Managing poor performance at work is less about a set of warnings leading to dismissal and more to do with improving and sustaining performance. And coaching is just the tool for the job
Effective performance management is a critical challenge for all employers, but one that many struggle to rise to. In practice, performance dismissals are among the most difficult to achieve fairly and where employers are prone to be tripped up by basic mistakes. One common problem is that the threshold for management intervention in cases of poor performance is set too low, leaving the situation unaddressed until it reaches a crisis point. Managers then look for immediate solutions that the law on unfair dismissal cannot deliver.
A fair performance dismissal usually requires at least two warnings prior to dismissal, sufficient time between stages to allow a reasonable opportunity to improve, and the setting of improvement targets backed up with training and support. Where such steps haven’t been taken, the only alternative is a compromise. Here, well-advised employees would look for a settlement payment equivalent to their notice period and at least a year’s pay, which would refl ect the length of time needed to effect a fair dismissal.
This is a crude performance-management tool, avoiding drawn-out formal processes at the expense of rewarding underperformance – ignoring the fact that the agreement is necessary only because the situation has not been actively managed. To compound the problem, failing to deal with performance issues has a negative impact on other employees who view their own contribution as being inadequately recognised.
Many employers use disciplinary procedures to deal with poor performance as well as misconduct, through escalating and time-limited warnings. There are signifi cant disadvantages to this approach. Capability issues are rarely one-offs, and the message to the employee is not “don’t do this again” but rather “you need to do this better”.
Escalating warnings can appear heavy-handed as a means of addressing cases where performance has improved but not suffi ciently to meet required standards. However, if warnings are allowed to expire without further action, the procedure has to start again. A better approach is to have a specific performance review procedure that continues until the employee has demonstrated a sustained improvement or is dismissed, and that is drafted to allow considerable fl exibility in the progression to different levels of warning, tailoring the pace of the procedure to each situation.
At the same time, it is crucial to recognise that performance management is not solely about undrperformers nor a set of hoops to jump through to enable a fair dismissal. Formal processes should be about improving and sustaining performance.
Performance management is relevant to all employees, and requires consideration of recruitment and retention activity, training and development, including coaching, and establishing pay and reward strategies that link pay effectively to performance and recognise individual contributions to the employer’s objectives.
Coaching and mentoring are essential tools for building an organisational culture where the skills of those in key positions are continually developed. They can also be highly effective in dealing with underperformers, offering a supportive framework focused on producing improvement rather than moving inexorably towards dismissal.
KEY LESSONS
- Use coaching and mentoring strategies to promote and sustain high standards of performance and as an effective and informal means of tackling performance problems
- Ensure that managers deal with performance issues before they reach crisis point
- Adopt a separate procedure for tackling capability issues that focuses on achieving a sustained improvement in performance and allows flexibility to adapt the pace of warnings to the individual case
Christopher Mordue is a partner in the employment group at Pinsent Masons 0113 294 5194
christopher.mordue@pinsentmasons.com