A common misconception with employees and managers is that of the “paper trail.” It is believed that in order to make a termination decision, a manager must create this “paper trail” of documentations until they have enough evidence to satisfy the Human Resource (HR) Department. Unfortunately, this very notion typically brings great frustration to everyone involved including the employee. However, behaviors of both managers and HR professionals can continue to reinforce the thought process that leads to this fallacy. For example, let’s look at the following fictitious dialogue.
Manager – Hey HR person, I need to speak to you about an employee issue. I think it is time to let Bob go.
HR Manager- Okay Manager, what is the issue?
Manager-Well, Bob just can’t seem to meet the department goals.
HR Manager- What type of documentation do you have?
Manager-I’ve talked to him a hundred times and no matter what I try, it doesn’t help. Bob just can’t grasp the concept. He’s bringing down the whole team’s numbers, and now I am getting in trouble.
HR Manager-Ok. What type of documentation do you have?
Manager-I haven’t written up anything yet.
After this dialogue the HR manager thinks, “How many times do I have to tell them ….”
The manager thinks, “HR always gets in the way of me doing my job. They just don’t understand…”
And the cycle continues…
The cycle is able to continue in many organizations because there has been a failure to create a performance culture where there is a constant flow of feedback to employees at every level on performance.
What ideas do you have to create this culture? What has worked in your organizations? I look forward to hearing your thoughts as we continue to explore this topic in future posts.
————————————————————————————-
For more resources, See the Human Resources library.
—
Sheri Mazurek is a training and human resource professional with over 16 years of management experience, and is skilled in all areas of employee management and human resource functions, with a specialty in learning and development. She is currently employed as the Human Resource Manager at EmployeeScreenIQ, a global leader in pre-employment background screening.
Sheri Mazurek is a training and human resource professional with over 15 years of management experience, and is skilled in all areas of employee management and human resource functions, with a specialty in learning and development.
This situation occurs in many companies and for the company to protect itself, it should have a written policy inplace for performance problems. Initially the problem may be discussed between the manager and the employee however, it is the manager’s responsibility to fully document the discussion. This requires date, time, place, details, and the outcome.
Once the problem excalates to the point where the employee may be terminated for performance, normally there can be three steps taken. The first step would be a discussion with the employee, his manager, and his manager’s manager present. All details of the discussion should be documented by the manager and the employee be given an oral reprimand. The second step would be similar except the employee would be given a written reprimand at this point.
If the employee does not show improvement after the two previous meetings, a third meeting would be for termination. Again, very thorough documentation is required by both managers present. The goal is to avoid an employee lawsuit against the company.
Supervisors have an important responsibility of managing people for maximum productivity. As such, they need to have all the tools, knowledge and skills that are needed for them to be successful managers. While training and professional development should be part of any progressive organization’s benefit, it is doubly important to make each and every manager with supervisory responsibility “accountable” for their employee’s success or failure and the best way to achieve this is not only showing the managers the “how to” but to make the “management skills” part of the review process. Unless the managers realize that they are personally “responsible” and “accountable” for their employees’ output and progress, the complaints will never stop!
You are so correct. Achieving results through people is the primary function of most managers. Not evaluating a manager’s ability to lead others is a mistake.
Dennis,
I am curious. What is your role in the organization?
One of my biggest frustrations when I was a supervisor of a struggling employee was how HR’s focus seemed primarily on what I needed to do to avoid the company getting sued for unlawful termination. Looking back, had I gotten more coaching about delegating or really listening to the employee, I probably would have helped the employee and myself to do a better job for the company. Perhaps the problem was primarily my ignorance, but I still assert that, had I gotten more support about enhancing performance, rather than documenting poor performance, my employee and I would have done better for the company and ourselves.
Carter, I think that your comment describes what happens most often in organizations. Unfortunately the conversation represents the competing interests in organizations that brind division instead of the harmony needed to work together. In order to acheive true performance management HR and supervisors (and company leaders) need to work together for the common goal of acheiving results. When feedback becomes part of the culture then HR mangers should get he documentation they want, supervisors can get the performance they want, and employees should get what they want. Creating that culture is often the difficultly.