Time-strapped managers wear several different hats over the course of a busy work day. With all of these responsibilities, it’s no wonder some tasks slide to the back burner. 

But documentation is a task that has to be a priority every single day.

Truth is, in today’s lawsuit-happy world, most court cases are won — or lost — based on the thoroughness of documentation.

Here are seven common documentation mistakes — and the fixes:

1. Not outlining company expectations. When documenting, supervisors should describe specific expectations so employees understand exactly what’s required of them. When the company’s expectations are recorded on paper, the employee knows exactly what was expected. And, if the company finds itself in court, good documentation provides evidence that backs up business decisions.
2. Failing to state specific changes employees need to make. A solid paper trail outlines the conduct that needs to change. The best documentation focuses on the behavior rather than the person. Give detailed examples, so employees understand exactly what’s not working.
3. Skipping the employee’s story. Of course, there are always two sides to a story. And good documentation records both the supervisor’s side as well as workers’ perspectives on the situation. First of all, including employees’ reactions may open up the lines of communication and solve a problem. And second, if you do end up in court, comprehensive documentation shows the judge that the manager made a good-faith effort to correct the problem.
4. Not outlining the plan. Effective documentation is a blueprint, which maps out specific goals — and how employees are going to get there. For instance, if workers need to increase productivity, good documentation lists the specific steps employees should take to meet production goals.
5. Forgetting to list possible consequences if improvements aren’t made. A solid paper trail lists the possible consequences if employees fail to make necessary improvements. For example, employees may be disciplined, demoted or terminated. One caveat: Don’t paint yourself into a corner by using absolute language — use “may” rather than “will” when listing consequences.
6. Failing to establish a time frame. When creating a time line for improvement, managers should use a realistic time period. If the documentation lists an exact time frame — such as a 30-day performance improvement plan — then it must be followed.
7. Not following up on documentation. Often overlooked, follow-up is a crucial part of documentation. Savvy managers use follow-up sessions to gauge progress, offer feedback and make further recommendations for continued improvement.

Her story:

The tough message came down from upper management: We were in a dogfight with our competition, and every part of our operation – including performance reviews – had better contribute to improving our operation.

Our performance-review process had been pretty much by-the-book: once a year, with a raise determined by the rating in the review.

It was clear, however, that the reviews weren’t leading to improvement. We decided that cosmetic changes weren’t going to work. We had to take some bold steps. How bold? How about dumping annual reviews altogether? We did that – and more.

Shorter is better
When we made the decision to get rid of annual reviews, we knew we had to find a results-oriented system to replace it.

Our answer: monthly reviews.

We didn’t call them that; the new name was “monthly goals evaluation.” Yes, monthly. That gave us quicker and better information on when we needed to change and make improvements in any part of our operation.

OK, so we knew how often we were going to do appraisals and why we were doing them that often. But we also had to figure out what to appraise and how to measure it.

Measurement matters
When we analyzed our performance standards under the old system, we realized most of the standards were just too soft – there was little or no way to measure improvement or dropoff. We needed numbers – hard, realistic numbers.

That’s what we told all our supervisors. They:

• had to come up with monthly numerical goals for each employee, and
• involve each employee in setting those numbers, so no one would feel as if the goals were dictated.

One more thing we told them: No one will suffer for not making a numerical goal. Instead, we’ll look at why the goal wasn’t met and what we need to do to meet it. Then we’ll determine raises based on overall progress during the year.

The results
Did it work? Well, after a year under the new system, we increased revenues and surpassed our original goals for profitability.

Further, we didn’t have to lay off anyone. We found our increased productivity allowed us to do more with fewer people, meaning we were able to use attrition to cut employment.

And now, monthly goal evaluations seem as natural to us as the sun rising every day, rather than some big change.

Elizabeth Duffrin, Reno, NV

The scene
Supervisor Sam White pointed at his wristwatch and said, “Do you see what time it is?”

HR manager Janice Rossi replied, “I’ve got exactly 9:43.”

“Then that makes Jerry Casale exactly 43 minutes late for my meeting with him,” Sam said while shaking his head. “He’s nowhere to be found and he hasn’t called.”

Janice recalled the number of times she and Sam had spoken to Jerry about his problems with arriving late, leaving early and taking long lunches. Apparently, the talks hadn’t changed anything.

‘Jerry’s Rules’
“Let me ask something, Sam,” Janice said. “Is Jerry still one of your top performers?”

“Not one of the top,” Sam answered. “More like the top.”

“So we still have the problem of high performance but lousy attendance?” Janice followed up.

“That’s right,” Sam said. “Jerry absolutely refuses to respond to anything we’ve done to try to change his behavior.”

“But his performance is still top notch, right?” Janice concluded. “So, can you put up with his downsides?”

“Probably,” Sam nodded, “but I’m getting a lot of grief from other people who complain to me about ‘Jerry’s Rules’ and the rules for everyone else.”

“Sam, you have the green light to do whatever’s necessary,” Janice noted.

“That’s the problem,” Sam said. “I don’t know what to do.”

If you were Janice, how would you respond?

Denise Nasulli, HR manager, Hamden, CT
What Denise would do: I say you go by the book on this one and use whatever discipline you’d use with any other employee. Usually, that means going through some sort of progressive discipline and counseling, but if none of that works, you have to consider terminating the employee.
Reason: If you’re going to have rules and keep them, then you have to insist that everyone follows them, no matter what the performance level is. To do otherwise is just asking for a lot of trouble when dealing with employees in general.

Thomas Petersen, HR manager, Anchorage, AK
What Thomas would do: If it’s possible, I’d make punctuality a performance issue. In other words, it would be one of the performance measures we’d use for Jerry. If he couldn’t meet the standards we set up, it would affect his raises and eligibility for promotion. If he can live with those penalties for his behavior, then so be it.
Reason: The majority of employees have something about them that could stand improvement, and often those shortcomings can be addressed by using performance criteria. I’m not saying you’re always able to change people, but it does let them know you have a system of rewards and penalties.

Patrick Willings, executive director, Greensboro, NC
What Patrick would do: You have to go through all the normal counseling and disciplinary procedures, but in my experience there’s a low success rate at changing people like this. That means his manager has to make a decision early on: Is he worth the trouble? Or should he be subject to termination? Then you back that decision.
Reason: It all comes down to a judgment call of weighing the positives against the negatives, and living with your decision.

Question:
Our performance-appraisal system is based on “doesn’t meet,”  ”meets” or “exceeds” expectations criteria. We’re thinking of switching to a 1-10 scale that supervisors can use to rate employees.

Any thoughts on whether one system is better than the other?

Answer:
From the standpoint of being able to legally defend an appraisal, the doesn’t meet/meets/exceeds system is generally better. So says James Loots, a labor-relations attorney. But of course you have to have specific criteria on which to base the rating, meaning you have to define what productivity or quality criteria are used for each term.

The problem with a 1-10 scale is that one supervisor may give an employee a “5,” for instance, and another a “6″ but be unable to explain why or may be using shades of difference that depend on “feel” rather than measurable markers.

In that case, you could have a legal problem if the person with the lower score is a minority or pregnant or falls into some other bias-prone category.

Question:
Our CEO wants me, the HR manager, to sit in every time a supervisor gives an employee a below-standards performance appraisal. I would serve only as a witness for what’s said – such as agreements about problems and ways to improve.

What do you think about the idea? Should this be an HR function?

Answer
Not a bad idea, answers Jonathan Segal, an employment-law attorney with the firm of Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen.

Maybe, however, you won’t want to limit participation to only the bad reviews. Just sitting in on the bad reviews makes HR look like the Grim Reaper, who only shows up for bad times (such as terminations or disciplinary actions). That’s why you may want to consider sitting in on all reviews. Of course, there are only so many hours in the day, and HR can only do so much, but being at the good reviews, too, would prevent a negative image of HR.

The scene
“Let me sum things up before we take the next step,” said HR manager Martha Ruiz. “You’ve agreed we’re going to have to let Ronnie Jenkins go for poor performance over the last year.”

“Uh, I guess so,” replied sales manager Reese Downs.

“You guess so?” Martha repeated. “That wasn’t the way you put it last Friday when you walked in here and demanded we get rid of Ronnie.”

“I know,” Reese admitted. “Ronnie really isn’t capable of doing the job, and I’ve as much as told him so, with probation and warnings. Heck, I don’t even know what possessed me to hire him in the first place.”

“So …” Martha prodded.

“You know about Ronnie’s daughter, right?” Reese asked. “The one that got sick several months ago?”

“Of course,” Martha answered. “I know it’s been rough on him, but you’ve treated him right about it.”

What will they think?
“I’ve given him all the days off he needed to be at the hospital with her,” Reese noted. “And I never say a word when he spends all that time on the phone with the doctors and his wife.”

“Let me guess,” Martha broke in. “You’re worried that everyone here will think you fired Ronnie because he’s been distracted by his daughter’s illness.”

“You hit the nail on the head,” Reese nodded. “His performance was always awful, but how can I fire him now?”

If you were Martha, how would you answer?

Gary Lane, President, Cutler, MA
What Gary would do: If he’s not doing the job, you have to let him go. As for dealing with what the other employees think, after the firing, I’d hold small meetings – with a few employees at a time – to explain what happened and why, while respecting the fired employee’s privacy as much as possible.
Reason: Chances are, the other employees know about his performance problems, so telling them that the termination was performance-related shouldn’t come as any great shock or be met with skepticism.

Carol Knabe, HR manager, LaCrosse, WI
What Carol would do: Of course, you have to follow through on the termination, but this might be a time when you want to consider a generous severance package, if possible. I’d give Ronnie the straight truth and tell him we’re using the severance package to make allowances for his family’s situation.
Reason: You want to do the right thing by the employee and the right thing by the company. If you feel OK about that, then you can live with your decision.

John Hunter, manager, Amherst, MA
What John would do: Ronnie has to be let go. In this case, though, you’d probably want to take some special steps, such as paying for out-placement services or some other assistance in finding another job.
Reason: All you can do is be as humane as possible, and hope that Ronnie understands and respects the decision. My guess is that without your saying anything, word will get around in the company about how you tried to help the employee. If you’ve dealt fairly with employees in the past, you shouldn’t have that much trouble with fallout.

The “Trophy Kids” in the title refers to the fact that this new generation is the one doted on by parents, teachers and coaches — to the point that every one of the kids got a trophy, no matter how well or how poorly they performed. The result: high self-esteem, even when coupled with poor performance.

The book’s author, Ron Alsop, illustrates the problem in his own write-up in the Wall Street Journal.

Alsop tells the tale of a consultant who, while coaching a group of college kids for workplace interviews, asked the students to provide one word that showed how they believed employers viewed them. The consultant gave them a hint: The word began with “e.”

They responded: “excellent,” “energetic,” “enthusiastic.” And they were crushed and surprised when the consultant gave them the answer: “entitled.”

The story shows that, unfortunately, not only does this generation think they’re wonderful, but they’re also surprised that everyone else doesn’t feel the same way.

But enough with busting on the Millenials. The book also has some practical advice for HR and other managers who’ll have to deal with youngsters — and their expectations:

• They crave continual positive reinforcement. It’s not that you can’t tell them when they’ve dropped the ball, and not every part of every performance appraisal has to be glowing. But don’t forget the positives, too. And try not to save the pat on the back until appraisal time. If warranted, praise them monthly, weekly and, yes, even daily.
• They need to be taught about the link between independence and responsibility. Millenials want to be independent, but they’ve received a lot of hand-holding in life, so they may not understand there’s a responsibility that goes with independence. If you’re giving them a deadline, you have to make it clear they’re responsible for meeting it, and you won’t be reminding them of their oligation. You can’t explain too much about their responsibilities.
• Explain the purpose of run-of-the-mill, basic tasks. There’s a feeling among the kids that routine stuff isn’t necessary stuff. Straighten them out by explaining. For instance: “Bob can’t make his deliveries until you sort the products by color coding.” Or: “You have to master this part of the operation before you can move on to something more complicated and challenging.”
• Listen to their opinions, and give them feedback. You know you can’t just adopt every youngster’s hot, new idea. They don’t know that. At the least, take the time to listen to what they have to say, thank them for it and let them know what’s possible and what’s not.

And what do you get for all that? Well, loyalty wouldn’t be on that list. These folks see no problem with hopping around from job to job, and many have the safety net of being able to move back in with Mom and Dad in case things don’t work out.

And how will you survive? Just keep telling yourself: Just about all of us had our turn at being young and full of ourselves. It just happens to be someone else’s turn now.  

Her story:

Our system of noncash rewards and incentives was getting flat and dull. People just didn’t seem motivated by what we were offering, and when someone got a performance award, there was a clear ho-hum attitude.

Of course, to light a fire, we got a little creative: dinner for two at a nice restaurant, theater tickets, a day for the family at a local theme park. Still, no one seemed excited about getting an incentive.

Was it only cash that would do the trick?

Turns out, our problem wasn’t the incentives; we just had to do a better job of matching incentives with people.

What’s your favorite?
We did that in two ways:
1. When people came on board with us, we had them fill out a form listing their interests and likes – opera, auto racing, coin collecting, whatever.
2. We had current employees fill out the same form, too.

Then, when it came time to give employees a noncash award, we just looked at their lists and chose something compatible with their interests.

What a difference. Now, people actually strive for and look forward to getting the awards. And we wonder why we didn’t use this system years ago.

(Kristina Davis, HR officer, Waynesboro, MS)

1. One company whose CEO used to give $200 spot bonuses for outstanding performance decided to ditch the bonuses. Instead, the company rents a fancy sports car for a week and hands the high performer the keys.

2. The employees of another company get three coins every three months. The employees present the coins to co-workers who helped them above and beyond the norm. Recipients can redeem the coins for prizes. The approach makes for happy employees and a great work atmosphere.

3. At a third company, employees get to grade their managers on a “report card” three times a year — giving them an ‘A,’ ‘B,’ ’C’ and so on for communication, accountability, quality and professionalism. The grades are partly used to determine managers’ raises. 

The facts: 
Citing an employee’s low performance and lack of cooperation, a supervisor fired the employee. The firing came about 60 days after the employee filed a complaint with government officials stating that the company engaged in practices that presented a health and safety hazard to employees. An investigation showed the complaint to be without validity; there were no safety violations. The employee still filed a lawsuit claiming that the firing was done so because of the safety complaint.

The employer said:
The decision to fire the employee was based strictly on performance and behavior. Besides, there could be no retaliation claim because the complaint was without merit and didn’t result in any penalities for the employer.

Who won the case? 

Answer: The employee. A judge refused the employer’s request to dismiss the case and sent it to trial, meaning a likely costly settlement for the employer or hefty legal fees.

Why:

The judge said the firing indeed looked suspicious, coming on the heels of a complaint about a safety violation. And when it looks suspicious, it goes to trial.

What about the fact that the complaint ended up being nothing more than that – a complaint – and the company had committed no violation?

Doesn’t matter, the judge explained. The employee doesn’t have to prove the validity of his complaint to show there was retaliation. He complained, and he got fired. Let a jury decide if one and one equal two.

One more thing, the judge noted: Safety complaints involve matters of “public policy” since possible violations affect more than just the single employee. As such, those complaints – even more than others – fall under special legal protections.

When an employee complains about something as serious as safety and then gets fired, your managers have to be certain to have the right documentation.

There’s not much you can do to stop an employee who’s bent on suing, but you can prepare a good defense.

Cite: Kohrt v. MidAmerican Energy Co.