I was having lunch with an expat client who has been here about a year and a half. We were talking about people not performing. In passing conversation, I happened to mention that incompetence is not an acceptable reason, as far as the Japanese courts are concerned, to fire someone. Japanese judges believe that it is our fault, because we have people in the wrong job and we should fix that problem, rather than fire them. That was a total revelation for this client.
Nevertheless, we still have to deal with underperformance. Here are some guidelines for doing that.
1. Research
Do we have all the necessary information in front of us, before we raise the issue with the person we feel is not matching expectations? Sometimes, we are the problem. We haven’t been clear enough about the KPIs or our expectations, and they are not aware that they are falling short. We have to find objective measures which we can reference to underline the gap between their current and expected performance.
2. Begin with rapport
Our people are never 100% perfect nor 100% imperfect. There are bound to be some areas where their performance is acceptable. In Japan, the workforce is very serious about their job and they do their best. We should start the conversation on a positive note recognising what they are doing well.
3. Reference the Performance Deviation
We take the personality out of the equation at this point. We are “paying the ball, not the man”. We are not saying that they are a bad person, but that their performance is not matching our needs. In some instances, this “not matching expectations” will be news to the staff member. The reason for that is we have never flagged it before, even though we have long thought it. We didn’t bring it up until now in previous performance reviews and it can be a surprise.
We need to get their view on this issue. There may be factors we are not aware of, which are preventing or impeding their ability to do the job we want them to do. This is a “moment of truth” where if the lack of performance is measurable and a legitimate issue, we will see if they are going to take responsibility for their lack of performance. Does that happen, or do they want to argue the point and make excuses, blaming everyone else for the state of affairs?
4. If they take the fork in the road of resistance, then we need to deal with it. We have to restate the problem and the consequences for continued underperformance, which is code for: “we will fire you if you don’t get your act together”.
5. Continued denial, resistance and obfuscation is pointless, but that doesn’t stop people from doing it. Fortunately, in Japan, there is such a high demand for staff that the old hysteria and bias toward mid-career hires has completely vanished. They know and we know, they can easily get another job. This also dampens the court’s antagonism to us removing people who are not performing.
6. Hopefully, they will decide to “fly straight” going forward and recover from this. Naturally, having to confront your own removal from the business is very demoralising and impacts people’s confidence to do the work. If their heart is in the right place and they have the will to succeed, then we need to work on restoring their confidence that they can do it.
7. Reassurance must be backed up with support. This may mean individual coaching and/or being sent off to get the additional training to give them the skills they need to succeed.
8. Retention of people is now at peak need in Japan. The population decline is creating staff shortages in many industries and a Darwinian struggle amongst companies to recruit enough people to run their businesses. We want the staff member to stay with us and overcome this gap in their performance. This requires advanced people and communication skills on the part of the boss and our efforts must be ongoing. A “one shot and we are done” approach won’t work and we need to make the time for these conversations.
There is no doubt that dealing with poor performance will become an even more important tool in the boss toolkit. By definition, with less people to choose from, we will be voting to take ”anyone” rather than being left short staffed. Companies which can learn how to play in this new world of work will find a way through and others will fall by the wayside of either diminishing prospects or outright failure. Frankly, the prospects don’t look good for any of us in business, so buckle up for a bumpy ride.
