The Rest of the Story

Last March we posted three reasons for not interrupting. Click here to see that post.

Today we'll add another reason to that list. When an issue is sensitive, touchy, delicate, troublesome, you-name-it; when a speaker really finds it difficult to talk about something because they don't want to hurt or offend you; when the speaker is trying to "talk around" a situation to avoid self-incrimination, blame for the problem, or justification for you to be unhappy with them; or for any other of a number of reasons; sometimes a speaker will hold back on telling you the "complete truth" or the "whole story."

In those cases the speaker tends to be very happy to let you interrupt. If they are lucky you may even divert the conversation away from the difficult topic or situation. Indeed, many children know that quickly confessing to a small offense may get Mom or Dad ranting and raving to such an extent that a bigger offense stays hidden in the background. Some employees know the same can be true with a boss.

When you are in one of these "delicate situations," and especially where you are looking at a counseling or disciplinary situation, it's best to let the speaker have their full say. Don't interrupt. But also avoid responding as soon as the speaker is finished. This is a great time to utilize an oft-times underutilized communication technique called silence.

People get uncomfortable with silence. If you try to not respond for just 30 seconds or so, you may find the speaker continues on. And as a great man often said "you just might hear the rest of the story!"

Gosh I miss Paul Harvey. Don't you?

About me: Dan Pelley teaches communication skills as part of his "Leadership Skills" program, one of five programs leading to a Certificate in Supervisory Management. Click here to learn more about our programs for supervisors.

Copyright © 2009 Daniel W. Pelley
All rights reserved.

They Called You a What?

Yesterday's post looked at some of the issues associated with the ways millennials communicate. Texting. Twitter. Facebook. You may want to read that post first.

As part of the source conversation for yesterday's post, someone mentioned that the nature of fast-paced texting could result in people making caustic or derogatory remarks to others, statements that they probably wouldn't make face to face or on the telephone. Interesting comment. But wasn't the same thing said about e-mail? Too impersonal. Encouraged sharp words. Caustic remarks. Things we wouldn't normally say in person or over the telephone.

I don't see this as a "millennial" issue. I see this as a policy issue regarding standards of proper conduct at work. If one employee were to make an offensive verbal remark to another employee and the employee complained about it, we would expect the supervisor to deal with the issue. Indeed, if the supervisor heard the offensive verbal remark we would expect the supervisor to deal with it even if the recipient didn't complain about it.

In a similar fashion, if one employee sends an offensive memo or e-mail to another employee (whether or not the recipient complains about it), if the supervisor is aware of it and it violates the company policies, standards or norms regarding workplace behavior we expect the supervisor to deal with it.

Is texting any different? "Oh yes," I was told, "the company has no record of the offensive comment because it's on the employee's personal communication device." Well that may be. But if the recipient is truly offended, then the recipient should be willing to show the message to her or his supervisor. And if the recipient wasn't offended enough to report the offensive text message, then I wonder if we really have an issue in the first place.

About Pelleyblog. This blog covers topics of interest to managers, particularly those at the first-line supervisor level. Topics include handling difficult employees, leadership, counseling, coaching, discipline, problem solving, lean thinking, motivation and time management. We welcome your comments on this post.

Copyright © 2009 Daniel W. Pelley
All rights reserved.

Discipline - A Lesson to be Learned

The purpose of discipline to resolve an issue, correct a problem and/or to turn a bad situation around. If done properly it should be a positive experience, done in such a way that the employee understands that we want them to be successful and we have confidence in their ability to benefit from a lesson to be learned. That's the essence of today's blog post written by L'deniece Whitfield, HR Assistant Manager at Sheffield Labs in New London, CT. L'deniece lives in Stonington and attends our supervision series at Quinebaug Valley Community College in Danielson. Her article is reprinted with permission.

"I work with individuals from all walks of life; i.e., cultural and racial differences. Our Filling department is made up of immigrants (legal of course), low income families, individuals who are trying to lead a better life, etc. A lot of them have low self esteem and feel it's all they can do and no better. When faced with disciplinary action, I take the time out to explain the whys. Depending on the nature of defiance, I will go over company policy, the SOP or even an explanation of mere principle. It is very important for me to convey to the employee that this is not a death sentence; and will go away on its anniversary date; as some of the employees take disciplinary action very hard and become emotional and even sometimes irate.

"Step by step, I ensure them that the action is a warning and a lesson to be learned; I explain how important it is to be mindful of the little things when assigned to a task; explaining that the action is a mere bump in the road and that the warning is a way to make them more aware and conscientious. Furthermore, I also take the time to listen to them explain what happened and usually why they feel they should not be reprimanded. I then encourage them to explain in writing what their motives were and why they feel they should not incur this warning to be placed in their file. These suggestions have always been helpful; as it makes the employee feel that they matter and that they are not just another 'body.'

"I go on to share with the employee how much they matter and how well they are doing. I focus on their positive and not so much on what it is I want them to change or how non compliant they are. I tell them to keep up the good work, to find the time to re-test so that they can be considered for a higher paying position, etc. I will also make sure that the employee understands the reason for the warning and/or suspension prior to their departure from my office. The positive benefit by this trait is that the employee leaves my office with confidence and understanding and on two separate occasions the employee apologized to their supervisors. I was happy about that!"

Thanks very much for the insights L'deniece.

About Pelleyblog: We are striving to be a communication device for managers where many people can share their thoughts, ideas, opinions, perspectives and points-of-view. We focus on topics of interest to supervisors, group leaders, foremen, department managers, project managers, team leaders, assistant managers, associate managers, office managers, nurse managers, crew leaders, unit managers, and other first-line managers. But managers at all levels, and people interested in management topics are welcome and are encouraged to join us both as readers and participants.

Copyright © 2009 Daniel W. Pelley
All rights reserved.

Cut the Baloney

Yesterday's post dealt with a difficult employee who was an uncooperative insubordinate poor performer. It's amazing to me how I continue to hear such stories in this dismal economy with its severe unemployment. I have difficulty understanding why any company accepts such behavior. Especially since so many good people wish they had a job.

Now is the time to cut the baloney. Weed out the poor performers. The attitude problems. The people who do the minimum to get by. The people who are here just for the paycheck. People who are uncooperative. Insubordinate. Who just don't care. There's simply no logical reason to tolerate such behavior in this labor market.

Oh I know. You have to have cause. And you have to follow the counseling and disciplinary procedures in your company. You have to make your case and make it stick. But if you have truly difficult people who can't be turned around, salvaged and saved then you should already be working the process and making your case. If you've procrastinated and haven't started yet, then shame on you.

About me: Before becoming a full time educator, my career experiences included being vice president of a consulting firm, vice president - finance of a publishing company, vice president - sales support services for a manufacturing company and vice president - operations for a distribution company. As a full time educator working principally in Rhode Island (RI), Connecticut (CT) and Massachusetts (MA). I am pleased to share my experiences and business philosophies with managers at all levels.

Copyright © 2009 Daniel W. Pelley
All rights reserved.

Thoughts on Criticism

Criticism should always be constructive. And since it's often associated with discipline, criticism is usually best done in private.

When giving criticism you should always believe that it is necessary and warranted under the circumstances; i.e., that the criticism was justified. But never criticize from a self-righteous perspective. Be humane and show some empathy when you give criticism. When criticizing others it helps to bear in mind that you make mistakes too.

In preparing a strategy for giving constructive criticism you might want to reflect on how you were given criticism of your mistakes. Can you think of times when you experienced good solid constructive criticisms that allowed you to maintain self-esteem while learning from your mistakes? If so, what can you adopt from that approach? Can you think of times when you experienced nasty criticism that lowered your self-esteem while escalating your defensiveness? How can you make sure you avoid that approach?

About Pelleyblog. This blog covers topics of interest to managers, particularly those at the first-line supervisor level. Topics include handling difficult employees, leadership, counseling, coaching, problem solving, lean thinking, motivation and time management. We welcome your comments on this post.

Copyright © 2009 Daniel W. Pelley
All rights reserved.

Alternate Methodologies

Yesterday's post dealt with the matter of style versus substance when it comes to disciplining an employee who doesn't do the job the boss's way (has a different style) but does deliver the job in a way that meets the boss's performance parameters (achieves the job substance). You may want to read that post first.

Some people argue that there may be very good reasons for doing a job a certain way, reasons that go far beyond a boss's preference. Reasons such as standard operating procedures, company rules and guidelines, industry accepted best practices, and "customer approved" procedures. Certainly those are good and valid reasons for doing a job a certain way. But if an employee has found a methodology that meets all job requirements in terms of quality, productivity and other relevant measures then perhaps it is time to take another look at those procedures, rules, guidelines, best practices, and customer requirements.

Recognize that alternate methodologies can be found in many highly structured and strictly regulated environments. Indeed, both the ISO and QS systems for procedure control allow for alternate methodologies as long as those methodologies were properly qualified under the applicable ISO or QS system. Indeed, GAAP (generally accepted accounting practices) which regulate and control financial reporting practices allow for alternate methodologies in such areas as a LIFO to FIFO inventory conversion, and in converting accrual basis bookkeeping to cash basis reporting. And, if the customer agrees, even "customer approved" procedures can be changed to accept alternate methodologies.

Alternate methodologies allow employees the freedom to do the job the way the employees want to do the job, provided that the employees do follow an approved alternate methodology. When employees get to do the work the way they like to do it, chances are you may end up with even better than standard performance and quality.

About me: Before becoming a full time educator, my career experiences included being vice president of a consulting firm, vice president - finance of a publishing company, vice president - sales support services for a manufacturing company and vice president - operations for a distribution company. As a full time educator working principally in Rhode Island (RI), Connecticut (CT) and Massachusetts (MA), I am pleased to have an opportunity to share my experiences and business philosophies with managers at all levels.

Copyright © 2009 Daniel W. Pelley
All rights reserved.

Much Ado About a Vacuum Hose

As a teenager, two people generally worked on my car. When I could afford it, I would pay Tupper at the local garage. When I couldn't afford it, my Uncle Mel usually pitched in. Each had a different idea of how a vacuum line should be routed to the carburetor. Whenever one opened the hood to do anything, if that line wasn't routed the way they did it last time, they would complain and re-route it with a pointed comment such as "who the hell moved that line?" I kept my mouth closed while I rolled my eyes.

Later, when I was in college and really had no money, Mike would also work on the car from time to time, along with Mel and occasionally Tupper. Wouldn't you know it? Mike had a third way of routing that vacuum line. Now I had three complainers to ignore.

The silly thing was that it didn't matter how the vacuum line was routed. It only mattered that it was connected at both ends and wasn't kinked, pinched or perforated. The actual routing was simply mechanic's preference.

Here we have a lesson in style vs substance. Style is how someone goes about doing the work. Substance is the end result of that work effort. As managers we often don't like it when an employee does a job differently than the way we would do it. So we counsel and discipline the employee to do it our way. After all, we understand our way and we know it works. Yet if the employee's style (approach to the work) gets the same substance (in terms of end result or performance) then perhaps we should reconsider forcing them to do it our way. If forced to do it our way, the employee may become resentful, rebellious, uncooperative or less productive. After all, if their style produces the same result, what's the problem? Just imagine what would happen if one of the three mechanics was the boss of the other two, and constantly got on their case to route the vacuum line the boss's way even if that meant having to re-do the routing job.

About me: Dan Pelley examines the question of style versus substance as it applies to both making work assignments and effective discipline as part of his "Leadership Skills" program, one of five programs leading to a Certificate in Supervisory Management. 137 companies in Connecticut (CT), Rhode Island (RI), Massachusetts (MA) and New York (NY) have one or more people who earned this certificate.

Copyright © 2009 Daniel W. Pelley
All rights reserved.

Dealing With Personalities

Sometimes in dealing with employees, we encounter issues of personality. It may be a personality trait or characteristic that we simply don't like. Or it may be a personality trait or characteristic that other people (such as co-workers) don't like and thus complain to you. Should this be included in a formal or informal performance review? Does it warrant counseling or even stronger disciplinary measures?

Here's the key question to consider: "Does the personality trait impact the department, or does it simply annoy you?" If the personality trait impacts the department, then consider this: "Is it truly disruptive to performance and/or offensive to others, or are others intolerant because they don't happen to like the person?"

Generally speaking (and it is hard to be general about this), personality issues should only be dealt with when the result is a very definite work related performance issue or when a reasonable third party would conclude that the behavior, trait or characteristic is offensive and not acceptable in the workplace.

It's a fine line and there's no perfect answers. For example, do they simply lack good manners (probably not an issue) or are they rude to others (probably an issue)? Do they mumble to themselves when working alone and others complain "that's weird" (probably not an issue) or do they have a loud voice that disrupts the thought process and conversations of others (probably an issue)?

If it's a department performance issue, you'll need to deal with it by way of a performance review and/or disciplinary measures. If its a simple annoyance you'll have to decide how much effort you want to put into attempting to get them to change their behavior weighed against the idea the the co-workers and you will just have to accept it, live with it, overlook it, get over it and move on remembering that each us probably have our own little annoying quirks as well.


About me: Dan Pelley is an educator specializing in management training and development programs for supervisors and other first-line managers in Connecticut (CT), Massachusetts (MA) and Rhode Island (RI). The issue recited is often raised by participants in his "Effective Performance Appraisals" and "Handling the Difficult Employee" seminars. These programs can be presented in-house at your company. Contact us to learn more.

Copyright © 2009 Daniel W. Pelley
All rights reserved.

A Gang of Accusers

A group leader heard rumors of an employee taking extra breaks. The group leader believed a counseling session was in order "since the rumors had come from many co-workers, and therefore it was not worth arguing over whether they were accurate."

I cautioned the group leader of the possible false assumption. The fact that accusations come from many co-workers does not guarantee that the accusations are correct. Certainly the possibility of co-workers ganging up on someone is not unheard of. Even more possible is the idea of rumors started by employees who do not have all the facts, with those rumors then being adopted and spread by other employees.

Although rumors or accusations are useful for alerting a manager to a possible issue, they alone should never be the basis for a disciplinary action. Instead, the manager needs to independently investigate to determine the facts of the matter and then to administer discipline as warranted by the facts of the matter, not the rumors.

About Pelleyblog. This blog covers topics of interest to managers, particularly those at the first-line supervisor level. Topics include discipline, leadership, counseling, coaching, problem solving, lean thinking, motivation and time management. We welcome your comments on this post.

Copyright © 2009 Daniel W. Pelley
All rights reserved.

Do Me a Favor - Discipline

Our managing people class discussed a situation where an employee had a short but heated argument with someone outside of work. The employee didn't know the other person, it was just one of those things that sometimes happens when two people cross paths. Unfortunately, at the time, the employee was wearing a shirt with his name on it as well as the name of the company.

As it turned out, the other person was on the Company's Board of Directors. The person called the company president and complained in no uncertain terms. The company president figured out who the employee was and told employee's supervisor how the situation made the company look bad in the eyes of the Director. The company president asked the supervisor to take care of it.

In the absence of a company policy regarding shirts, jackets, hats, uniforms or other wearing apparel and/or a company policy regarding the conduct of employees outside of work, the task facing that supervisor becomes difficult indeed. The employee was on their. He or she didn't violate any company rule. The company has no real control over how employees conduct themselves outside of work. The supervisor would be hard-pressed to subject the employee to any disciplinary action. What can the supervisor do?

The answer lies in moral suasion. The supervisor is best advised to talk with the employee along the lines of: "Do me a favor. If you're going to wear our colors outside of work, I would appreciate it if you were careful about what you say and do, especially when your conduct might reflect poorly on the company. Sometimes, as you've just learned, some people will look at you as representing the company when you are wearing our colors. I sure would appreciate it if you were more careful of your conduct so we can avoid a similar situation in the future."

The effectiveness of moral suasion will depend on the how the employee sees their relationship to the company, and more importantly to their boss. If the employee looks up to their boss as a leader, admires and respects their boss, and values his or her relationship with the boss, the greater the chance the employee will be persuaded to do the right thing in the future.

About me: Dan Pelley teaches Managing People, a 16-hour program concerned with the topics of motivating people, developing positive attitudes, being more effective in getting the best out of each unique employee, and handling people problems. The program is offered to companies as an on-site program, and it is also offered on an open enrollment basis in Danielson, CT and Lincoln, RI.

Copyright © 2009 Daniel W. Pelley
All rights reserved.

Handling "Not Me"

Have you ever had "Not Me" in your department? You know, the person who always seems to be associated with a problem but for some reason can never be caught red-handed. You know they're involved. Your evidence is significant, but circumstantial. Hard to prove. Yet the problems created by this person are affecting your day to day operations, wasting time and money, and negatively impacting attitudes of and morale. You need to deal with it. But whenever you try to counsel the individual their response boils down to: "Not Me. Un-uh. Didn't do it. I'm a victim here. It's someone else. I wouldn't do that. No sir. Never. Not Me." What do you do?

I know a manager who faced this problem and tried to deal with the person through counseling. After several frustrating sessions in which "Not Me" would protest their innocence over and over again, the manager finally gave up. These were his final words to the employee:

"All right, I believe you. We keep having these meetings because somehow when these problems come up your name always seems to be associated with it. But every time we have these meetings you tell me it's not you. You're not involved. Somehow I've gotten the wrong impression. You would never be involved in such a thing. So now I believe you. And I'm done with these counseling sessions. I am not going to be talking with you about this again. But before you leave, I want you to know that somehow, whenever these things happen, your name is linked to it."

He continued: "I don't know what you are doing that causes that to happen. But you need to find out. And you need to fix it. So I'm telling you right now........... make it go away."

His tone-of-voice left no doubt in the mind of the employee that he was at the end of trying to counsel nicely. Nor did the employee have any doubt that the manager was nearing the end of his rope.

Copyright © 2009 Daniel W. Pelley
All rights reserved.

Discipline for All

Recently a manager called a meeting of the entire crew because a few employees were chronically late coming to work. Rather than deal with the individuals, the manager thought it would be best to let everyone know that lateness was not acceptable.

Have you ever been to a meeting like that? Everyone is scolded for the actions of a few. Whether it's lateness, extended breaks, personal telephone calls, too much personal time, too much talking, or what have you some managers think it better to counsel everyone rather than dealing with just the offenders.

Perhaps these managers don't want to offend anyone. Perhaps they want to avoid a direct confrontation. Perhaps they think it's more expedient to get the message out to everyone, or maybe they think that counseling everyone might keep some of the non-offenders from adopting the behavior in the future.

Unfortunately, a mass counseling session does not work. The offenders usually believe that the problem is no big deal, because if it were they would have received a stronger and more personal message. Indeed, some offenders might feel like they got away with something. It's even possible that some offenders are happy that otherwise good employees are being spoken to as well. The end result: every little impact on the actual offenders.

Good employees usually wonder why they had to go to such a meeting. After all, they haven't done anything wrong. They also wonder why the manager does not deal directly with the people who are causing the problem. And they know that work is piling up at their workstation while they sit through a disciplinary session that doesn't involve them. The end result: good people feel like they have been punished and that feeling lowers their morale.

The best rule: Counsel individuals, not groups. Discipline in private, not in public.

Copyright © 2009 Daniel W. Pelley
All rights reserved.