Pragmatic Or Lack Of Integrity?

Your organisation needs to change shape, whether that's due to economic circumstances or because of a change of strategy. This can mean cutting back on the work force. In such circumstances, how do you approach redundancy issues?

Of course you need to follow due process, which is relatively straightforward, but what about the practice of using redundancy to avoid performance managing people?

Making people redundant who should have been tackled for performance or behavioural issues long beforehand show management at its worst. The arguments for doing this are well rehearsed. A manager sees an opportunity to remove someone who they have not been prepared to tackle through direct engagement and, at worst they even delegate the process to the HR department. It seems a pragmatic thing to do - difficult person gone, no risk of non-compliance around unfair or constructive dismissal and little conflict, being able to cite external factors or economic reasons.

The problem is this way of managing (or lack of it) eats into the moral fabric of the organisation in three ways:

• Firstly, it shows to everyone a lack of leadership when it comes to problem people. When this happens across several functions as a matter of policy you can see credibility leak away from the line managers involved.
  
• Secondly, it says "we don't take performance, behavioural or excellence in general seriously, and you can forget about any real conversation about organisational values".
• Thirdly, and most damagingly of all, these problem people often know they are in a difficult position and when redundancy is proposed, or sometimes offered, they try hard not to show their pleasure at getting a (sometimes sizable) pay off. To good people around them this is insidiously damaging to morale. Why are these people not dealt with directly, and professionally and at worst being rewarded with a pay off?

Sometimes organisations lose the plot so badly they see this weeding out of problem people in this way as a positive thing, even telling good people who under voluntary arrangements would like to go are told no because they are 'too good', we need to sort out this other group. With the money saved from not making inappropriate people redundant, you could increase bonuses, perhaps postpone needing to cut the salary bill completely.

Something that might look pragmatic, turns out to show little integrity.

The Objectivity Of Distinterest

The European Championships have been a delight to watch this year. With the absence of any of the home teams, people in the UK have been enjoying the football without the stress that comes from being emotionally involved. When watching games with friends and catching up with colleagues the talk has been of great skills, real endeavour, commitment and style.
We’ve even been involved in conversations about the high standard of refereeing and the courage of a referee who isn’t afraid to change his mind when he’s made a mistake. That’s not something you hear from partisan fans.

Without the pressure of wanting a team to win, and without the pre-conceived ideas about who will play well, who will get booked and who should never have been selected, it’s easy to see beautiful football in action. And now that Italy, France and Romania have gone home (personal prejudices aside!), we can watch and observe objectively; the way teams play is as valid as the result.

Managers can suffer from the same lack of objectivity when watching the performance of their own team and the individuals within it. When things are going well it’s easy to mistake mediocre performance delivered with style and charm as being outstanding, whilst when overall performance isn’t meeting expectations, it’s far easier to spot mistakes and inactivity. Personal performance and behaviour may not have changed or may have improved, but the overall mood can colour observations. And when you introduce the additional layer of personal preference or antipathy things really get subjective. A likeable under-performer who supports the same team as you, compared to somebody you don’t enjoy the same rapport with, who is at a similar level of performance, needs you to have clear-sighted motives, dealing equitably with both parties.

Taking time to add some emotional distance before assessing performance, and taking care to really observe behaviour rather than assume it, makes a big difference to both appraising and developing people.