Underperformance is poison for the work community and the employer

I have never been a big fan of team sports. Not as a bench athlete following the sport, but even less as someone who has played a variety of sports. Of course, certain team sports have their own charms, such as hockey, but for me it's the individual sports that are the thing. Whether it's athletics, martial arts or, say, winter sports.

In English, there's a saying "there's no I in team", which underlines the essence of team sports, working together and moving forward as a team. In a perfect world, there is no place for solo play in this context. As great as that idea sounds, the truth is different. In every team, whether it's sport or work, there are always those few stars who rise above the rest. The stars who score points and get results while others make it possible for those stars to shine.

At the same time as we talk about team play and everyone contributing equally, we also talk about how the chain is only as strong as its weakest link. This brings us to why I have never been enthusiastic about team sports. Unlike in individual sports, where everyone has to compete alone against others, in team sports the underperformer or even the underachiever can hide behind the performance of others. Of course, this can never go on indefinitely, as it is inevitable that underperformers will not be relegated to the bench. This is true in the workplace too. There are many similarities between team sports and working life, and therefore both of the above sayings apply to both sport and working life.

On 9 May, Helsingin Sanomat reported that the government is considering a change in the law that would make underperformance by employees a possible reason for dismissal. A couple of weeks after the news (21 May), HS published a reader's opinion asking a pertinent question: how is underperformance defined?

Without trivialising underperformance, I think it is easy to define. Every team has goals they want to strive for and achieve. The goals achieved by a team depend on the fulfilment of the goals set for each individual. If an individual consistently falls short of the targets set for him or her and does not add value to the community, he or she becomes a burden to the employer and the weakest link in the chain. Of course, remember that not everything always goes like in the movies, so the margin for human failure must be kept in mind. We all have our ups and downs, but how long does an entrepreneur have to watch an employee underperform?

From an entrepreneur's perspective, using underperformance as a reason for dismissal does not sound out of the blue. However, the entrepreneur bears the financial risk of a possible fall in his company's fortunes, so it is reasonable that he should also have the option of terminating a non-performing employment relationship in such cases. Yes, entrepreneurship has its risks, but risk management is also part of entrepreneurship. No entrepreneur has an obligation to keep on the payroll an employee who does not contribute to the success of the business.

I was left wondering about underperformance. The rhetoric on the subject is very employee-centric. Perhaps because - up to a point - employees have the potential to underperform. An entrepreneur, especially a sole proprietor, cannot afford such a luxury. The game is brutal in Ranua. Anyone who has been an entrepreneur knows this. That is why I would like to hear more from small entrepreneurs, so that their voices can be heard. Because without the entrepreneurs, the star players of the team who score the points, many of the underachievers in the wildcat chain would be out of a job right now.  

Workers have - up to a point - the possibility of underperforming. An entrepreneur, especially a sole trader, cannot afford such a luxury.

Pastor