Performance Management and Managing Expectations

Case Study Critique: Performance Management

Introduction

In the United States, it is generally considered lawful for a public administration employee to be fired for poor performance. Public employees are employed at will, meaning that they can be terminated for any reason that is not illegal. Poor performance is not considered an illegal reason for termination, and thus public employees can be fired for this reason. There are some exceptions to this general rule, however. For example, public employees may not be fired for engaging in protected activities, such as whistleblowers. Additionally, public employees may have contractual protections against being fired for poor performance. However, these exceptions are relatively rare, and in most cases, it is considered lawful to fire a public administration employee for poor performance. One sensational case involving human resource management in public administration related to performance management is that of Linda Tripp, and it involves using poor performance as an excuse for termination but it also involves accusations of retaliation, whistleblowing, and cover-ups. It is therefore a good case study for understanding legal issues around how HR management should address performance management with public employees.

Facts

In 1998, Linda Tripp was fired from her job at the Pentagon. The reason for her firing was officially cited as poor performance, but many believe that she was actually retaliated against for her involvement in the Monica Lewinsky scandal (Hicks, 2014). Tripp had secretly recorded conversations with Lewinsky in which she detailed her affair with President Clinton, and these tapes played a major role in Clinton's impeachment proceedings. While Tripp's tapes were legal, her firing raised questions about whether she had been unlawfully retaliated against (Lee & Kleiner, 2011). However, a court ultimately ruled that Tripp was not protected by anti-retaliation laws, and she was not reinstated to her position at the Pentagon.

The Lewinsky affair began in November 1995, when Lewinsky, a 21-year-old White House intern, met 53-year-old President Clinton at a reception. Six months later, she was transferred to work as an aide in the Pentagon’s public affairs office. In 1996, Lewinsky confided in Pentagon co-worker Linda Tripp about her relationship with Clinton. The two women were recorded discussing the affair on 20 telephone calls made secretly by Tripp. When news of the tapes broke in 1998, Clinton denied having had "sexual relations" with Lewinsky. However, DNA evidence subsequently confirmed that Clinton had indeed had encounters with her. Following an investigation led by independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr, Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives in December 1998 on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. He was acquitted by the Senate in 1999. The consequences for Bill Clinton were his disbarment and being fined $25,000 for giving false testimony in relation to the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.

For Linda Tripp, she was given immunity from felony charges for taping phone conversations without permission; however still faced two lawsuits, one for invasion of privacy which was later settled, and defamation from Monica Lewinsky which was dismissed. She was also indicted in Maryland on two misdemeanor wire tapping charges; however these were later dropped. In terms of actual outcomes, President Bill Clintons’ reputation has been damaged as seen by him gaining the nickname “Slick Willy”— however he remained popular throughout his time as president and since leaving office his favorability rating reached its highest at 66%.

For Linda Tripp, she was widely vilified in both conservative and liberal media outlets with The New York Times describing her as a schemer, while others saw her as a whistleblower. From a human resources management perspective, the fact is that immense pressure was brought on HR managers to terminate Tripp for causing problems higher up the chain of authority.

Decision

At the time, Tripp was working as a civil servant at the Pentagon when she was approached by literary agent Lucianne Goldberg. Goldberg persuaded Tripp to secretly record conversations with her colleague, Monica Lewinsky, in order to provide evidence of an affair between Lewinsky and President Bill Clinton (Cloud & Barnes, 1998). Tripp provided tapes of these conversations to independent counsel Kenneth Starr, who was investigating Clinton. The release of the tapes caused a media sensation, and Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives. In the aftermath of the scandal, Tripp was fired from her job at the Pentagon. The reason given for her termination was that she had violated the Privacy Act by disclosing confidential information about Lewinsky. However, many people believe that Tripp was actually fired because she had become a public embarrassment to the Clinton administration. In short, her termination was directly tied to poor performance in terms of making waves for her employers (Muralidhar & Sarathy, 2009). Lawsuits followed and the spotlight grew increasingly large on all stakeholders involved in the affair. Ultimately, however, Tripp was not given her job back.

Solution

One way that human resources management could have better handled Linda Tripp's case in terms of performance management is by more effectively communicating the organization's expectations for employee behavior. For example, it would have been helpful to send a memo to all employees outlining the specific behaviors that are considered to be disruptive or inappropriate.

When it comes to performance management, clear and effective communication is essential. By communicating expectations early on, managers can set employees up for success and avoid misunderstandings or disappointment down the road. Furthermore, open communication can help to create a culture of transparency and mutual respect. When expectations are made explicit, employees are more likely to feel that their efforts are valued and that they have a stake in the company's success. In turn, this can lead to higher levels of engagement and motivation. Ultimately, clear communication is key to managing performance successfully.

In addition, human resources management should make it clear that any employee who engages in privacy-violating behavior will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. Tripp thought she was doing work related to whistleblowing, but not everyone agreed. There was no clear indication of really what was true or false at the time, or whether Tripp even had a valid reason or right to record Lewinsky. Whether it was in the public interest or not is still debatable.

However, one thing is clear: With the increasing use of technology in the workplace, employees are increasingly at risk of having their privacy invaded. When an employee's privacy is invaded, it can lead to a loss of trust and confidence in the company, as well as damage the company's reputation. In order to protect employees' privacy, companies should have clear policies in place that prohibit privacy-violating behavior. Any employee who violates these policies should be subject to disciplinary action. This would help to ensure that employees feel secure in their jobs and that their privacy is respected.

For Tripp, the problem was whether her behavior constituted poor performance by way of violation of a code of ethics, or whether she was doing the right thing by blowing the whistle. In recent years, there have been a number of high-profile cases in which an employee has been fired for drawing attention to unethical or illegal behavior within their organization (Lee & Kleiner, 2011). While some have argued that these employees were simply not performing up to par, others have argued that they were actually being punished for acting as good whistleblowers.

Whistleblowers play an essential role in keeping organizations honest and accountable, and they should not be punished for speaking out. Instead, they should be protected and supported. Only by creating a safe space for whistleblowers will we be able to encourage more people to come forward with information about wrongdoing. Had there been an avenue for Tripp in this manner, she might have avoided unnecessary allegations and termination.

Thus, it is important for HR management to establish a channel for reporting internally on issues. Human resources management is a critical function in any organization. Among other things, HR is responsible for ensuring that employees are treated fairly and that workplace policies are being followed. In order to effectively carry out these functions, it is important for HR management to establish a channel for reporting internally on issues. This way, employees can confidentially report concerns without fear of reprisal. Furthermore, HR can more easily identify patterns of behaviour that may indicate larger problems. Ultimately, by encouraging employees to speak up, HR can play a major role in creating a positive and productive workplace.