|
The Do’s and Don’ts of performance management |
|
|
|
|
Written by By Malcolm MacKillop & Laurie Jessome
|
|
Sunday, 06 July 2008 |
Proper procedures decrease employers’ risk
 Recently, a new client called and described a problem with one of its long-term employees. This employee (let’s call her “Deborah”), had been with the company for seven years. Deborah had never been a star but she always managed to stick around, generally by switching positions every few years. Deborah was earning roughly the same amount as when she started and qualified for our client’s standard employee bonus every year. She had a few warning letters on file regarding her attendance but no record of further discipline. Our client advised us they did conduct annual performance reviews but that employees or management did not take them very seriously. All employees generally received a “satisfactory” grade.
Deborah had recently started working under an ambitious young
manager. The manager, unhappy with Deborah’s inability to meet
deadlines and sloppy work product, began to coach Deborah on her
performance. Deborah responded poorly and complained loudly to her
co-workers about her “inexperienced” and “pushy” boss. The manager
responded by issuing her a disciplinary letter. Upon receiving the
letter, Deborah stormed out of the workplace. She has since refused to
return, alleging that her new manager is harassing her.
What went wrong? How can it be fixed?
 It’s
important to remember that performance management is an essential part
of any functional employment relationship. It is essential for
employers to have procedures in place to regularly review employee
performance and to address problems as they arise. The need for
effective performance management is twofold.
First, it helps the
employer maintain standards of quality and efficiency by correcting
inappropriate behaviour. Second, performance-management programs are
risk-management tools. When a performance-management program is
administered in a fair and standardized fashion, it has the effect of
documenting the employer’s relationship with each employee, thus
creating a reliable and thorough record for use in court.
The
failure of Deborah’s employer to document her performance issues and
communicate its expectations has left it vulnerable. Any allegations of
poor performance are now a matter of “he said/she said.” So what can
our client do to address the issue?
The problem must be
tackled on two levels. Deborah now presents a serious concern. Since
she has alleged that she is being harassed, a member of the human
resources department or an independent party should investigate her
allegations. If the investigation reveals no substance to the
allegations of harassment, her performance coaching should begin in
earnest. Deborah must be made to understand the expectations her
employer has for her performance, and her new manager should be
supported in her efforts to ensure that Deborah meets those
expectations. Realistically speaking, however, the employment
relationship has soured and will likely end in litigation.
In
dealing with the workforce as a whole, our client must first decide
what its expectations are with respect toemployees and/or positions.
These expectations should be set out in writing, both for the
employer’s reference and for the purposes of communicating with
employees. The next step is to ensure that its employees understand, or
have had ample opportunity to understand, the standards they are
expected to meet in performing their duties and interacting with
co-workers.
Communications regarding appropriate workplace
behaviour and performance standards can take the form of internal
memoranda, human resources policy manuals, job descriptions,
disciplinary letters, training sessions, and meetings between
management and employees. Formal messages from the employer are not the
only means of educating employees about workplace standards. Equally
important is the tenor and content of day-to-day interactions between
management and staff. All supervisors should be instructed to
familiarize themselves with all applicable workplace policies,
procedures, and manuals.
Most importantly, our client must
change its existing practice with respect to performance reviews.
Managers must be retrained on the proper procedure for evaluating
performance and providing feedback to employees under their
supervision. Each manager should be advised that failure to administer
a proper performance-management program will be seen as a failure to
meet his or her own performance expectations.
When creating and implementing performance management programs, there are several common missteps to avoid:
• Irregular or tardy reviews:
performance reviews should occur on a regular schedule that is known to
both employees and management. Courts can find employers who are slow
to respond to workplace infractions to have condoned the offending
behaviour.
• Leaving no room for the exercise of discretion:
employers should explicitly reserve the right to skip a step in the
discipline process when the offence is severe or to decline to escalate
the matter where the offence is minor. Yourmanagers should always be in
a position to consider all of the relevant circumstances when applying
disciplinary measures.
• Dishonest or misleading reviews: it
is essential that performance reviews accurately reflect the state of
the workplace; otherwise they do nothing to help the employee improve
and will severely hamper any efforts by the employer to sustain a
dismissal for cause. This is certainly the case with Deborah’s
employer, who has only a file full of “satisfactory” reviews to support
its allegation that Deborah’s performance was lacking.
• Insufficient guidance or instruction:
employers who criticize employees without also providing instructions
as to how they can better meet expectations can create a risk of an
employee complaining that he or she was treated in bad faith or, worse,
was the subject of workplace harassment.
• Reviewing performance and salary simultaneously:
most salary reviews result in a raise, even if only to adjust for the
cost of living. Constructive criticism and negative feedback will not
likely register with the employee if they are accompanied by a raise.
• Poor or non-existent documentation:
an incomplete, illegible, or ambiguous performance-management form is
of no use to the employer. Supervisors should receive training on the
correct use of performance-management forms and should be held
accountable when the forms are not completed appropriately.
• No employee acknowledgement: it
is not uncommon for employees to allege that they did not receive
copies of their performance reviews or disciplinary letters. All such
forms and communications should contain a space for the employee’s
signature, acknowledging that he or she has received the document, even
if the employee does not agree with its contents.
For many in
the human resources field, the term “performance management” has a
dubious reputation. It is often seen as solely a method for exiting
problem employees from the workplace. While performance management can
certainly aid employers in building a “just cause” termination, it can
also be a valuable tool to help ensure that the employer’s standards
for appropriate and efficient workplace behaviour are upheld.
Malcolm
MacKillop is a partner with the firm Hodgson Shields DesBrisay
O’Donnell MacKillop Squire LLP of Toronto. He can be reached at
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
. Laurie Jessome is a lawyer with the firm Hodgson Shields DesBrisay O’Donnell MacKillop Squire LLP of Toronto.
|
