Operational Clarity

When poor performance goes unmanaged, somebody else pays for it

There is a strong and important argument that performance problems are often system problems.  I have made that argument myself because individual performance is too easily considered in isolation from the environment in which somebody is expected to work.

Unclear expectations, poor processes, inadequate training, conflicting priorities, weak communication and inconsistent management can all create outcomes that are subsequently attributed to the individual.  Before concluding that somebody is underperforming, a manager should therefore ask whether the organisation has created reasonable conditions for that person to succeed.

But there is another side to that principle.

Once expectations are clear, appropriate support has been provided and the working environment has been examined, genuine individual underperformance still has to be managed.  Avoiding that distinction can be just as damaging as blaming the individual too quickly.

Structure can reveal what informality was hiding

In one operational area I inherited, there had been no regular team meeting.  I introduced a weekly meeting with a consistent agenda covering priorities, progress, emerging issues, actions and ownership, while also creating space for people to contribute, raise concerns and understand what was happening across the wider area.

The intention was not to create meetings for their own sake or increase control.  It was to improve communication, strengthen engagement and give people greater clarity about what needed to happen and why.

Introducing that structure did not create the performance issues that subsequently became more visible.  It made patterns easier to see.  Commitments could be followed up.  Missed actions became apparent.  Differences in contribution were easier to understand.  Expectations that had previously remained informal could be discussed openly.

Creating an opportunity for engagement does not guarantee engagement.  Creating clarity does not guarantee that every expectation will be met.  A manager still needs to understand why.

That means examining whether somebody has the knowledge, skills and resources required to do the work.  It means considering whether priorities are realistic, processes make sense and instructions have been understood.  It means looking at workload, dependencies and whether the manager has provided appropriate support.

Sometimes that examination identifies a system problem that needs to be fixed.  Sometimes it identifies an individual capability or conduct issue that needs to be managed.

The conversation should come before the process

Formal performance processes have a place, but a formal process should not be the first time somebody clearly understands that there is a problem.

Difficult conversations are part of management.  When expectations are not being met, the most useful starting point is usually a clear and proportionate conversation about what has been observed, what was expected, what may be preventing the required outcome and what needs to change.

That conversation should also help distinguish between capability and conduct.  Somebody who is trying but does not yet have the capability to meet an expectation may need training, coaching or a different form of support.  Somebody who has the capability but repeatedly chooses not to meet reasonable expectations presents a different management issue.

Both situations deserve fairness.  They do not necessarily require the same response.

Documentation matters here too.  Recording expectations, agreed support, actions and review points creates clarity for the employee and the manager.  It also reduces the risk of later disagreement about what was discussed or what somebody was expected to do.

Somebody else absorbs the cost

When poor performance continues unmanaged, its cost rarely remains with the individual concerned.

Colleagues may correct work, repeat tasks or compensate for missed responsibilities.  Managers spend increasing amounts of time checking work that should not require checking.  Deadlines move.  Decisions wait.  Service quality can deteriorate and other priorities receive less attention.

If one employee regularly requires three hours of another employee's time each week to correct avoidable errors, the organisation is not only losing the capacity associated with the original problem.  It is also losing part of the second employee's capacity.

That cost can remain almost invisible because it is absorbed into everybody else's workload.

There is a cultural cost as well.  Good employees notice when poor performance is repeatedly tolerated.  They notice when dependable people receive more work because they can be relied upon to complete it, while somebody who contributes less is allowed to continue without meaningful intervention.

Over time, that changes behaviour.  People may stop volunteering, lower their own standards or become frustrated that accountability appears to operate differently depending on the person involved.

Accountability and empowerment should coexist

Good management should not force a choice between empowerment and accountability.

People generally perform better when they understand the purpose of their work, have appropriate autonomy and feel able to contribute ideas and challenge assumptions.  But empowerment still requires clarity about responsibilities and expected outcomes.

Empowerment without accountability can become ambiguity.  Accountability without engagement can become control.

The aim is to create an environment in which people have a fair opportunity to perform well and understand what is expected of them, while managers remain willing to intervene when reasonable expectations are persistently not met.

That requires judgement because the answer is not always obvious.

Sometimes the problem is the system.  Sometimes it is not.

Effective management requires the judgement to know the difference, and the willingness to deal fairly and reasonably with both.