A poor performance is usually
something you see in amateur theatre – not in the workplace! Many
employers – if not most – confuse poor performance with negligence,
incapacity and even misconduct. This is because of a lack of understanding
of the clear distinctions that separate the various conditions – in other
words, the employer does not know what the charge should be. He only knows
that what is happening is unacceptable to him, and the employee must be
dismissed as quickly as possible.
The result of this uninformed
action is that the employee is charged with negligence, poor performance,
incapacity, misconduct and, as if that is not enough, the charge sheet also
states that the trust relationship has irretrievably broken down and that
the employment relationship has become intolerable. The poor employee goes
into a cold sweat, is so stressed about all this that he/she does not even
prepare a defense, and in fact has not the faintest idea what he is being
charged with, nor even why he is being charged.
Based
on all this, the final outcome is that the employee is dismissed, he/she
goes to a labour lawyer or consultant, who, upon hearing the facts laughs
gleefully and sends the employer an invitation to have tea at the CCMA and
bring along his cheque book!! Lets look at exactly what poor
performance is, and the remedy for it. Poor Performance does not
look at the behavior of the employee at work Problems of behavior are
addressed under misconduct. Poor Performance looks at
whether the job, which the employee is being paid to do, is being
done properly.
Therefore, in establishing
whether poor performance exists, one must ask the following questions in
relation to the employee and the job :
[a] is the output sufficient?
[b] is the quality acceptable?
[c] are company operating procedures
being followed?
[d] are costs kept within budget
or is the amount of rejects
unacceptably high?
[e] is the effort put in by the
employee sufficient?
[f] Is it perhaps inability to
do the job at the required level – can the
employee perform satisfactorily
at a lower level?
[g] is just plain incompetence?
I.e. not insufficient effort, but a clearly
a lack of ability to do the
job?
[h] is it carelessness – lack of
attention to detail?
[i] is it a form of
negligence but not misconduct? In other words "I
don't care."
From the above, it now becomes
clearer what the differences are between misconduct ( behavior) and poor
performance ( ability) Misconduct deals with behavior – performance
deals with ability.
Misconduct
or unacceptable behavior occurs when a rule is broken, or some other
unacceptable behavior happens. Assault, swearing at a customer, that sort
of thing. Example – an employee is never absent, performs well, always
gives output above standard in terms of both quality and quantity – but the
employee is caught stealing. This is clearly misconduct – not poor
performance. Misconduct usually results in immediate and severe disciplinary action – perhaps even dismissal. Poor Performance results in
investigation, counseling, meeting and discussion with the employee,
training and so on, before dismissal is even contemplated.
The procedures for handling poor
performance are completely different from the procedures for handling
misconduct. Performance is all about how the employee does the job –
i.e. quality. Misconduct is all about behavior or conduct of the
employee on the job in relation to company rules, policies and procedures.
Now, before we go any further, you must clearly understand that the
employer MUST ensure that the employee is fully aware of the Company
Standards for the job, and that the employee is fully trained to do the
job.
The employee cannot meet
standards of quality and quantity when those standards have never been
communicated to him/her, and likewise the employee cannot perform if no
training has been given. If the required standards have never been
communicated to the employee, and you have never taken steps to ensure
proper training, your case of poor performance goes out the window and ends
up on the compost heap!!!
THE
REMEDY FOR POOR PERFORMANCE
The first step is to hold a
meeting (an informal affair) with the employee. You explain where the
employee is falling short, what standard is not being met, and discuss the
matter fully to see if the reason for the poor performance can be
established.
It may be a domestic crisis that
the employee has (pending divorce, sick child, financial problem, etc) or
it may even be a work related problem, such as a supervisor who is
victimizing the employee, harassing the employee in some way, and so on.
The important thing is to establish
to cause – if you don't know the cause, you cannot treat the problem.
Treating the symptoms is a useless exercise – the problem will not go away
unless you treat the cause. Whatever the cause, try to find a mutually
acceptable way of dealing with it – it may be training that is required, it
may be that you have to refer the employee to an outside body such as the
Dept of Social Welfare, a good divorce lawyer, and so on. Perhaps you will
have to assist the employee financially, or help them obtain a loan from a
financial institution,
But it is vitally important that
all the proceedings are recorded in detail. These records will be required
if you eventually have to dismiss the employee and the matter is taken up
with the CCMA. You will have to prove that correct and fair procedures were
followed, and you need written records to do this. Remember that in a case
of unfair dismissal, the employee only has to prove that a dismissal took
place. The employer must prove the fairness of the dismissal.
At the end of the counseling
session, the employee must be warned of the consequences of failure to
improve where such warning is appropriate. Bear in mind that the aim
of the counseling session is not to punish the employee, but to assist
him/her to recognize and overcome the problem. There is no rule of thumb
regarding how many counseling sessions are required before dismissal, nor
how much assistance or training must be given before dismissal, or demotion
to a lower position which the employee can handle.
It will depend on many factors,
such as length of service, how long has the employee been doing the job
before he/she started screwing up, the nature of the job, the extent of the
employee's willingness to co-operate and help solve the problem, what
effect the poor performance has had on the Company, and of
course the nature of the poor performance itself. For example, if it
is a vital function that is not being done, then that is serious –
immediate improvement is required.
In the counseling session, you
must be specific – it is not acceptable to state that the employee is
"not making the grade" or "is not doing the job
properly." The specific problem area must be defined and
discussed in detail. It is no good telling the employee to "pull his
socks up" or "get his act together." Be specific about
what improvement is required, what standard is required to be met, in what
area and by when. The counseling process is termed as "
evaluation, instruction, training or guidance." Make sure that
this is what you do.
If the matter comes to
dismissal, then the Code of Good Practice – Dismissal must be
applied, as well as your own procedures if any. You are obliged to consider
whether the employee did in fact fail to meet a performance standard, if he
or she could reasonably be expected to have been aware of the required
standard, whether a fair opportunity was given to the employee to meet the
required standard, and most importantly you must assess whether or not
dismissal is an appropriate (and perhaps the only available) sanction under
the circumstances of the case.
Generally speaking, and
considering all the facts of the matter, you should spend as much time as
is reasonably expected to show that the employee was afforded all
reasonable opportunity to rectify the matter. Obviously, if the poor
performance is causing major operational problems, you will have to inform
the employee that he has only a limited amount of time to rectify the
matter before action is taken.
F.A.Q
What do you do with the employee
who is always busy but is unproductive?
This is difficult. This is the
guy who is always "busy", but does not get the job done. He
is eager but inefficient, as opposed to being openly lazy or uncooperative.
Those types are easy to identify and deal with. The best way is
frequent and firm counseling – make it quite plain what standard is
required (as if he does not already know) and by when. Set deadlines, and
inform him in writing what the consequences will be is there is no
improvement.
What if the poor performance is
caused because the employee was promoted, but later found that he/she can't
handle the job? Lets take it further – management genuinely were under
the impression that the employee could handle the higher position and the
responsibilities that go with it. His previous record, albeit in a lower
position, was excellent – he worked well and showed promise.
At a pre-promotion interview,
the employee assured management he would be able to cope with the added
responsibilities. Management were convinced that the employee was capable
of bigger things – and decided to give him the opportunity. Now the
promotion has been done, he has got the extra perks – a cellphone or
company car – but it has now been revealed that the new job is in fact
above his/her level of competence and capability. This
"over-promotion" is not uncommon – but it is a sensitive issue,
because management have contributed to the problem by promoting the
employee.
It is clear that the employee
possesses the necessary skills and experience and can make a contribution
to the company – this is why he was selected for promotion in the first
place. However, managements decision has backfired.The poor
performance and/or incapability cannot be ignored, especially in terms of
operational needs, the needs of the company, and the needs of the employee.
If it is possible to downgrade the employee, with a cut in salary and/or
benefits ( with the agreement of the employee) then the problem is solved –
just put him back to where he was.
Or negotiate something else – a
demotion, with no cut in salary, but removal of the fringe benefits (the
cellphone and car) But if the employee objects, is not willing to
accept a salary cut or the loss of fringe benefits, nor willing to accept a
demotion (loss of face to his fellow employees) then the problem is more
serious. The bottom line is that clearly, the problem is incapacity, and
equally clearly, the employer has no obligation to continue with a
non-performing working relationship with this employee. That is the
"tough bottom line."
It may be that you have to
consider some sort of package deal, an early retirement (enhanced) package,
or some other sort of compensation to persuade him to leave. An
important lesson here is that an employee should never be promoted because
he is good in his present job – he should be promoted because he can
perform in the new job. What if the poor performance is caused
by some change to the job itself?
Yes, this can happen. Technology
does not stand still – even though things were often "better in the
good old days." The employee may suddenly find himself faced with
having to do a job (which he has been doing for years) with new machines,
new methods, which he is simply incapable of doing. We can go through
the whole gambit of training etc, but perhaps it is just simply beyond his
capability.
This type of poor performance is
not the fault of the employee – he has been made to perform poorly because
of changes to his job specification. It would be unfair and
unacceptable to ignore the employee's past record of good and competent
service by telling him to either perform or face dismissal. This is not a
straight-forward case of poor performance or incompetence. Initially, the
employee must be counseled to try and establish whether he is unable or
unwilling to do the job.
In some cases, it is found that
the employee has simply been overwhelmed by the enormity of the job, the
increased number of tasks which face him daily, the realization that
perhaps for the first time ever he now is faced with very real
responsibility and accountability, and he withdraws into a sort of
"safety zone" by not performing and in fact harboring a secret
hope that he will be taken off the job and placed back in his old position.
This you will only establish by
counseling and skilful questioning – in some cases by asking some very
direct (and perhaps embarrassing) questions of the employee. You will
finally have to make a decision – either put him back where he was or
retrench.
Offer him/her a good package,
and call it a day. What if the employee performs o.k. but
suddenly the level of performance drops ? Consistent levels of
performance are not the norm – everybody has their "off-days".
There also may be a family crisis of some sort, or even a health problem,
so their will be occasions where the employee will perform below the
acceptable level. Again, it is counseling time – establish the
problem, and address it. What about a "go-slow"? How do we handle
it?
This is usually a deliberate act
of slowing down production in order to force the employer to agree to some
or other demand – higher wages, perhaps. It is very seldom an individual
thing, but rather collective. You may have to consult with Shop Stewards to
establish the reason. This is of course industrial action and should be
dealt with in the same way as a strike. Is it essential to give the
employee time to improve?
In the interests of staying out
of the CCMA, yes – it is the best way, even with a well experienced
employee. Obviously, you may not give a well experienced employee as much
time as with a lesser experienced employee. But the counseling process, the
careful explanation of the standards required and the standards not being
met, as well as setting of deadlines for improvement to take place is
vital. How much training am I expected to provide ?
There is no rule of thumb here.
Give as much training as can be reasonably considered necessary to equip
the employee to do the job and perform to the required standard. New
technology, a new machine and so on may require fairly comprehensive
training.
If
a new employee joins the company and gives the clear understanding that he
knows the job and processes, but this later proves not to be the case, then
obviously you would not spend as much training time here as with one of
your other employees whom you know has had no training. Poor Performance due to ill
health. If the illness is of a temporary nature, you will have to live with
it until the employee recovers. If the illness is permanent or likely
to become permanent, then it is a problem of incapacity due to ill health
rather than a problem of poor performance. You would then handle it
accordingly.
Can I demand that the employee
be medically examined if I suspect illness or that he may be on
drugs? If you doubt his claim that the poor performance is due to ill
health, then you may insist that the employee undergo an independent
medical examination. However, you will have to pay for this – not the
employee. Is demotion an option in cases of poor performance? This is
definitely an option, provided the employee agrees to the demotion. This
applies particularly in the case of the recently promoted employee who
cannot handle the requirements and responsibilities of the new position. He
cannot handle the demands of the new position. Remember however that
counseling and follow up are still important.
Is poor performance always the
employee's problem? The first thing to do is check that the employee
is fully aware of and understands the standards that are not
being met. If he is, then look for other causes that account for the
failure to reach the standards – for example, his tool may be sub-standard
or worn out. Thus, the poor performance may not necessarily always be
the fault of the employee. It is vital that every employer must ensure that every
employee is fully aware of and fully understands the standards required in
his/her job processes. For that matter, all employees should be fully aware
of and fully understand all Company rules, regulations, procedures and
performance standards.
It is equally important that
work processes are monitored to ensure that standards are being met. If an
employee does not meet standards, and you do nothing about it, you are in
effect telling him that the standards don't matter and it is of no
consequence if he/she fails to meet laid down standards. This means that
you are telling the employee that sub-standard performance is acceptable, And
before long the sub-standard performance becomes the new standard!!
|
