Why Managers Avoid Poor Performance Management

Dr Stanley Arumugam Feb 2012

Even the toughest talking bosses wilt in the face of managing performance one-on-one. Dealing with poor performance can be one of the most difficult and anxiety provoking experiences in the workplace for both managers and their staff. Whenever there is the possibility of pain, people default to their in-built psychological mechanism of avoidance. Thats necessary for survival in situations outside of our control, for example, when confronted with a life threat. However, when we operate out of our self-protection mindset in issues that require confrontation, we stay in a level of engagement or relationship that does not facilitate growth ours and others that are in our circle of influence. How does the defence mechanism play out in management-subordinate relationships and when is this healthy or not? In this article, I want to reflect on the role our in-built psychological defence mechanisms play in the key task of poor performance management. Defences may be the result of unresolved psychological issues as a child or adult. In the workplace the power dynamics of the managementsubordinate relationship can bring up old patterns of relational behaviour some of which are healthy and necessary for growing and success in the workplace. Other behaviours may retard growth and complicate the workplace relationships often resulting in poor performance, exacerbating existing poor performance which may eventually lead to dismissal with its consequent pain. Big mouth, small heart Over the years, I have discovered that the biggest roadblock to managers confronting poor performance is an avoidance of anxiety. If you want to really test the tough boss, get him to follow-through a process of poor performance management! Its easy to hire and fire thats what tough bosses do but it takes a different strength to become personally vulnerable in a tough performance conversation. Its not that managers dont know how to do performance management. Ive been in organisations where we had great corporate training
1

programmes and had easy to use performance management toolkits and HR on standby to support line managers. Still, there would be cases of unattended poor performance. Why? The typical responses when confronted with a case of poor performance could be: procrastination, denial, irrational optimism, giving in or giving up. None of these work poor performance doesnt magically go away. At the same time that the manager is agonising about how she will deal with the poor performer, the employee is going through a repertoire of defence mechanisms to avoid the pain of being confronted about their poor performance. Whats Freud got to do with it? Psychoanalysis, popularised by Sigmund Freud can give us some clues of how human beings avoid anxiety through unconscious psychological defence mechanisms. These defence mechanisms may be observed when you have to manage poor performance. This behavioural part is what makes performance management difficult because people are unpredictable and dont generally take bad news well. I cant recall any staff member excited about a poor performance discussion! Smart managers will do well in getting in touch with themselves and their own performance anxiety when it comes to managing poor performers. This is the space of EQ (emotional intelligence). Defence mechanisms you may encounter As a line manager and organisational psychologist, I have observed some of the following psychological mechanisms in play. Knowing these patterns of behaviour and learning how to responsibly confront them is what management wisdom is about. Being aware of these mechanisms could help in addressing poor performance not only as a technical exercise but one where we recognise the complexity of human behaviour. When confronted with poor performance, you may encounter some or combinations of these defences: Denial Occurs when the employee negates sensory data to avoid awareness of painful aspects of reality. When someone hears of the death of their loved one they may immediately go into denial, which is the minds psychological shield from the immense pain. This is necessary as part of the grieving process. When staff members go into denial about poor performance while everyone around them can see it, this is problematic, unhealthy and is not open to resolution.
2

Distortion The person reshapes external reality to suit inner needs which sustains feelings of superiority or entitlement. Staff may believe that others dont get it, dont understand them but they will in time. This is a narcissistic defence where people feel they are indispensable and that the world owes them something. Acting Out The person gives in to the impulse rather than prohibiting it and avoids the tension of postponing expression. This may be evidenced in outbursts at work or when confronted with performance issues, accompanied by crying, shouting or storming out of the meeting room. They get heard, get their way like spoilt children and often use this defence as a tactic to divert attention from an issue they are unwilling to confront. Passive Aggressive Behaviour Employees express aggression indirectly through failures and procrastination that may affect others more than self. This employee may make mistakes that show up the supervisor, delay action, come late, and just happen to forget or not cooperate in a way that is hard to pin down as direct insubordination. They are unwilling to speak up in a mature way, or expressing their difference instead it plays out indirectly. Projection The employee attributes own feelings to another due to intolerable feelings or painful affects. These could show up as a persecution complex where staff blames another individual or management for their poor performance. The system is the problem for their poor performance. Its never their fault. Somatisation This employee converts psychic issues into body symptoms. When performance issues are raised this employee may suddenly become ill thus delaying any confrontation of the issues. There will be increased absence with general diagnosis and may even be faking illness. Inevitably, this illness often neutralises the manager or postpones action thus delaying the process of confrontation and action.

Stanley Arumugam is the International Director HROD and Governance at ActionAid International, www.actionaid.org
3

stanley.arumugam@gmail.com See publication at: http://www.hrfuture.net/on-the-cover/why-we-avoidmanaging-poor-performance.php?Itemid=33