Is Disciplining Employees a Nightmare?
One of the duties that bosses dislike most is disciplining employees. The thought of having to do this can cause many sleepless nights for employers, managers and supervisors. Actually, the discipline “nightmare” experience doesn’t have to happen. There’s a better way to deal with difficult and troublesome employees. It involves replacing punishment with personal responsibility. To learn how, read on.
Is Disciplining Employees a Nightmare?
What is one of the hardest things an employer, manager or supervisor has to do? It’s to sit down with an employee or team member who isn’t meeting expectations — or who is disruptive or belligerent — and tell them they have to shape up. It’s issuing a “warning.” It’s “writing you up.” It’s disciplining!
The boss’s life doesn’t have to be this way. There’s another approach which actually gets better results with most employees. It involves making employees personally responsible for their actions. It’s explained in one of the best-selling management books of the last few years, Discipline Without Punishment by consultant Dick Grote, Dallas, TX.
Paid Decision-Making in Georgia
The state of Georgia has used a Paid Decision-Making Leave with employees in several state agencies. Following are some of the results of a survey of supervisors and managers using this “Discipline without Punishment” approach in five state agencies.
How many times has the approach prevented the use of formal discipline? (Of 180 responses.) Every time, 113. More than half the time, 20. About half the time, 13. Less than half the time, 13. Never, 21.
How do you rate the approach as a tool for achieving desired performance? (Of 142 responses.) Very good, 106. No opinion, 28. Marginally useful, 8. Not useful, 0.
Would you return to the old system if you could? (Of 252 responses.) Yes, 31. No, 221.
How would you rate the effectiveness of this approach against the former program of adverse action? (Of 183 responses.) Much more effective, 1. More effective, 109. About the same, 62. Less effective, 10. Much less effective, 1.
Grote’s approach to discipline emphasizes personal responsibility instead of punishment. “Treating a problem employee as an adult with a problem to solve rather than as a child who must be punished for misbehavior greatly increases the likelihood that an adult response will be forthcoming,” Grote has explained.
Three features of Grote’s approach are:
- Substitute “reminders” for “warnings.”
- Coach supervisors to handle performance problems in a non-confrontational manner.
- Replace conventional unpaid disciplinary layoff with a paid “decision-making leave.”
This last step — the paid decision-making leave — is the most important step. The employee, given a paid decision-making leave, is to return the day following the leave with a decision: Either to solve the immediate problem and make a total commitment to acceptable performance in every area of the job… or to quit and find more satisfying work someplace else.
And this is key to the approach: The importance of using a suspension. Grote has explained that the EEOC and other watchdog and legal agencies protecting employees often expect the employer to suspend an employee as a necessary warning measure before a termination. So, suspend the employee… but don’t withhold pay. Paying for the day off demonstrates the employer’s desire to see the employee change and stay. (Of course, if the employee elects to stay, he or she must agree that another disciplinary lapse could result in immediate termination.)
