First, read this from the Ask a Manager blog:

HR won't let us hold people accountable for performance

I just read your column about accountability and got aggravated because one of my long-standing frustrations as a manager at the large, government affiliated nonprofit where I work has been a lack of commitment to accountability. In my department, I try and, I think, mostly succeed at following your advice about talking explicitly about expectations, giving feedback, etc. – but then I come up against a lack of ability to ensure that actions have consequences – good or bad – at the institutional level.

For example, every employee is evaluated using the same performance appraisal template, which asks questions like whether the person is “courteous,” then spits out a score. If you have a score of at least 60 out of 100, you keep truckin' along. The problem is that everyone on my staff is responsible for making 25 teapots a year. If someone shows up sober most of the time and doesn't swear at anyone, but they only make 21 teapots, my hands are tied. On the other end of the spectrum, everyone gets the same salary increase, so those people making 42 teapots don't see any tangible reward for going above and beyond.

So I was excited when we got new leadership this year that requested a plan for providing rewards and consequences for meeting or failing to meet the 25 teapot goal. I'm happy with the plan I developed and it was endorsed by our leadership. Then it went to HR and fell into a black hole. For months, I have been following up and told they were reviewing the plan and would get back to me. Finally, I ambushed the person I've been trying to talk to and she told me that the problem they're hung up on is the consequences for failing to reach goals. Essentially, if someone fails to meet the 25 teapot goal (and this is after I have met with everyone regularly throughout the year about their progress and provided them with as much guidance and support as I'm able), I want to give them six months to improve their performance or be let go. HR asserts that the proposal “changes the terms of employment.” I don' t understand this because the job is “teapot maker” and the job description explicitly states they're responsible for making 25 teapots a year.

Instead of just tearing my hair out, though, I want to try to move this thing forward. I see a glimmer of opportunity because the HR director hasn't outright told me it's impossible. I'd rather the next step not be whining to the boss – in part because HR doesn't seem very impressed that our top leadership wants this to happen. How do I proceed?

And now for the (quite appropriate) response:

Alison@Ask a Manager: Your HR department sucks, and your organization's management sucks for allowing HR to suck (although it sounds like that might be changing with your new leadership). And really — “changes the terms of employment”? Have these HR people ever held a job outside this organization and seen that, in fact, you can indeed hold people to performance standards?

I'd talk to your new leadership directly if you can — the ones who want this to change. Tell them you're having trouble getting HR to move forward with it, say you feel hamstrung in taking action on low performers, and ask for advice in getting HR to move on it. [Source]

————————————————————————————

Please don’t do this

HR has to stop doing, and allowing, things like this. It seems like it's a weekly occurrence where someone writes to Alison (Alison Green is the superstar behind Ask a Manager) with a problem that is being caused by someone in human resources.

Look, I get it. HR is like any profession—we're going to have people that just aren't great at this stuff. But my sincere hope with this post is to help some of you guys see the AWFUL people practices that some organizations use and help you avoid them. For goodness sake, please steer clear of anything resembling this madness.

It’s no wonder that so many leaders, managers, and staff don’t respect HR when things like this are occurring.