SOME employees at the workplace are prone to behaving or working in a way that falls far short of acceptable standards. Poor performance is often linked to a flawed attitude, incompetence or ill health.

Usually, acts and omissions related to behaviour comprise any of the following: deliberate insubordination or disobedience, actions undermining discipline, dishonesty, habitual or prolonged absences without leave, or late attendance.

Performance issues are apparent in careless work, neglect of and negligence in all duties, etc. If the employee deliberately causes delay or wastes material provided to him by his employer or intentionally spoils the goods produced by him, the matter is liable to disciplinary action.

Negligence occurs when an employee does not perform his task according to set standards and in keeping with the requirements of his job, thus affecting his productivity. Neglect of work means that he is skipping his assigned task. One instance of neglect may be of a nurse not checking a patient’s vitals at the time specified by the physician. To consider it as an offence, an act of omission, negligence or neglect must have been committed three to four times over, say, six to eight months.

Behaviour related to acts and omissions constitute misconduct under Standing Order 15 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordina­nce, 1968. An employee accused of misconduct even once may be liable to disciplinary action in case the charge against him is proved.

Performance-related acts of inefficient, delayed, careless, or wasteful work amount to misconduct if repeated frequently. So is the case with negligence or neglect of work. A thin line demarcates behaviour and performance issues. For instance, an employee doing his personal work or playing games on his computer or laptop during office hours, not only neglects his work but may also be guilty of dishonesty as he is deceiving his employer.

Behavioural offences are easier to prove in a domestic inquiry provided the complainant has substantial evidence. For instance, in cases of ‘willful insubordination’ the complainant should have at least one more witness besides himself to prove that the accused — his subordinate — tried to humiliate him in the presence of other employees.

In performance-related complaints, the conduct of an employee is judged over a period of time. Here, the supervisor must also play a responsible role by preparing a performance improvement plan for his employee, who is not meeting targets. Such plans are meant to ensure consistency and fairness in the way employees are judged and managed.

The supervisor’s own competence and attitude also play a role in identifying the employee’s areas of improvement and devising a plan that includes training or rotational assignment to gain experience in other departments. Sometimes, an employee’s performance may deteriorate suddenly and he may become unresponsive to directions. In this case, the supervisor should empathise with the employee instead of being harsh, and discreetly try to find the reason, which could be due to a mishap or tragedy in the employee’s personal life. The supervisor may extend his help in getting the problem resolved if possible but without causing any offence to the employee.

Instead of helping the employee improve his performance, supervisors may have a tendency to refer the case to the HR department for disciplinary action. It is the latter’s responsibility to guide supervisors to explore all avenues of bringing improvement to the employees’ performance, instead of indulging in ruthless action.

It is quite surprising to note that, acc­ording to an article recently published in the Wall Street Jour­nal, performance im­­provement plans are being used as a cloak to reduce unwanted manpower. Such a plan usually comprises a list of difficult goals to be completed within 30 to 90 days. Employees who fall short are sacked. The percentage of workers who are subject to performance actions is on the rise. In 2020, according to HR Acuity, a software firm, 33.4 people for every 1,000 workers had documented performance issues.

In 2023, 43.6 workers out of 1,000 were involved in formal performance procedures. That includes performance improvement plans and performance counselling, among other measures.

This approach in the US negates the principles of performance improvement plans as employees with performance issues must be provided with reasonable time for improvement. In case they fail to achieve the set targets, before initiating any action, their supervisors should be asked to prove in a domestic inquiry that the employee could not meet attainable goals.

The writer is a consultant in human resources at the Aga Khan University Hospital.

Published in Dawn, February 11th, 2025