company-the job-even his co-workers (based on the silence coming from his co-worker companion)?

Ironically, we had just been talking about the importance of using assessments to match people to positions and company culture.  Wow!  What a timely example.  But, it does beg the question......What might your people be saying at lunch?