 |
 Poor Performance |
|
|
||
 Do you have an employee who does not
follow procedure or work rules and has been doing that
for a year or more?Did you inherit an employee in your department described by his previous manager as being uncooperative and disruptive since he was hired several years ago? Do you have an employee whom you don't ask anymore to submit a report because he refuses to write reports? Do you have an employee in your company who never does certain parts of his job because he doesn't like those tasks? When you initiate disciplinary action with an employee who refuses to perform, do you get pressure from higher management, the personnel department, or the union representative that you are being hard-nosed and you are forced to back off? If your answer is "yes" to these questions, you have employees who are not performing because "There is no negative consequence to them for poor performance." The
Problem Unfortunately, what many managers view as a
punishment to an employee may not be a punishment to the
employee. Have you ever seen an employee's personnel
folder bulging with reprimands and low performance
appraisal ratings and the employee is still on the job
performing badly? The manager passed out what appeared to
be punishment, but it did not seem to have any effect.Close examination may even reveal that bad performers receive raises and choice work assignments according to seniority in spite of their bad performance. If most managers were told that the boss was going to put a reprimand in their folders, the reaction would be highly emotional because managers view reprimands as punishment. We assume lower-level employees would respond the same way. If, however, you examine the use of reprimands in business, you frequently find that putting a reprimand in an employee's folder results in nothing more than that another piece of paper in the folder. Written and verbal reprimands are only a part of what is referred to as progressive discipline. The assumption is that the discipline progresses in severity from warnings to reprimands to time off without pay as the performance discrepancy continues. In many companies the paperwork piles up in the employee's folder but the severity of the discipline does not increase. Also, for some people, being told to go home for three days without pay is not punishment. Many times we have heard workers comment about poor performers, "Why doesn't the company get rid of that 'goof-off' ?" We have heard union representatives say, "I wish the company would get smart and fire that 'screwup' and eliminate all these hassles." Yet no one gets fired. In one company a laboratory technician who had been reprimanded several times for not wearing safety glasses, among other things, finally arrived in the laboratory one day wearing the glasses. When his supervisor complimented him on wearing the safety glasses, the technician reached up and wiggled his fingers through the empty glass frames. He had actually taken the time to remove the glass from the frame so he could play his game with his supervisor. He was still on the payroll one year later. An amazingly common practice in some large, apparently well-organized companies is that managers faced with a poor performer suggest that the employee request a transfer to some other unit. As a result, there are poor performers working in that company for as long as 18 years who have never worked for any boss who thought their performance was appropriate, but the employees remain on the payroll. A lot of managers give above-aver-age performance appraisal ratings to below-average performers because they don't want to be the one to put a black mark on an employee's record forever. Some managers give big raises to bad performers in the hope it will motivate them to perform better. When you are trying to understand why your employees don't do what they are supposed to do and none of the reasons mentioned previously are the reasons for nonperformance, the reason may be, "There is no negative consequence to them for performing badly." Preventive
Solution(1) You must intervene in your organization so there are negative consequences to employees whose persistent bad performance is willful misconduct; they are choosing to perform inappropriately. (2) In some work situations, there is no negative consequence for poor performance because management does not know the subordinate is failing. Either the subordinate's performance is not checked by the boss or when the checking is done, the mistakes cannot be traced to an individual performer. For example, in work situations where employees are assigned a different vehicle or piece of equipment each workday, the vehicles or equipment are usually in deplorable condition as a result of employee abuse. The abuse cannot be pin-pointed; any employee can say, "I didn't do it; it was that way when I got it." But when employees are permanently assigned to drive the same vehicle or operate the same equipment every day, there is less abuse. Because permanent assignments make abuse traceable, there is a negative consequence for employees abusing their equipment. The practice of requiring inspectors, or packers, or assemblers to put their names on a slip of paper that accompanies the product to the ultimate user has increased over the last 30 years. Instituting such a practice usually improves the quality of the items or process or service involved. The explanation for the improvement usually alludes to some high-sounding concepts, such as pride of performance. But on a more basic level, putting your name on what you service, assemble, or inspect means that if you do it wrong, it will eventually be traced back to you. There will be a negative consequence for bad performance. (3) When employees doing work they like to do perform badly (willfully), assign work they do not like to do. (4) When an employee having a desirable work location willfully performs badly, assign a less desirable work location. (5) When an employee who is normally permitted to attend outside activities during work hours or at company expense willfully performs the job badly, deny those privileges. (6) When an employee willfully performs badly, demote him or her. (7) When an employee willfully performs badly, deny or delay raises until performance improves. (8) When an employee is demoted because of poor performance, reduce the salary. (9) When an employee who has expressed an interest in promotion willfully performs badly, explain in writing that this willful nonperformance is considered unreliability, and therefore future promotion will not be considered unless performance improves. (10) Change your rules about transfers. An employee willfully performing badly in a current job should not be eligible for transfer unless the willful misconduct is corrected for a minimum of six months. Anyone performing badly for other reasons should not be transferred unless the task performed badly is not a part of the new job. (11) When it seems clear that a person is willfully not improving performance, and your coaching discussions fail, terminate the employment. (12) When these solutions change performance, be sure to give a positive consequence to maintain the improvement. (13) Have you ever had the feeling that your employees' performance improves somewhat when you appear in their work space? If so, you have discovered one of the most powerful management interventions to increase productivity. One negative consequence to poor performance is your appearance in their work space. Increase your frequency of appearing in their work space as follow up and you will get more increases in productivity. The reason for this effect is that you, the boss, are a moving negative consequence, the catcher of poor performance. You are not a bad person; you are merely the last person they want to see if they are goofing off. So increase your frequency of appearing in the work space of the nonperformers and ask questions such as,  "How are you doing?" "What are you doing?" "Why are you doing
that?" "When will you begin (doing
the right thing)?" "When will you end what you
are working on?"The more frequently you appear in your employees' work environment, the more you will have the happy experience of catching people doing things right. You will increase your opportunities to reinforce performance with verbal rewards. You will also catch more poor performance sooner so that you can help prevent big problems. Initially you will get resistance from some employees accusing you of checking up on them. Your response should be, "You are right. That's what I get paid to do." Not suggesting a total management approach of talking loudly, carrying a big stick, and dreaming up ways of threatening and punishing the people who work for you. That is what ineffective managers do. There are real work situations where none of the other reasons for nonperformance discussed so far are the reasons for nonperformance. The only reason this employee is misperforming willfully is because there is no negative consequence to him or her for doing it that way. If you don't take appropriate action to correct the problem, you will have to live with it. You owe it to all the employees who do things right to take action against the employees who choose to do things wrong. |
||
  |
