I recently re-read a post from The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) about a study conducting by Eagle Hill Consulting. The post focuses on the highly detrimental impact of not acting to address low performers in your workplace. Here's an excerpt from the SHRM blog post:
These findings, drawn from a survey of more than 1,700 professionals from across the private, nonprofit and government sectors, are detailed in a research report by Arlington, Va.-based Eagle Hill Consulting, Are Low-Performers Destroying Your Culture and Driving Away Your Best Employees? The researchers found that:
- Low-performers hurt morale in the workplace and increase the workload for others. When asked to pick the greatest problems created by low-performers, the top concern was that they reduce overall workplace morale (cited by 68 percent of respondents). Forty-four percent said that low-performers increase the work burden on high-performers.
- Low-performers stifle innovation and contribute to a standard of mediocrity. Some 54 percent said that low-performers contribute to a lack of initiative and motivation, resulting in a work culture where mediocrity is accepted.
Addressing low performance does not mean you have to fire people. It does mean you have try to understand WHY certain individuals are not performing to expectations. What are the causes? Don't assume you know. Then, you must provide concrete, actionable feedback to people who are not achieving their goals. It means putting in place a specific plan for coaching and developing low performers. Finally, it means having key milestones at which you can check in on the performance of these individuals, measure progress or lack thereof, and take additional steps to address performance below expectations. Failing to have the hard conversations will not only harm the organization's effectiveness, it will lead to a deterioration in employee morale. Ultimately, it might lead to the departure of your best employees, who become frustrated and upset with the situation.
1 comment:
Absolutely agree. The costs associated with poor performance can be very high, and those costs often directly accrue to the top performers the organization can least afford to lose. This is particularly true when a poor performer resides in a position of authority.
Post a Comment