Ignoring a staff person’s poor performance creates problems that affect more than that person’s work. It often has a negative effect on staff morale.
Many organizations reluctantly retain poor performers. If you stop to realize how many of your resources are consumed by dealing with a troubled employee, you’ll likely raise your hiring standards.
In the long run, it’s best to deal quickly and directly with poor performance. After all, by failing to do so, you’re sending the message that poor work is acceptable, and that may be a great disservice to the poor performer.
For guidance on whether you’re addressing the problem, candidly answer the following questions:
Does your staff know what is expected of them on a monthly basis?
Do you have a way to monitor individual performance?
Does your compensation system encourage and reward performance?
It is an opportunity for a more efficient working relationship. Everyone can have a bad day once. Over time they will have a better time. You must look at the issue that required a second chance. If the issue is minor then given them a second chance and you'll be more efficient with your working relationship.
The few time I have gone the "second chance" route it has resulted in a mess bigger than the one that inspired the decision the first time.
A decision to terminate a relationship (employee, contractor, vendor, etc.) is usually driven by a pattern of behavior. People can change with conscious concerted effort, but the "natural" state (poor sales, a hot-headed emotional response, etc.) is going to eventually return in times of stress.
A last thought: Think beyond your and the employee/contractor to who else is impacted. If you have a crummy sales rep you are letting your customers down by giving that rep another chance. Put your effort into finding someone that amazes them and is a better partner to you.
It's all about Attitude and Aptitude....you can enhance aptitude and they have to fix attitude.
Just make sure you are not confusing "communication and work styles" with incompetency or personality clash. If it is either one then I would cut the cord. If not (and only you can be the judge of that) then you have an opportunity for a more efficient work relationship.
I learnt an important lesson from a former manager many years ago. After an incident involving a contractor who had 'breached' its contract I was all for termination of the contract. My manager called the MD of the contractor in for a meeting and his first words were " Lets begin with a simple question, do you want this relationship to work? If we both answer yes then lets work on an acceptable solution to both parties. If the answer is no from either of us, then lets draw up an exit strategy." I have used this approach many times since and it work well as it uses honesty and partnership to determine the appropriate answer to the problem and avoids wasting time and money.
Early in my business, I gave second chances because I felt it was a learning opportunity for me to learn how to manage people better. I cannot sincerely think of one situation where giving a second chance worked out well. It's an employee's/ contractor's job to learn the work culture/communication style and adapt accordingly. My spidey senses tell me your time is probably better spent finding another person or solution.
Totally dependent on what went wrong the first time.
If a small "mental error and core behavior is and has always been good it can lead to an opportunity for a more efficient relationship.
Depends on what happened during the first chance.Figure out why they want to return.
Expect repeat performance. Over time, the offending act may repeat.
Yes! Depending on the circumstances. It is usually a communication break down that involves all parties that started the problem in the first place.
I have had positive results in using the same contractors after a so called "Issue"
I think this really depends on the infraction. If this is miscommunication, you might be just as much as fault. Poor communication rarely comes from just one side. Even if this person doesn't work out, it would be a good indication to formalize your process and communication structure.
If the problem is attitude with internal staff, you may have more of an issue. Again, this is really tough to give advice on without having some idea of what we are talking about. A moderate infraction to you may be a mild one to someone else or vice versa.
First question I ask....is there an integrity issue? If so...adios. If not, I will sit down and have a professional conversation with the person. As far as being "trainable", I don't understand fully what this means, but if you mean can you change him/her what are the benefits for taking on a responsibility that is not yours?