We have all heard the joke about the importance of training employees. Unfortunately, when we delve into the practice level, coaching runs into a myriad of obstacles. This article focuses on a single objection, which is the “I really want to train, but I have too many direct reports and too little time.” excuse.

When does a margin of control for coaching become too great? Well, suppose that, on average, a manager spends half an hour a week training employees. Time is certainly not a limitation for five employees (two and a half hours a week). How about ten employees? Sure, at ten employees, coaching is more of a time bandit. So you say try this one for size, I have twenty direct reports! You’re right, you can’t spend ten hours a week just on that soft, squishy training bunk. After all, you have ten hours to go to get the important management stuff done! But, as will be articulated in the following discussion, the premise that you should spend equal time on all your reports is not only flawed, it can backfire.

For simplicity, suppose you have three direct reports: Cindy Star, Eddie Steady, and Sammy Struggle. Cindy Star always exceeds her numbers, rarely asking for their help, and often taking the lead on new tasks / projects. Cindy is every manager’s dream. Working alongside Cindy is Eddie Steady. Eddie gets the job done, he does it competently, but Eddie’s attitude is “one day’s work for one day’s pay.” And for Eddie, that day ends at 5:00 pm and he is heading down the freeway in his Ford Fusion at 5:03. Then there is poor Sammy Struggle. No matter what Sammy does, he can’t seem to get it right. There may have been a time or two that Sammy achieved mediocrity, but for the most part Sammy just isn’t doing it. What makes this even more heartbreaking is that Sammy is working after 5:00 and takes work home on the weekends only to perform below average. Worse still, Sammy is a very nice person (and maintains a lovely family).

The question is, if you only have an hour to train, who is your focus on, Cindy, Eddie or Sammy? Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that, apart from performance, Cindy, Eddie, and Sammy are comparatively similar in terms of age, seniority, job functions, etc. Obviously, this is an artificial scenario that is intended to facilitate a general set of points. However, the conclusions that follow will be of general application and will provide guidance on how to allocate your valuable training time.

Based on the scenario presented above, many if not most managers will (wrongly) suggest that training time should be spent on Sammy Struggle. The rationale for choosing Sammy is multiple. For one thing, many managers worry that Sammy’s failure is a poor reflection of themselves. If only he were a better manager, Sammy would become a better contributor. Relatedly, managers are concerned that if Sammy is fired, Sammy might complain that he did not receive enough guidance and feedback from the manager. Third, many managers mistakenly assume that businesses are similar to Army Rangers, whose motto is “No man left behind.” While this is a noble intention, there is one big difference between Rangers and most businesses – Rangers are all A players! Fourth, many managers falsely assume that their team will be much better if they can get Sammy to perform at least at Eddie’s level. Finally, because poor workers are often great people, many managers are reluctant to give Sammy his walking papers.

If most managers don’t use Sammy, there is a complementary bias against spending training time on Eddie. Eddie is the prototype of the son of the middle, the Jan Brady of the team. Managers generally recognize that the eddies of the world (who probably make up 75% of the workforce) are valuable team members. They get the job done, generally require little maintenance, and tend to be loyal. Larry Bossidy (co-author with Ram Charan of Execution: the discipline of getting things done) extols the virtues of people like Eddie by stating that “Players B are crucial. They can receive instructions from others, but they are the ones who execute.” Generally, your B players don’t need a lot of direct training, but you shouldn’t forget them either. Sometimes when you train Eddie, he can perform on par with Cindy. On the contrary, if you neglect Eddie, he can eventually slide into Sammy’s territory.

Now let’s turn our attention to Cindy Star. Of all the external indicators, Cindy doesn’t need her training. He does everything very well, has initiative and never tries to borrow your time. Cindy does it because she has the rare combination of skill, drive, and motivation. Because of these qualities, many managers will simply assume that Cindy should be left alone and reassign her attention to Sammy and maybe something to Eddie. Unfortunately, they are wrong. Cindy needs training, in fact, she may deserve most of your coaching attention. First, it is an erroneous assumption that Cindy has reached the limits of her potential in all facets of her job. Imagine performance if it can help you achieve an even higher level of performance. Second, Cindy may not ask for your attention, but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t want it. High performers are not usually connected to ask for recognition, but they often expect their managers to offer broad praise / support. Third, people like Cindy are the ones who move the most outward. If you do not provide support and care, you may go elsewhere. Fourth, you will often find that the relationship between Cindy and Eddie will be strained. Stars like Cindy tend to get frustrated by what they perceive as Eddie’s total lack of commitment. You can expect a riot or two when Cindy sees Eddie walk out the door at 5:00 as he prepares for the next stage of his workday. Therefore, part of your training effort with the Cindys on your team will focus on lubricating the relationship between the stars and the stable (as well as the struggles). Lastly, people like Cindy are always looking for the next challenge and are very likely to move on. Therefore, part of your coaching efforts will focus on helping Cindy transition from an individual actor to a leader. And once you do this migration, you can take advantage of it to train Eddie and help him improve marginally.

Going back to the initial question, when faced with time constraints, who do you invest in, the star, the constant, or the fight? The answer is three o’clock. Most of your training should focus on Cindy because that will produce the most result. If you don’t have one-on-one with Cindy, you should. Don’t neglect Eddie or else you’ll risk him turning into something over time. But, you probably don’t need to invest the same amount, consistency, or quality of time on Eddie that you do on Cindy. As for Sammy, his training should focus on establishing a concrete development plan with clear milestones, finding other resources to provide complementary support / development (e.g. human resources, peer mentoring, external training, etc.), and most of all. Important, document your efforts and results. If you need to pull Sammy’s trigger, you will and you can still look at yourself in the mirror. As a final comment on Sammy, you are making a huge mistake if you spend a disproportionate amount of time on him / her and run into trouble if you let Sammy stay too long. Teams “A” are simply not built around players C.