Do you treat your people equally? Do they want to be treated equally? Conventional wisdom might say they do. But I’m not so sure. I think that people want to be treated fairly and often that means treating them differently.
In “Getting to Yes”, Roger Fisher tells a story that illustrates the difference between equality, fairness, and good solutions. Two people are arguing over an orange. Their solution is to cut the orange in half so each gets an equal piece. He points out that while the solution is equitable it’s not that good. The first person discards the peel and eats the fruit. The second person, discards the fruit and uses the peel for a recipe. They had different needs. The equal solution only met half of their needs whereas giving them different things, one the peel and one the fruit, might been better for both of them.
It works the same with your people. I call this the averaging problem. Think of the numbers 1,2,6,8,9. Their average is 5.2. Averages are a measure of central tendency. That means that the average is the number that is closest to every other number. It also means that the average is unlikely to be any of the numbers in your data set. Treating everyone equally is much like applying an average. The solution is probably equally close (or far) from meeting each person’s needs yet it probably fails to specifically meet any of their needs.
This isn’t just true for decisions about perks or special assignments. It is also true for how you interact with your team.
If you are having the same type of conversations with your high performers that you have with your low performers, something is wrong. Sure they are equal. But high performers need to hear about the future and how to get there. Low performers need to hear about the present and how to continue to be a part of it.
I used to rotate special projects among my team members (in an effort to treat them equally). Then someone pointed out that giving more work to the person who wasn’t able to do her job wasn’t really helping. It certainly wasn’t fair, though it was equal.
Fairness is about consistency but it’s about consistency in your process. As long as you are making an earnest effort to meet each person’s needs and as long as you give each consideration your full time and attention you are being fair. When you do that the end results might be very different for each person. In fact, if you do it right, it should be.
“High performers need to hear about the future and how to get there. Low performers need to hear about the present and how to continue to be a part of it.”
What a great line! The unsaid part at the end is “be part of the present, or become part of the past.”
What is interesting to us that have been involved in athletics is that this is nothing new. We have always expected more from the more capable and talented athletes, and less from the “bench guys”. To expect a basketball walk-on to perform at the same level as an NBA starter is both unrealistic and unfair to both the coach and the player!
Hey Chris,
As usual you are spot on! Great analogy with sports. I think that one of the differences in people’s minds (although based on what you said it is a falalcy) is that with sports you have superstars, pay them big bucks so you don’t have to be as “fair” since they are hired guns. So, you take advantage of the ones who you pay a lot and don’t worry about the rest.
The same is actually true in business except the visiblity and salaries aren’t as high so I think people see a different set of rules.
I do believe that you should treat everyone fair, even your low performers. Fairness is a basic part of being human. And, if you are going to work with people, you should treat them well. But that doesn’t mean that you can’t place bets on the fastest horses. It’s all about how you do it.