Leading, appraising and caring for the team

1Objectives and performance

• SMART objectives linked to the work plan, set jointly at the start of the year or contract.
• Regular one-to-one meetings (for example every two weeks): progress, difficulties, support needed.
• Constructive feedback: describe a specific fact, its effect, and what is expected ("The report arrived three days late and the donor noticed; for the next one, send me a draft on the 25th.").
• A written annual appraisal with no surprises: it summarises what has been said during the year.
• Development plan: training, support missions, new responsibilities.

2Conflicts, discipline and grievances

• Conflict between colleagues: listen to each party separately, focus on facts and interests, seek agreement, document.
• Disciplinary procedure: in line with the HR manual and local law: established facts, a hearing where the person can explain themselves (with a companion if the law provides for it), a proportionate and progressive sanction (verbal warning, written warning, then further steps), a written decision.
• Gross misconduct (fraud, harassment, sexual exploitation or abuse): reporting through dedicated channels and investigation by trained people; the manager does not investigate alone.
• Grievances and whistleblowers: confidential channels known to everyone, protection against retaliation.

3Well-being and duty of care

• The organisation has a duty of care towards its staff: security, health, insurance, reasonable workload, psychological support.
• Signs of burnout to look out for: persistent fatigue, irritability, withdrawal, unusual mistakes, increased alcohol consumption.
• Measures: leave actually taken, limited working hours, rest and recuperation (R&R) in difficult contexts, confidential psychosocial support, debriefing after a critical incident.
• National staff, often themselves affected by the crisis, must have access to the same support.

Remote management: very clear objectives and responsibilities, regular check-ins by phone or video, trust and autonomy, shared tools, particular attention to isolation.

4The performance management cycle: complete method and tools

In many humanitarian organisations, performance management boils down to an annual form filled in hastily, often after the supervisor has left or at the end of the contract. That form then has no value, neither for the employee, nor for the renewal decision, nor in the event of litigation. A functioning performance system rests on a short cycle, written objectives, regular conversations and light but continuous documentation.

The four stages of the cycle

1. Objective setting (within 30 days of arrival or the start of the year): 4 to 6 results objectives drawn from the project work plan, plus 2 to 3 behavioural or development objectives. Each objective has an indicator, a target and a deadline. The document is signed by both parties.
2. Ongoing follow-up: a 30- to 45-minute one-to-one meeting every two weeks (or every week for a new employee or in an emergency), with three constant questions: where are you with your objectives? what is blocking you? what do you need from me? A one-line record is enough.
3. Mid-term review (at 6 months, or at mid-contract for a short contract): written review, adjustment of objectives if the context has changed (loss of access, revised budget).
4. Final appraisal: employee self-assessment, supervisor's assessment, meeting, employee's comments, validation by the supervisor's own manager (second-level manager), development plan.

Writing objectives that are genuinely useful

A rating scale that discriminates

Five-level scales where almost everyone gets a "4" add nothing. A four-level scale, defined by observable behaviours, is more robust:

• 1, unsatisfactory: most objectives not achieved, with no external factor sufficient to explain it; an improvement plan is needed.
• 2, developing: some objectives achieved; visible progress; targeted support to be planned.
• 3, fully satisfactory: objectives achieved, behaviours in line with expectations. This is the expected rating for the majority of the team.
• 4, exceptional: objectives exceeded and a contribution beyond the role, with specific examples.

In a team of more than 15 people, a calibration session between supervisors makes it possible to compare ratings and to avoid the same level of performance being rated 2 by a demanding supervisor and 4 by another.

Day-to-day feedback

The fact, effect, expectation method presented in the basic course is complemented by three rules: give feedback within 48 hours; in private for corrective feedback, in public for recognition if the person is comfortable with it; and ask for the person's version before drawing conclusions. A frequently cited ratio is to give considerably more positive feedback than corrective feedback: the point is not to flatter, but to make good behaviours visible so that they are repeated.

A final appraisal should contain no surprises. If the rating is unsatisfactory, the employee must have learned so during the year, with dated facts, and must have received support. Otherwise, the appraisal will be challenged, and rightly so.

5Worked example: a performance improvement plan for a monitoring officer

Fictional context: Mr Daouda, monitoring and evaluation officer for 14 months in the Kéla office of the NGO "Horizons Partagés", was well rated in his first appraisal. For the past four months, monthly reports have been arriving late (by 6 to 12 days), two dashboards sent to the donor contained calculation errors, and he has missed three coordination meetings without notice. His manager, Ms Ilunga, project coordinator, has already given him verbal feedback twice.

Step 1: distinguish performance from conduct

The delays and errors are a matter of performance (insufficient capacity or resources). The unreported absences are a matter of conduct (breach of a rule). Ms Ilunga chooses to address performance first through an improvement plan and to restate the attendance rule in writing, without any sanction at this stage, since no prior warning has been given.

Step 2: prepare the meeting

• Dated facts: dates on which the reports were received, precise nature of the errors (coverage rate calculated on the wrong reference population), dates of the missed meetings.
• Open questions: "What has changed in recent months?", "What makes the deadlines difficult to meet?", "What would you need?".
• Prior consultation with HR on the procedure set out in the country HR manual: duration of an improvement plan (here 60 days), possibility of being accompanied.

Step 3: the meeting

Mr Daouda explains that his workload has increased with the addition of a second project (he now covers two donors, without any revision of his job description) and that his father is ill, which requires him to travel frequently. Ms Ilunga acknowledges the organisational share of the problem. She maintains the quality requirement, but adapts the resources.

Step 4: the written plan

The plan specifies the follow-up points (every two weeks), the fact that it is not a sanction, and what will happen if the results are not achieved: continuation under the procedure for managing unsatisfactory performance set out in the HR manual. Mr Daouda adds his comments and signs.

Step 5: follow-up and outcome

The plan succeeded because it addressed the causes (unrecognised overload, personal situation) as much as the symptoms, and because the manager accepted that the organisation bore part of the problem. An improvement plan designed as a preliminary step to dismissal almost always fails, and employees know it.

Had the objectives not been achieved despite the support, the next step would have been a procedure for unsatisfactory performance: formal meeting, reasoned decision (change of position, non-renewal or, if local law allows, dismissal), with all the documents of the plan on file.

6Internal complaints, conflicts and disciplinary procedure: the mechanics step by step

Three distinct channels coexist and must not be confused: the employee's grievance when they consider they have been treated unfairly; the disciplinary procedure when the organisation holds the employee responsible for a breach; and the reporting of serious misconduct (sexual exploitation and abuse, harassment, fraud, corruption), which triggers an investigation by trained people. Each has its own steps, time limits and safeguards.

The employee's grievance

1. Informal stage: discussion with the direct supervisor, or with HR if the supervisor is involved.
2. Written grievance addressed to HR, which acknowledges receipt within a short time (for example 3 working days).
3. Meeting with the employee, who may be accompanied by a colleague or a staff representative, within a set time limit (for example 10 working days).
4. Reasoned written decision.
5. Appeal to a higher level that did not take part in the first decision.

Mediating a conflict between colleagues

Mediation is suitable for interpersonal conflicts without serious misconduct. It is never suitable in cases of sexual harassment, violence or a significant power imbalance, where it would expose the victim. Process: separate interviews (facts, feelings, interests); a joint meeting with ground rules for speaking; search for concrete and verifiable agreements (division of tasks, way of communicating); written agreement; follow-up at 30 days.

The disciplinary procedure

A progressive scale of sanctions

For gross misconduct, progression does not apply: a single proven case of sexual exploitation justifies termination of the contract. But procedural safeguards always apply. A dismissal that is justified on the merits but procedurally irregular will often be overturned or compensated by the courts.

The manager's exact role when faced with a serious allegation

• They receive the information, protect the person reporting, do not promise absolute confidentiality but explain who will be informed.
• They pass it on immediately to the PSEA focal point, HR or the investigation unit as per the policy, within the set time limit (often 24 hours).
• They do not investigate, do not question the person implicated, do not confront the parties, and do not collect witness statements themselves.
• They may propose precautionary measures (temporary change of assignment, suspension on full pay if the policy provides for it), decided by senior management.
• They refer the alleged victim to assistance (medical, psychosocial, legal), with their consent.

7Duty of care and wellbeing: a complete system, from recruitment to departure

Duty of care is both a moral and a legal obligation. The judgment handed down in 2015 by the Oslo District Court in Dennis v. Norwegian Refugee Council, following the kidnapping of staff members in Dadaab in 2012, made clear that an organisation can be held liable for gross negligence if it has not reasonably assessed and mitigated foreseeable risks. Data from the Aid Worker Security Database (Humanitarian Outcomes) also show, year after year, that the great majority of aid workers killed, injured or kidnapped are national staff: a protection system designed primarily for international staff is therefore poorly targeted.

The eight principles of the Antares Foundation

The Antares Foundation's Managing Stress in Humanitarian Workers: Guidelines for Good Practice organise support around eight principles, which provide a useful structure for the system:

1. A written policy on preventing and managing stress.
2. Screening and assessment of candidates' capacity to cope with the stress of the position, during recruitment.
3. Appropriate preparation and training before taking up the post.
4. Ongoing monitoring of employees' stress levels.
5. Ongoing support: supervision, reasonable workload, team culture.
6. Specific support after a critical incident.
7. Support at the end of assignment or contract.
8. Support after the assignment, including for national staff after the end of the project, as far as possible.

The practical system, stage by stage

Mandatory single-session psychological debriefing, long practised after incidents, is no longer recommended: the IASC guidelines on mental health and psychosocial support and WHO recommendations advocate instead psychological first aid, attention to practical needs and referral to specialised care for those who need it.

Spotting and acting: a tool for supervisors

National staff: equitable treatment

National staff often experience the crisis personally (displaced families, losses, community pressures) and have no "going home" at the end of a rotation. The equity points to check: access to the same health and accident insurance, including for dependants according to the policy; inclusion in security and relocation plans, which raises the question of relocating families; access to psychosocial support in the employee's language; consideration of specific identity-related risks in certain areas.

8Managing remotely, in deteriorating security and with partners

In many crises, managers no longer physically see their team for weeks or months: restricted access, movements limited for security reasons, international staff based in a capital or a neighbouring country, local partners implementing on their own. Remote management is not a degraded version of regular management: it is a management mode in its own right, with its own tools and risks, in particular risk transfer to national staff and partners.

The rules of remote management that works

1. Clarify delegation in writing: who decides what on the ground (suspending an activity for security reasons, small expenses, responding to a complaint), and what must be escalated. A delegation of authority matrix is essential.
2. A fixed communication rhythm: weekly individual call with each team leader, weekly team meeting, daily security check-in if the context requires it. The rhythm does not stop when everything is going well.
3. Verifiable evidence of activity: time-stamped and geolocated photos when it is safe, signed lists, verification calls to a sample of participants by an independent team, third-party monitoring reports. These arrangements are presented to the team as a protection of its credibility, not as a sign of mistrust.
4. Visits whenever possible, even short ones, and team meetings in a safe location at least once a quarter.
5. Particular attention to isolation and workload: the team on the ground absorbs community, security and administrative pressures. Wellbeing indicators are monitored as closely as activity indicators.
6. Equity of risk: if international staff cannot go to an area, the organisation must ask itself whether the risk is acceptable for national staff, and what it is doing to reduce it (training, equipment, insurance, procedures, the right to withdraw without sanction).

Delegation matrix: example

Managing a multicultural team with mixed statuses

• Differences in status (national, international, refugee, daily worker, staff seconded from a partner) are visible and sometimes perceived as unfair. The manager explains the rules, applies the same conduct requirements to everyone and ensures that national staff's views are taken into account in decisions.
• Cultural norms influence how disagreement or a problem is expressed. In many contexts, an employee will not contradict their supervisor in a meeting: so create one-to-one spaces, ask open questions and explicitly thank those who raise a problem.
• The working language sometimes excludes part of the team. Essential information (security, code of conduct, complaints procedures) is available in the team's languages.

Managing a partner's staff

A partner organisation's staff are not under the line authority of the lead organisation. Expectations are conveyed through the partnership agreement (code of conduct, PSEA, security, reporting) and through support to the partner's HR functions. Localisation commitments, such as those of the Charter for Change and the Grand Bargain, also call for funding overhead costs, insurance and security for partner staff, rather than transferring risk to them without the corresponding resources.

9Common mistakes, variations by context, interview questions and references

Common mistakes

What donors, auditors and evaluators look at

• The proportion of appraisals completed and signed on time, and the consistency between appraisals and renewal decisions.
• Registers of internal complaints and disciplinary procedures (anonymised), processing times and follow-up given.
• Safeguarding, whistleblowing and protection-from-retaliation policies, and evidence that they are known (training, posters, surveys).
• The duty of care system: insurance for all staff, security plans, psychosocial support, R&R policy.
• Staff turnover and absenteeism rates, which often reveal a management problem before any other indicator.

Variations by context

• Sudden-onset emergency: simplified 30-day objectives, weekly 15-minute one-to-one meetings, strict team rotation to prevent burnout in the first weeks, attention to national staff who are themselves affected by the disaster.
• Protracted crisis: chronic wear and tear, a sense of futility, high turnover; development plans, internal mobility, recognition, regular review of working hours.
• Camp: blurred lines between professional and private life, community pressure on staff from the camp, increased risk of conflicts of interest in distributions.
• Urban settings: dispersed teams, long commuting times, specific crime-related risks; adjusted working hours.
• High insecurity: right to withdraw without sanction, hibernation and relocation procedures that include national staff, post-incident support.
• Low-capacity partners: support to set up disciplinary and grievance procedures compliant with local law, training for managers, funding of an HR position.

Interview questions

Key references

• Antares Foundation, Managing Stress in Humanitarian Workers: Guidelines for Good Practice, 3rd edition (2012).
• Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC), Guidelines on Mental Health and Psychosocial Support in Emergency Settings (2007).
• World Health Organization, War Trauma Foundation and World Vision International, Psychological First Aid: Guide for Field Workers (2011).
• CHS Alliance, Guidelines for Investigations (2015) and resources on handling internal complaints.
• Global Interagency Security Forum (GISF, formerly EISF), publications on duty of care and NGO security risk management.
• Humanitarian Outcomes, Aid Worker Security Report and Aid Worker Security Database.
• International Labour Organization, Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 (No. 158) and Violence and Harassment Convention, 2019 (No. 190).
• CHS Alliance, Groupe URD and Sphere Project, Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability, 2024 edition.
• Labour code of the country of operation and the organisation's country HR manual.