Todays' s Workspace

JOSEPH MASANGO | Wednesday September 7, 2011 00:00

In this article I turn to some situations where supervisors have failed to manage poor work performance, so that readers see how this can arise.

In one work unit some women got pregnant around the same time.  With time, their performance started to decline due to health issues triggered by pregnancy.  Supervision never took issue with the decline, as they had noticed the women's condition.  Quite unexpectedly, management terminated their employment, with notice, for poor work performance.  Apparently, employees who were not pregnant, but had not always reached the target were not dismissed.

The affected women externalised their matter.  In court it was concluded that the reason for the dismissed employees' poor work performance was neither incompetence nor lack of self-application.  Rather, it was poor performance triggered by health issues due to pregnancy.  The supervisor's actions also ended up attracting a case of discrimination.  Firstly therefore, the decline in their performance needed a different managerial approach or solution other than termination. 

Secondly, quite a number of supervisors only rely on the contractual provision of notice to terminate employment.  In labour law this, of and in itself, is inadequate, as there must be a valid reason, and use of a proper process.  It is therefore a failure to terminate employment during pregnancy or absence on maternity leave, or upon returning from maternity, unless the reason is unrelated to pregnancy or maternity issues, and provided all other applicable requirements are met.  In a separate case a supervisor demanded of a subordinate who kept on sleeping at her desk to 'Show me your pregnant stomach because I do not see a big stomach...', before he could permit her to visit a doctor.  This one was rather crude, uncouth, and dumb.

It is indeed one thing to not stand for poor work performance.  It is however quite another to know how to deal with it when poor performance visits.  As is the case above, some supervisors out there do not know how to deal with poor performance triggered by pregnancy or maternity-related issues.  You may need to see to it that your supervisor is not such one.

In another organisation the supervisor accused employee P for, among other things, reading magazines during working hours, and failing to meet the expected turnover (poor performance).  Upset, P visited a lawyer to discuss his workplace concerns and get legal advice.   The lawyer then wrote to the supervisor.  The supervisor got shocked and angry upon receiving a letter from a lawyer.  P and the supervisor eventually met.  The meeting ended on a note that they should let go of the past.

Hardly a week later, it was P's turn to be shocked and get angry as he received a letter from his supervisor, terminating P's employment.  When the two locked horns in court, the supervisor's reason for taking such drastic action against P was all over the place.  Initially he served a reason which related to the operational requirements of the business.  He then vacated that one, and clutched on a claim of P's poor performance.  He again vacated that one, and moved towards totally different and unrelated reasons, all these failing to come together to form a coherent and productive argument.  Making short shrift of reasons advanced, the court dwelt longer on the one which alleged P's poor work performance. 

What the supervisor failed to show was what he had done to manage P's alleged poor performance.  He could not, because there was nothing to show for it, as he had not managed same.  He should have done this by setting clear, achievable objectives, conducting periodic performance reviews, highlighting any demonstrated good and/or demonstrated bad, establishing the cause of any evident poor performance, giving P the opportunity to respond, implementing issue-aligned corrective action/performance improvement interventions, supported by coaching where necessary, setting the scene for future development, and making known the consequences of P's failure to improve going into the future.

The supervisor's case, which was on a self-destruction path from the word go, eventually collapsed, as it had to.  Perhaps the real reason for the termination was P's decision to talk to his lawyer about his work problems?  If that be it, a letter from a lawyer should hold no terror, and is certainly not a basis for taking issue with the employee who is behind its writing.  Developing an Issues or Grievance Management System may be useful to entice employees to raise concerns internally before they externalise them.

In the result, an organisation may want to develop its own in-house guidelines or rules to manage performance, to address what legislation or the standard contract does not address.  The more the guidelines or rules are aligned to international standards, the better.  In doing so, one may want to consider lessons in my past article in which I referred to English law, specifically the Turquand Rule, formulated in the English court in Royal British Bank v Turquand (1856) 6 E & B 327; 119 ER 886.  It may also want to audit how its supervisors manage poor work performance, given the centrality of performance management to the success of the business.

* Masango is in the Doctor of Laws (LLD) programme.  He writes fully and completely in his personal capacity.  As such, his views do not represent, in any way whatsoever, those of any institution or organisation/s he may be associated with however and whenever.  Contact him on e-mail: trendsglobal@yahoo.com.