Publications
Partners
Johannesburg - Managing poor performance is arguably one of the more difficult tasks faced by managers in the modern workplace, according to Johan Botes, partner and head of employment practice Baker & McKenzie.
"Terminating the service of an employee who was caught with his ‘hand in the cookie jar’ is often easier that letting someone go who really tries hard to get the job done, but fails," explained Botes.
"We appear to be more comfortable at taking tough decisions where the employee is to blame or at fault than where the employee is unable to perform due to no fault on his part."
In many jurisdictions, employers may fairly terminate the service of an employee where the employee fails to meet the required performance standard. Incapacity due to poor performance is distinguishable from workplace misconduct in that misconduct entails the intentional or negligent breach of the workplace rules or standards.
Poor performance, as a form of employee incapacity, occurs where the employee lacks the ability or capability to perform to the required standard.
"Theorists often use the example of an employee who does not want to do the work required (misconduct) versus one who cannot do the work required (incapacity). The latter category of employee can often be seen immersed in his work, slaving away at his work station, feverishly trying to meet deadlines and perform required tasks, yet still bearing the brunt of a frustrated manager's anger when he (again) fails to deliver work in time or at the required standard," explained Botes.
"What is often very difficult for such under-performing employees to appreciate is that they are at risk of termination, notwithstanding their work ethic or commitment to the cause. Poor performers regularly feel disgruntled when taken to task for not performing up the required standard as, in their view, they are trying their utmost to get the job done and cannot be faulted for not achieving the required standard."
Research
Botes said research indicates that managers should take greater care in communicating standards of expected performance to subordinates.
"Don't conclude that communicating outcomes and expectations are not required, because it is clear to you or you would not have required anyone to explain the task to you. You may be drawing on a body of knowledge that could be vastly different than that of the employee required to perform the task," said Botes.
"Communicating detailed outcomes and allowing for questions and responses will create an opportunity for employees to indicate their inability to perform or lack of understanding of the task ahead."
Research also showed that most employees benefit from more regular feedback on their performance and highlighted the need for sound recruitment practices.
"While this may all sound mercenary and heartless, employers who fail to address under-performing employees run the risk of losing their star performers as well," said Botes.
"Employees who have to shoulder the burden of an under-achieving colleague will soon lose heart and leave where the organisation fails to address the situation. Unless an employer addresses its poor performers, those employees may be the only ones remaining in the end."
