Definition

In an APC context, improving HR performance means taking deliberate, structured action to enhance the contribution of individuals and teams within a surveying firm. It covers performance diagnosis, targeted development, motivational interventions and, where necessary, formal performance management under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures. Effective improvement starts with understanding the root cause rather than assuming any performance issue reflects individual motivation or capability alone.

Why this matters for Diversity, Inclusion and Teamworking

  • Level 1 knowledge: you must describe at least three methods for improving HR performance and link each to a surveying example.
  • Managing underperformance is a common challenge assessors explore at Level 2 and Level 3 — candidates need a clear, structured approach.
  • Performance interventions applied inconsistently across different demographic groups expose firms to discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010.
  • Motivation theory — particularly Herzberg and Maslow — provides a framework for diagnosing why performance has declined and which intervention is most likely to address it.
  • Improving team performance links directly to client service quality — a Rule 2 (competence) obligation for RICS members.

Key principles

Diagnosing the root cause

Performance improvement begins with diagnosis, not prescription. The most common causes fall into three categories: capability (lacks knowledge or skill), motivation (has capability but is not applying it) and environment (working conditions or management style prevent effective performance). Each requires a different intervention: training for capability, motivational interventions for engagement, and structural change for environmental problems. Applying a performance improvement plan to an environmental problem is both ineffective and potentially unfair.

Motivational and capability interventions

Where the root cause is motivational, Herzberg's two-factor theory provides a useful diagnostic: check hygiene factors (salary, conditions, security) first, then examine motivators (responsibility, recognition, advancement). For capability gaps, a structured development plan aligned with APC competency requirements, with measurable milestones, a review date and methods such as coaching, mentoring or directed study, is the appropriate response. The goal is to build capability in a supported, time-bounded way, not to penalise the absence of knowledge the individual was never given.

Structural interventions and monitoring

Sometimes performance problems reflect structural factors: unclear role boundaries, poor tools or a blame culture that suppresses initiative. These require role redesign, process improvement or a change in management approach, not a personal performance process. Leaders who monitor climate indicators (participation, output quality, turnover) can intervene early before problems escalate to formal proceedings or regulatory concern.

Relevant RICS guidance and legislation

  • ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures — sets the procedural framework for formal performance management.
  • Employment Rights Act 1996 — governs unfair dismissal and minimum standards for fair dismissal on capability or conduct grounds.
  • Equality Act 2010 — performance management must be applied consistently and must not disadvantage employees with protected characteristics.
  • RICS Rules of Conduct (effective 2 February 2022) — Rule 2 (competence) requires managers to handle performance issues with appropriate skill.

Ethics and Rules of Conduct angle

Rule 4 (respect) requires that performance management is conducted with dignity, not as a punitive exercise. Rule 2 (competence) requires managers to apply HR techniques effectively. Where a performance issue is connected to a protected characteristic, for example a disability affecting output, the reasonable adjustment duty under the Equality Act 2010 must be considered before any formal process begins.

APC-style Q&As

Q (Level 1)Name three methods for improving HR performance in a surveying team.

Structured training and development to address capability gaps; coaching or mentoring to support skill-building in context; and redesigning roles or workloads to remove structural barriers to effective performance.

Q (Level 1)What is the difference between a capability problem and a motivation problem?

A capability problem exists when the individual lacks the knowledge or skill to perform required tasks. A motivation problem exists when capability is present but not being applied, typically because engagement, recognition or reward is insufficient. Capability issues require training and development; motivation issues require changes to goal-setting, recognition, responsibility or the work environment.

Q (Level 2)How would you use Herzberg's two-factor theory to improve the performance of a disengaged graduate surveyor?

I would first check the hygiene factors: salary, working conditions, job security. If adequate, I would focus on motivators: reviewing whether the graduate's work is sufficiently challenging, whether contributions are recognised explicitly, and whether there is a clear pathway to chartership. I would agree a stretch goal for the next quarter, for example leading a measured survey independently, and schedule monthly one-to-ones to review progress and maintain engagement.

Q (Level 2)Describe a situation where you identified and addressed a performance issue in your team.

(example) A mid-level surveyor was consistently missing report deadlines. Rather than assuming motivation, I held a structured conversation and discovered the report template had recently changed without any guidance, adding two to three hours per report. I arranged a training session, paired her with a senior colleague for her next two reports and adjusted her workload for four weeks. Her deadline adherence returned to her previous standard within three weeks.

Q (Level 3)A team member's performance has declined for three months following a bereavement. They are missing deadlines and report quality has dropped. How do you manage this?

(example) I would not treat this as a conventional performance issue. I would arrange a private, supportive conversation to check on wellbeing without pressure to discuss work, and signpost the Employee Assistance Programme and occupational health. I would agree a short-term adjusted workload and extend deadlines in discussion with the project team. If the decline continued beyond a reasonable recovery period I would involve HR to explore whether a phased return to full duties was appropriate, applying the Equality Act 2010 reasonable adjustment duty if a mental health condition had developed. I would not initiate any formal performance process until all reasonable support had been provided and any disability dimension fully considered.