PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
PERSONALITY PROBLEMS –
GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL?
THE ATTITUDE OF EMPLOYEES CAN IMPACT UPON THE
SUCCESS AND PROFITABILITY OF A BUSINESS, JUST AS MUCH
AS THEIR PERFORMANCE…
THE CASE
The Court of Appeal has recently considered a case in which it was
not the employee’s performance but his personality which led to his
dismissal. In Perkin v St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust, Mr Perkin
(P) worked for the NHS Trust as its director of finance. During a
disciplinary process instigated by the Trust, the chairman of the
Trust concluded that P’s behaviour (colleagues described P as ‘aloof,
stubborn and at times intimidating’) had led to a breakdown of
confidence in P’s ability to fulfil his role. Furthermore, P’s ‘personal
attacks’ on colleagues made it impossible for him to resume his role.
P was summarily dismissed.
P brought a claim for unfair dismissal. The Tribunal accepted
the Trust’s argument that the reasons for dismissal were ‘conduct’
and ‘some other substantial reason’ and found that P’s dismissal
was fair.
“advise extreme caution”
On appeal, the Court of Appeal agreed that P’s behaviour and
the breakdown in confidence between P and the Trust, amounted
to the potentially fair reasons of ‘conduct’ and ‘some other
substantial reason’ (although the Court said they would have
classified this case in the latter category).
CONCLUSIONS AND WARNINGS
It is likely that the ‘Perkin’ case will be the exception rather than
the rule given the extreme facts of the case, including the fact
that during the Tribunal hearing itself, P hurled personal abuse at
the chairman of the Trust and other witnesses. Personality is not
a fair reason for dismissal, and we would therefore advise extreme
caution before relying on personality as a reason for dismissal in
the hope that it will be classified as ‘some other substantial
reason’. Conforming with standard performance management
procedures is the better option, as this will reduce the risks of any
future claims.
For further information:
www.klng.com
20
www.thehrdirector.com
>
But how can you measure success? If it is difficult for
commercial entities to establish success criteria, how much more
difficult is it for charities to address the issue?
“This comes back to the whole issue of human capital
measurement for which the relevant point is, I believe, that we
try and say ‘Well, what has happened?” says Armstrong.
“Can we look at the metrics and identify what has happened
as a consequence of adopting this or that particular approach to
management performance? What is happening to performance
overall or in specific areas?
“We must believe that a major part of any performance
management review or objective-setting exercise ensures people
are more aware of what the company’s values are, thereby
making them more likely to uphold them.
“more than just a financial quick-fix”
“In other words, financial performance is one thing, but it has
to be a balanced performance. You can’t allow people to get away
with achieving just financial results at the expense of upholding
company values. I think that is a very appropriate approach; the
measure is there, it has been delivered, and people take note.”
Performance management is about more than just achieving
a financial quick-fix; it is about underpinning the whole
organisation and carrying the staff with you, through thick and
thin. It can do this by creating a sense of belonging, of one-ness.
One might almost think of it as creating family values.
“A sense of one-ness arises where people believe that the
values of the organisation are in accord with their own. They feel
that this is an organisation worth working for because ‘I feel
comfortable here’, irrespective of pay or prospects,” says
Armstrong. “By demonstrating that these are corporate values
and by insisting that people’s performance is measured against
these values, you are showing that the organisation really does
believe what it says. It is not just rhetoric because the company
practices what it preaches.
“It is demonstrably an approach to management which is
practised at the top and cascades down.”
So which system works best, then?
“I don’t believe there is any such thing as an ideal solution on
the market. All organisations ultimately have to adopt tailor-made
practices,” replies Armstrong. “One of my mantras is; ‘Best fit is
much more important than best practice’. Much depends on the
sort of organisation you are; your culture and your approach.”
The need to adopt a bespoke system is also emphasised by Dr
Crow. He tells us: “At senior levels of management in global
organisations, it’s imperative that executives are aware of, and
managed against, a set of global leadership competencies. Below
this level however, national and regional cultural differences
need to be considered.
“The US business culture encourages an individual approach;
other cultures are more team oriented. Others yet (and the UK is a
good example) struggle with candid feedback. Forcing one solution
onto these different environments will cause rejection of the process.
Rather, the global HR team should be clear on the minimum
standards and allow for localisation above these standards.
the
HRDIRECTOR – MARCH 06