Insubordinate, Incompetent or Incapable in the Workplace

For many years I have taught that there are only two issues that cause managers to terminate employment of staff members: insubordination and incompetence.

I have learned something new today: incapability ~ not having the necessary ability, qualification, or strength to perform a specified act or function.

Incompetent ~ lacking qualification or ability, noun; a mentally deficient person

So, even though incompetent and incapability can be synonymous, I would make a distinction.  My own brain and some dictionaries say that incompetence has to do with mental ability, whether it be IQ or emotional state, something about the person means that they cannot perform the task.  Incapability is almost the same, but the status of the inability may not be mental, it can be physical, or one of energy.  In other words, given the right level of energy and time, the task can be done intellectually, but is not, in fact, done because of an inability to create the correct circumstance to get the task done.

I think this distinction is important because, the incompetence definition implies a less than average IQ.  Incapability is not about intelligence, however, the result is the same.  The task is left undone.

When I am working with a staff member to assist with performance levels, I can (almost always) predict the outcome based on these definitions.

Insubordination – the staff member does not want to do the work.  Mistakenly, they may believe that their supervisor is powerless to affect their activities, or they have decided that the supervisor is wrong in some way:   Insubordination – “is the act of willfully disobeying one’s superior. Refusing to perform an action that is unethical or illegal is not insubordination; neither is refusing to perform an action that is not within the scope of authority of the person issuing the order.”  Wikipedia

Incompetence – try as they might, this staff member cannot get the job done.  They lack the critical thinking skills to understand the process and so they make the same mistakes over and over again.  These mistakes interfere with others work and this team member may be unintentionally disruptive for the rest of the team.  Additionally, all training attempts yield no or very little results, so corrective action is not effective with this team member.

Incapacity – this team member may not even try to get the job done, they are not able to plan or organize and therefore cannot ever create the correct circumstances to get their job done.  Their intelligence is not compromised in any way and they do not openly deny a supervisor’s instruction, they simply have a never ending supply of good reasons for not getting the job done.  This sometimes appears to be insubordination and even incompetence, but because the staff member is capable and appears to follow instructions, it is unclear what keeps them from getting their job done.

In any of these situations, I know that the outcome will always be the same: the job will NOT get done.  The staff outcome should always be the same and that is to terminate employment.  The truth is, that it doesn’t matter why staff members do not do their job.  If you, as a supervisor, have diligently trained and worked with the staff member to improve performance and you have given that person lots of time to succeed, then termination is the only end point for non-performance of essential staff functions.  In that light, insubordination is almost always the easiest staffing issue, because it is so straightforward.