How are you performing?

A recent study by Mercer highlighted the fact that managers in the public service have been rewarding civil servants with positive performance appraisals and rewards that are well above average. While this is costing the tax-payer a substantial sum, poor practices in employee reviews are not restricted to the public sector: many employers end up over-paying because managers and supervisors are simply not trained in how to run performance reviews or how to use them for positive effect.

One of the outputs of the Government Benchmarking process of recent years has been the introduction of the PMDS (Performance Management Development System). Put simply, the system uses a combination of interviews and a written questionnaire to evaluate the performance of workers in the civil service and other public sector bodies. Workers are then given an overall rating on a five point scale, with a score of one allocated to the worst performers and five to the highest performers. Critics of the Public Service’s PMDS highlight what goes wrong in many performance management processes: Of 19,000 workers’ performances reviewed in its initial operation, only 18 scored a one, and just 285 scored a two, on the five point scale. Those who score a one do not normally receive a pay increment, but those who score a two receive a pay rise and are only denied the opportunity for a promotion for a year. This leaves the vast majority of civil and public servants (those rated 3 – 5) earning increments of between 500 Euro and 6,000 Euro on top of the five per cent pay award given under the social partnership agreement this year.

A review by the designers of the Irish government’s PMDS found that the main reason for this over-payment was simply that the system was not being implemented properly. As designed, between 20 and 30 per cent of employees were expect to be graded a four, for example, whereas in practice more than 50 per cent of civil servants were assessed at that level. In one government department, 40 per cent of staff were awarded a score of five! Although these figures relate to the public sector, similar patterns have been found on similar schemes in the private sector. Part of the problem is that those conducting the appraisals are unable to give bad news to workers, and that is not surprising as workers on the receiving end also give appraisals a bad review: ETS HR consultants did a survey which found that with 38 per cent of workers are generally dissatisfied appraisal processes carried out by their employers (rising to 53 per cent in the manufacturing sector).

Anecdotal evidence suggests that many managers in both the public and private sectors have not being properly trained in how to use performance management systems. Many feel embarrassed and unprepared when carrying out performance interviews. Often, they score performance low in confidential written statements, but then give positive reviews during face to face interviews and appraisals. Usually, if an employee ‘deserves’ a lower grade, the manager awards a three or four and counter-balances this by sending the employee on a training course to ‘upskill’ in the area they are performing badly in, so that they can claim to have done the right thing. The net result is sometimes a confused and unmotivated workforce, and a significant over spend on rewards.

So how can you avoid this happening with your performance management system? ETS suggests that companies need firstly to automate some parts of performance management – anything from setting objectives to rewarding high performance could do away with paperwork and meetings, leading to a greater focus on results, more quantitative measures and fewer qualitative grades. Employers also need to invest in performance management and staff appraisal training.

An important first step is to get managers and supervisors to explore staff appraisal, its benefits and the types of systems available. These managers and supervisors then need to take control of the performance management and appraisal meetings by knowing the steps to take before, during and after the meeting. This leads to identifying which results really need to be focused on, what really motivates staff to perform, and what is involved in learning how to recognize that there are different personality types who can be managed in different ways.

Where staff are underperforming managers need to learn how to close the performance gap through coaching using counseling models. They also need to equip themselves with appropriate communication techniques for positive performance management including active listening, appropriate questioning, constructive feedback and positive body language. Allied to the review process is the importance of recognising when appraisal and positive performance management is not enough, and knowing when to activate the disciplinary process.

I have been made redundant, what should I do next?

The first and most important thing to say is that you are not alone. Large numbers of people are unemployed or underemployed at present, and for some there are few prospects of full employment in the short term. There is an old saying that ‘what you resist persists’ and sometimes denying what is happening around you prevents you from moving on. For some, the current economic crisis can be turned into an opportunity to do things that they would not normally attempt at this stage of their lives. Here are some suggestions we have made to those in this position recently:

Work for free: Do you know anyone who works for a charity or an under-funded social agency that could do with some help? Do any of your neighbours run a small businesses who might appreciate a few days of your time to help with things like planning, administration, telesales or even cleaning? Offer your services for a few days here and there, particularly to people who work in your area of interest. It will get you motivated, will help you to fill in the days while you continue with your job-search, and may even lead to other opportunities.

Go back to school: Take this opportunity to reskill or upskill. There are plenty of courses out there that you could take, and for once you have the time to do them. Look at online courses as well as evening classes and weekend workshops as you can attend these without it interfering with your job search and you can continue with them when you start working again. Even if you do not want to go on a formal course go online and study something for free or get a good self-learning book from the library.

Consider setting up your own business: Buy a good guidebook or go on a course with your local enterprise board. Even if nothing comes of it will be an invaluable experience and a good way to learn whether or not you are cut out for going it alone.Set aside a year to try a different job: You have time on your hands so why not have a go at something you have always wanted to try but could not find the time to do? Avoid ‘pie-in-the-sky jobs’ and focus on something you already have an interest in e.g. a hobby or sport.

Drink and Drug Abuse - What can employers do?

Employer groups estimate that the employment costs related to drink and drug use are rising at about 10 per cent per annum. The main reason for this is that drink and drug consumption have increased dramatically in Ireland during the Celtic Tiger years: Alcohol consumption increased by 17 per cent over the past decade according to the Health Research Board, and there was an even bigger increase in drug abuse – estimated at 30.5 per cent over the last 10 years by the National Advisory Committee on Drugs. Although alcohol sales have fallen off in recent months for financial reasons the rate of drinks-related incidents at work has remained high as, literally, increased stress is driving more and more workers to drink and drug abuse.

The biggest problem and cost for employers is absenteeism: According to one survey 63 per cent of workers have phoned in sick after getting drunk the night before (Portman). More worryingly, 80 per cent admit to having been hung-over while at work in safety critical industries such as agribusiness. In high risk industries, such as construction, up to two thirds of workers say that they have turned up late at work after drinking the evening before, while 40 per cent say they have been physically drunk while at work (NUIG). In a recent pre-employment test 50 per cent of recruits were found to have taken intoxicants (EAP Institute). So the problem of drink and drug related absenteeism is widespread.

The other significant issues is that problem drinkers and drug users:

Generally perform worse at work (50 per cent of those in the NUIG survey said their drink and drug use led them to perform poorly).
Change jobs more frequently.
Are more prone to injury.
Are more likely to have depression.

While it may appear at first to be a trifling piece of legislation to introduce, failure to proceed with a Ministerial Order allowing employers to fully test for drink and drugs in the workplace, is costing the Irish economy an estimated 500 million Euro each year. The main reason for the delay in its implementation is that the Government agreed to further discussions on planned regulations with the unions prior to introducing the regulations. Clearly other events on the social partnership agenda have overtaken the need to introduce these at present and the Order is unlikely to be introduced this year.

Despite reservations expressed by civil organizations about workers’ rights many companies are now taking matters into their own hands. Alcohol and drug testing have become particularly prominent in safety-critical sectors, amongst American-owned companies and in the transport sector. In the absence of a formal Ministerial Order, however, employers cannot automatically assume that drink and drug testing will work in their favour. Recently, the Labour Court found for an employee who took an unfair dismissal case after he had been laid off, despite him failing a random drugs test. Although he tested positive for a cannabis-related substance the employee, and his union, argued that the level was low (not critical) and the employer did not have a code of practice in place on drug and alcohol testing.

Action on the Ministerial Order does need to be taken soon as apart from the direct financial cost to employers, where death or serious injury occurs as a result of actions or inactions by employees under the influence of drink or drugs, employers could face jail sentences or fines of up to three million Euro.

Employers need to have a clear drug and alcohol policy and a code of practice in place and this should be communicated to all employees.