By Janet Wright

An intervention is an extreme, serious action to improve a critical situation. Reality TV has sensationalized this concept but you may not have considered this same approach as an effective solution in the workplace. Specifically, an intervention may be a useful strategy for “problem leaders.”

Addressing Problematic Leadership
On the surface, problem leaders don’t always appear problematic. In fact, they are often very strong contributors – it is not unusual to hear them referred to as “rainmakers”.  However, sometimes the very people who get such great results do so in ways that damage their teams, incurring costs that may take some effort to measure but that are both real and significant.

Of course, these problem leaders are really problem people who have been promoted into leadership positions. They either are unaware of their negative impact on others or they justify it by their results. In a competitive organizational culture, they would have been regularly rewarded for their achievements and promoted because of them. Chances are, they have never been truly confronted about their behaviour.

Because HR is usually the first to hear employee complaints and because they drive the performance review and management process, they are ideally positioned to identify problem people early and lead improvement initiatives to change behaviour before a crisis is reached. Even so, sometimes an intervention is necessary.

The objectives of an intervention are to help the leader become more aware of his/her thinking style, the behaviours it leads to and the impact those behaviours have on the team. Through the intervention process, the leader learns to recognize triggers for ineffective thinking styles, develops better behavioural responses and the ability to stop and replace habitual behaviours with more effective ones.

The Cost of Negative Relations
A recent Gallup poll of more than 1 million employees confirmed the number one reason people quit their jobs is a bad boss. Turnover is expensive—some estimates run as high as 150 per cent of annual salary.

Gallup also reported that poorly managed work groups are on average 50 percent less productive and 44 percent less profitable than well-managed groups. In addition, there are less obvious costs such as increased sick/stress leave and time spent dealing with complaints.

Thinking Styles Impact Behaviour
Leadership effectiveness depends not just on ability to choose appropriate strategies but to execute these in a way that has a positive impact on the bottom line and the team. Two leaders can have the same strategies in mind, but differences in execution (behaviours) can make one leader highly effective and the other a problem. Choice of behaviours is determined by one’s thinking style and the good news is that thinking style can be transformed.

The Human Synergistics Stylus model divides 12 thinking styles into three categories:

Passive/Defensive Impact: People who over-rely on this style are outwardly focussed; they validate themselves through the approval of others. They are dependant, conventional, avoid conflict and usually do not achieve strong results.

Aggressive/Defensive Impact: Our “problem leaders” usually over-rely on this style. They are outwardly-focussed and they validate themselves by competing with others; they need to see themselves, and be seen by others, as better.  They are often perfectionist (“nobody can do it as well as I do”), oppositional and power-seeking. Their leadership is autocratic—“my way or the highway.” The task focus of this style makes these leaders very effective but they have an under-developed people focus.

Constructive Impact: Leaders who rely on this style are inwardly-focussed with a need to measure up to their own goals, rather than compare themselves to others. They are self-actualizing and have a healthy balance of task and people orientation, achieving their results with and through others.

Everyone will use each thinking style to some degree; effective leaders rely primarily on the constructive style. In an intervention, the problem leader’s style is transformed from aggressive to constructive.

When and How to Take Action
As with any issue impacting productivity and engagement, the sooner the problem is addressed, the better. If traditional performance management tactics have failed, the leader sees no reason to change and the effect on the team has reached a crisis, it is time for an intervention.

HR plays a critical role in the initiation, facilitation and evaluation of the process. They will identify the need, source an experienced coach who will work well with the leader, get buy-in from senior leadership to take action, coach the leader’s manager through the difficult initial message, liaise with the coach to track progress and provide ongoing follow-up to ensure that the desired behaviour is sustained.

Every intervention must start with a bomb—a strong, direct message to the leader that this is a career-limiting situation. This message is necessary to motivate the leader to change and it should be delivered by the person to whom this leader reports.  While it is important that a strong, forceful message is delivered, it needs to be presented from the position of a sincere desire to help if there is any hope for success. The presenter of the information needs to be assertive yet not diminish the leader.

Once there is agreement from the leader to receive help, the coaching process will begin, helping the leader learn new habits that lead to more effective outcomes.

What is the ROI?
Investing in a neutral, third party who can deliver on all phases of the intervention pays off in improved morale, increased productivity and workforce stability. The desired outcome is a great leader with a happy team—a combination whose potential is massive.

Janet Wright is a certified executive coach and facilitator with with Toombs Inc. in Vancouver, BC.

(PeopleTalk Winter 2014)