Poor employee performance is one of the most common complaints cited by employers. Unfortunately, research shows that facing up to poor performance is very often not a priority for managers despite the fact that it hinders productivity, as well as has a negative effect on the performance of the business. Indeed, it is very much the case where managers often avoid dealing with or don’t handle poor performance very well. Sometimes managers fear that their poor performers would retaliate with an even worse performance. However, managers that ignore the issue risk demotivating other employees, which can in turn severely hamper business performance. As such, good management becomes necessary in order to ensure that any negative behaviour or substandard performances are dealt with in the most appropriate manner and as soon as possible. Speed is crucial to ensure that employees don’t lose faith in their superiors, as would be the case should managers take a long time to take action.

However in reality there is no single course of action that should be taken on every occasion as it very much depends on what is going on and what has led to that point. For instance, the way one would deal with an employee who is continuously late and has never done his job properly would be very different to the way one would deal with an employee who up to this point has always done the work in an exemplary manner. There are many ways by which managers can identify the root cause of poor performance and put the right plans in place to address it.

Kate Russell, managing director of Russell HR Consulting, in her article “How to address poor performance” in the People Management magazine of November 2010, came up with seven ways of how organizations can go about addressing poor performance. These are assessing capability, setting clear standards, providing feedback, acting quickly, focusing on the facts, giving time to improve, and finally clarifying duty to act.

With regard to the former, Russell suggests that if the quality of an employee’s work is the cause for concern then managers need to carry out an assessment on the respective employee’s competency to do the job. Such a task would involve monitoring and assessing the employee’s ability, skills, aptitude and knowledge in relation to his/her role within the organization.

Setting clear standards means that managers need to ensure that their employees know and understand their organisation’s minimum standards of performance in the workplace. In this regard, Russell advises establishing clear rules and guidelines that would clearly define and explain to employees what is expected of them in terms of delivery.

The third suggestion is providing regular objective feedback, which, according to Russell, is crucial to addressing poor performance problems. Here Russell recommends that managers meet regularly with their employees to discuss their performance as well as to give and receive informal feedback. Meetings of this kind would come in useful for reiterating standards, establishing agreements and expectations on both sides as well as providing relevant information.

Acting quickly and immediately is very important so that the performance problem is not made worse. Here Russell suggests taking action as soon as one notices that the employee is not performing work to the required standard.

The fifth suggestion made by Russell is to focus on the facts. Essentially, this means investigating, which will help one gather an accurate picture of the employee’s performance. Managers should discuss the matter with the employee, giving specific examples. Here Russell suggests creating an informal performance improvement plan (Pip) with the employee and ensure that they are fully supported.

The next step would be to give the employee reasonable time to improve. Two or three months would be appropriate in most cases. If there is unsatisfactory improvement then managers need to move to the formal capability process and ensure that all procedural elements such as the right to be accompanied are observed. Here Russell recommends that the Pip should continue alongside this formal process.

Finally, clarifying duty to act would become of utmost importance. This means that some employees may respond to their performance being challenged by submitting a grievance, citing harassment and bullying. Unfortunately, it is very much the case that when faced with such a situation many managers often decide to abandon everything. As such, Russell recommends managers that for them to avoid opportunistic harassment complaints they need to ensure that their dignity at work procedure clearly demonstrates that managers have a right and a duty to manage. Finally, managers need to show evidence of poor work performance. Asking why the employee believes that he or she is being bullied helps to hold him to account.

Putting an end to poor performance is clearly beneficial to organisations. Having a good system in place that tackles and deals with poor performance is far preferable to avoiding and trying to ignore the problem. Managers that take the lead and deal with poor performers instead of avoiding them will pay huge dividends to the bottom-line of their organisation.

Ms Camilleri is a researcher at the Foundation for Human Resources Development