Welcome

 

A Message to Our Readers
Featured Domain

 

Tactics for improving poor performance
Insights

 

Share in savings: limited results

Lean Six Sigma and business transformation in government

Reducing the cone of uncertainty through project planning
Research Update
Events
Links
Contact Us
Free trial           Subscribe Now
Improving, Not Managing, Poor Performance


In late June, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report (GAO-05-812R) on poor performers in the federal workforce, which addresses four issues: the magnitude of the poor performer issue; tools and approaches available for addressing poor performance; impediments to dealing with poor performance; and, key factors for addressing poor performance. While the report provides some solid advice for managing poor performers, it misses out on some essential issues related to managing for improvement, rather than simply for removal.

Magnitude of the Poor Performance Issue

The magnitude of the poor performance issue in the federal government varies widely depending on the source of the information. However, the three statistics the GAO provides in its report define the boundaries of the issue.
  • According to 2003 Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) information, .3 percent of employees rated in 2003 received an unacceptable performance rating.
  • A 2000 Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) survey found that 14.3 percent of employees perceived their coworkers performed below acceptable levels.
  • A 1999 Office of Personnel Management (OPM) study found that supervisors estimated about 3.7 percent of the workforce was performing poorly.
Regardless of the "real" number of poor performers, the perception that poor performers are not managed well is both widely held among federal employees and detrimental to the federal government's efforts to become an employer of choice. Ineffective management of poor performers is clearly on the minds of many civil servants: over 40 percent of respondents to the 2004 Federal Human Capital Survey disagree or strongly disagree with the statement, "In my work unit, steps are taken to deal with a poor performer who cannot or will not improve." In order for the government to effectively recruit and retain strong workers, it will have to change this perception, if not the reality.

One Approach: "Managing" the Poor Performer

The GAO's report includes several suggestions for managing poor performance that fall into two broad categories: attempting to avoid poor performance altogether; and, quickly removing the poor performer, once identified, from the organization.

Forestalling Poor Performance

The GAO's suggestions around avoiding poor performance include implementing a strong management system, making use of probationary periods and training managers. An effective performance management system, which makes use of core competencies to reinforce organizational objectives and creates a clear link between individual and organizational performance, is a necessary first step in preventing poor performance. The use of a probationary period, during which the manager can assess the "fit" of the employee to the position and the organization is the next step in inhibiting a poor performer from becoming embedded in the organization.

The GAO also points out that adequate training on the performance management system for managers and supervisors will help to reduce poor performance. It is essential for managers and supervisors to be able to establish and communicate performance expectations, as well as to assess and communicate about actual employee performance. Additionally, training can help managers to assess and communicate about performance on an ongoing basis, which helps to reduce the opportunity for poor performance to take hold.

Removing Poor Performers from the Organization

The other broad area of poor performance management the GAO report addresses is speeding up the elimination process; that is, getting the poor performer out as quickly as possible. The GAO's suggestions in this area, all of which are included to some degree in the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Defense (DOD) personnel systems, include eliminating the opportunity period to streamline the process of dealing with poor performers, denying pay increases to poor performers, and streamlining the appeals process.

Another Approach: Improving Performance

All of the GAO's tools and approaches make sense and are absolutely necessary to ensure strong workforce performance. But, these suggestions miss out on a key area of poor performance management: helping the poor performer to improve his/her performance prior to removal. Anyone who has managed employees for any period of time will agree: no matter what you do up front, and no matter how good a manager you are, you simply cannot prevent some segment of your workforce from becoming poor performers.

At the same time, it is widely accepted that it is both more cost effective and a better management strategy to invest in improving performance than it is to dismiss and replace it. Human capital leaders are in the best position to help managers and supervisors to improve their own performance in managing poor performers. The strategies outlined below can help.

Pinpoint Need: The first thing human capital managers can do to improve poor performance within their organizations is to find out if managers actually need help in identifying and managing poor performance. If the 2004 Federal Human Capital Survey is any indicationÑand it should beÑthe answer is a resounding "yes." However, there are several additional tactics human capital managers can use to nail down this issue:
  • Ask employees specific questions about how managers deal with poor performers
  • Add questions about managers' ability to deal with poor performers to exit surveys
  • Employ surveys to understand mangers' abilities to work with poor performers
Train Managers: The GAO report focuses attention on the need for good training for managers. To ensure that management training is appropriately targeted and timed, human capital leaders should offer three types of training:
  • Training for existing managers on an ongoing basis
  • Training for new managers
  • Just-in-time training targeted to specific events
Include the Right Content: According to a Hewitt and Associates survey of 129 major US companies, 67 percent say their managers do a bad job of managing poor performance. At the same time, training for managers on managing poor performers is commonly overlooked. Content on improving poor performance should include:
  1. When to begin counseling. Counseling should begin just as soon as a problem is identified. The point at which performance first begins to slip is when employees are most open to discussing improvement. Employees are much more able to improve performance without the risk of dismissal hanging over their heads. Also, addressing performance problems early indicates to other employees that poor performance will not be tolerated. Along with training on when to begin counseling, managers need to learn how to provide frequent and specific feedback, and the necessity of documenting every major discussion for future reference, if necessary.
  2. How to get at the root cause of the problem. First, managers need to know how to differentiate between misconduct and poor performance. As OPM defines it, misconduct is failure to follow a workplace rule (such as tardiness or absenteeism); poor performance is the failure of an employee to do his or her job at an acceptable level. Next, the manager must understand how to identify the root cause of the problem, whether it is a skill/training problem, an attitude problem, or a personal problem. And, finally, the manager needs to understand the best strategies to deal with the problem based on its root cause.
  3. How to give constructive criticism. No one reacts well to critical messages and personal attacks, particularly an employee whose performance is slipping. Constructive discussion of problems is difficult, but modeling and practice can go a long way to helping managers improve in this area.
  4. How to "manage up." One commonly cited concern of managers of poor performers is fear of not being backed up by their own managers. Each organization has its own expectations around how and when to communicate about poor performance up the line. Human capital leaders can help allay supervisors' and managers' fears about upward communication by training them on the precise organizational communication expectations as well as more generally on good upward communications.
When to terminate. Sometimes even the best efforts are unsuccessful, and dismissal is the appropriate action. Human capital leaders need to help managers and supervisors to determine when it is time to cut their losses.

Managing poor performance is a three-step process: planning to avert poor performance; managing to improve performance; and, managing the dismissal process, if it becomes necessary. Merging the GAO report suggestions with those presented above creates the full spectrum of management options for these circumstances.

For more information on how we can help with the management of human capital, visit us at www.pivotal-insight.com.

To access a copy of the GAO report cited in this article (GAO-25-812R) go to http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05812r.pdf.

Free trial           Subscribe Now   

 

©2006 Pivotal Insight, LLC. All rights reserved.