The framework allows leaders to reframe performance problems. Instead of judging an employee or feeling guilty about one's own shortcomings, it attributes struggles to a mismatch between a person's natural genius and their job requirements. This fosters grace and enables constructive conversations about finding the right role.
Related Insights
What is often perceived as political maneuvering or a negative attitude on a team is frequently just a misunderstanding of different Working Genius profiles. For example, one person's need to talk through ideas can frustrate another's desire to just get things done. Recognizing this re-attributes conflict to wiring, not malice.
In a supportive culture, managing underperformance starts with co-authored goals upstream. When results falter, the conversation should be a diagnostic inquiry focused on removing roadblocks. This shifts the focus from the person's failure to the problem that's hindering their success, making tough conversations productive.
When an employee isn't meeting expectations, it's rarely due to lack of effort. It's typically because they don't know *what* to do, *why* it's important to the larger picture, or *how* to do it. Addressing these three points provides clarity and removes roadblocks before assuming a performance issue.
View poor performance or difficult behavior as a manifestation of 'feelings overpowering skills,' rather than a conscious bad choice. This transforms a leader's role from a disciplinarian to a coach focused on teaching the missing skills to manage the situation.
“Giving yourself grace” is not an excuse for poor effort. It is a post-performance strategy. Uphold a high standard in your work, but apply grace in the evaluation by learning from mistakes without obsessive self-criticism, which prevents you from backing away after a setback.
The belief that people fail due to lack of will leads to blame. Shifting to 'people do well if they can' reframes failure as a skill gap, not a will gap. This moves your role from enforcer to helper, focusing you on identifying and building missing skills.
Instead of assuming laziness, diagnose underperformance by asking: Did they know what to do? Did they know how? Did they know when? Is something blocking them? This framework avoids personal attacks and uncovers the real issue.
A manager's highest duty is to an employee's fulfillment, not just their performance. When a top performer is not personally aligned with their role, a leader should actively help them find a better fit—even if it means using their own social capital to place them at another organization.
Frame difficult conversations by separating the problematic behavior (e.g., being late) from the person's identity (e.g., being lazy). This 'good person who is struggling with X' approach prevents defensiveness and allows for a productive discussion about the issue.
When leaders use a tool like Working Genius to openly admit, "Hey, I suck at a few things. And here's the proof," it creates a liberating culture. It signals to everyone that it's safe to be vulnerable, acknowledge their own areas of frustration, and ask for help without fear of judgment.