Mr. Grote,

I am writing to you to ask for your opinion on how to handle a situation with a few of my employees.  I have read one of your books.  I enjoyed the book and learned a lot from it.  Hopefully you can help me here.

I am the administrator of an assisted living facility in [city and state].  We are an upscale community, and my residents demand quality.  I will now cut to the chase.  My Kitchen Manager, Mary, does a superb job.  She is a perfectionist in the kitchen.  The kitchen is her domain, and she runs a very tight ship.  I admire that, and that’s why she is so good at what she does. 

The problem is that she is definitely not a people person, especially with co-workers.  She does fine with our residents, but with members of my staff (nurses, maintenance, her own kitchen staff) she comes across as always being in a bad mood.  Of course, other employees take this personal and assume that she is mad at them or that she doesn’t like them.  Mary does not talk much, and never takes part in “small talk”, that’s just not her style.  When she’s at work, she works, there’s no time for chit chat.  If a nurse or another co-worker does something that Mary doesn’t agree with, instead of telling the person, she simply corrects it and doesn’t say a word.  The other day, a nurse employee found a comb on the floor in the dining room and put the come in the kitchen on the counter.  Obviously, the comb should not have been put on a counter where food is served.  Instead of telling the nurse that that is not sanitary, Mary picked up the comb, and threw it back onto the dining room floor.  The nurse took exception to that, and came to my office to complain.  My big dilemma is that I can’t afford to lose Mary, she is so good at what she does, I need her here.  Food is a huge factor in my resident’s happiness.  So, when I have to talk to her about her behavior, and I have several times, I feel like am walking on egg shells so as not to make her angry.  I think that the fact that I tip toe around what I really want to say, Mary hasn’t got the true picture and therefore her behavior hasn’t change to the level I want it to.

I admit Mary is not always the easiest person to get along with, but she really means no harm with her behaviors, that’s just the way she is.  However, my other employees are getting tired of hearing that from me.  They just want to feel a little respect from Mary, and they do deserve that.  I have the kind of personality that just lets things go, I know how to deal with Mary, when she is curt with me, I give her some smart ass comment with a smile, and move on.  The rest of my staff, however, takes it personal and cannot understand why Mary hates them.  Obviously, Mary’s personality causes morale problems with the rest of the staff.  I need to put an end to this once and for all, but I can’t lose Mary. 

What do I do?!!!!   

George  

Here was my response:

Greetings, George!

What a challenging dilemma you’ve posed.

Let’s agree that you can’t afford to lose Mary because of her technical skills (although you should have a backup plan for replacing her if she gets hit by a bus or abruptly leaves for some other reason.) But let’s also agree that you can’t have her poisoning relationships with other staff who are likely as a result to leave the facility to get away from her.

Here’s my suggestion. I’d schedule a formal and private meeting with Mary. This situation is too serious now for an informal chat, and these informal transactions in the past haven’t had the needed effect. Do it in your office and sit behind your desk — you want to increase your power perception.

Mary will come into your office, probably with both a bit of a chip on her shoulder and some apprehension. You start the meeting by saying, “Mary, I wanted to talk with you for two reasons. The first is to say thank you. I know I don’t say it enough, but I want to thank you for the terrific job you do in the kitchen.” Be prepared to give some very specific examples of her culinary skills and the special dishes she’s made, etc. Starting by saying “Thank you” will certainly disarm her. Don’t hesitate to let this half of the conversation, focused exclusively on the positives, go on for a while.

Then move to the second part of the discussion. Say, “Mary, while your kitchen and culinary skills are outstanding, I have a problem and I need your help.” [The statement, “I have a problem and I need your help” is magic — memorize it.]

Say, “My problem is this: While your technical skills are outstanding, the way you interact with your co-workers is creating problems in providing the service that our residents are expecting and paying for. For example . . .”

Then go over 4 or 5 of your most telling examples of her behavior that concern you. Expect defensiveness — it’s normal, and that’s OK. You are simply detailing the concerns you have with her behavior which impact adversely on your [the facility’s] ability to give residents what they are paying for.

Before the conversation, in addition to writing down four or five examples  (and actually writing down the examples and having them in front of you is powerful — it communicates the fact that you consider the situation sufficiently serious to have taken the time to write down your concerns), also write down a list of the impact of Mary’s behavior on you, on the residents, on other staff members, on suppliers and vendors, etc. Make a list of the good business reasons why her behavior must change.

Then explain the specific change in her behavior that you want. (Be prepared in advance to tell her the exact and specific change or changes you expect.)

If she has a job description, get it out and show her that among all her other duties, her job description provides that she is required to be “courteous, cooperative and helpful” at all times and in every situation. If her job description doesn’t have that statement, rewrite it so it does. Being courteous, cooperative and helpful is a condition of employment in any job.

Admit to her that this conversation is awkward for you and it probably is for her. Tell her how much you appreciate her technical abilities, but tell her directly that her behavior with other people is unacceptable. (“Unacceptable” is the right word to use.)

You may in fact lose her. But if you don’t confront the situation, you’re likely to lose other good people who decide that they can find other jobs that don’t involve working with a Mary. People may start doing the minimum to get by just to avoid any interaction with her. Worse, you’ll get ulcers and lose sleep worrying about what to do.

Above all, remember that you’re the boss. Just as important, remember that both your salary and hers is being paid by the residents. Their needs come first, and the way she’s behaving isn’t supporting that.

I hope this helps. Please let me know how things turn out.

Best regards!

Dick Grote

About the Author

Dick Grote has been a management consultant for almost thirty years, specializing exclusively in the field of employee performance appraisal and management. As a consultant, he has created employee performance management systems for several hundred of the world’s best known and most respected companies, including Texas Instruments, JCPenney, Miller Brewing Company, American Airlines, Macy’s, Raytheon, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, and Herman Miller. His company, Grote Consulting, specializes in employee performance appraisal, employee performance improvement and talent management.

But today, a growing number of companies are moving away from using a criminal-justice mentality for employee performance improvement through corrective action. They are abandoning traditional approaches that focus exclusively on punishment. Instead, they are adopting an approach of accountability – employees with unfavorable performance, conduct or attendance issues are required to take personal responsibility for their choice of behavior.

Discipline and Recognition. One immediate difference is that traditional, punishment-based discipline systems ignore the great majority of people who never create disciplinary problems. In a non-punitive, “Discipline Without Punishment” approach, there’s a new step added to the process — a positive contact. Just as the policy is expected to resolve employee problems when they arise, it also makes clear that supervisors are expected to recognize employees when they perform well. Recognizing good performance is no longer just good advice handed out in a management training class. Now it’s a formal policy requirement, a step of the organization’s overall discipline procedure.

Diffusing Problems. Supervisors continue to be responsible for beginning the correction process by employee coaching prior to formal disciplinary action. The exception is when the magnitude of the behavior warrants serious disciplinary action or even termination for a first offense. In the early stages of disciplinary action, the Discipline Without Punishment approach replaces the familiar responses of verbal reprimands and written warnings with two comparable steps toward employee performance improvement: Reminder 1 and Reminder 2. Yes, they seem similar, but there’s more than mere semantic sleight-of-hand at work here.

Instead of being reprimanded for his mischief or warned about what will happen the next time he misbehaves, the employee is formally reminded of two important things. First, he’s reminded of the organization’s exact expectations of high-quality work, on-time performance, or whatever else has triggered the need for the discussion. And second, he is reminded that he has a responsibility for meeting the organization’s standards – he must do what he’s being paid to do and he must do it well.

The Last Chance. The biggest change from the traditional, punishment-based approach comes at the final step of disciplinary action. When the employee is one step away from termination, a dramatic gesture is needed to forcefully drive home the message that the end is at hand — one more time and you’re fired. But merely giving the employee a “final written warning,” or placing her on probation for some period of time, or creating an employee performance improvement plan aren’t powerful enough to clearly communicate the message “Once more and you’re out!” That’s why a disciplinary suspension from work is the best final step for a corrective action system.

Withholding Pay Does Not Work. Traditionally, this disciplinary suspension has been without pay. The intent is that by depriving the employee of pay, he will come to his senses and return to work determined to do whatever is necessary to keep his job. But the theory rarely works in practice. Employees who are placed on a three-day disciplinary suspension without pay don’t often return having seen the error of their ways and a commitment to excellent performance. They usually come back angry, all the organization has accomplished is creating a bitter employee.

There are other problems with using punishment as the basis for disciplinary action. Supervisors, many of whom are in the tricky position of being both on-the-job boss as well as off-the-job friend, often hesitate to place friends on an unpaid disciplinary suspension. Because they know the family is also getting punished by the loss of pay, they may cut their people more slack and open themselves to charges of favoritism. And suspensions without pay just aren’t appropriate for exempt, knowledge-worker individuals.

A Paid Disciplinary Suspension. A “Decision Making Leave,” the final step of the responsibility-based Discipline Without Punishment process, provides all of the advantages of a disciplinary suspension as a final step and eliminates the drawbacks. This disciplinary suspension with a twist suspends the individual for one day and one day only. On this day, the employee is required to make one of two choices: correct whatever problem brought him to this final step of the discipline process and make a commitment to fully acceptable performance in every area of his job in the future, or decide to quit and find greener employment pastures elsewhere.

Paying the employee for the day he’s away on “decision day” changes the supervisor’s role from adversary to coach. It demonstrates the organization’s good faith in wanting to see him change and return to fully acceptable performance, and is consistent with the values of almost every organization. By eliminating money as an issue, it doesn’t impact the family’s grocery budget and thus reduces the possibility of anger, hostility and even workplace violence.

Agreed Accountability. If the employee decides to remain with the organization and commits to fully acceptable performance in every area of the job (as almost all people placed on decision making leave do) and then doesn’t live up to his commitment, termination turns out to be much easier and guilt-free. And should the employee challenge the termination in an EEOC complaint, unemployment hearing, or any other venue, the fact that the organization gave the person a day at its expense to decide whether he was willing to do then job he was being paid to do and the employee didn’t live up to his own commitment assures legal defensibility.

Traditional discipline approaches may indeed convince some problem employees to shape up, others to ship out. But punitive tactics can’t produce employees who are genuinely committed to the goals of the organization and the policies and rules by which they operate. We may be able to punish people into compliance, but we can not punish them into a commitment to employee performance improvement. And a culture of commitment is what today’s organizations really need.

About the Author

Dick Grote is one of America’s most successful and best-known authors, consultants, and business keynote speakers on performance management. He is the Chairman and CEO of Grote Consulting Corporation – http://www.groteconsulting.com.

Used well, employee performance appraisal is the most powerful instrument that organizations have to mobilize the energy of every employee in the enterprise toward the achievement of strategic goals. Employee performance appraisal can focus each person’s attention on the company’s mission, vision and values. And ideally, the process can answer the two fundamental questions that every single person in the organization wants the answers to: What do you expect of me? And How am I doing?

Don’t scoff—there is an ideal method for the assessment process. In organizations that take employee performance appraisal seriously and use the process well, the system functions as an on-going process – not merely an annual event – by following a four-phase model.

Phase 1 — Employee Performance Planning
At the beginning of the year, the manager meets with each person for discussion on the planning piece of the employee performance appraisal process. In this hour-long session they discuss the “how” and the “what” of the job: How the person will do the job (the behaviors and competencies expected of the company’s members), and What results the person will achieve over the next twelve months (the key responsibilities of the person’s job and the goals and projects the person will work on).

They also discuss the individual’s development plans. This discussion immediately generates improved employee performance because people know exactly what’s expected of them. And as the manager, you have just earned the right to hold people accountable at the end of the year by making your expectations of them clear from the start.

Phase 2 — Employee Performance Execution
Over the course of the year, employee performance should be focused on achieving the goals, objectives and key responsibilities of the job. The manager provides coaching and feedback to the individual to increase the probability of success and creates the conditions that motivate and resolve any performance problems that arise.

Midway through the year—perhaps even more frequently—they meet to review the individual’s progress toward the plans and goals discussed in the employee performance planning meeting. And the employee is responsible for certain elements of that progress—seeking out coaching and asking for feedback are two key examples.

Phase 3 — Employee Performance Assessment
As the time for the formal employee performance appraisal approaches, the manager reflects on how well the subordinate has performed over the course of the year, assembles the various forms and paperwork that the organization provides to make this assessment, and fills them out. The manager may also recommend a change in the individual’s compensation based on the quality of the individual’s work.

Best practice calls for the appraiser’s boss to review the completed assessment form before discussing it with the assessed employee. One key here is not falling victim to the “myth of quantifiability”—the erroneous belief that in order to be objective you’ve got to have numerical data to prove your assessments. Nonsense! An employee performance appraisal is a record of a manager’s opinion of an employee’s quality of work, so don’t shirk from candidly providing that opinion.

Phase 4 — Employee Performance Review
The manager and the subordinate meet, usually for about an hour. The employee performance appraisal form is reviewed with the self-appraisal that the individual created assessing her own performance. The manager and employee talk honestly about how well she performed over the past twelve months: Strengths, weaknesses, successes and areas needing improvement. At the end of the review meeting they set a date to meet again to hold an employee performance planning discussion for the upcoming twelve months, starting the process anew.

This four-phase performance appraisal process not only transforms employee performance management from an annual event to an on-going cycle, it tightly links the performance of each organization member with the mission and values of the company as a whole. And that’s the real purpose of employee performance appraisal in the organization. The real value is focusing everyone’s attention on what is genuinely important—the achievement of the organization’s strategic goals through demonstration of the company’s vision and values in each employee’s day-to-day behavior.

<strong>About the Author</strong>

Dick Grote has been a management consultant for almost thirty years, specializing exclusively in the field of employee performance appraisal and management. As a consultant, he has created employee performance management systems for several hundred of the world’s best known and most respected companies, including Texas Instruments, JCPenney, Miller Brewing Company, American Airlines, Macy’s, Raytheon, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, and Herman Miller. His company, Grote Consulting, specializes in employee performance appraisal, employee improvement and talent management.