We didn’t expect to be talking about performance Management again so soon, but following the recently announced plans to reduce the cost of running Government by reducing the civil service workforce, we couldn’t resist. The headline-grabbing initiative, outlined by Cabinet Office Minister Pat McFadden at the weekend, includes offering financial incentives to underperformers to leave their jobs, alongside a new six-month improvement window for those struggling to meet expectations.

From an HR professional’s perspective, this approach raises significant concerns. Rather than addressing poor performance through a robust performance management strategy, the Government appears to be taking the weak option of simply paying people off. Not only does this set a dangerous precedent, but it enforces the common view that a culture of non-accountability exists; something that would spell disaster for businesses in the private sector.

Encouraging underperformers to leave through financial incentives instead of managing them effectively smacks of a failure to embed a performance management culture through poor leadership. Any competent HR professional would advocate for a clear, structured performance management process that includes goal setting, support, and, if necessary, dismissal for consistent underperformance.

By opting to offer financial incentives, the Government is essentially rewarding failure rather than dealing with it through proper disciplinary channels, which, through employment legislation, the Government advocates employees should be subject to. This could even be construed as constructive dismissal, as employees may feel pressured to leave rather than being given fair but firm opportunities to improve.

It begs the question: why is the Government not willing to simply manage performance properly? In the private sector, employees who consistently fail to meet expectations do not get handouts to leave—they are expected to improve or face real consequences.

Furthermore, the proposal to give underperformers six months to improve before facing dismissal is exceptionally lenient. In the private sector, underperformance is often dealt with swiftly, as businesses cannot afford the financial drain and understand the impact on moral of an ineffective employee.

• Underperformers affect team morale – Hardworking employees resent carrying the weight of a colleague who isn’t contributing.
• They cost money – Whether through missed deadlines, inefficiency, or lost revenue, an underperforming employee drains resources.
• They impact productivity – A slow or disengaged worker affects team output and motivation.

A well-managed performance process should mean that clear objectives, support, and expectations are set from the outset. Six months of underperformance can cost a business dearly, and few businesses in the private sector would tolerate such delays in decision-making.

It has long been an open secret that Government departments and the civil service are inefficient and bureaucratic. Many businesses and individuals have struggled with the slow pace, excessive red tape, and lack of accountability in Government institutions.

For those who fail the Government’s new performance tests and lose their jobs, the private sector will not be eager to take them on. HR professionals and hiring managers in business will undoubtedly have concerns about whether failed ex-civil servants will adapt to faster-paced, results-driven environments.

Another factor in these job cuts is technology. The Government is talking-up reliance on AI and automation to replace many of the administrative functions currently carried out by civil servants. While AI has the potential to increase efficiency, it also creates job displacement issues that need careful handling. It’s also still an unknown quantity to a large degree and the Government may be making decisions it doesn’t fully understand the consequences of.

Furthermore, the Labour Government may face resistance from unions, who will likely oppose these job cuts. Given that unions are a major financial backer of the Labour Party, the Government will need to tread carefully to avoid alienating their support base.

This week’s announcement to abolish NHS England is another major shake-up that will lead to further job losses across Government-run organisations. While there is an argument for reducing unnecessary bureaucracy, some contingency may be required to counter the wider economic impact. More unemployed civil servants will mean less disposable income, increased benefits claims, and greater financial strain on the economy.

While the Government struggles with poor performance management, private sector businesses cannot afford to make the same mistakes. Companies should be focusing on getting the most out of their employees, ensuring performance is managed effectively rather than tolerating long-term underperformance.

As you’ll know by now, HR Champions provides a comprehensive suite of management training courses designed to:

• Equip managers with the skills to monitor and improve employee performance
• Ensure underperformance is dealt with swiftly and fairly
• Teach managers how to set expectations and manage objectives effectively
• Support organisations in developing long-term performance management strategies

With new employment laws on the horizon, including longer probation periods and greater employee rights from day one, it is essential that businesses prepare now. Rather than cutting back on investment in employees, companies should be training their managers to ensure maximum productivity and performance.

Get in touch with HR Champions today to discuss how we can tailor a training solution to fit your organisation, ensuring stronger leadership, higher performance, and no tolerance for underperformance. Call us on 01452 331331, complete the contact form.