Good management and worth the pain for long time gain, or really getting it wrong?

[LoyaltyBonus]

I work for an organisation in the public sector, approx 200 staff.

Historically, things have been very lax. Sickness absence & capability not managed, you get the picture. Most staff are very good and concientious but there is a significant minority (maybe 20%) who haven't been earning their keep for a long time. However, their performance/absence has never been challenged, they've never been told they were doing anything wrong.

A new manager has come in and begun to deal with some of these issues. E.g return to work meetings are now done properly and the sickness absence policy followed where triggers are met. Proper appraisals are being done with challenging targets for some staff who haven't being used to that.

For the "good" staff it makes very little difference but it's causing a great deal if consternation among the ones being "managed". Some have gone long term sick, some have left, some are nust being very vocal about what they see as unfair treatment. This causes issues in terms of workload and morale for the remaining staff, while cover/replacements are found.

There's a lot of discussion around the new manager and his behaviour. He seems to be fair and folllowing policy, it's just so different to what's gone before. Many staff were used to the old regime for 15 years +

Have you worked in an organisation that's gone through this? Does it come good in the end or is it not worth the pain?

Good for the new manager. It sounds as if it’s working and yes it’s worth it in the end.

And it’s public money being wasted if the lazy employees aren’t performing so completely appropriate that it’s being managed in a fair way and as per policy.

It's a long game, but ultimately worth it as long as the new management style is applied consistently.

The 80% of conscientious staff will be glad to be relieved of the piss-taking.

The 20% who are slacking will fall into a few groups - some will actually respond to this and turn themselves around (a bit like children being given much-needed boundaries). Some will vote with their feet and some will end up being 'managed out'.

I have worked through this but not in the public sector and although it was rough for a while, ultimately it was worth doing. Staff morale dropped while workloads increased as the dead wood was being shifted but increased as new hires were taken on and everyone was working to a fair set of rules. Before it seemed like if your face fit you were treated differently and some people got away with being off sick for 9 months in 12 and managed the sickness policy far better than their own workload. Personally I feel its much better to have one set of rules, everyone to follow them and things to feel fair

This type of overhaul often does need to happen in all organisations where people aren’t encouraged to move around / encouraged to sit in the same role for decades. But do be careful to keep this new manager on-side — what can start off as something that makes sense and is fair can often turn out to be a systematic way to hire more younger (and more flexible) staff in and manage out the older staff. That can be even more likely if your manager is young.

The manager might have instructions from those higher up in the structure. There are times when you can wait a bit, see how things are and then start to make changes. Perhaps there isn’t the luxury of time to do that.

I think short term pain for long term gain. A more efficient organisation must surely be more effective. And fairer.

Yes. I was hired once in a public service organisation to do exactly that - of my team of 12 only 2 original ones were there a year later, others choose to leave, move to other departments etc. By year 3 we were an award winning department and deemed the 'innovation hub' so got to try out all the new ways of working first.
So yes it can be painful in that first year, but worth it in the long run. Change is always uncomfortable.

Thank you . Yes, in terms of the individuals, my overwhelming feeling is "it's about time" but we're all on our knees dealing with the fallout and there are signs that we'll lose some of the good ones, either to other opportunities or ill health too. Good to hear it does work out, but we're more than a year in already, so it's going to take longer than yours Foxy, but then it's a much bigger team/organisation.

Sorry I meant Mclover

I have been the manager in that situation. It's incredibly stressful for all concerned, but in my situation, it needed to be done and it was definitely worth it in the long term. Some staff left and others upped their game. We managed to retain all of our best people.

If the manager seems reasonable, I don't think there would be any harm in raising your concerns about the impact on those who are having to pick up the slack. If you're able to offer some positive suggestions about how the impact could be mitigated, all the better. Ultimately, the manager will not want to lose good people.

I agree it sounds good long term, but it's probably worth raising in the short term - a good manager will be able to adapt and motivate.

Of course it’s worth it. At the very least, because it’s a public sector organisation and it’s our taxes being frittered.

However, the real reason for making these changes is to attract and retain good people. Anybody with any get up and go or sense of pride in their work will be annoyed at working with lazy malingering people and will move on as soon as possible. So the dead wood stays and becomes more concentrated, and eventually the organisation becomes completely ineffective.

I’ve worked with many, many of those people (ex public sector: I escaped as soon as I could) and I’ve seen good management and weak management. The weak managers want to be everybody’s friend and don’t want to rock the boat. The worst don’t want to stamp out bad practices because they themselves engage in them.

The good managers know that you have to go through short term pain for the good of the organisation and the decent people in it.

Probably the worst organisation for not tackling bad behaviour was the civil service, but the NHS were pretty bad at it too (back when I worked there...it might be different now). The number of people who wasted public money both through laziness, malingering, going to unnecessary meetings first class, wasting days writing submissions to argue for a higher, and unwarranted, Agenda for Change grade and fibbing to get lease cars when they didn’t qualify for one. All behaviour that a sensible manager would have stamped on. And yet, they were the same people moaning that they had to wait for surgery. They never saw the irony.