A new chief rarely has a complete understanding of the organization on the first day in command. Even with careful preparation, research and extensive input from others, the full weight of the role becomes clear only after time in the position. The new chief may receive a great deal of information from respected sources, but every assessment reflects a particular perspective, and those perspectives continue to evolve. Two realities should guide the new chief’s interpretation of early input: “What someone sees depends on where that person sits,” and “Two people can look at the same screen and see different pictures.”

Note: Although this article uses the word “chief,” its principles apply equally to other command personnel responsible for a major subdivision of an agency. The challenges, strategies and concepts are also relevant to any organization in which a new leader inherits a toxic subordinate supervisor or manager.

As most of us are painfully aware, inheriting the wrong person in the wrong position can undermine a new chief’s efforts to maintain and improve the organization. A problematic supervisor or manager can interfere with leadership goals, damage morale and slow necessary progress. The purpose of this article is to discuss these realities and offer strategies a new chief may use to eliminate, or at least mitigate, the adverse impact of such an individual.

Essential understanding with the appointing authority

Despite the exalted title and position, some jobs are not worth having, and a position in which the chief is denied the tools to succeed may well fall into that category. As an essential part of the selection and transition process, the new chief must have a clear and unambiguous understanding with the appointing authority about the degree of latitude involved in handling personnel matters. It is not enough to agree to “cross that bridge when we come to it”; it is essential to discuss actual and hypothetical situations and the chief’s authority to resolve personnel matters, including those involving problematic employees.

It is unrealistic to think that the appointing authority will give the new chief immediate blanket authority over all personnel matters without a strong level of confidence that such latitude will be exercised carefully and wisely. The organization being turned over to the new chief likely includes one or more long-term employees who, although waning to some extent in effectiveness and possibly resistant to change, remain prominent members who once provided higher levels of service. Although the appointing authority may recognize the decline in performance and the challenging behavior, there is often hope that the new chief will be able to improve the employee’s performance, which may or may not be the case. Reluctance by the appointing authority to remove such a person through resignation, retirement or termination is understandable, but removal needs to remain an option if other reasonable measures to improve performance fail.

Another valid reason the appointing authority may hesitate to remove a long-term employee is concern that the new chief simply wants to handpick a team from outside the organization. On a personal note, I have encountered this scenario several times when a more qualified and available outside candidate was considered to replace a long-term insider. In each instance, I chose to retain the slightly less experienced insider because enthusiasm, institutional knowledge and potential for growth tipped the scales. Without that enthusiasm and appetite for growth, I likely would have selected the outside candidate as the better fit.

The “honeymoon” period

There will always be a period of adjustment that enables the new chief to develop an understanding of the agency and its personnel, but there is no magic time frame for this to occur. First impressions are seldom accurate, and my experience has been that a roughly two-month adjustment period is needed to develop a reasonable assessment of the skills, aptitude and attitudes of supervisors and managers. I recommend avoiding the temptation to make changes until the new chief is ready to make long-term promotions and personnel assignments. My experience has been to do much more listening and much less talking as the new boss, and to make only those changes that are truly necessary. While there will always be change, it is important to understand why things are done a certain way before changing them; otherwise, the new chief may end up fixing things that are not broken and then look foolish when previous practices must be reestablished.

Identifying a likely problematic supervisor or manager

By the end of the “honeymoon period,” the new chief has likely identified any person who may become a long-term and intractable problem. This assessment should be based on the totality of personal observations and experiences, as well as information gathered from others inside and outside the organization. Perceptions without hard evidence still matter because perceptions can influence reality and should be addressed appropriately.

Candid confrontation with a likely challenging person

Once your assessment has solidified, do not delay the necessary conversation. The discussion should be direct, private, professionally documented and structured to avoid misunderstanding. In a scheduled private meeting, the conversation might begin as follows:

“Fred, the time has come for a very candid conversation. This is not a casual matter; it is critical, and I want you to understand the seriousness of what I am about to discuss. The substance of this conversation will be documented, and a copy will be placed in your personnel file, consistent with existing personnel procedures. You will be afforded the opportunity to provide comments and will receive a copy of the completed document.

“Since my arrival, I have developed serious reservations about your actions, statements and overall performance, and I want to discuss those concerns in a complete and fair manner. I want to state at the outset that if any concern I raise is shown to be inaccurate, I will acknowledge that and correct the record. At this point, however, the issues I will discuss reflect my current assessment that you are not meeting the performance expectations of your position.”

At this point, discuss the specific concerns, observations and supporting reasons. Make clear that simply appearing for work, completing routine administrative requirements and maintaining basic interactions with others are not enough to fulfill leadership responsibilities. Explain that creating, maintaining and nurturing a positive environment, along with developing subordinate personnel, are essential expectations of the role and will be reflected in the written documentation. Finally, clarify that the expectation is immediate and sustained improvement in specific behaviors and performance, consistent with documented standards and applicable personnel procedures.

If accurate, explain that you are aware the individual possesses the knowledge, skills and ability to once again achieve a satisfactory level of performance, and that you hope this will be the case. Should that not occur, you will take whatever appropriate and lawful measures are necessary to remove the individual from the workforce. Also explain that you prefer a vacant position to a person who drains the organization’s vitality.

In completing the conversation, it is appropriate to explain that the employee has much to consider and should reflect on the appropriate response. Indicate that you will schedule a follow-up meeting as part of the process to determine the most appropriate path forward.

Corrective action or separation

The following are the most likely courses of action if the employee fails to achieve a satisfactory level of performance:

Termination: Based on solid and comprehensive documentation.

Demotion or reassignment: Based on solid and comprehensive documentation. In the case of reassignment, make clear that the same performance expectations remain in effect.

Retirement: Orchestrate this option in the most positive manner possible, emphasizing the employee’s positive performance earlier in the employee’s career.

Administrative leave: It is better to have a vacant position than someone who drains the organization and hinders the chief’s leadership efforts. This option is typically used in conjunction with one of the three options above.

In summary

Have the courage to do what you know needs to be done! Effective leadership requires the courage to address serious performance problems directly, fairly and professionally. To do less is to tolerate a situation in which a problematic employee detracts from the effectiveness, morale and credibility of the organization.