We do have an employee who has joined in 2006 and he has completed his 10 years of service recently .
Initially, he was good but later on we have implemented project management in our organisation where it use to calculate shortfall hours of an employee
Similarly, he use to get shortfall hours from the last few months (from Jan) and his performance was down from last year itself like he use to miss the project deadlines , coming late , leaving early .He has a habit of smoking
This guy points out every dept /every member that they are doing this ,not following rules which are a bluff and that too in front of the management .
There were many situations like this which cannot be explained
Finally , HR asked Management - Is that necessary to tolerate such kind , where management is in dilemma to take decision and HR doesn't exactly what's stopping them from taking the decision
Please suggest what can be done because the impact is with other team members and what is the situation if it goes viral ?
Moreover , HR cannot tolerate this kind anymore .......
What is the designation of a person in question? What kind of projects do you handle? How to measure the effectiveness of the project? Because of the inefficient person, was there customer dissatisfaction? Was there cost or time overrun?
The problems that you have explained arise because of the following reasons:
a) Management is person-centric rather than process-centric.
b) It appears proper project KPIs are not defined, effectiveness of the two or more than two projects is not measured in standard KPIs.
c) Rather than performance, length of service is rewarded.
d) Management could be dealing with him directly.
e) Management has disconnect with the employees. There was no proper upward communication. Why HR was required to tell to the management about the bad behaviour? Why this person's superiors did not report about his inefficient work? Why did they tolerate this behaviour?
Effect on Team Members: - If this person goes away, other will be happy. However, for any separation, a due process of law has to be followed.
Solution: - Removing a person with 10 years in a company may appear difficult. However, before removal, we need to give him chance to improve. Let MD or Director give feedback about his nosiness. Let him concentrate on his work and on his department only. Above all, give him KRA sheet and explain him how after every quarter his performance will be measured. Failure in meeting the KRAs may invite disciplinary action.
If he fails to meet the KRAs, give him chance for one more quarter. If there is still under-performance then you may demote him. Yes, demotion is better than termination. Because of demotion, let him quit on his own.
I have been writing about fostering culture of performance in a company. These problems occur when there is no well-defined or well-designed PMS. Click the following link to refer my reply on KPIs and KRAs:
Let me answer all your questions first.
His Designation - Chief Architect , Projects we handle are warehouse , shipping which we have clients in US. The effectiveness of the project can be measured in various steps like Customer satisfaction , completed on or before due date, talking to a customer these all we consider . Yes there were projects where customer did not satisfied with his work. Yes cost means company is paying him even though he did not completed the projects .
He is the senior person , there is no superior for him . our organization is flat -structured,
Who will define KPA or KPI for the above designation , I think HR does it /senior person / Team leads will analyze and make him set and understand what is expected .
Last month management , this person , HR had a very long discussion about his performance and his attitude .
Final conclusion was he was not accepting that his perfornmance is very unsatisfactory and we wrote all in a paper what he said , what he suppose to do ..
then HR asked Management the question above is this necessary to tolerate such kind ?
Still I do not know what stopping them to take the decision .
I appreciate demote concept , in what way we have to do it ?
If we demote what kind of designation we have to ?
I have given replies in my previous post. Your major problem is that you have not defined properly the KPIs and KRAs for the projects. You should devise KRAs in such a way as if you are putting performance meter to the employee. In fact not just this person, but then you have put performance meter to all the persons working in your organisation. Suppose even if this person goes away, some another person may start behaving like this. For help if any, feel free to approach me.
It is ridiculous to find that Chief Architect is not accepting his under-performance. It clearly shows that he was unfit to hold this position. It appears that without assessing promotability of a person. Let me reiterate that when length of service is rewarded, problems of this kind emerge.
Your management is his saviour. Therefore, nothing can be done as of now. Instead of heart, when they start thinking from their head, then only some positive change can be brought in. Therefore, keep on waiting for that golden moment. Unless management accepts that this person is blocking the organisation's growth, they will not take any action. Therefore, it is unthinkable for them to demote him. In case if they wish to then downgrade his designation from Chief Architect to Architect. Reduce his salary by 10-20% but do not reduce basic component of the salary. This provocation is sufficient to make him put his papers. Cause of demotion could be under-performance. Do not use the word demotion in your letter. Click the following link to check the draft that I had given couple of years ago:
Additional Solution: - One more thing that you can do is to provoke the team members to give complaints against him. Before that ensure that you devise "Policy on Employee Grievance". Let 1-2 months pass after devising this policy. Later let team members start raising grievance against him. Management may ignore initial 2-3 grievances but they cannot continue to do so. Worst still, if one of the team members threatens to make complaint to the Labour Office for being soft on Chief Architect, I am sure that management will develop cold feet. However, do it covertly. Management should not come to know that you are acting behind the scene. If you feel that this formula will not work then you tell team members that day after day one of them should pick quarrel with him. Let this go on for 3-4 days. Trust me, he himself will become fed up with the fights and may put in papers.
It is my considered opinion that every crisis in HR calls for a constructive approach and principles of Natural Justice is an integral element of such an approach.
I had anticipated the backlash for what I had written. But then forever in life we cannot have grand standing or loftiness. Sometimes we have to manipulate the situation. Certain situations need to be handled diplomatically. When Senior Architect sidesteps his duties, when he goes rubbing other staff members wrong way. But then management overlooks. So what HR is supposed to do? Management not just overlooks but acts as saviour as well. Management just does not understand that because of one single person, culture of the organisation is getting vitiated. How HR should handle this situation?
You have written that HR should have constructive approach. In my first post, have I not written to follow routine administrative procedure? Have not analysed the situation and given the causes why Manasa's company pushed itself into this predicament? But then the circumstances are such that at this constructive approach will not work. Hence the recommendation to handle diplomatically.
If you study Organisation Behaviour, in most of the international publications, you will find a topic on "Political Behaviour" What was the need include this topic in OB? OB scientist have done study of the thousands of organisation and found that politics prevails everywhere. Therefore, if HR becomes Machiavelli, albeit fractionally and that too for a while, then nothing wrong in it.
HR are neither saints nor as white as lily. Many times they offer their shoulder for the management to shoot. Vice versa, they too shoot from management's shoulder. HR supposed to bring harmony in the organisation. Far from it, at times they have ensured that two or more than two HODs keep on fighting. They do this in order to make their presence felt. Companies where labour unions are there, HR's primary role is to manipulate the union. HR gets hefty rewards for their manipulations.
If you look at history of India, you will find that many times kings have tried to climb high morale grounds. Personally it has enhanced their reputation nevertheless, country has paid hefty price. In contrast look at Britons. They could take their empire beyond seven seas not just because of military power but because of political mindset.
My recommendations were in the interest of organisation. I have not given my recommendation to teach Manasa how to grind her personal axe. If I had done so then only your objections would have been valid. End result of what you do should be for common good. That sums up everything.
If you find my above post , that is a constructive approach/suggestion that he has suggested me to go .
I find diplomacy over there in the above post that how HR should take a step so that it should be beneficial to the organization as well as for an employee.
So there is nothing wrong it .
coming to Dinesh post - Team members are highly influenced by the Chief Architect .They do not do it all .
If he still behaves in the same way/performance is not improving , then demotion could be an option for us .
Thank you once again for suggesting us .