Capability & Performance Management Procedure

This procedures describes Animal Think Tank's standard response in the case of a member performing below acceptable standards in a role. Alternatively, if a member is suspected to have violated the Member Agreement or otherwise engaged in misconduct, please refer to the disciplinary procedure.

If a member feels the process is not being followed, or is producing unfair treatment, they may refer to the grievance procedure.

Context

The relationship between role-filler and Circle Lead is central to this procedure. The following expandable sections provide additional context to this relationship.

Additional context: responsibilities of the role-filler

In line with the Constitution S1.2, a role-filler is expected to: sense and process tensions; process the Purpose & accountabilities of their role into projects and next-actions; track those projects and next-actions; break down projects into next-actions; and execute those next-actions. They are also expected to follow the Rules of Cooperation outlined in the Constitution S2, which in summary say that: they have a duty of transparency; they have a duty to process messages and requests sent to them by others in the organisation; they have a duty to prioritise their focus in a way that benefits the organisation; and they have a duty to abide by relational agreements they commit to.

These responsibilities sum up to an ethic of both personal empowerment and responsibility. Practically, the role-filler is expected to “be the CEO of their role,” sensing what’s needed to achieve the role’s purpose. They track the work they take on. They prioritise what they pay attention to in a way that benefits the organisation. When required, they collaborate with and support others so that their individual and collective tensions are dealt with. They speak up when things aren’t going to plan, and work out a new plan with those affected. They communicate if we aren’t able to attend a meeting we had agreed to attend. They do our best.

Additional context: authorities of the Circle Lead

In Holacracy, if a member is performing poorly, any other member whose role is affected may respond by providing feedback. Therefore it is not only up to the Circle Lead to resolve performance issues. However, the Circle Lead has a unique set of authorities.

To be clear, Circle Leads are not typical “people managers”. They are not there to solve a member's problems or tell them what to do. Instead, their role in performance management is to safeguard the circle's purpose, and this typically involves: (a) defining the accountabilities needed to achieve the circle's purpose; (b) allocating those accountabilities into roles; (c) assigning people to (and removing people from) those roles; (d) judging what work should be prioritised; and (e) judging whether the quality and timeliness of work is appropriate for achieving the Circle’s purpose.

Through all steps of the procedure, People Operations is available to guide members in using it.

In addition, a member has a right to be accompanied by a fellow member or trade union representative to any meeting which may result in a warning, role removal or membership revocation, or an appeal meeting.

Step 1: Circle Lead uses operational tools

If a Circle Lead is dissatisfied with a role-filler's performance in a role, they must initially try to improve performance using the appropriate operational tools:

• Ask questions. Start a conversation to deepen understanding.

• Give input. Make suggestions to the role-filler about what to do and/or how to do it.

• Request a project. This creates specificity about the outcome the role-filler is to achieve.

• Issue a prioritisation. This requires the role-filler to prioritise the relevant outcome over other things.

If there is no satisfactory change within 2 weeks, the Circle Lead must proceed to step 2, and may do so earlier if they wish.

Step 2: Circle Lead engages in informal dialogue and explores reasonable adjustments

The Circle Lead must clarify their expectations, offer coaching to help the role-filler reach the required standard, and monitor whether performance becomes satisfactory. In some circumstances, the guidelines in the Informal Conflict Transformation Procedure may be useful.

In addition, the Circle Lead must explore if there reasonable adjustments that can be made within the circle to improve performance - such as altering the work or providing training. Where relevant, the Circle Lead must also consult with People Operations on whether reasonable adjustments can be made which are outside the circle's remit - such as changes to working hours. Reasonable adjustments must be made if they would help improve the role-filler's performance. Reasonable adjustments are a requirement if they would ensure that a member with a disability, physical or mental health condition is not substantially disadvantaged when performing their role.

The Circle Lead is advised to email the member a summary of any feedback and dialogue exchanged.

If there is no satisfactory change within a maximum of 4 weeks, the Circle Lead must proceed to step 3, and may do so earlier if they wish.

Step 3: Circle Lead consults People Operations

If step 2 does not resolve the issue, the Circle Lead must consult People Operations, who will help them decide whether to remain at the previous step or escalate to the next step. People Operations must document a summary of this conversation.

Step 4: Circle Lead provides a first warning to the role-filler

In writing, the Circle Lead must warn the role-filler that if their performance doesn't improve, they could be removed from the role; that the warning will be recorded, but disregarded after a period of satisfactory performance (to be decided by the Circle Lead, e.g. 3 months); and that if there is no sustained satisfactory improvement or change, a final written warning may be considered. The Circle Lead must state explicitly the standard of performance that they would deem an acceptable improvement. In the same communication, the Circle Lead must also (a) restate an offer for more support, potentially including weekly accountability check-ins; and (b) inform the role-filler they may engage People Operations for additional coaching. The written communication must also be sent to People Operations.

If the role-filler's poor performance is sufficiently serious, for example because it is having, or is likely to have, serious harmful effect on the organisation, it may be justifiable to move directly to a final written warning.

Step 5: Circle Lead provides a final warning to the role-filler

If there is no improvement in standards, the Circle Lead must provide the role-filler with a final written warning that if there is no satisfactory improvement within a time period specified by the Circle Lead, the Circle Lead will consider removing the member from the role. This written communication must also be sent to People & Operations.

Step 6: People Operations consults Resourcer

If the Circle Lead wishes to remove the role-filler from the role, before proceeding, People Operations must consult the Resourcer role to determine whether to follow Step 7A or 7B.

Either Step 7A or 7B may be followed if removing a member from a role will leave them still holding other roles in the organisation, with their pay unaffected.

Only Step 7B may be followed if removing a member from a role will leave them without a role in the organisation (and therefore result in membership expiry) or reduce their pay.

Step 7A: Role Removal where member will still hold other roles in the organisation, with pay unaffected

The Circle Lead must inform the member in writing that they are removing them from the role, and specify the date on which the removal is effective. This written communication must also be sent to People Operations.

Step 7B: Role Removal where member will be left without a role in the organisation (and therefore will lose their membership) or with reduced pay

The Circle Lead must inform People Operations in writing that they intend to remove the member from the role, and that the member will be left without a role or with reduced pay.

People Operations must then consult with Resourcer and the affected member on whether there are other roles the member could be redeployed to which would allow them to have their pay unaffected. If yes, People Operations must see if the member can be offered the relevant roles.

If no, People Operations must first check that: (a) there is a fair reason for dismissal; and (b) the organisation acted reasonably throughout the process up to this point. If both (a) and (b) are satisfied, People Operations must inform the member in writing that their Circle Lead is removing them from the role, specify the date on which the removal is effective (by which point any handover must be complete), and specify the notice period (i.e. the date on which the member's membership will expire).

If the member is unhappy with the decision to be removed from the role and they wish to appeal they must notify People Operations. They will be invited to an appeal meeting, normally within five working days, and their appeal will be heard by a panel consisting of at least two Core Members appointed by People Operations. Where possible, for the purposes of fairness, the panel will be independent from those directly involved in the initial decision. The member has the right to be accompanied by a fellow member or trade union representative at this meeting if they make a reasonable request. After the meeting the panel will give them a decision, normally within 24 hours. The panel's decision is final.