Background
It is good to remember that the most important asset in any organization is the employee. However, there are times when an asset can become one of the biggest liabilities. This is often the case when an employee has been identified as delivering poor performance. Challenges like this are often brought to light only after an accumulation of incidents or repetitive behavior. In the past there has been a mixed response in addressing similar situations. Most often, when the employee understands that leadership’s main focus is on their success, an equitable resolution is reached. Likewise, if an employee feels as though leadership’s priority is simply to “get rid of the problem”, without understanding the underlying issue, this only serves to further divide the relationship. The truth is that each employee brings with them to work the external influences of their lives, some of which may distract or demotivate them. In some cases, this distraction is simply the employee’s ability to be at their best. Others however, depending on the industry, can put the employee and their coworkers’ safety at risk.
Problem Statement
Once identified, poor employee performance must be addressed in order to minimize any external and internal ramifications. These include, but are not limited to: a defective product, conflicts with coworkers, safety, as well as an impact to the employee’s future occupational goals. In today’s work environment we find ourselves closely integrated and dependent upon our coworkers. With the increase of team dynamics and codependent work environments, it is more important than ever to assure that all members are performing adequately. Gone are the days that one employee’s actions affect only them. Now, more than ever, it is essential that leadership consider each employee in light of how they assimilate and influence the rest of the team. This challenge is only magnified when the work product is no longer the only expected deliverable within the team matrix. Now, value, teamwork, compassion, and empathy are the required attributes of a “team player”. Thus, the definition of a poor performer is now exponentially more challenging to both identify and rectify.
Objectives
There are a number of objectives, both from a business and personnel view point, that need to be considered in every decision. The first and primary objective is to help any under-performing employee return to a productive and satisfying state. It should be the goal of leadership to help each employee to reach the goals within the organization. Leadership should also look for opportunities to add value to each employee. This takes great sense of involvement in their lives. However, the level of involvement which could identify such opportunities will also identify any dips in performance.
The second objective is to continue to assure and demonstrate to all employees that the primary interest of leadership is the employees themselves. Through the personal interaction and concern for each employee individually, it will be evident to all others that a certain level of empathy exists. The saying that “your walk talks, and your talk talks, but your walk talks louder than your talk talks”, remains true.
Finally, the objective which keeps everyone employed, is to ensure the success of the business. In order to meet that objective, it is important that every employee functions at their highest possible level. It is equally important to assure that every employee is in the correct function, capable in that position, and properly trained and supported for success.
Decision Alternatives
From the employer’s perspective, there are a number of considerations and decisions to be assessed. Once identified, does the employer use the company performance improvement program (PIP) as a tool to work toward terminating the employee? From my experience, the PIP is a “group think” process devised to relieve an employee from their duty in a way that will minimize any legal ramifications. The main responsibility of this process is often heaped upon the shoulders of an employee who is already unable to perform even the expected tasks of their role. More often than not, this process is designed with a number of incremental failure points driven by a “one, two, three strikes you are out” mentality. Often, this is comprised of a series of meetings between the employee and their manager, with little to no discovery of the behavior model. Although there are often improvement suggestions embedded in the process, the goal, or at least the process, is not often a positive one. However, this system is most often a comprehensive and consistent way in dealing with performance issues.
Another option that seems prevalent, is to encourage or sponsor the employee for another position in a different department. Depending on the tenure and past value of the employee, this may even come by way of a promotion. The questions are: how will this help the employee and how will it harm the department. The transfer of a virus does not remediate its existence. The results of this type of action are often due to the failure to learn from our past mistakes and complacency with the status quo. Nevertheless, retaining an employee with critical knowledge and expertise may pay off in the long run.
This may also be an opportunity to spend the resources necessary to mentor the employee back to an acceptable work standard, or reassess their skills in respect to a particular task or duty. The primary difference between the PIP and a Mentor to Success (M2S) program is that the primary focus of the M2S is the employee. The M2S program begins with a number of discussions between the employee and the manager. The purpose of these sessions is to understand the history of how they got to this point. Understanding the internal and external factors that led to the change in behavior is the first goal. After understanding what led to the change, the manager and employee will then brainstorm together for a resolution and opportunities for change. This resolution, highly inclusive of the employee input, is then monitored and adjusted as time passes and progress is made. From the manager’s perspective, it may be good to frame these situations a little differently. Instead of investigating where the employee went astray, maybe the question should be: when did the manager lose focus of their organization? As can be imagined, this option will require a considerable amount of leadership’s time, as well as training, and still has a possible failure rate.
Data Collection & Evaluation Measures
There are a number of concerns which require an evaluative analysis. For example, how does the current performance of the employee measure up to their past performance? Is there a specific issue or incident that is affecting their performance? If confronted, is the employee open to change? Is their performance such that the cost of replacement and retraining outweighs any productivity or workforce issues?
In answering these questions, the information and intelligence that is gathered will be highly dependent upon the framing of the situation. It is important to keep the employee’s best interest in the frame. Also, it is good to keep the responsibility that leadership has to the employee in the forefront of the decision. Finally, when making any decision, we must remember that the choices we make in regards to a single employee will affect them all.
Value Calculations, Scenarios, and Analysis
The measurement standards and analysis of the final outcome for any of the options presented may be difficult to standardize. Depending on the option, the time-to-results will differ based on the skill set and abilities of each employee. This will definitely be the case if the M2S program is implemented. Although the end results meet an agreed upon standard, depending upon the employee, the mentoring pathways will differ for each of them. The analysis of success will not be based upon a single endpoint for every employee, but rather a mutually agreed upon one that satisfies the best interest of the employee and the organization.
In contrast, this will not be the case if the PIP process is applied. Typically, the time frames are a concrete position in time, and the required changes specifically noted. This may not necessarily take into consideration the exact or true needs of the employee. Most likely this will only result in forced behavior that may or may not suit the employee’s position in the organization and the organization’s best utilization of the employee.
In addition, Plato stated that “Human behavior flows from three main sources: desire, emotion, and knowledge”. That would lead us to believe that behavioral change requires an enlightenment of the need for change. In short, ignoring it is not the answer. However, that is exactly what happens when we promote, or simply move around, bad performers. If there is a positive light that can be cast, it is in knowing with a high degree of assurance that the past behavior of that employee will shine through once again.
Finally, we need to be realistic about the impact to the organization, on both its financials and other human capital. Statistics state that the estimated cost of replacing an employee can be upwards of $150,000. This includes, but is not limited to: interviews, training, and lost productivity and knowledge. Such activities also impact those on the peripheral as well, often causing stress to co-workers and managers alike.
Conclusions
Let us step back for a moment and recall our problem and our purpose. Our problem is that an employee that was hired is no longer performing at the required standard. We will assume for a moment that when the employee was initially hired, some aspect of value was determined. In addition, the employee was able to pass through the evaluation period, and possibly serve the organization for years, delivering on that perceived value. (Just a side note: if this was not the case, a re-evaluation of the hiring process and practices is required.) The question at this point is: what changed? The employer must take some ownership in the problem and resolution.
Our purpose is to evaluate the employee’s performance in comparison to the expectations and standards which they were hired to fulfill. In doing so, our goal is to help the employee return to a productive and fulfilling state of employment, which will benefit them, as well as the organization.
The path to fully understanding the situation may include gathering some additional covert intelligence with a number of other employees and past supervision. The goal is not to build a better case, but to expand on the historical perspective. In addition, a review of the employee’s employment record (promotions, duties, past incidents, etc.) with human resources may also be an important tool. A discussion or evaluation of the performance appraisal process may also be in order. The goal is to have a 360 degree view of the available information in order to make the decision which will best benefit the employee.
Briefly, let us consider the options of either moving the employee to another department or beginning a performance improvement plan. Clearly, there is no benefit to the employee or the organization in simply relocating a poorly performing employee. More importantly, there is no advantage in ignoring the responsibility the employer has to help that employee get back on their feet. Secondly, although there may be some good qualities that organizations can deliver through a PIP program, it does not always take into consideration each employee’s specific challenges. Also, it often fails to involve the employer as a factor for failure, either by design, or possibly through a framing or other bias.
The recommendation is to institute and apply a Mentor to Success (M2S) program. This programs meets, and should exceed, all three of our objectives. Primarily, the program’s goal is to return the employee back to a productive and content state of employment. It will provide the flexibility to help guide each employee at the most appropriate pace of progression, as well as provide a clearer and fuller picture of the employee’s situation. In addition, it will help develop a rapport between the employee and their management, as well as a path of progression. The program should focus on the employee first; however, it will often highlight the deficiencies in the organization as well. In the long run, this may provide early prevention of future issues.
Secondly, other employees will see that the organization is willing to invest the necessary time and truly cares about each individual employee and their success. This will help provide evidence that leadership values their employees, and not simply the work product. Processes do not build respect or provide a sense of value, but a relationship does. There is a need to stay mindful that there is a danger of falling into a sunk-cost trap, especially when feelings are involved. If the time comes that an employee should need to be relieved of their position, it should be evident to the employee’s co-workers that the organization made every attempt to develop the employee.
Finally, this will all lead to the success of the business. The basic goal for most employees is to put food on the table. Anything we can do to financially benefit the organization and retain business knowledge will increase the profitability of the organization. This will enable the business to grow and continue to give back to the employees.
It may take time to change the mental model of an organization; however, it is good to remember that the most important asset in any organization is the employee. Framing leadership’s viewpoint from this perspective will keep the most important aspects in focus. This will also assist in considering all of the components and factors in every situation. When the time comes to mentor an employee, this will ensure that the proper intelligence is gathered to most accurately assess the situation. However, we must also keep our experience of the human factor in the forefront.
