Ops NCO

In the military, there's a long tradition of good-natured rivalry between units. Combat arms units talk trash on non-combat arms units (although in today's type of war, almost everyone ends up on the "front lines"). Light infantry units think they're better than mechanized units. Airborne units believe they're better than "leg" (non-airborne) units. Ranger battalions believe (and with good cause) that they are better than almost everyone else.

There actually is some merit to this type of thinking. The simple truth is...some units are better than others. Although I only served in an airborne division, I did have platoon sergeants who were emphatic that the calibre of our soldiers was much higher than in other units. I've also heard it said repeatedly that Ranger Privates and Spec 4's are routinely asked to do things that Sergeants and Staff Sergeants would do in other units.

However, the point to this isn't to start an argument about "who is better". The point is to talk about the power of understanding the bell curve.

What is the bell curve? Well, it's pretty simple, actually. If you take ten people...it could be ten men, ten women, ten privates, ten sergeants, ten paratroopers, ten Baptists, or really ten of any kind of person, you'll find something interesting:

• One of those people (maybe two, if you're lucky) will be better than the group. They'll be the "go-to" people that you can count on to get the job done right the first time.
• On the other end, one of those ten people (maybe two, if you're unlucky) will be worse than the group. They'll be the one's who are always half-stepping, who are always slowing things up. They're the one's you really don't know if you can count on. They just don't seem to get it.
• That leaves the other 6-8 people in your group. They're the "average" folks. Not superstars, but not dud's either. They're the majority. While they won't make things happen, they also won't keep them from happening.

Why is it important to understand this dynamic of human behavior? There are several benefits to understanding it. Here they are:

1. You can't change human nature...but you can raise the bell curve. For years, I tried the strategy of getting rid of all my "bottom 10%ers". I figured if I could just get rid of the slugs that were dragging down the group, I'd replace them with better performers.

Only one problem, though. No matter how careful I was when replacing people...I always ended up with the same percentage of "bottom 10%ers". Back to the drawing board for me....

I began to understand that, for whatever reason, the top 10%ers in your unit or organization will always work ahead of the group, and the bottom 10%ers will always lag behind the group. However....if you raise the overall performance level of the group, your top and bottom performers will improve as well!. I've seen this happen in both the civilian and military worlds. On numerous occasions, we would send a guy "down the street" to a non-airborne unit because he couldn't meet our standards. However, we'd find out later that, in the new unit, he was considered an average or even above-average performer. He couldn't cut it here because our standards were much higher.

The point? Don't worry about changing basic human nature...focus on raising the performance bar across your team, unit or organization. You'll always have the same "bell-curve" distribution, but if you can raise the overall level of the unit, everyone will be forced to raise their game. You'll still have to get rid of the small percentage who absolutely refuse to even meet the minimum standards, but many people will raise their game...if the standards of the unit/organization go up. This leads to point #2...

2. You have to be prepared to spend more time supervising and coaching certain team members. You need to accept this. Your top 10%ers on the bell-curve need very little coaching. Teach them how to do something, and they'll do it right virtually every time. It's great to have people like this. They help make your job easier.

However, the other 80% are going to need more attention from you, the leader. Your average performers (the middle 60-80%) will need more time, attention and coaching to perform. Your bottom 10%ers will need the greatest amount of your time, and will probably end up leaving or getting fired (we called it "chaptered" in the military).

You have to understand and accept this if you are going to ever effectively manage or lead a group of people. Too many managers/leaders today think they can just tell someone to do something and expect it will be done right by all of their team members without any further work on their part. That's a lazy leadership mindset. And leaders or managers with that mindset end up getting frustrated when two of their ten people don't do the job right.

The point? It's the leader's job to know if someone is going to need more supervision, coaching, etc in order to meet the standard and get the job done right. Once you know that, you can then make arrangements to provide that additional oversight, encouragement, and double-checking. Keep in mind, you don't have to provide it yourself...use one of your top 10%ers to help you with this. They probably need the experience because they're going to have your job one day anyway....

3. Spend most of your time influencing the middle 60-80%. Many leaders make the mistake of spending an overly large chunk of their time on the bottom 10%. It's easy to do. After all, these are the employees who will get you in trouble if you don't keep an eye on them. And, as said above, you do need to arrange for someone to monitor them more closely. However, that's not where your time is best spent...

Think about this...the top 10% and bottom 10% share one characteristic: they (whether consciously or unconsciously) have chosen the kind of person they want to be. No matter how much (or how little) time you spend with them, they're probably going to be a top or bottom performer, no matter what. But....your middle 60-80% can be influenced by your leadership. The people in this group can be swayed and their performance can be improved if you spend time working with them. They can be influenced to do better by a good leader...and they can be influenced to do worse by a poor one.

The point? Know who your middle 60-80% (your average) people are. Spend time motivating and encouraging them. They will respond to good leadership, and will also respond when you raise the bar overall.


So, let's put it all in one sock:

If you understand the reality of human behavior, you'll understand that there three ways you can spend your time and energy, and that you should spend it in the right place:

Priority 1. Raising the standards across your team, unit or organization. This is where you should spent 50% of your time and effort. Raising the bar across the unit will influence the entire team.

Priority 2. Working with the middle 60-80%. This is where you should spend another 30-40% of your time. These are the "average" people who will perform better, if you work with them.

Priority 3. Working with the bottom 10%. Be cautious not to get too tied up supervising and managing this group. At most, try not to spend more than 10% of your time on this group. Because they do need more supervising and managing, arrange for other team members to monitor them. You can't ignore them (because they'll get you in trouble every time if you don't watch them), but your personal time is best spent raising the bar across your area of responsibility and influencing those folks who can be influenced.

Now, I don't want to imply that a bottom performer can never become average or even above average. It does happen...occasionally. And if your gut tells you that one of your bottom 10%ers has the potential to get his or her act together, then respect that feeling and work with that person. But you have to realize that a key mistake many leaders or managers make is letting so much of their time become dominated by the bottom 10% that the entire unit/organization/area you're responsible for suffers.

At the end of the day, you have to understand people in order to get them to do a good job. Just telling someone to do something and then hitting them with a stick when they don't doesn't really get it done. The job of leading and managing is about influence...not control. And if you try to influence everyone on your team the same way, you're likely to fail. People are different, and good leaders understand the differences among those they lead.

Final thought? The standard should never change...but how you get someone to meet the standard should.