07/ 21/ 2008
by Charles R. McConnell
How does a manager turn an employee's poor performance into satisfactory performance? Are threats of disciplinary action called for? Given that a particular employee received the same orientation as others, who's responsible for this person's failure to perform to expectations?
The answers aren’t as simple as some might think. Sure, it's possible that the worker's failure to meet the job's expectations falls upon the worker. It's just as likely, however, that the problem lies in one or more of the following:
- The employee is troubled by a personal problem
- Employee and job are not well suited to each other
- The individual is under-qualified
- The employee wasn't properly trained and so just doesn't "get it”
- The manager failed to do anything until a problem became undeniably apparent.
Careful consideration of the foregoing suggests that except for personal problems most of these "causes" fall under the complete or partial control of the manager. This alone is a sound reason for addressing performance problems by some means other than disciplinary action.
Disciplinary action is appropriate for problems of conduct or behavior; for example, for violating a policy or committing a prohibited act. There's a deliberate character about a true disciplinary problem; simply put, someone breaks a rule. However, rarely is a performance problem the result of deliberate behavior. Once in a great while an employee will under-perform deliberately, but most of the time a performance problem is not an issue of behavior or conduct and so is not handled via the disciplinary route.
Substandard performance is the product of unsatisfactory results that prevent the employee from reaching or maintaining the expected level of performance. The standard can be quite specific or it can be as loosely defined as the acceptable level of output achieved by employees doing the same or a similar job. Simply stated, the job standard is the work output expected of someone doing that particular job.
Since performance problems are not disciplinary issues, "warnings" are not appropriate. Rather, for the newly identified substandard performer, the manager should:
- Review the job standard with the employee to make certain it's known and understood
- Counsel the employee by implementing a plan that specifies what must be done to attain standard performance—and a reasonable timetable for doing so
- Regularly monitor the individual's progress against the plan, and provide support and assistance
- Remove apparent obstacles to the employee's success, and make any reasonable accommodations needed to enhance employee performance
If this process doesn't result in correction within the agreed-upon time, it should be repeated with a revised, mutually acceptable plan for correction and a new target date. This time, however, the process might also include referral to human resources or the employee health office for additional counseling. This way a new person who can possibly help is brought into the process and the employee has a chance to air a possible underlying problem.
How many times should a manager go through this process with the same employee? It depends on the employee and how much improvement occurs from one time to the next. There is, however, the occasional employee who isn't motivated to do more than just loaf along. This individual might shape up enough to meet an improvement timetable but then slack off and soon exhibit substandard performance again. With this employee, two or three times should present more than enough opportunity to improve. If you arrive at the third round, it's time to include a requirement for the improved performance to remain at standard thereafter or the employment relationship will end.
When it's necessary to release an employee for substandard performance the individual isn't "fired,” but rather is dismissed for failure to meet the standards of the job. A person who is "fired" is released for cause, but dismissal for failure to measure up to the standards of the job is a "no-fault" termination and is treated more like a layoff. The distinction is important; one who is released for inability to meet job standards is held blameless and is thus eligible for unemployment compensation, but the person who is discharged for cause is considered to blame and is usually not eligible for unemployment compensation.
Finally, for any apparent productivity problem exhibited by an employee it's suggested that at the outset the manager examine his or her own behavior and ask: Have I done everything I could reasonably have done to help this employee succeed?
