Discipline & Performance Problems Quick Tips

1. Never procrastinate with a performance problem. If you don’t address the issue when it arises, staff will question whether you are doing anything at all.

2. When talking to an employee about a problem, phrase your comments in terms of preventing the problem from recurring. Use the inappropriate performance as a jumping off point, indicate why it is problematic, and then quickly move on to preventing re-occurence. This moves the focus from blame to improvement.

3. Whenver possible, elicit the employee’s suggestions about how to prevent the problem from recurring. Put the responsibility for suggesting solutions with the employee. When possible, help the employee implement their solution.

4. Make it clear that your comments pertain to behaviour or performance, and not the person. Restrict your comments to particular instances of inappropriate performance and avoid inferring cause (lazy, uncaring, incompetent).

5. Remember that to improve problem performance it is often necessary to “drive out fear”. Some think that putting the fear of God into employees will spur them on to better performance. Fear is more likely to reduce performance, loyalty and effort.

6. If you never recognize effective performance, and do not praise those who perform well, you will not be effective in dealing with problem performance.

7. Above all, remember that even the best of employees will find a discussion about inappropriate performance to be unpleasant. Some will take it personally, some will not. Be prepared for some defensiveness, and do not rise to the bait. Stay in control of yourself, and the situation.

Leadership Secrets – The Responsive Manager/Leader

The Responsiveness Paradigm outlined elsewhere in this newsletter is applicable at a number of levels. For example, it applies to organizations in general, and the ability of the organization to respond to the needs of customers, staff and other stakeholders (eg. politicians, etc). It applies to non-supervisory staff, and their ability to respond to the needs of their managers, customers and co-workers. This month we are going to look at responsiveness as it applied to managers, leaders and/or supervisors.

Influence Of The Responsive Manager

The responsive manager tends to succeed by building bonds of respect and trust with those around him/her. Staff respond positively to responsive managers; they work more diligently, work to help the manager and the organization succeed, and will go the extra mile when necessary. That is because responsive managers act consistent with the principle that their jobs are to help their staff do their jobs. So, a basic inter-dependence emerges based on behaviours that show concern, respect and trust.

Responsive managers also influence those above them in the hierarchy. Because responsive managers have the ability to read and act upon the needs of their “bosses”, they are perceived as helpful and reliable, or in a simple way, very useful. This allows them to get the “ear” of people above them in the system, and further helps get things done when needed.

Contrast this with the limited influence of the UNresponsive manager. The unresponsive manager is restricted in influence because those around him/her do not respect or trust them to look out for their welfare. Influence is more limited to the use of power coming from the formal position, and fear, a motivational component that is hard to sustain over time. Unresponsive managers tend to be perceived as self-interested, or at best uninterested in the needs of those around them. They also tend to be perceived by those above them as less reliable and less useful due to their focus on empire building, organization protection, and self-interest, rather than getting done what needs to be done.
How Do They Do It?

Responsive managers apply a number of specific skills and abilities to the task (as outlined generally in The Responsiveness Paradigm article). Above all, they appear to be “withit”. Withitness

has a number of components. First withit managers are able to put aside their concerns to listen to (and appear to listen to) those around them. As a result, they know what is going on, and know what is both said, and said between the lines. They have the knack of appearing to know what people need even if those needs are not expressed directly.

However, knowing what is going on, and identifying the needs of those around them is not sufficient. The responsive manager also acts upon that knowledge, attempting to help fulfil the needs of employees, superiors, etc. Responsive managers wield influence to solve problems for those around them, often before even being asked.

Here’s an example:

I was responsible for automating an office system in a government department. As happens sometimes, the Management Information Systems people were not keen on our going our own way on the project, despite the fact that they had indicated they could not do it for us in the near future. As a result their cooperation (needed for the project) was patchy. As team leader, I faced a number of roadblocks, despite the fact that our Assistant Deputy Minister wanted to see this project come to fruition. I regularly reported back to our Director, outlining progress and roadblocks. Every time I communicated roadblocks to the Director, they were removed within a short time, despite the fact that I did not request direct action. In addition, the Director advised and counselled me on how to deal with the “systems people” so I could have maximum impact. Despite the roadblocks, the project was completed on time and was very successful, much to the chagrin of some of the systems people, who I think were hoping we would fail.

This is a simple story, but one full of meaning. In this situation the Director was able to identify the project leader’s needs with respect to the project, listening carefully, and identifying actions she could take to “smooth the path”. Not only was the Director able to remove obstacles and fulfil the need of the project leader, but the Director responded on a deeper level, helping to teach the Project Leader methods of becoming more effective, fulfilling yet another need. All of this was assumed to be the proper role of the Director, and was done without expressing all of the needs specifically or explicitly.

We can contrast this with the unresponsiveness of the MIS people. They lectured, they fussed, they predicted dire consequences, rather than offering consistent, responsive help. They focused not on responding to the needs of their clients, but on some other factors having to do with control, and their own needs. Eventually, their lack of responsiveness resulted in the very thing they did not want; loss of control of the project. As a result of this project their overall status in the organization suffered, simply because at both an organization and individual level they were seen as barriers, rather than useful.

Let’s look at one more example.

An employee had been working for a government branch for about a year, having moved to the city as a new resident. In a casual conversation, the supervisor noted that the employee wasn’t looking at his best, and asked how he was feeling. The employee explained that he hadn’t been feeling well lately, and sounded very tired and overwhelmed. The supervisor determined that the staff member didn’t have a local family doctor, asked if he would like the supervisor to arrange an appointment, and proceeded to do so immediately. The problem turned out to be a minor one.

In this example we see again the ideas of “withitness” and responsiveness. The supervisor was able to identify that the staff member was in need of some help, despite the fact that the staff member did not state this explicitly. Note that the supervisor didn’t pressure the staff member to go to the doctor, but identified needs, checked them out, and then acted upon them. In this case, help consisted of direct, helpful action.

Conclusion

These two examples are the stuff of loyalty and commitment. They are remembered years and years after the fact, and continue to extend the influence of managers. In this sense responsiveness is a critical component of management success, because it allows managers and supervisors to get things done, for the benefit of all players.

In the limited space we have, we have attempted to give you a feel of what responsiveness means. You might want to extend your own understanding by considering some of the following questions.

1. If you are a manager or supervisor, how can you modify your own behaviours so that you become and are perceived as more responsive by a) your staff, b) your boss and c) your customers?

2. Again, if you are a manager or supervisor what is your definition of the “responsive employee”? Can you identify your “favourite employees”, and consider how they are responsive to you? Our bet is you will find that your most valued employees are responsive.

3. If you are non-management, what would you need to do to be perceived as more responsive by the people around you?

Success File – Know Your Role. How ‘Bout Their Roles?

It seems pretty obvious that employees need to know what their own jobs require — their roles, responsibilities and authority levels. We don’t expect people to do their jobs effectively if they don’t know what they are supposed to be doing. However, one area that people tend to ignore is how well employees understand what OTHER PEOPLE DO in their organizations. Why might that be important?

Recently, I was doing some training in customer service and defusing hostile customers for a fairly large organization. A constant theme kept emerging (and it’s quite common). A customer would call in with some sort of difficulty or problem, and the person answering the phone would transfer the caller to someone else. Unfortunately, the next person taking the call was not the right person, or was unavailable, leaving the customer to leave voice mail, or once again, get shuffled to someone else. Often the frustrated customer would end up calling the first person back to holler at them.

How does this happen? Are employees stupid? Or perhaps can’t be bothered? Probably not. They simply lack the information they need to provide good quality customer service to callers. And what’s the outcome? First, angry customers. Second, stress and frustration on the part of staff caught in this shuffle. Third, some terrible inefficiencies for the organization itself, which impacts the bottom line.

The problem is that we don’t educate staff in the “bigger picture”. In this case, that bigger picture relates to what other people do, their various expertise, and the relationship of other employee’s jobs to each other. Before we talk about specific “fixes”, consider this.

It’s very rare that employees work is independent of the work of other people in their workplaces. These days, getting jobs done has become more complicated, where the ability to get something accomplished often involves cooperation with others, or some degree of teamwork. Customer service aside, workplaces where people understand their own jobs and the jobs of others (like how the whole puzzle fits together) are going to be more effective and more productive.

Helping People Understand The Larger Puzzle

New employees should be oriented and educated not just about their own jobs, but about what other people do, and who to talk to when faces with different kinds of situations. They need to know who has decision-making power, and who has expertise they may need. That’s far more important than knowing where the washrooms are (well, that’s debatable!).

Workplaces are constantly changing. Responsibilities change, and so do job roles. Management should take an active role in keeping employees up to date about changes that affect not only their own jobs, but the jobs and roles of others. This is even more important in team based and project based environments. Regular staff meetings can be used to do this in an ongoing way, and need not be time intensive. Often, staff updates can take only a very few minutes.

Here’s the most important part. And this applies to every employee. Employees tend to hesitate about asking too many questions, for fear of looking stupid or being perceived as a nuisance. They rely on the human resources department or their supervisor to tell them what they need to know. Unfortunately, supervisors don’t always know what employees need to know, or haven’t thought about it, and they can’t read minds. So, it’s important that employees take on responsibility for their own understanding of what other people do. Employees! Listen up! ASK! You can’t do your job well if you don’t know your own role and what other people do. You can’t do your job if you don’t know where to refer a customer with a particular problem.

Let’s end this by listing some things that people should know:

* Who has authority to make decisions about specific issues (which people, which issues)?
* Where does the expertise lie to deal with particular issues?
* What procedures should be used to involve people who need to be involved in a particular issue?
* When a particular person who needs to be involved is unavailable, is there a backup procedure (someone else to contact)?

The nice part about all this is that it isn’t rocket science, but it is neglected. Human resources, managers and employees can all take responsibility and make sure that employees know and understand their own job responsibilities and roles, and those of others who fit into the completed “puzzle” of getting things done effectively and efficiently.