When staff don’t measure up

Non-performance issues with employees often end up on the back burner. HR support specialist Angeline Long offers some guidelines on how to deal with them.
Non-performance is a minefield for most employers. Generally speaking, managers are there to oversee the day-to-day running of the business and ensure ongoing profitability. Everything goes well until people stop performing.
There are varying ways that individuals can be classed as not performing – such as absenteeism, attitude problems, inappropriate use of the Internet, and many more.
Often these issues are allowed to continue far too long and, for a variety of reasons, go from bad to worse. The two main reasons are: management are too close to their staff to be tough enough to deal with the situation when it arises, or, they don’t have strict guidelines for managing staff performance. If these guidelines are not in place then the employee doesn’t know what is expected of them and management do not have a yardstick by which to measure their staff.
In one recent case I know of, the management team met with an employee over a series of months, scheduling regular meetings to talk through his/her performance or lack thereof. Both parties left the meeting with the best of intentions for change and yet nothing happened. At this point the company sought professional assistance as they were nervous at the prospect of having to deal with the disciplinary process and a possible personal grievance.
It was clear from the outset that management had been too soft in their approach – they didn’t have measurable key performance indicators (KPIs) to measure performance and they had allowed the situation to go on for too long.
Key performance indicators
Performance-related problems can be avoided provided companies ensure that staff are fully aware when they join an organisation what their role involves – having been provided with an employment agreement and detailed job description. Once this has been agreed by both parties, management then develops measurable KPIs detailing goals, objectives and timelines.  
The KPIs should ideally be developed in consultation with staff to ensure they are also meeting their personal goals and objectives. These KPIs are designed so employees know what the company’s expectations are and assist employees in monitoring their personal development goals to ensure they increase their ability to contribute to the success of the organisation.  
Key performance indicators should be limited to five or six specific tasks that the employee is expected to achieve for each quarter. They can be reviewed quarterly and changed dependent on the company requirement. Any training that has been identified needs to have been completed so that the individual’s performance can be assessed appropriately.  
The KPIs can also be used in catch-up meetings between management and staff, so staff can address any shortfall prior to their annual appraisal. This will also prevent issues from escalating to a disciplinary stage.
One question that must be asked is: is it merely a lack of skills that is preventing the employee from completing his or her tasks or is it a case of disengagement with the organisation?
The ideal outcome when dealing with a disciplinary issue is identifying what can be done to improve the person’s performance. It may mean additional training, support or counselling, dependent on the issue.
When management leave these issues to escalate they can experience feelings of anger, resentment, pressure and guilt and then just want the person to leave. Sure, there is the option to pay the employee out, but what impression does this leave on the company and the employees left behind?  
There is a legal process that needs to be followed when addressing a staff member’s performance and it needs to be completed in a procedurally fair manner. Yes, there is the three-month trial period in which to determine an employee’s suitability for a role – but legally even over this period the person’s performance should be reviewed and managed appropriately and any shortfall documented and discussed.  
We worked with an organisation where the general manager had been trying to manage a staff member’s performance over a period of months. They were very busy and travelled extensively and therefore the issues were continually placed on the back burner. The general manager was skilled in some areas of this role and quite often would complete or redraft information just so the work was completed by the required timeframe.
This eventually became untenable. The disciplinary process had to be considered. The initial couple of meetings were held with the employee and his lawyer as a support person. We advised the employer that we had developed an Individual Performance Management Plan for this employee. We would meet with the employer and the employee each week to assess how they were going in achieving the required objectives and determine what assistance they required.  
After six weeks the employee conceded that he was not cut out for the role and lacked the skills required to meet the organisational objectives. This could have been addressed earlier with a more structured approach to the performance process.
Minimising non-performance
So how do employers minimise non-performance? The employers we work with that have a high staff retention rate generally have a stringent, robust recruitment and selection process. They screen new employees very carefully to ensure they have mutual agreement of the company values and have the skills and competencies to perform in their respective roles. They are also provided with a well thought-out induction programme.  
If employers take the time at the beginning of the recruitment process to ensure they attract, screen and induct their employees appropriately then they will reap the rewards long term.