As a corollary to #32, not only should you have difficult conversations early (i.e., even when a problem feels 'small') so that you give people time and space and feedback to improve, you should document those conversations via email.
It is difficult and can be awkward to do this, but it's unfair to your employee and makes it harder to let them go later if you don't have documentation of their sub-par performance.
I've learned this the hard way. As a manager, it's easy to fool yourself into thinking you're being clear about someone's performance with them, but often we use weak language to soften blow and employees underestimate their weaknesses.
Sending a short email immediately after the conversation can clarify your meaning and memorialize the feedback for later in the unfortunate case that you actually need to let the person go.
If the aim is to gather evidence of bad performance then the data gathered might not capture items that are evidence of good performance. Basically, you run the risk of applying a filter to the available data such that you're not accurately documenting performance.
The data will be tainted by selection bias and would not characterize what it claims to represent. Another more colorful term for such tainted data is a "shit list".
Sometimes the aim is not to document performance but to create a paper trail to justify future action. This kind of organizational behavior--bad faith bureaucratic procedure, biased scrutiny of performance, opacity of managerial intent, etc.--results in administrative overhead that can be expensive in both financial and human terms.
EDIT: remove "accurately". Combine 2rd and 3rd paragraphs. Remove "So" from start of last paragraph.
The aim is not to document performance generally. The aim is to counteract the natural tendencies of managers to soften their critiques in conversation and of employees to underestimate their poor performance by memorializing feedback in writing.
It's better for employees because it makes it easier for their managers to paint a clear picture of how they need to/can improve, and it's better for managers because in the case they eventually do need to let the employee go, they've already set the expectation clearly, so there are no surprises. As a bonus, there's a paper trail for HR.
> It is difficult and can be awkward to do this, but it's unfair to your employee and makes it harder to let them go later if you don't have documentation of their sub-par performance.
This is part of why at will employment is so prevalent. Unless the company has additional restrictions on termination, it's much easier to be in a position where you can termination an employee without cause on paper. The majority of the time it will be performance related but being able to termination quickly without official cause eliminates the need to redundant email "documentation."
I’ve never been at a company that fires people at the spur of the moment unless it’s something egregious without going through a process and having a performance improvement plan.
I've never seen a performance improvement plan (PIP) that was anything more than a paperwork drill to comply with HR requirements before firing someone.
1. Was completely deserved. My attitude was horrible. I had stayed at a company too long and my attitude got worse as the raises were minor and our bonuses kept getting cut. It was a vicious cycle. I should have left a lot sooner.
2. Was partially my fault. My performance wasn’t the issue, but I didn’t show the correct amount of respect and deference to the younger team leads. I didn’t know how to play politics correctly. I stayed for a year afterwards because their were some technologies I wanted to be able to put on my resume along with saying I worked for a well known company for 2+ years.
3. The “half” of a PIP came when the company where I was the dev lead was acquired, everyone was jockeying for position above me and I couldn’t get enough permanent developers to meet deadlines - only substandard contractors. I could tell from one of the meetings we were having that I was going to be the scapegoat. I called one of my recruiters and got the hell out of dodge within two weeks and “self demoted” to another job as a senior dev.
It is difficult and can be awkward to do this, but it's unfair to your employee and makes it harder to let them go later if you don't have documentation of their sub-par performance.
I've learned this the hard way. As a manager, it's easy to fool yourself into thinking you're being clear about someone's performance with them, but often we use weak language to soften blow and employees underestimate their weaknesses.
Sending a short email immediately after the conversation can clarify your meaning and memorialize the feedback for later in the unfortunate case that you actually need to let the person go.