The Performance Improvement Plan - What it is, and what it is not
A familiar scenario?
There is always something. Something that does not happen quite as it should – or with as much finesse as it should, or with as much accuracy or thought application as it should, a niggly lack of effort, not quite fitting in with the team, some missed deadlines (always with an excuse, though), just – something not quite there with the delivery by a particular employee.
The manager knows it, and most people on the team probably do too. It is debatable whether the actual employee knows it, though – self-awareness (or the lack thereof) is an actual thing. So, although the manager is tempted to (1) pass it on to HR to deal with; or (2) do the ostrich thing and hope that the issue will somehow miraculously resolve itself, more is required. And how you approach this, as a leader, is going to make all the difference.
Managers will probably counsel. As they should. But as soon as friendly, helpful conversations and coaching are clearly not achieving anything and the situation becomes conflictual, things go haywire.
Some favourite strategies are:
Start taking away duties and responsibilities from employee X and hand them off to other, more conscientious team members.
Transfer X to another department and another, unsuspecting manager, to deal with.
Find some disciplinary issue(s) to focus on and escalate those quickly.
The problem with these options is that they will most likely create other labour relations issues, and the real problem with X will remain unresolved. Team members will become resentful having to do X’s work (grievances may follow); passing the problem on to another manager is not going to benefit the business and will just delay and imbed the problem (making it increasingly more difficult to address in a fair manner later on); and disciplinary action targeting X may be scrutinised for consistency against other staff making similar mistakes and being treated less severely.
In the meantime, the manager is under pressure because the department’s output is suffering, questions are being asked about delivery and – by implication – about the performance, competence and leadership of the said manager.
So, the manager consults HR or their labour consultant and - enters the PIP.
The Performance Improvement Plan
A Performance Improvement Plan is a great tool to formalise performance management and to ensure that there is a fair assessment of the employee’s capability and performance, more so than merely a subjective dissatisfaction of an individual manager. Then, if problems are identified, a fair process to attempt to address those, within a reasonable time frame.
It has to be done right, however. All PIPs are not created equal.
It should:
NOT be rigid, or by method of template. While there may be a broad policy framework to provide process guidance, there is a vast difference between a performance process for a professional or senior employee, and that for a junior, administrative, or support worker. It cannot be a procedural tick-box exercise. Instead, it SHOULD be an objective assessment tailored to the specific position and seniority of the employee (the more senior or professional the less the onus on the employer to assist, coach and counsel).
NOT be vague in respect of what it needs to address, especially with more junior staff. Generic terms such as ‘lack of communication / accountability’, leaves interpretation wide open and gives the employee nothing measurable to strive towards. It also may open a legitimate performance process up to all sorts of deflection tactics, with the employee assigning the manager’s ‘concerns’ to hidden personal agendas or discrimination biases.
It SHOULD contain specifics about the performance shortfall and areas of concern, measured against expected (and reasonable) standards and defined expectations. This is where the employer has to ensure that it has done its part: if the manager is unable to specify, pinpoint or explain a performance expectation, how can it be observed, measured and managed consistently? These may be broader in the case of professional or managerial employees, but there should still be KPIs or performance targets that would make this more than a subjective feeling of ‘not enough’.
NOT be weaponised as a dismissal tool (just going through the steps, paying lip-service to process), or conflated with a disciplinary process (where the employee’s capability is not the issue but their culpability is).
It SHOULD be approached as a genuine attempt to formally determine if the employee is suitable and capable of performing adequately in the role they are required to fulfil. The full role, not just parts of it, and not just in short bursts of improvement whilst under performance management.
It SHOULD be a two-way process, with a reasonable timeline (for the position and nature for the job) to address actual performance shortfalls and to provide the employee with a fair opportunity to demonstrate if they have the required capability, or not.
What happens after the PIP?
If the employee is able to satisfactorily address the performance shortfall within a reasonable period, everybody wins and work carries on, better than before.
If the employee is unable to meet the required performance standards in a sustainable manner, and they are consequently found not suitable to continue in their assigned role, the law requires the employer to consider and discuss viable alternatives with the employee. If these are not available or agreed to, then dismissal on the basis of Incapacity Poor Performance may follow.
What happens if the employee did meet the required performance standards during the PIP, and demonstrated their ability to do the job, and then falls back into old patterns later on? That could be an interesting debate, because if capability is no longer an issue, should culpability not now be questioned? It could well then fall within the ambit of a disciplinary investigation.
Key points for employers and employees
EMPLOYERS - If an employee is dismissed for poor performance incapacity and this decision is challenged, the employer will have to be able to demonstrate, objectively and factually, the following in terms of the Code of Good Practice (Schedule 8) to the Labour Relations Act:
What were the reasonable, valid performance standards required of the employee in the given position;
What was (factually) the employee’s delivery against those standards – initially and, crucially, again measured by the end of the PIP;
What were the shortfalls / areas of concern and were these measured consistently and on par with other comparable staff;
What were the reasons for the shortfall – misconduct (e.g. negligence) follows a different process, and also consider operational issues or obstacles that may have impacted on the employee’s performance;
If the shortfall stemmed from the employee’s inability to meet performance standards (incompetence, lack of skills), how was this addressed during the PIP – were the interventions and support offered fair in the circumstances (to the employee, but also to the employer, other employees and the business);
Did the employee remain unable to sustainably meet (not just show improvement) all the required performance standards for their role after a reasonable time, given their position, qualifications and seniority;
If so, what alternatives to their assigend role were considered, and why were these not possible / viable / agreed to;
Dismissal was fair in the circumstances.
EMPLOYEES – There can be no improvement or a ‘meeting of the minds’ if there is no acknowledgement that a problem exists.
You may disagree with the assessment of a manager, but make sure that you are open-minded and self-aware enough to actually consider if the employer has legitimate concerns, and not to immediately become defensive or stay in denial because you suspect an agenda.
Address concerns about a process factually, not emotionally or personally.
Don’t run away from recognising that there may be problems that you need to address – rather embrace the process and any opportunity to do so. You will earn a lot more goodwill and support from management and your team members this way.
I am not saying that ‘trumped up’ PIPs never happen. But then use the process itself to counter it and to prove it wrong. Keep your own paper trail. Please do not immediately ask your AI to start spewing grievances at your manager for daring to do their job. If your aim is to keep that job, this is not the way. You cannot justify your place in the organisation by way of intimidation or denial – the only way to do this, is to perform at the required level and to challenge adverse decisions in this regard objectively.
Conclusion
A proper PIP should create clarity of expectations, accountability, a fair opportunity to improve, and should protect both sides by providing an objective basis for evaluating performance and making informed decisions.
© Judith Griessel
