Managing under-performers should be a positive process that is based on feedback through- out the year and looks forward to what can be done by individuals to overcome performance problems and, importantly, how managers can provide support and help. Note should be taken of the comment by Charles Handy (1989) that this should be about ‘applauding success and forgiving failure’. He suggests that mistakes should be used as an opportunity for learning – ‘something only possible if the mistake is truly forgiven because otherwise the lesson is heard as a reprimand and not as an offer of help’.
When dealing with poor performers the following comment by Howard Risher (2003) should be remembered: ‘Poor performance is best seen as a problem in which the employer and man- agement are both accountable. In fact, one can argue that it is unlikely to emerge if people are effectively managed.’
This is another way of putting the old Army saying: ‘There are no bad soldiers, only bad offi cers.’
Poor performance may be wholly or partly the fault of the system. When looking at under- performance it is necessary to consider systemic as well as individual problems.
General approaches to managing under-performance
In general, respondents to the IRS survey (Wolff, 2008) suggested that the key to solving poor performance is communication, coupled with clarity about expectations and objectives, early intervention and ensuring managers have a clear view of the underlying problem before apply- ing a solution. It is important to ensure that under-performing employees understand and acknowledge there is a problem when it can be attributed to them and accept some responsi- bility for achieving a solution. Depending on the cause, provision of support through training or coaching and regular contact with the line manager may also be important. But by far the most effective measure was to have competent and confi dent managers who were prepared to tackle the problem. Most organizations advocated an agreed improvement plan as the fi rst step followed by regular but informal progress reviews.
Specifi c approaches to managing under-performance
The specifi c approaches adopted by respondents to the IRS 2008 survey were:
The manager and employee jointly agree an improvement plan with timescales – 81 per
• cent.
The manager and the employee agree to more regular, informal performance reviews
•
– 68 per cent.
A joint agreement on the provision of specifi c coaching or training – 61 per cent.
•
Managing Under-performance 91 The manager agrees to provide more coaching or guidance – 52 per cent.
•
A joint re-evaluation of performance expectations – 52 per cent.
•
These are all valid ways of managing under-performance but they will be most effective if they are incorporated in a staged procedure as described below, which can provide a framework for managers and a basis for guidance and training.
The fi ve basic steps
The fi ve basic steps required to manage under-performers are:
1. Identify and agree the problem. Analyse the feedback and, as far as possible, obtain agree- ment from the individual on what the shortfall has been. Feedback may be provided by managers but it can in a sense be built into the job. This takes place when individuals are aware of their targets and standards, know what performance measures will be used and either receive feedback/control information automatically or have easy access to it. They will then be in a position to measure and assess their own performance and, if they are well-motivated and well-trained, take their own corrective actions. In other words, a self- regulating feedback mechanism exists. This is a situation that managers should endeavour to create on the grounds that prevention is better than cure.
2. Establish the reason(s) for the shortfall. When seeking the reasons for any shortfalls the manager should not crudely be trying to attach blame. The aim should be for the manager and the individual jointly to identify the facts that have contributed to the problem. It is on the basis of this factual analysis that decisions can be made on what to do about it by the individual, the manager or the two of them working together.
It is necessary fi rst to identify any causes that are due to weaknesses in the system or outside the control of either the manager or the individual. Any factors that are within the control of the individual and/or the manager can then be considered. What needs to be determined is fi rst the extent to which the problem is due to a fault in the system itself or the way in which the system has been managed. If it is established that the individual is at least partly responsible for the poor performance, it can then be agreed whether this is because he or she:
did not receive adequate support or guidance from his/her manager;
–
did not fully understand what he/she was expected to do;
–
could not do it – ability;
–
did not know how to do it – skill;
–
would not do it – attitude.
–
3. Decide and agree on the action required. Action may be taken by the individual, the manager or both parties. This could include:
Taking steps to improve skills or change behaviour – the individual.
–
Changing attitudes; this is up to individuals as long as they accept that their –
attitudes need to be changed. The challenge for managers is that people will not change their attitudes simply because they are told to do so – they can only be helped to understand that certain changes to their behaviour could be benefi cial not only to the organization but also to themselves.
Providing more support or guidance – the manager.
–
Clarifying expectations – joint.
–
Developing abilities and skills – joint, in the sense that individuals may be expected –
to take steps to develop themselves but managers may provide help in the form of coaching, additional experience or training.
Whatever action is agreed both parties must understand how they will know that it has succeeded. Feedback arrangements can be made but individuals should be encouraged to monitor their own performance and take further action as required.
4. Resource the action. Provide the coaching, training, guidance, experience or facilities required to enable agreed actions to happen.
5. Monitor and provide feedback. Both managers and individuals monitor performance, ensure that feedback is provided or obtained and analysed, and agree on any further actions that may be necessary.
Use of a capability procedure
Every attempt should be made to deal with performance problems as they arise or at least con- sider them dispassionately at a review meeting. However, further action to deal with under- performers if all else fails may be necessary. But when confronted with such situations, many organizations have recognized that to go straight into a disciplinary procedure with its asso- ciations with misconduct is not the best way to handle them. They believe it is better to have a special capability procedure for performance issues, leaving the disciplinary procedure as the method used to deal with cases of misconduct. Such a procedure is typically staged as follows:
1. If a manager believes that an employee’s performance is not up to standard an informal discussion is held with the employee to establish the reason and to agree the actions required by the employee and/or the manager to improve performance.
2. Should the employee show insuffi cient improvement over a defi ned period, a formal interview will be arranged with the employee (together with a representative if so desired).
Managing Under-performance 93 The aims of this interview will be to: a) explain the shortfall between the employee’s per- formance and the required standard; b) identify the cause(s) of the unsatisfactory per- formance and determine what – if any – remedial treatment (eg training, retraining, support, etc) can be given; c) set a reasonable period for the employee to reach the stand- ard; and d) agree on a monitoring system during that period and tell the employee what will happen if that standard is not met.
3. At the end of the review period a further formal interview will be held, at which time if the required improvement has been made: a) the employee will be told of this and encouraged to maintain the improvement; b) if some improvement has been made but the standard has not yet been met, the review period will be extended; c) if there has been no discernible improvement and performance is still well below an acceptable standard, consideration will be given to whether there are alternative vacancies that the employee would be competent to fi ll; if there are, the employee will be given the option of accepting such a vacancy or being considered for dismissal; d) in the absence of suit- able alternative work, an employee who is clearly below an acceptable standard is liable to be dismissed.
4. Employees may appeal against their dismissal.
Although capability action can be used as a means of overcoming performance problems, it should be treated as a separate procedure that is not regarded as part of the normal processes of performance management. These processes should help to identify performance problems that will be dealt with on the spot, if at all possible. Only if this fails are these problems trans- ferred to the capability system for resolution.
This separation of performance management processes and capability procedures is impor- tant because of the serious harm that would be done to the positive performance improve- ment and developmental aspects of performance management if employees felt that the process was simply being used to collect evidence for use in taking disciplinary action. Per- formance reviews can become threatening affairs if they are perceived as placing sticks in the hands of management with which they can beat employees.
If the problem has to be transferred to the capability procedure, it is highly desirable to state what the problem is in full, with any supporting evidence that is available. Reference can be made to the fact that the problem was identifi ed earlier as part of the continuing process of performance management but the content of any performance review form produced follow- ing a review meeting should not be used as evidence. The capability warning must be complete in itself.
In practice this may not cause much diffi culty as long as the manager follows the guidelines for managing performance throughout the year as described in Chapter 4. These suggest that immediate action is taken to deal with performance problems; they should not be saved up to be discussed at a formal review meeting some time after the event. Raising problems immedi-
ately means that they are dealt with as a normal management process, and the capability pro- cedure should only be resorted to when this process fails in spite of every effort to make it succeed.