Being useless at the job is not a good enough reason to get the sack. So it came as no surprise to me to learn that only 18 teachers had been dismissed for incompetence in the last 40 years.
As a senior manager I have dismissed staff for theft, verbal or physical abuse, accessing pornography in their work computer, frequent or prolonged absence from work or failing their probationary period but never because they were useless at their job. This is not because I have never come across people who are incompetent at their job. The fact is that with the exception of people on their six months probationary period it is a very long and arduous process to dismiss some one in the public sector for being useless at their job.
This process involves setting clear work targets with time scales, monitoring progress, providing frequent feedback identifying areas for improvement, providing training and support to help the individual gain or improve skills and giving the individual the time and the opportunity to demonstrate improvement. It involves lots of uncomfortable conversations and keeping detailed records. If the individual is cooperative and has a degree of insight into their own performance then all this effort may see the necessary improvement. However it is more likely that this process will leave the individual in no doubt about your assessment of their abilities and they will retaliate with an harassment and bullying complaint. This complaint will need to be formerly investigated which will involve the manager justifying their actions and demonstrating that their expectations were reasonable and consistent with their treatment of other members of staff. Managers can find this a very stressful process particularly if the individual claims their performance is being scrutinised because of their race, gender or sexuality. During this period the individual frequently goes of sick with stress.
It is not hard to see why a lot of managers consider addressing poor work performance through the competency process just isn’t worth the hassle. The most common way this gets dealt with is either the individual finds themselves another job, a management or service restructuring takes place and their job disappears or they are dismissed as a result of long term absence. None of these solutions are right. If the person applies for another job the manager may be tempted to give them a glowing reference to get rid of them. They will certainly be advised by HR not to focus on concerns about their competence but play safe and provide a bland factual reference which cannot be challenged at an employment tribunal for constructive dismissal. It is clearly inappropriate to distort a restructuring to get rid of a member of staff and may result in a structure which ends up having to be changed again. It is of course one explanation for frequent restructurings. It clearly not an appropriate use of the absence policy to use it to dismiss someone when the real issue is their performance not their health but it is less contentious presenting someone attendance record than commenting on their performance.
One way or another a determined manager can move on a poor performing member of staff but it will take 18 months to 2 years and they probably won’t use the competency procedures.
Blair McPherson was until recently a senior manager in a large local authority he is author of People management in a harsh financial climate published by www.russellhouse.co.uk