Performance Management is not a short cut to Restructuring

Given the news from the government and the civil service in the last few weeks, not to mention the antics of Elon Musk and DOGE, I could not help but be reminded of the lessons that I learnt, some fifteen or so years ago, about the difference between performance management and restructuring.

Restructuring

As I took on the interim role of Head of College at the University of Birmingham, I knew that I had to tackle two long-standing issues that had been left hanging by my predecessors. Both were restructuring and both were needed because the current market no longer matched the resources in terms of staffing. Some of those around me assumed that my primary aim was to save money, and they fully supported that goal. Others assumed that the goal was to move on those who, in the view of those holding this position, were not pulling their weight. The outcome did neither of these, but it did match the needs of the market (at least at the time) with the resources available.

Restructuring and performance management are two very different processes. They each relate to different policies within the university, and both have very different goals and outcomes. What is common to both processes, however, is the need to have absolute clarity about the goal that needs to be achieved, and the sticking power needed to see the process through to the end. I am not going to talk about restructuring here, although that is what the government, and Elon Musk, are aiming to do. I am more concerned with performance management, which is the method both nations want to be seen to be using to achieve their goals. I am very confident in saying that it will not work. The two processes, the two goals, are ultimately incompatible.

Improving Performance

Performance management must, ultimately, be about improving performance. To enter performance management with the view to move somebody out of the organisation is, in my view, dishonest. Our goal must always be to get the best out of those who work for us. In most cases this is also what they want to achieve, although they might not be quite so clear about what ‘the best’ looks like.

The basis for most performance management processes within our universities are annual performance development reviews (although they can go by other names). It is the regular review, self-reflection and discussion with appropriately trained managers that forms the basis for any performance management process. It is therefore a regular, ongoing, part of the institution and not something that should be turned on, or off, when things get tough and the institution decides it needs to save money or restructure to meet some other external need.

There are times, and I have met this on many occasions, where it becomes obvious that an individual is not in the right role, or the institution is not an appropriate place to bring the best out of a specific individual. Talking through with that person does, often, help them to recognise that position and, in my experience, many of those who choose to leave feel grateful for the way in which the process was handled.

Tasks and Behaviours

In a world where the ‘success’ of our universities is often seen in terms of league tables or other key performance indicators, it is often the case that performance management is seen in terms of measurable outcomes. Almost by definition these outcomes relate to tasks that the individual employee needs to achieve and to achieve well. This may be, in the case of academics, publication of research outputs, or the achievement of research grants. It can also be seen in module feedback and other related criteria. In professional services the specific task, and goal, will depend on the role being undertaken.

Behaviours, however, are far more difficult to manage than tasks. I remember, almost twenty years ago, when I first began to move into middle management, visiting colleagues in Coventry University who were exploring how to incorporate behaviours as well as tasks into their performance management process. The debate has moved on considerably since then, but it is still no easier to devise measurable criteria against which behaviour, or values, can be measured.

It is, however, vital to think through the criteria we are using to assess the performance of our staff. If values or behaviours matter (as I think they must) then these should be incorporated, and suitable criteria should be identified.

Finally, therefore, as we now know very well from the student perspective, the essential point when assessing any process against specific criteria is transparency. If we are devising criteria around tasks, or around behaviours, we should be very clear about what these are and how we are using the criteria to reach any position in terms of performance management.

From Performance Management to Disciplinary Hearing

The need to move from that regular process to one in which some element of poor performance, or performance that does not meet the criteria of the institution, needs to be addressed should be seen as, in some ways, a failure of the system.

In many cases it will be triggered by external events, often in the lives of those whose performance has changed, and suitable discussion, support and reasonable adjustments can be introduced to manage the situation. Occasionally it will be a change in the institution and in expectations, or perhaps a change in manager, and those raise different issues which also need addressing.

One of the most difficult points in any performance management process is knowing when to move from performance management to disciplinary hearings. These are distinct processes. Their goals, and therefore the criteria against which they are judged, are very different.

To move into disciplinary hearings, it is essential that the manager is clear, and the employee is clear, that some kind of failing has occurred. It is this failing that is investigated and against which a judgement is made. Part of the process is making it very clear, to both the employee and the institution what that failing is, and how it can be rectified.

At the heart of this process, however, is accurate and detailed record keeping. Performance management is a process. It is important to record improvement, or lack of improvement. And, if the process is going to be changed, from performance to disciplinary, then records also need to demonstrate why this is the case and the investigator needs to have clear trails of evidence to support any particular outcome.

Maintaining the level of consistent record keeping, especially when everything appears to be going well, and between one line manager and the next when changes happen, are vital to the success of any performance management process and, I would say, from personal experience, the point at which so many such processes fail.

Summary

Performance management is not a short-term exercise. The improvement of performance takes time, for all of those involved, and it needs regular support and encouragement. We must also remember that simply implementing a performance management programme across an institution is not, of itself, going to transform the performance of that institution overnight. Performance management, when done well, and when done in an open, transparent and honest way, is a long-term project.

At the heart of such a project, however, are four key principles.

·???????? It is essential to have clear goals, a transparent statement of what is to be achieved, by the institution and by individual members of staff.

·???????? It is essential, therefore, to have clear criteria, whether of tasks or of behaviours, against which performance is to be managed.

·???????? It is essential that consistent and accurate records are kept at all stages of the process.

·???????? It is essential that policies should be clear about when performance management must stop, and disciplinary procedures should begin.

?