You Can't Factor Out Judgment

I spent a great deal of my HR career working in employee relations.  People continue to fascinate me and I'm amazed at what I continue to learn.  Consider the following:

Two employees were caught drinking a six-pack of beer during their meal break in a van parked in the company parking lot.  The company had a clear policy regarding the consumption of alcohol on the premises.  One of the employees had a long tenure with the company along with a long history of disciplinary actions.  If discipline, which comes from the word disciple, means to teach, he hadn’t learned anything.  He did not make an attempt to change his behavior despite the company’s efforts to help.  The second employee had a shorter tenure, two to three years.  This was his first policy violation.  The first employee was terminated, but the second was suspended without pay for five days.  When the first employee cried foul, we only had to produce his record which showed that the company had tried to work with him over the years.

Managing employees is an art, not a science.  More importantly, it’s not a sport or a game.  What doesn’t work is an approach or “algorithm” that shows if this happens, than that is the action you have to take, or as someone once asked me, “Don’t you have a three-strikes and you’re out model for dealing with performance or behavior issues?”

Not every situation is going to fit into the same neat, tidy package.  It is critical to consider of all the issues and facts before making a decision and judgment cannot be factored out of the decision-making process. Not all situations are the same and not all employees are the same. 

While managers can’t expect a perfect algorithm for making employee decisions, employees can’t expect to have everything spelled out for them – like the employee who once said during a disciplinary meeting, “No one ever told me I couldn’t do that.”  They too must exercise some judgment.  Employee accountability is the second critical factor in the equation. 

Policies should be management guidelines and not “cookbooks”.   Managers need to recognize that while they must be consistent in their approach to managing people, they have a say in the decision-making process.  Their judgment matters.  Don’t expect to treat everyone “equally”, because not all situations and circumstances are equal.  You can’t expect to treat a long-tenured employee with a good record, who happens to have a few missteps, the same as you would treat someone who had been with the company a short time and managed to build a disciplinary and negative performance history quickly. 

Treat everyone with fairness and respect and most importantly, don’t factor judgment out of the process.

You Can't Factor Out Judgment

Dilbert:  “I need something called a decision.” 

I spent a great deal of my HR career working in employee relations.  People continue to fascinate me and I'm amazed at what I continue to learn. 

I met an HR professional who also had a strong employee relations background.  We were clearly of the same mind when it came to dealing with employee issues.  We agreed on what doesn’t work, namely an approach or “algorithm” that shows if this, than that, or as someone once asked me, “Don’t you have a three-strikes and you’re out model for dealing with performance or behavior issues?”

Managing employees is an art, not a science.  More importantly, it’s not a sport or a game. Not every situation is going to fit into the same neat, tidy package.  Consideration of all the issues and facts is a critical part of the decision making process, and judgment cannot be factored out of the process. Not all situations are the same and not all employees are the same.  Consider the following:

Two employees were caught drinking a six-pack of beer during their meal break in a van parked in the company parking lot.  The company had a clear policy regarding the consumption of alcohol on the premises.  One of the employees had a long tenure with the company along with a long history of disciplinary actions.  If discipline, which comes from the word disciple, means to teach, he hadn’t learned anything.  He did not make an attempt to change his behavior despite the company’s efforts to help.  The second employee had a shorter tenure, two to three years.  This was his first policy violation.  The first employee was terminated, but the second was suspended without pay for five days.  When the first employee cried foul, we only had to produce his record which showed that the company had tried to work with him over the years. 

During a recent round-table discussion where someone described “serial” disruptive behavior by a staff member, she went on to say that the organization wanted to make sure everything was equal. Apparently someone else had engaged in similar behavior – once. Not different from the situation described above. I pointed out that the behaviors she described did not appear equal – the first sounded like a pattern and practice of behavior which while the second appeared to be an isolated incident.

While managers can’t expect a perfect algorithm for making employee decisions, employees can’t expect to have everything spelled out for them.  They too must exercise some judgment.  Employee accountability is the second critical factor in the equation. 

Policies should be management guidelines and not “cookbooks”.   Managers need to recognize that while they must be consistent in their approach to managing people, they have a say in the decision-making process.  Their judgment matters.  Don’t expect to treat everyone “equally”, because not all situations and circumstances are equal.  You can’t expect to treat a long-tenured employee with a good record, who happens to have a few missteps, the same as you would treat someone who had been with the company a short time and managed to build a disciplinary and negative performance history quickly. 

Treat everyone with fairness and respect and most importantly, don’t factor judgment out of the process.

Mojo-Crushing HR Policies

I read an article via social media early in the year about mojo-crushing HR policies to abolish in 2016. You know the type – old-school, industrial-era rules that seem to have no relevance in today's workplace. I chucked as I read many of them, not because the polices were ridiculous, but because of bizarre behavior I've witnessed – in some cases the types of behavior that leads to these policies being implemented in the first place.

Proof of death policy – requiring employees to bring funeral notices to justify bereavement leave. Horrifying and repressive? Yes, but it brought to mind the employee who requested bereavement leave three times in 18 months for his grandmother's death. That's grandmother, singular. Apparently the same dear granny died three times.

Manager approval for internal transfers – hanging on to an employee just because you can. This brought back memories of a standoff between two department directors.  The losing director told me he thought the employee was making a mistake – it wasn't a good career move. Is that why you won’t release him, Bob? The gaining department, after showing some restraint, almost called off the deal and the company came close to losing a great employee. They both kept coming to my office to argue their case to me rather than each other. This wasn't my fight and I wasn't about to get in the middle of it. This is a topic we wrote about in The Essential Workplace Conflict Handbook.

Of course some of these policies have legitimate reasons for existing in certain circumstances and industries – for example time tracking policies. In many professional services firms and industries, such as government contracting, time is tracked to gather critical metrics including client billing information, and not to monitor employee's comings and goings. Even in these circumstances, I've seen managers attempt to use this information in a punitive fashion.

My favorite is fussy dress-code policies – the ones that spell out in excruciating detail what can and can't be worn to work. We've got an example of how to deal with inappropriate dress in The Essential Workplace Conflict Handbook without implementing a lengthy policy. You'll have to wait for our next book for more on that subject. I'll just share a quote from a colleague for now -- "You can't call yourself an HR Professional until you've told someone they have to wear underwear to work."

There are some valuable lessons here:

·       No matter how absurd behavior might be, you can’t fix it with a policy (or legislate it at the government level). Bizarre and disruptive behavior will continue and problems will arise. Don’t let one bad apple spoil the whole tree or orchard!

·       It’s how you handle the behavior and respond to workplace problems that matters. Acknowledge that the behavior is creating problems and explain to the employee(s) involved why it’s a problem and how it’s affecting others. Let the employee know that his or her behavior (or dress) has to change. If several individuals are involved, facilitate a discussion and help them hone their conflict management skills.

Policies are often the response to the external environment, such as laws and regulations, and sometimes these requirements can be onerous. Consider the company with a generous, unlimited PTO policy that does not track time off. Its dilemma – complying with a local government law requiring accrual tracking procedures for all time off. Mo-jo crushing indeed!

Policies should provide guidance on how to run an organization and manage issues – including people issues. They should be the cornerstone of treating people fairly, respectfully and professionally. Balance the need to be compliant, when necessary, with establishing a positive culture for employees. Don’t ignore judgment and the particulars of each situation when making individual decisions.