Why are so many decent people subject disciplinary hearings

[whoami]

Asterix said:

I had a claim of sexual harrasment and bullying made against me years back.

I had a woman working for me who was difficult to say the least. When it became obvious she was going to have to be let go after making yet another project critical mistake - she got in a pre-emptive strike.

To add some context - This was in Sharjah, UAE. The charges brought against me, could have then moved to a criminal case and I could have been jailed, then deported if found guilty.

Simply, it would have wrecked my life.

The company went through the process, interviewed everyone in my department, of which the majority were female of many different nationalities, plus others in the company etc... and I came out the other side with a glowing report - arguably, the best appraisal I've ever had. She was informed of the results.

However, she could have still gone to the Police for the criminal aspect but was advised that it was unlikely she'd get anywhere due to the internal report and testimonials from my other staff. However, the way it works here is they lock you up and then ask questions. It would have still been extremely damaging.

Conclusion - She dropped the charges but stayed in my department and was moved so she wouldn't be a direct report to me.

I don't really have time to hate anyone, it's a waste of energy - however, an exception has been made for that nasty piece of work.

I left 6 months later and she was still there bugging the crap out of everyone.

Apparently, that's called poor management...

[Sir Fergie]

Asterix said:

I had a claim of sexual harrasment and bullying made against me years back.

I had a woman working for me who was difficult to say the least. When it became obvious she was going to have to be let go after making yet another project critical mistake - she got in a pre-emptive strike.

To add some context - This was in Sharjah, UAE. The charges brought against me, could have then moved to a criminal case and I could have been jailed, then deported if found guilty.

Simply, it would have wrecked my life.

The company went through the process, interviewed everyone in my department, of which the majority were female of many different nationalities, plus others in the company etc... and I came out the other side with a glowing report - arguably, the best appraisal I've ever had. She was informed of the results.

However, she could have still gone to the Police for the criminal aspect but was advised that it was unlikely she'd get anywhere due to the internal report and testimonials from my other staff. However, the way it works here is they lock you up and then ask questions. It would have still been extremely damaging.

Conclusion - She dropped the charges but stayed in my department and was moved so she wouldn't be a direct report to me.

I don't really have time to hate anyone, it's a waste of energy - however, an exception has been made for that nasty piece of work.

I left 6 months later and she was still there bugging the crap out of everyone.

The lady who was supervisor in the dept next door (same company) in a company I worked - had false allegations of bullying made by people who reported to her.

It ended up with her writing off her car due to the stress of it all - ie she was worried about the bullying and wasn't concentrating perfectly as she normally would.

She was off work for a few days after said accident - and got put under pressure by our imbacile of a boss and when she came back - working 18 hour shifts meant she couldn't actually drive her new car home on the day she picked up the keys because she was too tired.

But of course everyone always assumes the accused bully is indeed guilty and the person making the allegations completely correct.

And the reason it all kicked off - all she wanted them to do was to try and do the job they were paid to do rather then being lazy

[Jerry Can]

Johnnytheboy said:

Wow, really?

I suppose it depends on your definition of "st at their job".

I've met plenty of people who seem to take great pride in doing as bad a job as they can get away with, or at best the bare minimum without being actually bad.

It can't always be bad management or bad recruitment. Some people interview well (or just no one good applies), and the only way to manage someone who doesn't want to work is to get rid of them, which is what the OP was complaining about in the first place.

The point of yours that I've highlighted in bold, merely backs up the points I raised earlier. If no one good applies for a job, why would you recruit them? Moreover, why would you be surprised that you have to manage them out of the business when they under perform? When, you've already stated that 'no one good has applied'? Equally if they are good at interviews, maybe you need a more robust process other than a 45 min chat?

As an example, in the motor trade a service advisor will probably earn around 18k as a basic and 25k with bonus. This is an OK salary for someone in their early 20's, but not so for any one much older as you can't buy a house on that little money.

So that means you either take someone who is inexperienced; and as the line manager you invest time in coaching them, or you take someone older with experience but who is likely to be less than great. You can't have it both ways. What tends to happen is the line manager takes the view that they want a plug and play option, so they take the experienced guy and don't do much training beyond the initial induction. Which then allows the experienced hire to perform at a lower level, and ultimately if not dealt with by management, become 'managed out of the business'

[Jerry Can]

Johnnytheboy said:

whoami said:

So, any poor performance is always a result of poor management?

...and it's poor management to try and get rid of poor performers as well?

No, it could be a poor recruitment process. If you employ someone with a poor attitude then that's your look out. If a person develops a poor attitude during the course of your supervision, maybe you need to look in the mirror and reflect on the reasons why that might be.

it is too chuffing easy for a manager to say ' nah, he's just st, let's get rid ' And if your staff turn is high, again start looking in the mirror for the reasons.

I will state it again, every and I do mean every, single incidence of an under performing staff member who has to be 'managed' out of the business can trace that person' s non performance roots, to either a broken recruitment process or poor management.

Edited by Jerry Can on Monday 1st September 13:44

[whoami]

Jerry Can said:

No, it could be a poor recruitment process. If you employ someone with a poor attitude then that's your look out. If a person develops a poor attitude during the course of your supervision, maybe you need to look in the mirror and reflect on the reasons why that might be.

it is too chuffing easy for a manager to say ' nah, he's just st, let's get rid ' And if your staff turn is high, again start looking in the mirror for the reasons.

I will state it again, every and I do mean every, single incidence of an under performing staff member who has to be 'managed' out of the business can trace that person' s non performance roots, to either a broken recruitment process or poor management.

Edited by Jerry Can on Monday 1st September 13:44

Total and utter crap.

[Jerry Can]

whoami said:

Total and utter crap.

ok, so give me an example where that is not the case.

...a real one

[Sir Fergie]

Jerry Can said:

Johnnytheboy said:

whoami said:

So, any poor performance is always a result of poor management?

...and it's poor management to try and get rid of poor performers as well?

No, it could be a poor recruitment process. If you employ someone with a poor attitude then that's your look out. If a person develops a poor attitude during the course of your supervision, maybe you need to look in the mirror and reflect on the reasons why that might be.

it is too chuffing easy for a manager to say ' nah, he's just st, let's get rid ' And if your staff turn is high, again start looking in the mirror for the reasons.

I will state it again, every and I do mean every, single incidence of an under performing staff member who has to be 'managed' out of the business can trace that person' s non performance roots, to either a broken recruitment process or poor management.

Edited by Jerry Can on Monday 1st September 13:44

Tbh - even the very best of companies can end up with a staff member who underperforms.

But I think Jerry is right - if you've got a whole company full of people not performing as they should - theres a wider issue for the company then simply someone underperforming.

Some potential reasons spring to mind

1) Companies not treating their good staff properly - you lose the good staff - can't find good replacements (word gets around that company x treats its staff poorly) - your left with underperformers

2) Recruitment and selection processes need rethinking - again you may end up with some underperforming staff even with best of processes. But with good recruitment and selection - the chances of selecting good staff should be a lot higher.

3) Poor company culture - a HR lecturer once described culture to me as "the way we do things around here" - so if the "way we do things around here" in a company is bad - your going to get underperformance and achievement.

[Sheepshanks]

Jerry Can said:

whoami said:

Total and utter crap.

ok, so give me an example where that is not the case.

...a real one

I had someone working for me who had been a good guy, but had become crap - he was doing a field engineering job which, for previously office based people, seems interesting and exciting at first with all the travel, extra pay etc.

But the travel, and the job itself, gets boring after a while. Some people can do it for a lifetime, but he really went off the boil, and he also developed a complicated personal life and certainly wasn't living where he said he was. We'd been through various performance management stuff, but he knew how to play the game and always came out OK, especially on independent evaluation.

We were actively looking at ways we could move him on, when out of the blue he was snaffled by one of our partners for a much bigger job. I was both furious that they'd done this, but also couldn't quite believe my luck. He never really did the new job and "resigned" after 3 months.

[mph1977]

whoami said:

So, any poor performance is always a result of poor management?

there are a small minority of people who are unemployable, ironically if they were a little brighter they may well be bosses

Discounting people are are ill or have moderate or severe learning disabilities; there are basically four types of 'normal' people

1.'thick' and lazy - these are the minority who find it difficult to keep a job

2.'thick' and hardworking - give these people the right job and they will produce - with good managers and patient work based trainers they will develop and grow up to their limits - in unskilled and semi skilled environments these people are valuable as they can also be in 'technician' type skilled work if well trained...

3. 'clever' and hardworking - these peopel can be dangerous for a business for one of two reasons
a . they want to do things a complex and good way but make it hard work
b. they are brighter than the bosses and let people know this

4. 'clever' and lazy - these are the people who if motivated well can transform a business as they will find the easiest / quickest /cheapest way to job - if management are st they will expend their intellectual energy elsewhere

[anonymous-user]

davepoth said:

The way I see it, a lot of it has to do with perception; if someone is seen as "good" by management then they have to do an awful lot of crap stuff before that opinion starts to change. Similarly someone judged as "bad" can hardly afford to put a foot wrong

Ii would absolutely agree with this.

I've watched people fk up or take the piss week in week out, but because they were well liked in the company, nobody ever said anything.

Conversely, a year ago in my previous managerial job, I was asked to 'manage someone out of the business', and to be frank, it was simply because no one liked them very much and they didn't fit in with the rest of the office. Prior to be being the persons manager, they had written and verbal warnings thrown at them left right and centre over laughable things, including working late a few nights to finish projects.

Quite unbelievable.

[Johnnytheboy]

Jerry Can said:

whoami said:

Total and utter crap.

ok, so give me an example where that is not the case.

...a real one

I'm not sure why I'm bothering because whatever I write you'll blame recruitment or management - that much is clear - but for the benefit of the sane here's an example.

Someone close to me who works in HR for what we'll call a third sector organisation who recruited someone for an admin role.

They shone at interview (panel of three unanimously agreed) and initially shone at work.

Then, despite being recruited for what was made clear to be a full time role, requested it be made part time. Reluctantly the organisation agreed to 30 hours a week instead of 40, over 4 days.

Next move was to nag her managers to let her work less (28 IIRC) hours, over three days. For a number of reasons the company disagreed, partly because this would involve working longer on one day than they could be in the office. I think the firm tried quite hard to compromise: they offered her 24 hours over 3 days (and planned to recruit an extra part-timer) but she refused unless they still paid her for 28 hours.

Next request was to more or less insist that the only alternative was that she work from home, despite it being made clear to her at recruitment stage that this wasn't an option for this role.

This was all justified by the need to look after her daughter - who was on the scene when she started the job - and apart from the impracticality of doing the job from home, it was clear that she was planning to care for her daughter while ostensibly working.

When this request was refused she went off sick with "stress and anxiety" (amazing how much my HR friend hears this in the most touchy-feely employer on earth), stayed off for the maximum (and generous) period she was on full pay, then resigned.

She then took the firm to an employment tribunal for constructive dismissal, which failed spectacularly.

As a footnote, I know someone at her previous employer who said (despite their very neutral reference) that she'd done more or less the same with them, only they'd been less patient.

Now as I say, I know this is a failing of either management or the recruitment process, but I'd appreciate clarity on which.

In addition, I assume as she followed the same path in two consecutive jobs, they were both equally at fault...

[pherlopolus]

mph1977 said:

there are a small minority of people who are unemployable, ironically if they were a little brighter they may well be bosses

Discounting people are are ill or have moderate or severe learning disabilities; there are basically four types of 'normal' people

1.'thick' and lazy - these are the minority who find it difficult to keep a job

2.'thick' and hardworking - give these people the right job and they will produce - with good managers and patient work based trainers they will develop and grow up to their limits - in unskilled and semi skilled environments these people are valuable as they can also be in 'technician' type skilled work if well trained...

3. 'clever' and hardworking - these peopel can be dangerous for a business for one of two reasons
a . they want to do things a complex and good way but make it hard work
b. they are brighter than the bosses and let people know this

4. 'clever' and lazy - these are the people who if motivated well can transform a business as they will find the easiest / quickest /cheapest way to job - if management are st they will expend their intellectual energy elsewhere

Thats not the first time I've heard that, I'm a number 4, just waiting for good management....

[Jerry Can]

Johnnytheboy said:

I'm not sure why I'm bothering because whatever I write you'll blame recruitment or management - that much is clear - but for the benefit of the sane here's an example.

Someone close to me who works in HR for what we'll call a third sector organisation who recruited someone for an admin role.

They shone at interview (panel of three unanimously agreed) and initially shone at work.

Then, despite being recruited for what was made clear to be a full time role, requested it be made part time. Reluctantly the organisation agreed to 30 hours a week instead of 40, over 4 days.

Next move was to nag her managers to let her work less (28 IIRC) hours, over three days. For a number of reasons the company disagreed, partly because this would involve working longer on one day than they could be in the office. I think the firm tried quite hard to compromise: they offered her 24 hours over 3 days (and planned to recruit an extra part-timer) but she refused unless they still paid her for 28 hours.

Next request was to more or less insist that the only alternative was that she work from home, despite it being made clear to her at recruitment stage that this wasn't an option for this role.

This was all justified by the need to look after her daughter - who was on the scene when she started the job - and apart from the impracticality of doing the job from home, it was clear that she was planning to care for her daughter while ostensibly working.

When this request was refused she went off sick with "stress and anxiety" (amazing how much my HR friend hears this in the most touchy-feely employer on earth), stayed off for the maximum (and generous) period she was on full pay, then resigned.

She then took the firm to an employment tribunal for constructive dismissal, which failed spectacularly.

As a footnote, I know someone at her previous employer who said (despite their very neutral reference) that she'd done more or less the same with them, only they'd been less patient.

Now as I say, I know this is a failing of either management or the recruitment process, but I'd appreciate clarity on which.

In addition, I assume as she followed the same path in two consecutive jobs, they were both equally at fault...

from your description I would say that the recruitment process is to blame. There are clearly some thing's that were not uncovered during the interview, such as why did she leave her last job, or why she wasn't working? However this person was not 'managed out of the business' she chose to leave. You have not stated that she was incompetent, nor have you stated that the plan was to manage her out of the business - so apart from a desire to work less I guess she was competent at her role.

[Johnnytheboy]

Jerry Can said:

from your description I would say that the recruitment process is to blame. There are clearly some thing's that were not uncovered during the interview, such as why did she leave her last job, or why she wasn't working? However this person was not 'managed out of the business' she chose to leave. You have not stated that she was incompetent, nor have you stated that the plan was to manage her out of the business - so apart from a desire to work less I guess she was competent at her role.

Brilliant.

[Sir Fergie]

Johnnytheboy said:

I'm not sure why I'm bothering because whatever I write you'll blame recruitment or management - that much is clear - but for the benefit of the sane here's an example.

Someone close to me who works in HR for what we'll call a third sector organisation who recruited someone for an admin role.

They shone at interview (panel of three unanimously agreed) and initially shone at work.

Then, despite being recruited for what was made clear to be a full time role, requested it be made part time. Reluctantly the organisation agreed to 30 hours a week instead of 40, over 4 days.

Next move was to nag her managers to let her work less (28 IIRC) hours, over three days. For a number of reasons the company disagreed, partly because this would involve working longer on one day than they could be in the office. I think the firm tried quite hard to compromise: they offered her 24 hours over 3 days (and planned to recruit an extra part-timer) but she refused unless they still paid her for 28 hours.

Next request was to more or less insist that the only alternative was that she work from home, despite it being made clear to her at recruitment stage that this wasn't an option for this role.

This was all justified by the need to look after her daughter - who was on the scene when she started the job - and apart from the impracticality of doing the job from home, it was clear that she was planning to care for her daughter while ostensibly working.

When this request was refused she went off sick with "stress and anxiety" (amazing how much my HR friend hears this in the most touchy-feely employer on earth), stayed off for the maximum (and generous) period she was on full pay, then resigned.

She then took the firm to an employment tribunal for constructive dismissal, which failed spectacularly.

As a footnote, I know someone at her previous employer who said (despite their very neutral reference) that she'd done more or less the same with them, only they'd been less patient.

Now as I say, I know this is a failing of either management or the recruitment process, but I'd appreciate clarity on which.

In addition, I assume as she followed the same path in two consecutive jobs, they were both equally at fault...

In a company where the work performance in general is very good - and staff work to high standards etc - being caught out with a problem employee - especially one who flies through interview - isn't a management failure or a recruitment and selection failure.

The managerial/recruitment and selection failure - would be if the WHOLE company or dept was full of such people - imo

[whoami]

Johnnytheboy said:

Jerry Can said:

from your description I would say that the recruitment process is to blame. There are clearly some thing's that were not uncovered during the interview, such as why did she leave her last job, or why she wasn't working? However this person was not 'managed out of the business' she chose to leave. You have not stated that she was incompetent, nor have you stated that the plan was to manage her out of the business - so apart from a desire to work less I guess she was competent at her role.

Brilliant.

Indeed.

The response was exactly as predicted and the reason there was absolutely no point in replying.

[Rude-boy]

Eric Mc said:

Johnnytheboy said:

whoami said:

So, any poor performance is always a result of poor management?

...and it's poor management to try and get rid of poor performers as well?

The problem is that performance measurement can be very subjective - and a manager with a grudge against an employee can "engineer" a poor result from a vague and arbitrary method of measuring in order to achieve a desired result.

Yep, and it can also be that the previous manager was not very good and that the new one is, shock and horror, actually trying to get staff to do their job rather than only the bits of it that they like. Never ceases to amaze me the number of people who have been riding the gravy train and get upset and "you're just a bully" when being asked for the first time to actually follow their job description!

Edited by Rude-boy on Wednesday 3rd September 14:34

[truck71]

Rude-boy said:

Yep, and it can also be that the previous manager was not very good and that the new one is, shock and horror, actually trying to get staff to do their job rather than only the bits of it that they like. Never ceases to amaze me the number of people who have been riding the gravy train and get upset and "you're just a bully" when being asked for the first time to actually follow their job description!

Edited by Rude-boy on Wednesday 3rd September 14:34

Aint this the truth. Constant improvement is always required, to not do so means you're going backwards. Where this has been allowed to happen playing catch up is painful. The world of work is very different to what a lot of people expect, the organisation is key not just any one individual.

[NoNeed]

truck71 said:

Rude-boy said:

Yep, and it can also be that the previous manager was not very good and that the new one is, shock and horror, actually trying to get staff to do their job rather than only the bits of it that they like. Never ceases to amaze me the number of people who have been riding the gravy train and get upset and "you're just a bully" when being asked for the first time to actually follow their job description!

Edited by Rude-boy on Wednesday 3rd September 14:34

Aint this the truth. Constant improvement is always required, to not do so means you're going backwards. Where this has been allowed to happen playing catch up is painful. The world of work is very different to what a lot of people expect, the organisation is key not just any one individual.

That improvement should work both ways, I made many many improvements for a previous employer that amounted to some quite large sums yet didn't get a pay increase for 6 years, I did get quite alot of thank you's probably the most out of all the employees but I couldn't spend them.

I took the company forward yet they held me back.

[truck71]

NoNeed said:

That improvement should work both ways, I made many many improvements for a previous employer that amounted to some quite large sums yet didn't get a pay increase for 6 years, I did get quite alot of thank you's probably the most out of all the employees but I couldn't spend them.

I took the company forward yet they held me back.

It certainly does need to work both ways, however there needs to be an understanding of what should be expected as part of the role and what goes beyond it. Good employees will be successful, they come to understand if the employer is not rewarding them sufficiently and they move on. This has been very difficult during the recession, more has been expected from people for less. Some organisations may even have taken advantage of this situation...
The best person to champion achievements is the individual, these need to be constructive and demonstrable to be in the business interest/ ambition/ goal. Quiet achievers can easily get overlooked or taken advantage of, sometimes sub conciously.
Ultimately an organisation is only as good as the people who work there, contented and valued staff can normally be found in successful organisations.