Suggesting someone at work gets assessed for autism?

[Winot]

How is that bad? Does that not make it easier for them?

Sometimes good management involves dealing with poor performance (not saying that’s the position here; I’m making a more general comment). In my experience people in a team want performance issues to be dealt with. And dealing properly with poor performance means following a transparent and reasonable process.

 

[Winot]

I think you will be on dodgy ground mentioning someone has an issue in an appraisal. You can note their performance is lacking, falling short or suffering. Is there anything affecting your performance, is there any help or adjustments we can make or is there anything we should know...

Agreed. I meant a performance issue not a diagnosis.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Sometimes good management involves dealing with poor performance (not saying that’s the position here; I’m making a more general comment). In my experience people in a team want performance issues to be dealt with. And dealing properly with poor performance means following a transparent and reasonable process.

What I mean is, for the employee there is no benefit in any "issues" being raised earlier - that just makes them look worse as it looks like a long term problem that they've not addressed, the incompetent shits. The last thing you want is for a record of complaints to exist.

 

[equationgirl]

How is that bad? Does that not make it easier for them?

Because if there isn't appropriate documentation about what issues were raised and when, and any ways to mitigate/change behaviour then it makes dismissing someone harder, especially if you're looking at misconduct. I mean, a company could still do it, but there's a risk that they could get a claim lodged against them for e.g unfair dismissal or wrongful dismissal.

If a person hasn't been given a reasonable chance to improve or change, the risk could increase. And if previous line managers haven't addressed issues or given them a high score in an appraisal to make the problem disappear, then the employee could be presenting a case that makes it look like everything was fine and being dismissed was personal or vindictive in some way.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Because if there isn't appropriate documentation about what issues were raised and when, and any ways to mitigate/change behaviour then it makes dismissing someone harder, especially if you're looking at misconduct. I mean, a company could still do it, but there's a risk that they could get a claim lodged against them for e.g unfair dismissal or wrongful dismissal.

If a person hasn't been given a reasonable chance to improve or change, the risk could increase. And if previous line managers haven't addressed issues or given them a high score in an appraisal to make the problem disappear, then the employee could be presenting a case that makes it look like everything was fine and being dismissed was personal or vindictive in some way.

I don't see things from that perspective - rather that if an issue has had something raised in an appraisal, that means that if it comes up again, the employee is then at fault for not having dealt with it. "In your 2018 appraisal it was stated that you had a problem being too abrupt dealing with department X - in 2019 the same issue came up again with department X" => punishment time.

It's not like anyone is going to help out with that or anything - if they did, it wouldn't go in the appraisal as it wouldn't need to.

 

[Winot]

What I mean is, for the employee there is no benefit in any "issues" being raised earlier - that just makes them look worse as it looks like a long term problem that they've not addressed, the incompetent shits. The last thing you want is for a record of complaints to exist.

Well yes, it’s true I suppose that a wilful poor performer has a different perspective to the rest of the team.

 

[hash tag]

It is possible this person has health issues recorded with HR that Cloo knows nothing about. Another reason to speak to HR.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Well yes, it’s true I suppose that a wilful poor performer has a different perspective to the rest of the team.

...that's an interesting phrasing

 

[equationgirl]

I don't see things from that perspective - rather that if an issue has had something raised in an appraisal, that means that if it comes up again, the employee is then at fault for not having dealt with it. "In your 2018 appraisal it was stated that you had a problem being too abrupt dealing with department X - in 2019 the same issue came up again with department X" => punishment time.

It's not like anyone is going to help out with that or anything - if they did, it wouldn't go in the appraisal as it wouldn't need to.

To be honest I would expect most issues to be dealt with outside the appraisal system ie as and when they occur.

I would look at why the issue was occurring , is it a function of something out with the employee's control, like above their paygrade or something happening in another department's processes impacting on their workload? Or are they persistently an hour late into the office even though they've been explicitly told they need to be in by 9 to cover the phones?

But how many times should issues be discussed before action should be taken? Look at the work frustrations thread, most of the things discussed could have been avoided by a manager stepping up and actually fucking managing. If an issue starts to impact on other colleagues action has to be taken else you're staring down the barrel of low morale and high staff turnover.

Most people want to go to work, do their job and go home. Without drama, without stress and without having to deal with colleagues being arseholes'.

 

[Manter]

I don't see things from that perspective - rather that if an issue has had something raised in an appraisal, that means that if it comes up again, the employee is then at fault for not having dealt with it. "In your 2018 appraisal it was stated that you had a problem being too abrupt dealing with department X - in 2019 the same issue came up again with department X" => punishment time.

It's not like anyone is going to help out with that or anything - if they did, it wouldn't go in the appraisal as it wouldn't need to.

Issues raised don’t (arguably can’t) get addressed without support and ‘interventions’ (training etc). Law is pretty clear that just ‘you have a problem, fix it’ would be unfair. If that problem was caused or exacerbated by a protected characteristic, the law offers even more protection.


But only after 2 years of employment and if you have the money and energy to fight it, of course.

 

[kabbes]

There is an appraisal process and there is a performance management process. It is to their detriment that most companies confuse and combine the two.

 

[Manter]

There is an appraisal process and there is a performance management process. It is to their detriment that most companies confuse and combine the two.

Absolutely. And people confuse ‘performs’ with ‘fits’. A truly diverse business culture is not, IMO, about female, LGBT and BAME representation, it’s about difference being seen as a strength not a problem- so different backgrounds, attitudes, communication styles, ways of working... so much British business is about conforming

 

[Manter]

That should say not only. Typed at speed while wrestling 6 year old into school uniform!

 

[Winot]

There is an appraisal process and there is a performance management process. It is to their detriment that most companies confuse and combine the two.

But doesn’t the performance management process only kick in when there is a real problem? I would assume that performance tendencies (can’t think of a better word) which needed flagging up would be mentioned in an appraisal.

 

[kabbes]

But doesn’t the performance management process only kick in when there is a real problem? I would assume that performance tendencies (can’t think of a better word) which needed flagging up would be mentioned in an appraisal.

Performance management is a continual process. Everybody should always know how they are being perceived — good and bad — and their managers should always know what their staff’s ambitions are for their own professional and career development. The performance management process is about marrying the two and facilitating the staff member to achieve what they want to achieve.

Appraisal, on the other hand, is about ticking off whether an employee has met that year’s corporate goals.

There are plenty of problems with confusing them. One is that personal ambitions should not be things somebody is appraised against and yet they are highly important to manage to. If you only have one process, how do you square that circle?

 

[purenarcotic]

But doesn’t the performance management process only kick in when there is a real problem? I would assume that performance tendencies (can’t think of a better word) which needed flagging up would be mentioned in an appraisal.

Perhaps this depends how often you meet with management. We have supervision every four weeks so would expect managers to raise issues as soon as they arise. There’s no policy on when to performance manage but we would expect it to happen if nothing has changed after issues being raised.

 

[kabbes]

There is a problem here of thinking as “performance management” as being a reactive process to problems. If you’re managing ideally, problems don’t actually manifest to such a severe fashion that you then have to fight fires. Performance management should be proactive not reactive.

 

[purenarcotic]

There is a problem here of thinking as “performance management” as being a reactive process to problems. If you’re managing ideally, problems don’t actually manifest to such a severe fashion that you then have to fight fires. Performance management should be proactive not reactive.

In our org though that’s what it is. Our yearly PDP is all the hope for the future stuff, performance management plans kick in when issues with performance has already been raised and no improvement has been made.

 

[Athos]

There is a problem here of thinking as “performance management” as being a reactive process to problems. If you’re managing ideally, problems don’t actually manifest to such a severe fashion that you then have to fight fires. Performance management should be proactive not reactive.

There's also a definitional issue. Some organisations see 'performance management' as a process to address poor performance, rather than in the development sense you use that term.

 

[Winot]

Okay so we are using the term performance management differently. We do that continual performance management and then use appraisal as an annual mop up.

I am using performance management (possibly incorrectly) to mean a formal process when there are real problems that need to be addressed and the member of staff needs to shape up or be fired.

 

[Winot]

In our org though that’s what it is. Our yearly PDP is all the hope for the future stuff, performance management plans kick in when issues with performance has already been raised and no improvement has been made.

yes this ^

 

[Winot]

There's also a definitional issue. Some organisations see 'performance management' as a process to address poor performance, rather than in the development sense you use that term.

and this ^

Clearly there is an issue of definition here.

 

[kabbes]

My whole point is that companies get performance management wrong, confusing it with appraisal. Of COURSE I’m using the word in a way people generally won’t identify with!

 

[Winot]

There is a problem here of thinking as “performance management” as being a reactive process to problems. If you’re managing ideally, problems don’t actually manifest to such a severe fashion that you then have to fight fires. Performance management should be proactive not reactive.

“Managing ideally”

Have you ever had to fire someone Kabbes? Do you know about the legally correct way that needs to be done?

 

[Manter]

But doesn’t the performance management process only kick in when there is a real problem? I would assume that performance tendencies (can’t think of a better word) which needed flagging up would be mentioned in an appraisal.

Performance management should not be seen as a negative. You can manage to high performance, intervene to support or develop when something is interfering with performance..... the ‘performance management = people being in shit’ culture is pervasive and toxic

(edit- meant to quote a later tweet, now can’t change it. Grr)

 

[Manter]

There is a traditional ‘compliant’ business culture which is regular performance/delivery/day to day management conversations (content/intent and effectiveness varies); annual mop up and points scoring (variety of scales and processes, content/intent and effectiveness varies). This may or may not be linked to the annual reward cycle and there are whole careers built on what that should look like. performance management is then defined as a legally compliant process, often in the same document as grievance and whistleblowing, in a sort of ‘negative catch all’- poor performance, unacceptable behaviour, ongoing absence problems etc

Forward thinking businesses- and American multinationals are often in the forefront of this- are moving to a new model, which often removes the annual review and quite a lot of the performance related pay elements (interestingly pay for performance doesn’t seem to drive high performance. Sounds logical in theory, but has failed to actually deliver anything except a lot of resentment). in that context performance management becomes about management to perform, and as long as those conversations continue to be held and documented you do have an audit trail in case you need to take formal action. You similarly keep grievance etc processes separate because you don’t have a vague ‘bucket full of negative stuff’ policy. Also often involves grievance and whistleblowing being outsourced, so they go to a third party helpline and then through to risk/corporate management/HR but on an independent basis.

 

[Winot]

That’s interesting and helpful Manter. I can see that there is a potential for a negative model associated with performance management being solely to do with getting rid of someone.

The difficulty is balancing good practice against unambiguous legal advice which is that a specific process needs to be followed in order to ensure that the decision is legally sound.

 

[kabbes]

“Managing ideally”

Have you ever had to fire someone Kabbes? Do you know about the legally correct way that needs to be done?

I’ve had four employees that I’ve come into that have been on that track. I worked with all of them to understand where their blockages were, in the assumption that nobody WANTS to be a crap employee. Three ended up happier and productive — two stayed in the firm, the other was able to identify alternative options as a result of regaining confidence. The other had problems with alcohol that were just too far out of my remit to deal with, unfortunately.

The key, though, is that they were all people I inherited. Everybody I had a chance to build history with never got anywhere near that point of self-destruction in the first place.

 

[Manter]

That’s interesting and helpful Manter. I can see that there is a potential for a negative model associated with performance management being solely to do with getting rid of someone.

The difficulty is balancing good practice against unambiguous legal advice which is that a specific process needs to be followed in order to ensure that the decision is legally sound.

Oh absolutely. but there are lots of things you can do to make sure you are compliant while also building a positive and constructive culture. Needs a change in ways of thinking.....!

Interstingly, considering how awful american business culture can be, they are in the forefront of some of this thinking, as are the scandis. Also the two markets thinking most interestingly about 'purpose' in work

 

[Winot]

I’ve had four employees that I’ve come into that have been on that track. I worked with all of them to understand where their blockages were, in the assumption that nobody WANTS to be a crap employee. Three ended up happier and productive — two stayed in the firm, the other was able to identify alternative options as a result of regaining confidence. The other had problems with alcohol that were just too far out of my remit to deal with, unfortunately.

The key, though, is that they were all people I inherited. Everybody I had a chance to build history with never got anywhere near that point of self-destruction in the first place.

Well you sounds like a good manager. I try to be too.

(Apologies for slightly grumpy posting. I am post hernia-op and a bit sore - literally)