Long-term Employee's Decline: How Should HR Handle Performance and Behavior Issues?

Employee Performance and Behavior Concerns

We have an employee who joined in 2006 and has recently completed 10 years of service. Initially, he performed well, but after we implemented project management to calculate shortfall hours, his performance has declined. He has been accumulating shortfall hours for the past few months (since January), often misses project deadlines, arrives late, leaves early, and has a smoking habit.

This individual frequently criticizes every department and team member for not following rules, even in front of management. There have been many unexplained situations like this.

In conclusion, HR has asked management whether it is necessary to tolerate such behavior. Management is in a dilemma regarding decision-making, and HR is unsure about the factors preventing them from making a decision.

Please suggest what actions can be taken, as the impact is felt by other team members. What would be the repercussions if this situation becomes public? Furthermore, HR cannot tolerate this behavior any longer.

Thank you.

Employee Performance and Behavior Concerns

We have an employee who joined in 2006 and has recently completed 10 years of service. Initially, he was performing well, but after we implemented project management to calculate shortfall hours, his performance has declined. He has been accumulating shortfall hours for the last few months (since January) and has been missing project deadlines, arriving late, leaving early, and has a smoking habit.

This employee frequently criticizes every department and member for not following rules, even in front of management, often without basis. There have been many unexplained situations like this.

Finally, HR asked management if it is necessary to tolerate such behavior. The management is in a dilemma regarding the decision, and HR is unsure about what is hindering them from making a decision.

Please suggest what can be done, as the impact is felt by other team members. What would be the consequences if this situation becomes public? Moreover, HR cannot tolerate this behavior any longer.

Thank you.

What is the designation of the person in question? What kind of projects do you handle? How do you measure the effectiveness of the project? Did customer dissatisfaction occur due to the inefficient person? Was there a cost or time overrun?

Reasons for the Problems

The problems that you have explained arise due to the following reasons:

a) Management is person-centric rather than process-centric.

b) It appears that proper project KPIs are not defined, and the effectiveness of two or more projects is not measured using standard KPIs.

c) Rather than rewarding performance, the length of service is rewarded.

d) Management could be dealing with him directly.

e) There is a disconnect between management and employees. Proper upward communication was lacking. Why was HR required to inform management about the bad behavior? Why did this person's superiors not report his inefficient work? Why did they tolerate this behavior?

Effect on Team Members

If this person leaves, others will be happy. However, any separation must follow a due process of law.

Solution

Removing a person with 10 years in a company may seem difficult. Before considering removal, we should give him a chance to improve. Let the MD or Director provide feedback about his performance. Let him focus on his work and department only. Above all, give him a KRA sheet and explain how his performance will be measured every quarter. Failure to meet the KRAs may result in disciplinary action.

If he fails to meet the KRAs, give him another chance for one more quarter. If there is still underperformance, you may demote him. Demotion is preferable to termination as it may lead him to voluntarily leave.

I have been discussing fostering a culture of performance in a company. These problems often occur when there is no well-defined or well-designed PMS. Click the following link to refer to my response on KPIs and KRAs: https://www.citehr.com/526357-kpi-kra.html

Thanks,

Dinesh Divekar

It could also be that this is a one-sided story; the employee concerned may have a different version to offer why the HR looks upon him as an inconvenience.

---

It could also be that this is a one-sided story; the employee concerned may have a different version to offer why the HR looks upon him as an inconvenience.

Let me answer all your questions first.

Designation and Project Details

His designation is Chief Architect. The projects we handle are related to warehousing and shipping, and we have clients in the US. The effectiveness of the project can be measured in various steps like customer satisfaction, completion on or before the due date, and communication with the customer—all of these we consider. Yes, there were projects where the customer was not satisfied with his work. Yes, cost means the company is paying him even though he did not complete the projects.

Organizational Structure and KPI Definition

He is a senior person, and 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, or the senior person or team leads will analyze and help him set and understand what is expected.

Performance Discussion and Conclusion

Last month, management, this person, and HR had a very long discussion about his performance and his attitude. The final conclusion was that he was not accepting that his performance is very unsatisfactory, and we wrote down everything he said and what he was supposed to do. Then HR asked management the question: Is it necessary to tolerate such behavior? Still, I do not know what is stopping them from making a decision.

Demotion Consideration

I appreciate the concept of demotion. In what way should we do it? If we demote him, what kind of designation should we give him?

Regards,
[Username]

I have given replies in my previous post. Your major problem is that you have not properly defined the KPIs and KRAs for the projects. You should devise KRAs in such a way as if you are putting a performance meter to the employee. In fact, not just this person, but you should put a performance meter to all the persons working in your organization. Suppose even if this person goes away, some other person may start behaving like this. For help, if any, feel free to approach me.

It is ridiculous to find that the Chief Architect is not accepting his underperformance. It clearly shows that he was unfit to hold this position. It appears that without assessing the promotability of a person, problems arise. Let me reiterate that when the length of service is rewarded, problems of this kind emerge.

Your management is his savior. Therefore, nothing can be done as of now. When they start thinking with their head instead of their heart, only then can some positive change be brought in. Therefore, keep on waiting for that golden moment. Unless management accepts that this person is blocking the organization's growth, they will not take any action. Therefore, it is unthinkable for them to demote him. In case they wish to, they should downgrade his designation from Chief Architect to Architect. Reduce his salary by 10-20% but do not reduce the basic component of the salary. This provocation is sufficient to make him resign. The cause of demotion could be underperformance. Do not use the word demotion in your letter. Click the following link to check the draft that I had given a 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 a "Policy on Employee Grievance." Let 1-2 months pass after devising this policy. Later, let team members start raising grievances against him. Management may ignore the initial 2-3 grievances, but they cannot continue to do so. Worse still, if one of the team members threatens to make a complaint to the Labor Office for being soft on the 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 scenes. If you feel that this formula will not work, then you tell team members that day after day one of them should pick a quarrel with him. Let this go on for 3-4 days. Trust me, he himself will become fed up with the fights and may resign.

Thanks,

Dinesh Divekar

I have been a member of this forum for the past one and a half years and I have found the postings of Mr. Dinesh Divekar to be highly enlightening. However, I am disheartened that the above posting is a big letdown.

It is my considered opinion that every crisis in HR calls for a constructive approach, and the principles of natural justice are 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 grandstanding or loftiness. Sometimes we have to manipulate the situation. Certain situations need to be handled diplomatically. When the Senior Architect sidesteps his duties, when he goes rubbing other staff members the wrong way, management overlooks it. So what is HR supposed to do? Management not only overlooks but acts as a savior as well. Management just does not understand that because of one single person, the culture of the organization is getting vitiated. How should HR handle this situation?

You have written that HR should have a constructive approach. In my first post, have I not written to follow routine administrative procedure? Have I not analyzed the situation and given the causes why Manasa's company pushed itself into this predicament? But then the circumstances are such that this constructive approach will not work. Hence the recommendation to handle diplomatically.

If you study Organizational Behavior, in most international publications, you will find a topic on "Political Behavior." What was the need to include this topic in OB? OB scientists have done a study of thousands of organizations and found that politics prevail everywhere. Therefore, if HR becomes Machiavelli, albeit fractionally and that too for a while, then there is nothing wrong with it.

HR are neither saints nor as white as lilies. Many times they offer their shoulder for the management to shoot. Vice versa, they too shoot from the management's shoulder. HR is supposed to bring harmony to the organization. Far from it, at times they have ensured that two or more HODs keep on fighting. They do this in order to make their presence felt. In companies where labor unions are present, HR's primary role is to manipulate the union. HR gets hefty rewards for their manipulations.

If you look at the history of India, you will find that many times kings have tried to climb high moral grounds. Personally, it has enhanced their reputation; nevertheless, the country has paid a hefty price. In contrast, look at the Britons. They could take their empire beyond seven seas not just because of military power but because of a political mindset.

My recommendations were in the interest of the organization. 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. The end result of what you do should be for the common good. That sums up everything.

Thanks,

Dinesh Divekar

Thank you very much. This is really an interesting post, and I completely agree with Dinesh Divekar.

Mr. Venu, if you find my above post, it is a constructive approach/suggestion that he has advised me to follow. I find diplomacy in the above post on how HR should take steps to benefit both the organization and the employee. So there is nothing wrong with it.

Dinesh's Post Analysis

Coming to Dinesh's post, team members are highly influenced by the Chief Architect. They do not do it all. If he still behaves in the same way and his performance is not improving, then demotion could be an option for us.

Thank you once again for your suggestions.