[INTERNAL MEMO]
Not Bad Enough
I did not get the memo on the time change... so I have been up doing deep work and was thinking about a framework on a podcast I listened to last weekend from Nik Storonsky, the founder of Revolut, that put words to this better than I ever have, so credit to him for this part!
He sorts everyone in the company into four tiers (paraphrasing):
Self-guided. You don't even have to give them the goal. They figure out the right one, go hit it, and you find out what they did in the update.
Good. You give them the goal. They hit it. No babysitting.
Average. You give them the goal, and they need a weekly check-in to stay on track. Steering, re-explaining, unblocking, re-prioritizing.
Below average. They can't hit the goal, even with your help.
Most leaders look at that list and think the problem is #4. I think the problem is #3. Don't just fire the bottom tier, fire the average ones.
I know that sounds harsh but here's why I believe it to be true more now than ever.
The obviously bad hire is NOT a threat to your company. I know that sounds backwards but think about what actually happens with them. They miss the goal. They miss it again. Everyone sees it. There's no debate, no gray area, no "well but they're really good at X." You have the conversation (you all know how now lol) and within a few weeks they're gone and no longer a threat to the company.
The system handles them well BECAUSE the evidence is undeniable and the decision basically makes itself. The person who is OBVIOUSLY bad gets fired fast. That's exactly why they don't do much damage, they simply don’t have the time or authority to.
Now take the person who is not OBVIOUSLY good.
They aren't failing. They hit the goal... eventually. They're pleasant in meetings. They say the right things. If you pulled up their results you couldn't point to a disaster, but you also wouldn’t say ‘they are a freaking killer’
What resonates is every single week, you're in a room with them. Re-explaining the priority. Catching them on the thing they didn't catch or ‘quite get’. Nudging the project back on track. Answering the question they could have answered themselves… AGAIN.
Nobody fires this person. Why would you? They're FINE. And that's the icky part
Because they cost you twice:
You don't fire them. So the seat stays filled by someone who will never be great, and the great person who could have had that seat never gets hired.
They take your time and attention. Every week. FOREVERRRR. And nothing ever gets bad enough to make it stop.
#4 costs you a hiring mistake. #3 costs you a hiring mistake PLUS a weekly tax on your attention with no end date in sight b/c you tolerate them.
That is why they're the most dangerous person on your team. Not because they're bad. Because they're not bad ENOUGH.
Most leaders optimize for headcount or span of control or whatever business school told them to optimize for. I think there's really only ONE variable that matters: management time per report.
If you believe the leadership of a company is its most valuable resource (I do, it's why we run LL), then everything a leader spends time on has to be measured against what they COULD have spent it on.
A leader's actual job is three things: innovate, optimize, and remove friction. Find the new thing. Make the existing thing better. Clear the path so the team moves faster.
Managing people is part of the job, it’s not THE WHOLE JOB. Your management time is always higher than these other growth activities when you have hired the wrong people.
So when I see a leader whose week is 80% check-ins and re-explaining, I used to think "they need to get better at delegating." Now I think "they have too many #3s and it's eating them alive."
You cannot innovate when your calendar is full of managing. You cannot remove friction when you ARE the friction-removal mechanism for 6-10 people. Every hour you spend doing someone else's thinking is an hour the company doesn't get its leader GROWING the division.
Which is why I've said for years: I'm looking for people who are SELF-PROPELLED. Motivating someone is a much harder job than giving someone direction and letting them go. I would rather have a tornado I have to reel back, slow down, or tell to do LESS than someone I have to get the engine started for every Monday. Pointing someone at a target is a 5 minute conversation. Trying to make them WANT to hit it is a full time job, and it's not the one you were hired for, I call that ‘out of scope’
Now the caveat, because I know some of you are already thinking it: not every company and not every role is going to attract people you NEVER have to manage. That's obvious and I'm not pretending otherwise. Some seats, by nature, need more direction.
But it IS the thing we should all be striving for. A team of people who naturally self-manage versus people who need to be motivated and constantly managed. Not because it's easier for us (although it is lol), but because it's the only way a leader's time actually gets spent on leading and the only way we WIN as a company.
So I'm not telling you to go fire everyone who needs a check-in. Some gaps are small and teachable (two weeks ago I wrote about how to tell the difference, use it).
What I AM telling you is to be honest about the ROI.
Pull up your direct reports. For each one ask: if I disappeared for a month, what happens to their goal?
It gets hit anyway → #1 or #2. Give them MORE.
It drifts → #3. Now ask the real question: is this person a #2 in 90 days with a clear goal, or am I in this same meeting with them a year from now?
It falls apart → #4. You already know what to do.
Here's what I think actually happens: most good leaders fail here because they weight empathy above winning. They can SEE who the #3s are. They just don't act, because the person is nice and the situation never gets bad enough to force it.
But "not bad enough" IS the whole problem. Nothing will force this decision. So you have to.
The bottom line: the person who is obviously bad will get fired. The person who is obviously good will get promoted. The person in the middle is the one who quietly decides whether you ever get to do your actual job.
Please think on this…
- Leila
Ps. Want to receive these memos in your inbox (completely free)?