Why Does Performance Management Take So Long?

Performance management has a reputation for taking months.

This can make managers reluctant to start the process because they assume that once they do, they are committing themselves to a long series of meetings, improvement plans and formal warnings.

In reality, one of the reasons performance management can take so long is that poor performance has often been allowed to continue for some time before it is properly addressed.

A manager may have been frustrated with an employee's performance for months, but if expectations have not been made clear, concerns have not been discussed and the employee has not been given a reasonable opportunity to improve, the employer cannot necessarily jump straight to the end of the process.

By the time the manager wants something done, much of the groundwork may still need to begin.

Why Does Delaying Performance Management Make the Process Longer?

Knowing that someone is underperforming is not the same as managing their performance. Managers may raise concerns between themselves, compensate for an employee's mistakes or gradually become increasingly frustrated without having a clear conversation with the employee.

Eventually, the manager reaches the point where they want formal action to be taken. The difficulty is that the employee may never have been clearly told what they are doing wrong, what standard is expected or what they need to do differently. There may also be very little evidence of previous conversations, objectives, feedback or support.

The employer may therefore need to establish those expectations and give the employee a genuine opportunity to improve before deciding what should happen next. What feels to the manager like an issue that has already been going on for six months may, from a performance management perspective, only just be starting.

What Happens When Managers Don't Address Poor Performance Early?

Leaving performance concerns unaddressed rarely makes them easier to manage later. The employee may reasonably question why their performance has suddenly become a serious concern if they have previously received little feedback about it. It can also become harder for a manager to explain exactly when the problem began and what they have already done to address it.

Early performance management does not have to mean immediately putting someone into a formal process. Often it means having a clear conversation when the problem first becomes apparent, explaining what needs to improve, agreeing any support required and following up.

If performance improves, a formal process may never be necessary. If it does not, the manager is in a much stronger position to demonstrate what has already been discussed and why further action is now appropriate.

Does Performance Management Have to Start Informally?

Many performance concerns are suitable for informal management first, especially where the issue has only recently arisen or the employee has not previously been told that their performance is falling below the required standard.

ACAS recommends trying to understand why an employee is experiencing performance problems and helping them improve before moving into a formal procedure where appropriate.

There will, however, be circumstances where the seriousness of the performance concern or the history of the case means a different approach is justified. Employers should also check their own capability or performance management procedure before deciding how to proceed.

The important distinction is between dealing with an issue fairly and unnecessarily repeating informal conversations that have already failed to achieve improvement.

How Long Should a Performance Management Process Take?

There is no standard timescale that applies to every performance management process. The employee needs a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate improvement, and the appropriate period will depend on what they are being asked to improve.

If the concern relates to work completed every day, a manager may be able to assess progress relatively quickly. Where performance can only be measured through monthly tasks, longer projects or work that occurs less frequently, more time may be needed.

The employee should understand what standard they need to reach, how improvement will be measured, what support will be provided and when their progress will be reviewed.

Managers should check their organisation’s policy. The timescale should make sense for the performance issue being managed.

How Long Should a Performance Improvement Plan Last?

There is no set minimum period that every performance improvement plan, or PIP, must last. A PIP should contain clear objectives, appropriate support and a reasonable timeframe for improvement. The length of that timeframe should be linked to what the employee actually needs to demonstrate.

This is why a good performance improvement plan should be specific. Telling someone they need to "improve their performance over the next three months" provides very little clarity.

A better plan identifies the areas of concern, the standard required, how this will be measured and the points at which progress will be reviewed. Managers then have something meaningful to assess rather than simply waiting for a date in the diary.

Can You Move Through Performance Management More Quickly?

A fair process does not mean every employee must spend the same amount of time at every stage. Where an employee has been given clear expectations, reasonable support and sufficient opportunity to improve, the employer does not need to keep repeating the same stage simply to make the process longer.

There can also be more serious cases. The ACAS Code recognises that where unsatisfactory performance is sufficiently serious, it may be appropriate to move directly to a final written warning rather than beginning with a first written warning.

This should not be treated as a shortcut where a manager is simply frustrated that improvement has not happened quickly enough. The seriousness of the performance issue, the circumstances of the case and the organisation's own procedure all need to be considered.

Do You Have to Keep Extending a Performance Improvement Plan?

An improvement period can be extended where there is a genuine reason to do so. An employee may have made significant progress but need a little longer to demonstrate that the improvement is sustainable. There may also have been absence, training delays or other circumstances that meant they did not have a fair opportunity to demonstrate improvement during the original period.

An extension should have a purpose. Where the employee has been given clear objectives, appropriate support and a reasonable opportunity to improve but has made little or no progress, repeatedly extending the PIP may simply prolong the process. Managers should be prepared to make a decision at review points rather than automatically adding another few weeks.

What if Health or Disability Is Affecting Performance?

Where health may be contributing to poor performance, the employer should understand the position before deciding how to proceed.

This may involve speaking to the employee, obtaining Occupational Health advice and considering whether reasonable adjustments are required where the employee is disabled.

Adjustments might affect the support provided, the way an objective is measured or the amount of time reasonably needed to demonstrate improvement.

This does not mean performance concerns cannot be addressed. It means the process needs to take account of the employee's individual circumstances rather than assuming every performance issue should be managed in exactly the same way.

How Can Managers Stop Performance Management Dragging On?

The biggest difference managers can often make is addressing concerns when they arise.

Employees should know what is expected of them and receive clear feedback when they are not meeting that standard. Managers should keep appropriate records of important performance conversations, provide reasonable support and follow up rather than allowing concerns to disappear until the next problem occurs.

Once a formal process is underway, clear objectives and meaningful review dates help keep it moving. At each review, the manager should consider what has changed and decide what should happen next.

A review meeting should not simply result in another review meeting because nobody feels comfortable making a decision.

Fair Doesn't Have to Mean Slow

Performance management needs to be fair, but fairness is not measured by how many months the process takes. An employee needs to understand the concerns, know what improvement is expected, receive reasonable support and have a genuine opportunity to demonstrate that they can meet the required standard.

Where managers deal with problems early, much of that work can happen through normal day-to-day management. If formal performance management later becomes necessary, there is already a clearer history of what has been discussed and what the employee has been expected to improve.

Where concerns have instead been left for months, the process can feel frustratingly slow because the manager is ready for an outcome while the proper management of the problem has barely begun.

Performance management does not have to drag on. Often, the best way to make it more effective is simply to start managing performance earlier.

Need HR Support?

Performance concerns can become much harder to deal with when they have been allowed to continue without being properly addressed.

BloomHR can help small businesses manage poor performance fairly and practically, from early performance conversations and improvement plans through to formal capability procedures. Contact us for more information.