Support Management in Dealing With Poor Performers

Strengthen Systems to Support Management in Dealing with Poor Performers

Background

The General Accounting Office (GAO) and the Merit Systems Protection
Board (MSPB), after collecting data through surveys and/or site visits,
concluded that effective federal managers can and regularly do deal with
poor performers, either rehabilitating them or removing them. MSPB
reported that about 64 percent of the federal supervisors they surveyed
had dealt with at least one poor performer in the past two years; 90
percent said they counseled and worked with poor performers informally;
and 88 percent said they would take formal action if and when such
informal actions fail.(1) Similarly, GAO reported, "Contrary to general
perceptions, supervisors were generally willing to deal with their poor
performers and expressed a willingness to deal with them in the
future."(2) However, GAO also reported that supervisors view the process
for dealing with poor performers as unduly difficult and time-consuming.
GAO found that an average supervisor spent about five hours per week
working with each poor performer under his or her supervision and that
this time commitment could last for months.  Furthermore, GAO found that
the slowness of the process discouraged some supervisors from taking any
serious action against a poor performer.(3)

GAO noted that supervisors have the greatest difficulty dealing with
employees who are rated minimally satisfactory. This rating falls
between unsatisfactory and fully satisfactory in five-level rating
systems. There are few actions that a supervisor can take to deal with
employees who are rated minimally satisfactory, and, as a result, some
employees remain at this level for extended periods of time. One option
that GAO proposed for consideration was eliminating the minimally
satisfactory rating.(4)

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) sought to make it easier for
managers to deal with poor performers by developing better performance
management systems and reforming the appeals and grievance processes to
make them less of a deterrent to employee discipline. As noted in HRM03,
CSRA and post-CSRA performance management systems have not resulted in
improved individual and organizational performance. CSRA did modify the
burden of proof necessary to sustain a performance-based adverse action.
Whereas the burden of proof in an adverse action because of misconduct
is the preponderance of evidence standard, there is a lower standard of
proof on an agency in an appeal of a performance-based adverse
action--the substantial evidence standard. Legal experts explain:  "This
means, in practice, that even if the employee presents a good argument
that he performed his job, the supervisor's judgment that the employee
did not accomplish his job will be accepted unless the supervisor's
opinion is unreasonable or has no factual support. This evidentiary
standard has resulted in nearly all performance-based adverse actions
being sustained by the MSPB . . ."(5) They also point out potential
difficulties: "The most frequent reason an agency has difficulty
sustaining a performance-based adverse action is an inadequately
developed performance standard."(6)

Need for Change

There are improvements in systems, culture, and skill that can help
managers deal more effectively with poor performers.

Improved Systems.

As noted in HRM03, current performance management programs have
multiple conflicting objectives and as a result meet none of them-- most
importantly, the objective that performance improve.  In addition,
performance management programs were not designed to be consistent with
or supportive of agency culture and are not owned by agency managers.
The actions contained in HRM03 are designed to result in agency-based
performance management programs that seek improvement in the performance
of all employees and identify poor performers for appropriate action.
Agencies would, for example, be able to design performance management
systems that do not include the minimally satisfactory rating. Agencies
can use the performance incentives described in HRM04 to motivate
employees to improve their performance. Agencies also need to develop
their own approaches to help poor performers improve their performance
so it meets expectations, and take appropriate action if performance
expectations are not met after assistance is provided.

It is also important that changes be made in performance systems to
reduce the amount of time it takes to deal with poor performers. For
example, the length of time that poor performers are given to
demonstrate improved performance is often considered excessive. The
30-day notice period that the law requires before removal or certain
other adverse actions can be taken is also too long. After action is
taken against poor performers, there can be a lengthy review and appeal
process.  While an employee's right to due process must be protected,
there is a need for streamlining the current processes.  The actions
outlined in HRM08, "Improve Processes and Procedures Established to
Provide Workplace Due Process for Employees," if adopted, would
contribute to streamlined appeals processes, especially if agencies
adopt alternative dispute resolution methods.

Cultural Changes.

GAO recommended that "agency management . . . focus on creating an
environment within which supervisors are encouraged and motivated to
identify poor performers and are properly trained and supported when
they attempt to deal with them."(7) Similarly, 25 percent of the
supervisors surveyed by MSPB reported that lack of management support
was an obstacle to taking action against poor performers. Managers and
supervisors must be more effectively supported in dealing with poor
performers. Agency management must be held accountable for establishing
a culture that supports high performance and development of excellent
performance management programs.  Managers and supervisors throughout an
agency must be held accountable for using culture and programs to
achieve organizational goals, improve employee performance, and
rehabilitate or remove poor performers.  Moving to a more
results-oriented management culture will support this change.

Improved Knowledge and Skills. Training can be an effective way to
improve supervisory skills. The most critical skills are the
interpersonal skills that a supervisor needs to communicate with an
employee to develop performance standards, provide performance feedback,
and improve employee performance.  Supervisors also need skill in
performance planning and performance management. Knowledge of
performance management and disciplinary policies and procedures should
be part of a comprehensive training effort and made readily available to
managers or supervisors through written or electronic job aids that
explain the rules and how to apply them. Managers and supervisors also
need technical assistance from knowledgeable consultants with expertise
in this area.

Endnotes

1. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Federal Personnel Policies and
Practices--Perspectives from the Workplace (Washington, D.C., 1987), pp.
9-12.

2. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), Performance Management:  How
Well is the Government Dealing with Poor Performers?, GAO-GGD-91-7
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, October 1990), p.  2.

3. Ibid., pp. 32-33, 37.

4. Ibid., p. 28.

5. Shaw, Jerry G., and William L. Bransford, The Federal Manager's
Handbook: A Guide to Rehabilitating or Removing the Problem Employee
(Washington, D.C., 1992), p. 82.

6. Ibid., p. 85.

7. GAO, p. 3.