Performance Reviews

My guess is that if I polled a bunch of HR people, I would find a vast majority of them hate doing periodic performance reviews and hate having to insist that the supervisors in their organizations conduct them. Am I right? Of course I am. My thinking?

I question the wisdom of insisting on a process with so little apparent value!

Anyone who has been in HR for some time also knows that most supervisors in their organizations hate doing them. It’s a chore that the company says needs to be done. But they either put it off until the last minute or they set easy targets for their people to meet, or they give most of their team an average score.

The easiest ones for them to do are the superstars and the ones standing in the doorway on a banana peel waiting for someone to give them a shove.

The ones that they hate doing are the ones who they need to have on their team to get the work done. The soldiers who show up every day and never create a problem. The supervisor’s dilemma is how to keep this group motivated. They can’t always give them more money. They can’t always promise them a promotion for the good work they do.

I know, someone “upstairs” says the performance reviews need to be done, so the supervisors do them. In my experience, this process is a waste of time and accomplishes little.

I have read more than a thousand of them over the past 40 years. Most are generic junk. A bunch of words copied from the last review or feel good words so they don’t have to deal with a confrontation with the employee.
In more than a few situations those feel good reviews have given a plaintiff’s attorney a lot of reasons to smile.

Supervisor – “The guy was a poor performer. I had to let him go.”

Attorney in the discovery process – “The record shows you gave him several average or above average reviews!”

See where that conversation is going? Oh, ya. Get the check book out, employer.

More on this next time. Some ideas for you to think about.

Management Rights? Or not?June 2010

I wonder how many people in management today even know what the term “Management rights” means. I have talked with a large number of people in human resources and senior management in general over the last seven years and find few who really know what the term means.

It seems the typical thought among them is “If we don’t have a policy to cover it, we can’t do it.” That’s puzzling to me. Maybe it’s the thought of union organizing potential, possible violation of some state or federal law, or a lawsuit by an employee.

All too often I find human resource people counseling their CEO’s that in order to do something, they must first create a policy to cover it, then have the policy vetted by legal and only then post it.
So why does this thinking seem so prevalent? Lack of experienced human resource people? Paranoia of being sued? Afraid of offending their employees?

“Management rights” means that unless you have given the right away by policy or there is a law covering the situation, you as the management of your company, have the right to run your business as you see fit.
Here is a typical management rights clause included in a company/union contract. This one is from a union contract dated 1971.

“It is understood and agreed that all the customary and usual rights, powers, functions and authority of management including the management of the plant and the direction of the workforce, the right to hire, discharge, discipline, promote, demote, transfer, relieve employees from their duties for lack of work or other legitimate reasons, to maintain order and efficiency, to decide plant locations, number and locations of departments, type and quantity of tools and equipment to be used, products to be manufactured, schedule of production, and control of materials shall be vested exclusively in the Company.”
The above rights, powers, and authority of management are not all inclusive, but indicate the type of matters or rights which belong to and are inherent to management. Any of the rights, powers or authority the Company had prior to the signing of this Agreement, including those in respect to rates of pay, hours of employment or conditions of work are retained by the Company, except those specifically abridged or modified by this Agreement or any supplementary agreement arrived at through the process of collective bargaining.”

What this says is “Unless we have given it away in the bargaining process or a law covers a particular situation, the management of this company retains the right to run the company as we see fit.”

What does this mean for non-union organizations? Note the sentence which says in part …… the type of matters or rights which belong to and are inherent to management.
That’s the part that needs to be understood by CEO’s and human resource people. In effect, unless you have given something away by policy, or the law has taken it away, you decide how you want to run your business.
If you see a problem in your organization, you do not have to check to see if you have a policy to cover it or create one before you can act. You just handle the situation. Some employees may say that you can’t do something because there isn’t a policy in place. They are wrong.

In one company I came into, they had one employee who was a disruptive influence. I took care of the situation. When I asked why the supervisors had let this guy get away with that behavior for over two years, their answer was surprising. They said the guy never broke any rules so they couldn’t discipline him!

Do you think that way? If so, you need to change your mind set. If you see something that needs to be corrected, fixed or otherwise taken care of, take care of it!

Another example. One employee used the company email system to promote his personal agendas, including his religious preferences. When we told him to stop, he claimed he had a right to do so. That he was just stating his personal opinion. And other employees used emails to say personal things.

We told him we didn’t care what his personal beliefs were. Was there a specific policy in place that covered this situation? No, but that did not matter. We have an inherent right to run the business and his use of the company communications system to broadcast his private beliefs was not acceptable.

The bottom line ………. Unless you have given away the right to manage parts of your business, take the action necessary to correct a problem.

Discipline or Corrective Action? What’s Your Preference?

The age old tradition is to use discipline as a means of changing behavior. The term “discipline” is typically associated with union contracts and has the usual verbal warning, written warning, suspension, and finally termination. There are many variations of this method such as paid suspensions, or two written warnings, but most pretty much follow this method.

I challenge that traditional method. The further you go into that progression, the less chance there is of changing the behavior.

The traditional method requires the supervisor to be a “cop”. Think about a cop’s role. That role is to catch law breakers and punish them with tickets, fines and/or jail time in order to change behavior. Why should our supervisors spend their time waiting for someone to break a rule and them punish them? A cop’s primary job is to enforce rules. That’s not the supervisor’s job. The supervisor’s primary job is to assist employees their production of a product or service.

So what do we need to do? First, we need to change our thinking. If you want to, keep the traditional system, while considering some suggested modifications that we’ll talk about next time.

Try changing the term “discipline” to “corrective action”. Think about it. You are taking action to correct unacceptable behavior, aren’t you? So why not call it that.

Now, the next step. Get over the idea that you have to wait for the employee to break a rule. That makes you a cop. In your world, if you have an employee who has not yet broken any rules, but is a disruptive influence in your group, you still take action.

Suppose this person criticizes everything and everyone in the department. He continually irritates his fellow team members. Do not be afraid of a come back of “Well, he hasn’t broken any rules”. I don’t care whether or not he has broken a rule. If he is a problem for me and my team, I am going to address it. That can be not working up to potential or coming in late twice a week.

This is where the corrective action comes in. At this stage, you are correcting improper behavior. Here is how you do it.

You sit down, in private, with the employee, informing him that this is not a discipline session, but you need to discuss a problem with him. He is a continuing disruption in the department and that behavior is unacceptable. He will likely ask for specifics. I would give a general overview without naming names.

Now that you have outlined the problem, you now want to know what he intends to do to change his behavior. This is important. It is not your job to change his behavior, it is his. Ask him to come up with a plan to change and then the two of you set a date to get back together and discuss his progress.

When he comes back with a plan, congratulate him and set another date to measure progress.

See what is happening here? Corrective action is taking place, not discipline. If he fails to make progress and continues to be a problem, then you have the traditional method to fall back on. And that won’t be a surprise to him, will it.

Next time, we’ll talk about your corrective action/discipline system and how you may want to consider changing it.