Managers have enormous power to improve performance, morale
Conducting performance reviews in a unionized shop is a delicate balancing act. Management wants to improve performance, but doesn’t want to push the worker too hard and send him running to the union for shelter.
Cy Charney, president of Thornhill, Ont.-based Charney and Associates and author of The Leader’s Toolkt, said performance management can thrive in unionized environments. But in too many workplaces performance management is dysfunctional, he said.
“And that’s a shame,” he said. “Managers assume employees don’t want it. But employees really value feedback and want to do good things and want to improve performance. The majority would welcome the chance to sit down and look at what can be done better.”
He said the historical perception created by some unions and militant employees that performance management is evil can be handily defeated by managers.
“Every individual manager has an enormous amount of power to influence direct reports,” said Charney. “If you meet their needs, they’re going to meet yours. It’s really a battle of who’s going to win the hearts and minds.”
He pointed to a statement on the website for the Canadian Auto Workers that reads: “We formed our union because we could not depend on employers to provide us with dignity.”
“That’s a shocking statement — that we can’t rely on management to provide dignity in the workplace,” said Charney. “If we as managers provide dignity, then the whole game changes, doesn’t it? If we meet their basic needs, they will meet our needs and want to perform better.”
What if the union refuses a performance management system?
The Canada Employment and Immigration Union (CEIU), the union representing the majority of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada workers, took what it called a firm position with senior management on performance reviews during meetings in the summer of 2003.
In a posting on the union’s website it said: “Performance management should, in the union’s view, be restricted to identifying what members need to carry out their duties effectively. This can range from training to the details of work organization. Wherever appropriate, this should involve discussions between management and the group of members involved and not restricted to managers and individual members.”
If a union balks at a formal performance management system, that doesn’t mean the employer has to abandon the idea of performance management. It just needs to adopt an informal approach dedicated to improving performance and not punishing workers.
“It doesn’t have to be formal,” said Charney. “You can do it informally. It happens every day, and it’s the daily interactions that have the real impact on performance. The once-a-year stuff is almost meaningless.”
For this scenario to thrive, managers have to raise their expectations and think highly of their workforce. That’s because the manager, and the manager’s attitude, has a tremendous impact on employees.
“People don’t live by a contract day-to-day,” he said. The bulk of employees who leave or become disengaged do so because of their immediate boss, not because of labour relations or the collective agreement.
Managers need to let people know what the goals are, involve them in setting those goals and challenge them to raise the bar — and it’s critical not to impose any of that, said Charney. Then the performance needs to be measured and celebrated when it’s improved.
“Don’t just take it for granted,” he said. “Recognize people and make sure you give a pat on the back.”
In union environments, that pat on the back likely can’t be financial because most unions frown on pay for performance. But simply showing regular appreciation can be even more effective, Charney said.
Handing out negative criticism
When workers aren’t performing up to standards, they have to be told, he said. But it has to be done with tact.
“You have to let them know,” he said. “But you have to do it so it doesn’t feel like discipline. We should be able to tell union people we are unhappy without having them call the shop steward.”
Managers can accomplish this simply by being respectful to the worker.
“You ask for permission. You don’t just do it,” he said. “That makes a big difference. When you point out an issue, ask them what they can do differently and ask them for solutions. Don’t just tell them what to do.”
Then managers need to followup to ensure the performance has improved.
“But workers should feel it’s about conversation, not about discipline,” said Charney. “Focus on the issue, not on the person.”
Develop relationships
It sounds touchy-feely, but managers really need to develop relationships with their direct reports.
“Let people know that what they do matters to you, be interested in what they do and develop relationships,” he said. “If you don’t, they look elsewhere (like to the union.) We spend far too much time at work not to treat people like individuals and bring out the best in them.”
When the union is entrenched and the atmosphere poisoned
Heavily unionized workplaces with a long and bitter union-management history can adopt the same performance management philosophy, said Charney. It will take a lot of time and attention, but it can work.
“It’s a journey of a thousand miles. It’s not rocket science. You start with small things, maybe a huddle in the morning to bring people up to speed,” he said. “Show numbers and talk about how we’re doing. Managers have much more power than the contract and senior management to impact performance. Listen to people, let them know what’s going on and give regular feedback. Just do those simple things and suddenly we’re beginning to treat people like adults.”
It makes good business sense to involve union members, because many of them are more competent than managers anyway since they’re actually on the line doing the job, he said.
Charney said there will be some employees who don’t respond to any of this informal performance management, but that’s okay.
“Don’t be intimidated by the odd employee from hell,” he said. “We need to spend most of our time with the good people, who are the majority, and not get sucked in with the poor performers.”
The union perspective
Performance reviews in collective bargaining agreements
Not every union is opposed to performance reviews. Some collective agreements specifically include performance reviews and how they are to be handled as part of their language. Here’s a sampling of agreements and the wording they contain concerning performance reviews.
Doepker Industries Ltd. and United Steelworkers of America, Local 5917
Doepker Industries is an Annaheim, Sask.-based manufacturer of highway trailers. Article 9.04 of the agreement, in force from March 2004 to April 30, 2006, outlines the expectations around performance reviews:
The parties believe that an employee performs and develops best when he knows exactly what is expected of him, and how he is doing relative to these requirements. The company conducts regular performance evaluations with each employee to help the employee maintain performance and to identify areas for additional training and development. Required training will be provided by the company.
The performance review is conducted in a meeting between the employee and his supervisor, and the participants will use the job description and profile as the basis for assessing performance. Wherever performance improvement is required, specific examples will be provided by the supervisor. In addition, the employee’s disciplinary record — should he have one — will be reviewed.
Each performance review will be documented and signed by both the employee and the supervisor. Then, a copy will be provided for the employee. The employee signs the performance review acknowledging that he is aware of the document. The employee will have a section for their comments on all performance reviews.
Performance reviews will be conducted once a year, and may be done as often as once a month in the case of an employee on probation or in a trial period.
ATCO Power and Canadian Energy Workers Association
ATCO Power is a Calgary-based power company. Article 11 of the agreement, in force from 2004 to 2006, deals with performance reviews for probationary employees:
The employee’s performance will be reviewed and discussed between the supervisor and the employee periodically during the probationary period. The final performance review will take place during the last 30 days of the probationary period.
EMS Technologies Canada and National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW)
EMS Technologies is a designer and manufacturer of wireless, satellite and defense solutions headquartered in Norcross, Ga. with Canadian offices in Ontario and Quebec. Article 20 of the agreement, in force until March 31, 2006, outlines how performance reviews will be handled:
An employee’s performance will be reviewed and rated at frequent intervals by the employee’s immediate manager, however, in no event will an employee be reviewed less frequently than once annually.
Upon completion of the review the manager will obtain his manager’s approval and signature on the review. The employee’s manager will then discuss in detail the results of the performance review within 30 days of the review.
Upon completion of the discussion the manager will obtain the employee’s signature in confirmation of the performance review having taken place and provide a copy to the employee at that time.
The Royal Canadian Mint and The Public Service Alliance of Canada
The Royal Canadian Mint, with operations in Ottawa and Winnipeg, manufactures currency for Canada and other countries. Article 37 of the agreement, in force until Dec. 31, 2007, deals with employee performance reviews and employee files:
When as a result of a formal review of an employee’s performance, a written document is placed on his file, the employee concerned shall be given an opportunity to sign the review form in question to indicate that its contents have been read and explained.
When a written document that can be used against an employee or can be detrimental to the employee’s career is placed on his file, the employee shall be given an opportunity to sign the document indicating that its content has been read and explained and that he has received a copy. Any such document which deals with disciplinary action may be challenged through the grievance procedure.
The employer agrees not to introduce as evidence in the case of promotional opportunities any document from the file of an employee, the existence of which the employee was not aware at the time of filing or within a reasonable period thereafter.
Upon written request of an employee, the personnel file of that employee shall be made available once per year for his examination in the presence of the local personnel officer.
The employer shall perform a yearly performance evaluation for all employees in the bargaining unit. Each employee shall be afforded the opportunity to review this evaluation with his immediate management supervisor and to agree or disagree and so indicate. A copy of the employee performance evaluation shall be given to the employee within a reasonable time.
Aventis and Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada Local 1701
Aventis is a pharmaceutical giant. Its Canadian headquarters are located in Laval, Que. The employer and the union signed a letter of understanding and agreement dated Sept. 18, 1991, on informal performance review guidelines:
This process is intended to be informal and voluntary. The review will not be recorded on a performance appraisal form and no discipline will follow. The goal of the review is to provide feedback on job performance. It should take place on an annual basis. Interview guidelines will include:
•emphasize the positive aspects of the employee’s performance;
•identify where the employee is performing effectively and give specific examples;
•formulate positive goals to assist the employee to function more effectively;
•identify specific actions to improve performance, if necessary;
•conduct session in private with no interruptions; and
•emphasize willingness to assist the employee’s efforts to improve performance.
Allstream and United Steelworkers of America, TC Local 1976
Allstream is a Toronto-based communication solutions provider. Part of the agreement, in force from Jan. 1, 2004, to Dec. 31, 2006, deals with performance reviews and how they are tied to salary increases:
An employee’s performance will be evaluated every six months. If any employee’s performance is not satisfactory, his scheduled salary increase may be withheld. He will also be advised in writing 30 days prior to the date on which such salary increase was due.
During the following 30-day period, he will have an opportunity to improve his performance to the necessary standard. In such an event, he will be granted his scheduled salary increase on the original date. If his performance does not improve sufficiently during this period, but does at a later date, his salary increase shall be made effective from the first day of the month following the date on which he qualifies.
Cy Charney, president of Thornhill, Ont.-based Charney and Associates and author of The Leader’s Toolkt, said performance management can thrive in unionized environments. But in too many workplaces performance management is dysfunctional, he said.
“And that’s a shame,” he said. “Managers assume employees don’t want it. But employees really value feedback and want to do good things and want to improve performance. The majority would welcome the chance to sit down and look at what can be done better.”
He said the historical perception created by some unions and militant employees that performance management is evil can be handily defeated by managers.
“Every individual manager has an enormous amount of power to influence direct reports,” said Charney. “If you meet their needs, they’re going to meet yours. It’s really a battle of who’s going to win the hearts and minds.”
He pointed to a statement on the website for the Canadian Auto Workers that reads: “We formed our union because we could not depend on employers to provide us with dignity.”
“That’s a shocking statement — that we can’t rely on management to provide dignity in the workplace,” said Charney. “If we as managers provide dignity, then the whole game changes, doesn’t it? If we meet their basic needs, they will meet our needs and want to perform better.”
What if the union refuses a performance management system?
The Canada Employment and Immigration Union (CEIU), the union representing the majority of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada workers, took what it called a firm position with senior management on performance reviews during meetings in the summer of 2003.
In a posting on the union’s website it said: “Performance management should, in the union’s view, be restricted to identifying what members need to carry out their duties effectively. This can range from training to the details of work organization. Wherever appropriate, this should involve discussions between management and the group of members involved and not restricted to managers and individual members.”
If a union balks at a formal performance management system, that doesn’t mean the employer has to abandon the idea of performance management. It just needs to adopt an informal approach dedicated to improving performance and not punishing workers.
“It doesn’t have to be formal,” said Charney. “You can do it informally. It happens every day, and it’s the daily interactions that have the real impact on performance. The once-a-year stuff is almost meaningless.”
For this scenario to thrive, managers have to raise their expectations and think highly of their workforce. That’s because the manager, and the manager’s attitude, has a tremendous impact on employees.
“People don’t live by a contract day-to-day,” he said. The bulk of employees who leave or become disengaged do so because of their immediate boss, not because of labour relations or the collective agreement.
Managers need to let people know what the goals are, involve them in setting those goals and challenge them to raise the bar — and it’s critical not to impose any of that, said Charney. Then the performance needs to be measured and celebrated when it’s improved.
“Don’t just take it for granted,” he said. “Recognize people and make sure you give a pat on the back.”
In union environments, that pat on the back likely can’t be financial because most unions frown on pay for performance. But simply showing regular appreciation can be even more effective, Charney said.
Handing out negative criticism
When workers aren’t performing up to standards, they have to be told, he said. But it has to be done with tact.
“You have to let them know,” he said. “But you have to do it so it doesn’t feel like discipline. We should be able to tell union people we are unhappy without having them call the shop steward.”
Managers can accomplish this simply by being respectful to the worker.
“You ask for permission. You don’t just do it,” he said. “That makes a big difference. When you point out an issue, ask them what they can do differently and ask them for solutions. Don’t just tell them what to do.”
Then managers need to followup to ensure the performance has improved.
“But workers should feel it’s about conversation, not about discipline,” said Charney. “Focus on the issue, not on the person.”
Develop relationships
It sounds touchy-feely, but managers really need to develop relationships with their direct reports.
“Let people know that what they do matters to you, be interested in what they do and develop relationships,” he said. “If you don’t, they look elsewhere (like to the union.) We spend far too much time at work not to treat people like individuals and bring out the best in them.”
When the union is entrenched and the atmosphere poisoned
Heavily unionized workplaces with a long and bitter union-management history can adopt the same performance management philosophy, said Charney. It will take a lot of time and attention, but it can work.
“It’s a journey of a thousand miles. It’s not rocket science. You start with small things, maybe a huddle in the morning to bring people up to speed,” he said. “Show numbers and talk about how we’re doing. Managers have much more power than the contract and senior management to impact performance. Listen to people, let them know what’s going on and give regular feedback. Just do those simple things and suddenly we’re beginning to treat people like adults.”
It makes good business sense to involve union members, because many of them are more competent than managers anyway since they’re actually on the line doing the job, he said.
Charney said there will be some employees who don’t respond to any of this informal performance management, but that’s okay.
“Don’t be intimidated by the odd employee from hell,” he said. “We need to spend most of our time with the good people, who are the majority, and not get sucked in with the poor performers.”
The union perspective
Performance reviews in collective bargaining agreements
Not every union is opposed to performance reviews. Some collective agreements specifically include performance reviews and how they are to be handled as part of their language. Here’s a sampling of agreements and the wording they contain concerning performance reviews.
Doepker Industries Ltd. and United Steelworkers of America, Local 5917
Doepker Industries is an Annaheim, Sask.-based manufacturer of highway trailers. Article 9.04 of the agreement, in force from March 2004 to April 30, 2006, outlines the expectations around performance reviews:
The parties believe that an employee performs and develops best when he knows exactly what is expected of him, and how he is doing relative to these requirements. The company conducts regular performance evaluations with each employee to help the employee maintain performance and to identify areas for additional training and development. Required training will be provided by the company.
The performance review is conducted in a meeting between the employee and his supervisor, and the participants will use the job description and profile as the basis for assessing performance. Wherever performance improvement is required, specific examples will be provided by the supervisor. In addition, the employee’s disciplinary record — should he have one — will be reviewed.
Each performance review will be documented and signed by both the employee and the supervisor. Then, a copy will be provided for the employee. The employee signs the performance review acknowledging that he is aware of the document. The employee will have a section for their comments on all performance reviews.
Performance reviews will be conducted once a year, and may be done as often as once a month in the case of an employee on probation or in a trial period.
ATCO Power and Canadian Energy Workers Association
ATCO Power is a Calgary-based power company. Article 11 of the agreement, in force from 2004 to 2006, deals with performance reviews for probationary employees:
The employee’s performance will be reviewed and discussed between the supervisor and the employee periodically during the probationary period. The final performance review will take place during the last 30 days of the probationary period.
EMS Technologies Canada and National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW)
EMS Technologies is a designer and manufacturer of wireless, satellite and defense solutions headquartered in Norcross, Ga. with Canadian offices in Ontario and Quebec. Article 20 of the agreement, in force until March 31, 2006, outlines how performance reviews will be handled:
An employee’s performance will be reviewed and rated at frequent intervals by the employee’s immediate manager, however, in no event will an employee be reviewed less frequently than once annually.
Upon completion of the review the manager will obtain his manager’s approval and signature on the review. The employee’s manager will then discuss in detail the results of the performance review within 30 days of the review.
Upon completion of the discussion the manager will obtain the employee’s signature in confirmation of the performance review having taken place and provide a copy to the employee at that time.
The Royal Canadian Mint and The Public Service Alliance of Canada
The Royal Canadian Mint, with operations in Ottawa and Winnipeg, manufactures currency for Canada and other countries. Article 37 of the agreement, in force until Dec. 31, 2007, deals with employee performance reviews and employee files:
When as a result of a formal review of an employee’s performance, a written document is placed on his file, the employee concerned shall be given an opportunity to sign the review form in question to indicate that its contents have been read and explained.
When a written document that can be used against an employee or can be detrimental to the employee’s career is placed on his file, the employee shall be given an opportunity to sign the document indicating that its content has been read and explained and that he has received a copy. Any such document which deals with disciplinary action may be challenged through the grievance procedure.
The employer agrees not to introduce as evidence in the case of promotional opportunities any document from the file of an employee, the existence of which the employee was not aware at the time of filing or within a reasonable period thereafter.
Upon written request of an employee, the personnel file of that employee shall be made available once per year for his examination in the presence of the local personnel officer.
The employer shall perform a yearly performance evaluation for all employees in the bargaining unit. Each employee shall be afforded the opportunity to review this evaluation with his immediate management supervisor and to agree or disagree and so indicate. A copy of the employee performance evaluation shall be given to the employee within a reasonable time.
Aventis and Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada Local 1701
Aventis is a pharmaceutical giant. Its Canadian headquarters are located in Laval, Que. The employer and the union signed a letter of understanding and agreement dated Sept. 18, 1991, on informal performance review guidelines:
This process is intended to be informal and voluntary. The review will not be recorded on a performance appraisal form and no discipline will follow. The goal of the review is to provide feedback on job performance. It should take place on an annual basis. Interview guidelines will include:
•emphasize the positive aspects of the employee’s performance;
•identify where the employee is performing effectively and give specific examples;
•formulate positive goals to assist the employee to function more effectively;
•identify specific actions to improve performance, if necessary;
•conduct session in private with no interruptions; and
•emphasize willingness to assist the employee’s efforts to improve performance.
Allstream and United Steelworkers of America, TC Local 1976
Allstream is a Toronto-based communication solutions provider. Part of the agreement, in force from Jan. 1, 2004, to Dec. 31, 2006, deals with performance reviews and how they are tied to salary increases:
An employee’s performance will be evaluated every six months. If any employee’s performance is not satisfactory, his scheduled salary increase may be withheld. He will also be advised in writing 30 days prior to the date on which such salary increase was due.
During the following 30-day period, he will have an opportunity to improve his performance to the necessary standard. In such an event, he will be granted his scheduled salary increase on the original date. If his performance does not improve sufficiently during this period, but does at a later date, his salary increase shall be made effective from the first day of the month following the date on which he qualifies.
