I’ve written about the Right Person, Right Role, Right Stage model with hiring. Then how Right Person was a cascading gate model of Integrity, Ability, Standards and then Reliability. I’ve covered the Integrity gate, the Ability gate, the Standards gate. Now for the final gate in that cascading sequence: Reliability.
A person can have abundant integrity and ability. They can internalise and embody your standards as a team. But you’ve got to be able to rely on them to be able to get things done. Without the ability to manage themselves, all they are is a big bag of potential (and likely frustration for you as a manager!).
What does reliability look like? Three key indicators for me:
Do I feel the need to keep track of what I’ve asked them for and the projects they are meant to be managing?
Do I have confidence that I only need to say things once and it will be registered/noted accordingly?
Do they consistently deliver high quality work, on time?
Ultimately, it’s about whether a person has a process for managing themselves. I’m re-reading the excellent High Output Management by Andy Grove. He conveys businesses as process machines for converting inputs into outputs. We as individuals are microcosms of that. Reliability is a product of whether that person has recognised the need for a process and bowed to it. I’m a big believer in James Clear’s idea that we don’t rise to the level of our goals/aspirations. We sink to the level of our habits.
I’ve seen the need for a managing oneself process scupper academic high performers. Who’ve previously been able to get by on ability and memory. Especially in a startup with its high velocity and vast array of moving parts, operating without a process is not tenable. The best resource I’ve found for this is David Allen’s seminal work: Getting Things Done. Whether it’s a version of that or something else is not important. As Bruce Lee said: “The successful warrior is the average man, with laser-like focus”. It’s that there is a personal process in place, which can and will continue to be iterated on.
Reliability is also about two other things. The first is stamina. This links to the consistency point above, applied over time. Can that person sustain excellence? It’s also about drama, or more to the point the absence thereof. Reliability should be looked at from a macro perspective. Not just the person’s own work. But the overhead impact on you as a manager and the rest of the team.
Reliability is extremely malleable and coachable. Which is why it’s the final gate. It’s not potty training your kids though. Identify and define the problem. Provide helpful suggestions and resources. But the responsibility for getting there is with that person.