Time to move forward after stressful experience

By MARIE WILSON*

Q. Recently I performed a three-monthly review of a newly internally recruited staffer, which showed he wasn't up to scratch. Just beforehand he had also been accused of an incident of negligence.

At the conclusion of the review, I requested improvement, and we agreed that another review would be performed in two months' time.

Shortly after, I delivered a report on the negligence accusation to my superiors. The staff member called in sick on at least two days afterwards, apparently for stress.

My manager investigated and came back with a performance negligence report against me, saying I had failed to provide adequate communication strategies to the staff member, failed to provide adequate on-the-job training (when in fact data exists that prove that more than adequate training was provided) and failed to provide a working team environment (when in fact a harmonious team environment has always existed).

My response to my manager and his boss - both of whom are new in their jobs - was that suggestions of performance negligence were not pertinent as there is adequate data to prove otherwise.

I also found out that the staff member had been in the organisation for about eight months before joining my team and his HR records showed that no formal probationary review (six-monthly) had been carried out by his predecessor.

I also learned from a member of another team that this staffer had not been supervised before joining my team.

Numerous times the employee bypassed me and approached the manager directly. This was corrected only after I made it clear to him in writing that it was not appropriate.

I have been a team leader for the past seven years but have never encountered a situation like this one. What should I do next?

A. The fundamental principles of performance management and fairness involve both parties being clear on what is expected, being supported to achieve it, and having a two-way conversation about performance against objectives.

When there are performance problems, or complaints against an employee, they should know about them in advance of any meeting. When they discuss them with their manager, they should be able to present their side of events with the expectation that their manager has an open mind about the situation and that their reasons and explanations are taken into account in any further determination, and that decisions will be based on careful consideration of facts.

From your letter, it seems that these fundamentals are not necessarily being observed in your company.

First, there is nothing in your letter to suggest that you followed these principles in dealing with your own team member regarding the accusation of negligence.

Similarly, there is nothing to suggest that your own manager treated you appropriately with regard to your management of this team member.

To the extent that you did not treat your own team member fairly, you could be seen as disrupting the harmonious working of the team.

Notwithstanding this, you and your team member should have the same fair treatment in terms of being able to hear what others think the problems are, and an opportunity to explain your own performance.

Second, you are introducing a lot of information (and I suspect accusations) that are not relevant to the two reports of negligence. You state that the team member was not previously supervised, and initially went around you to your manager.

You corrected this by putting your concerns about this in writing to the employee, who then stopped doing it and reported to you. This sounds like an employee who responds to feedback.

If you hadn't been supervised in the past and came into a new job, you would continue to do as you had in the past unless you were clearly told that your reporting relationship had changed.

This seems to be what happened with your team member. Importantly, when he was given feedback, he responded appropriately.

You also state that he hadn't been reviewed in his last job and didn't receive his probationary review. The lack of reviews sounds consistent with not being supervised, really, but doesn't have any bearing on his current performance.



Assuming he was told what would happen when he came into the current job, he would have expected a review after three months, but unless you were giving him negative feedback throughout those first three months, he would have had no reason to expect a negative review.



The hallmark of a good performance review is the lack of surprise in discussions of performance. If the negative feedback was a surprise, then that was the first performance management problem.

Within days of this negative feedback, you filed a negligence report about the staff member with your manager without discussing it with him first. I think stress and anger would have been predictable outcomes.

It would have been appropriate for your manager to discuss your handling of this team member with you at this time and coach you on ways to correct the situation.

Again, however, your own performance management style seems to be consistent with that shown by your own supervisor.

Research suggests that most of us are more likely to see external causes for our own performance, particularly when there are performance problems. Those observing us are more likely to see us as the cause of any problems.

Both of these perspectives are biased, and performance is usually the result of a combination of factors.

The opportunity to discuss performance is an opportunity to discuss all of these factors and try to make sure that problems are resolved. This should be happening all the time as part of effective performance coaching.

It sounds as if effective performance discussions need to be held for you and your team member.

Given what has gone before, you may need to involve a mediator or other third party to make sure that everyone feels less stressed and a positive resolution is reached.

You have a lengthy period of effective team leadership. Your team member has been there for a bit less than a year, but seems to have performed at least adequately for most of that period. You should both be able to learn from this experience, and move forward.

* Dr Marie Wilson is associate professor of management at the University of Auckland, research director of the ICEHOUSE business accelerator and a veteran of 20 years in corporate management and small business.

* Email your questions for Dr Marie Wilson to answer.