Effective Management of Performance
Peter Ryan reviews the role of the Civil Service Regulation (Amendment) Act in achieving efficiency & enhancing performance.
While workplace performance may be considered from a number of different perspectives, performance shortfalls may be categorised under three general headings, namely; competence, conduct and attendance. Accordingly, sanctions may apply if, upon investigation, an employee’s attendance, contribution or conduct is found to fall short of employers’ reasonable expectations. Importantly and despite prevailing views, medical certification is insufficient to excuse poor attendance as it is reasonable for an employer to expect ‘reliability’ in the form of regular attendance on the part of employees. Both the Act and the Disciplinary Code (Circular 14/2006) provide clarity in respect of behavioural expectations and outline the sanctions which may apply where ‘performance’, (competence, conduct or attendance) is found to be unsatisfactory. Disciplinary sanctions should, however, be seen as a last resort and should only apply in the event of: (i) gross misconduct or (ii) after employees have been reminded of their obligations and have been provided with an opportunity to demonstrate improvement.
Context
Public service employers and unions have an obligation to promote a satisfactory workplace culture and protect the best interests of all employees. While important generally, this has gained greater significance as earnings have been reduced and the public service finds itself under sustained media attack. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to expect that dedicated employees may begin to question why they optimise their contributions when less conscientious colleagues contribute sub-optimally and receive the same rewards. Interestingly, a recent RA Consulting employee opinion survey undertaken on behalf of a high profile Government Department found that 45 per cent of employees disagreed with the statement: ‘The organisation deals appropriately with those whose performance fails to improve’. Similarly, 32 per cent felt that ‘PMDS ratings were not applied equitably’. Such findings point to a necessity for joint management-union responses if problems with workplace cultures are to be addressed for the benefit of all employees. As outlined, disciplinary sanctions should be used only as a last resort and early interventions should apply in order to remind employees of their obligations and the organisation’s expectations.
Early intervention
Where performance or attendance is found to be wanting, initial approaches should be confined to informal discussions between employees and their line managers. An employee returning to work after a short period of absence will welcome a routine enquiry (as a common courtesy) unless of course, the employee has been malingering. Such an enquiry may give rise to: (i) appreciation (the organisation was concerned about my welfare) or (ii) paranoia (my manager must suspect something) depending on whether or not the absence was genuine. The organisation’s position is preserved as the manager should be expected to be concerned about his/her employees’ wellbeing and the approach also sends a clear message that the absence has not gone unnoticed. The same may apply where work performance, quality or contribution is less than expected. From a management perspective, the interaction provides employees with the opportunity to discuss any underlying issues and identify mutually satisfactory solutions.
Continuing shortfalls
Where problems with performance or attendance persist, a more formal approach is warranted and this will usually take place in the manager’s office and at an agreed time, i.e. in order to convey the significance of the issue. The line manager will: (i) typically seek reasons for the continuing shortfalls and (ii) generally promote an understanding of the problem, perhaps by identifying the implications for colleagues, customers and the organisation. At this stage the employee should be required to identify the solution and commit to delivering upon expectations. As mentioned, medical certification is generally insufficient to excuse poor attendance and the manager’s approach should emphasise the requirement for ‘reliability’. Discussions around the veracity of the underlying medical condition(s) should be avoided and employees should be reminded that they are contractually bound to attend work and contribute at an appropriate level. It should also be emphasised that there is no statutory entitlement to provide sickness benefit and payments may be suspended where an individual’s level of attendance is excessive. Notwithstanding, sick pay should obviously be maintainedwhere absence from work is justified. Careful review is required, however, where an employee presents with a combination of different maladies and levels of ongoing absenteeism are high.
Disciplinary procedures
In most instances performance and attendance shortfalls will be addressed by engaging with employees as outlined above. Importantly, more conscientious employees begin to realise that their efforts are not in vain and a sense of workplace equity is gradually restored. Occasionally however, problems persist and it is necessary to consider formal disciplinary procedures and the application of disciplinary sanctions. Under such circumstances, the Disciplinary Code should apply and the cooperation of union representatives should be sought in order to ensure that employees are reminded of their obligations/consequences associated with a failure to demonstrate requisite improvement. Again, persistent absenteeism may ultimately result in the termination of an employment contract (on the grounds of ‘reliability’) regardless of whether absences have been certified.
Conclusion
The adoption of a proactive approach to the management of absenteeism or poor performance will enhance efficiency, promote equity and improve performance but a consistent and concerted organisation-wide approach is required. Though line managers should be responsible for managing their personnel, it is important to recognise that they are often fearful or anxious when operating in this quasi-legal area. The general inclination to avoid conflict also means that associated responsibilities are rarely embraced. It is for this reason that the organisation’s HR function has a critically important role to play, not just in offering training to line managers, but also is providing them with coaching and the support necessary to develop related competencies and expertise. Secretaries General, CEOs and Directors also need to champion approaches to the management of performance and ensure that effective workplace cultures are promoted.