Malcontent and Disgruntled Employees... What's a Supervisor to Do?
John (Jack) J. Harris
Kevin M. Gilmartin
Published by:
The Police Chief Magazine
February, 2001
In law enforcement agencies across the country, it is not hard to find
malcontent and disgruntled employees who were once highly motivated and
productive people. These employees spend more time trying to undermine and
sabotage administrative direction and supervision rather than just doing the job
they are asked to do. From their perspective, the fun has gone out of the job
and they start to think ahead to retirement (vowing not to let the door hit them
on their way out), even though retirement is still five to ten years away. In
the meantime, first-line as well as mid and executive-level managers who are
unprepared to deal with these employees and the problems they create can look
forward to spending an inordinate amount of time trying to supervise and hold
these employees accountable. Although these people represent only a small
percentage of an organization’s personnel, they demand the largest amount of
supervisory time.
For more than 15 years, the authors have interviewed supervisors and have
presented seminars on this subject to over 150,000 federal, state and local law
enforcement supervisors (from first-line to executive level) from across the
country. These supervisors have produced an amazingly consistent description of
the disgruntled employee and they report that these employees cause the greatest
amount of turmoil over the longest period of time. Supervisors also describe a
feeling of helpless and an inability to effectively deal with these employees.
They cite things like lack of administrative support, civil service, arbitrators
and other review boards, lack of prior documentation, unions and labor
organizations, the amount of time it takes, fear of reprisal, it's easier just
to tolerate the problem until the employee transfers and "I don't know how" as
some of the reasons that it is difficult to deal with these employees.
Unfortunately, there is an almost helpless acceptance that malcontent and
disgruntled employees have to be tolerated within an organization . . . like
other unavoidable hardships. Although supervisors are often quick to blame "the
system" for their inability to address the problems, further discussion reveals
in a more accurate picture. Lack of and/or inaccurate documentation coupled with
not holding employees accountable from the beginning, creates a personnel file
that erroneously portrays the disgruntled employee as performing at acceptable
levels or above. This allows problems to continue and get worse, gives tacit
approval for inappropriate behavior and performance and opens the door for
employee claims of a "personality conflict," unfair treatment, discrimination
and a whole host of other allegations. It is these failures, and not the system,
that often gives attorneys and labor organizations more than enough ammunition
to successfully defend these employees at appeals, in arbitration and in the
courts.
While it is convenient to point the finger at first-line supervisors, these
failures can usually be found at all levels throughout the organization. To have
any hope of dealing with malcontent and disgruntled employees more effectively,
mid and executive-level mangers have to become an integral part of the solution.
They do not have the luxury of simply pointing fingers and blaming first-line
supervisors . . . they have to demonstrate courage, lead by example, give clear
direction, provide meaningful training, be mentors, hold people accountable and
support supervisors who are willing to address inappropriate behavior and
performance. When mid and executive-level managers fail to do their part,
supervisors often become frustrated and ask, "What's the use in trying?"
Malcontent and disgruntled employees are quick to see just how powerless
supervisors can become. When first-line supervisors fail to do their part, mid
and executive-level mangers are virtually powerless to address these problems.
Malcontent and disgruntled employees are not simply the result of supervisory
failures. The typical hiring and screening processes are designed to and do in
fact help select good candidates. However, once hired, organizations rarely pay
any attention to its employees' "Emotional Survival™" nor do they address the
issue of, "Keeping Good People Good™." When organizations do a good job of
selecting and a poor job or maintaining employees, they can expect to see some
of their hard-working, dedicated and productive employees become angry, cynical
malcontents.
Through years of practical experience and thousands of interviews with exemplary
employees, malcontent and disgruntled employees and mangers at all levels, one
thing seems very clear . . . malcontent and disgruntled employees are typically
more experienced at being malcontent and disgruntled than supervisors
(especially new ones) at holding them accountable. For this to change, more
information and insight alone is not enough . . . supervisors and managers need
practical skills that they can apply to real-life situations. With practical
skills, supervisors can develop "the courage to confront" which is essential if
supervisors hope to become more effective and confident when dealing with
malcontent and disgruntled employees. However, the most important time to use
these skills is before problems begin to develop or at the earliest signs of
trouble. Supervisors have a choice, "pay now or pay later" . . . the amount of
time they spend preventing and dealing with problems early on is almost always
insignificant compared to the time required to deal with problems, and their
aftermath, after they have gotten out of control. Headlines are filled with many
examples of inappropriate behavior and supervisory failures that occur in law
enforcement agencies throughout the country.
The "Courage to Confront" and the willingness and ability to communicate, give
verbal and written feedback, follow up, and hold employees accountable coupled
with a viable operational plan are keys to effective supervision. While the
value of an operational plan is well understood in many situations such as,
SWAT, Hostage, high-risk stops, pursuit driving, etc., its value as a
supervisory tool is yet to be fully realized. While supervisors attend classes,
study textbooks and get "on the job training" most agree that is not enough . .
. they need practical skills to do their job effectively. Supervisory training
programs typically emphasize the theoretical aspects and ignore skill
development and the proficiency needed to do the job well.
For the remainder of this article, the authors will discuss a strategy that (if
used) will help supervisors deal with malcontent and disgruntled employees more
effectively and with greater confidence. This strategy can be used effectively
in actual work situations, ranging from the most simple to the most complex. It
can be integrated into each supervisor's personal style of management and can
work within any organizations' policies, procedures and regulations.
Before Meeting With the Employee
One of the keys to an effective operational plan is to having it in place before
the event occurs. With the very best of intentions, supervisors often jump right
into a discussion with an employee only to find them that they were not as
nearly prepared as they thought they were. Before meeting with an employee
supervisors will find it to their advantage to slow down and take the time to
"get their own ducks in line." To do this well, supervisors will want to
consider several things.
First and foremost, the supervisor has to identify the problem in clear,
specific and objective terms. This is often more difficult that it appears to be
because it is usually easier to talk about how we feel about problems or
describe them in general, non-specific terms. Terms such as poor attitude,
unprofessional, arrogant, rude, not being a team player, poor officer safety,
etc., are not descriptions at all . . .rather, they describe how we feel about
the real problem. Trying to talk to an employee about poorly defined problems
sets the stage for misunderstandings, conflicts, arguments, increased
frustration (from both the supervisory and the employee) and non-productive
discussions. Until the problem can be clearly defined, it is a waste to time
trying to find solutions. When this step is not done well or is ignored,
supervisors spend a lot of time trying to implement solutions for problems they
do not fully understand and meaningful change is unlikely to occur. If
supervisors cannot define the problem in clear, specific terms it is unlikely
that the employee will know what he/she needs to do to fix the problem or
improve their performance. Words such as poor attitude, unprofessional, not a
team player, etc. can be a supervisor's worst enemy with trying to explain what
they really meant to an appeals board or a court.
Supervisors must learn to separate their personal feelings and issues from job
performance and behaviors. When supervisors do not define problems in clear,
specific, objective terms it becomes more difficult to separate business from
personal issues. Entwining business and personal issues leads to heated
discussions and disagreements that complicate, rather than solve, problems and
hinders a supervisor's ability to get their point across to the employee.
Supervisors who describe problems in clear, specific, objective terms are better
able to focus on the facts and real issues, and will help them separate personal
feelings from business concerns.
Supervisors are responsible for gathering the facts, completing a thorough,
objective review and basing their decisions and recommendations on the facts.
After the facts are gathered, the supervisor can determine the impact, severity
and potential of the problem and what needs to be done. Since it is impossible
for supervisors to devote equal time to all issues and problems, they must have
the facts before deciding how much time to devote to this matter.
At this point, supervisors are ready to examine their options . . . that is,
consider the different ways that it might be appropriate to address this issue.
They need consider a wide range of options, ranging from things like coaching,
retraining, verbal warnings, counseling to disciplinary action. After
considering their options, supervisors must determine what they are willing and
able to do if the problem continues. It is up to the supervisor to decide what
he/she is willing to do what they say they will do. However, they will usually
have to rely on other people, such as legal advisors, human resource managers or
mangers up their chain-of-command to find out what they are able to do. It is
pointless for supervisors to threaten any type of action if they are either
unwilling or unable to carry out the action in question. Using such tactics as a
"bluff" or a means to get the employee's attention is guaranteed to backfire and
exacerbate the problem rather than help to solve it. Before a supervisor meets
with the employee, he/she must be clear about what they are willing and able to
do. Failure to do this can lead to making "threats or promises" that supervisors
either will not or cannot carry out. Ironically, employees (especially the
malcontent and disgruntled ones) often know immediately if supervisors are
willing and able to do the things they say.
Meeting with the Employee
Up to this point the process has been relatively painless because it is all done
without talking to the employee. But now, the operational plan is complete and
it is time for the supervisor to sit down with the employee and have a
face-to-face discussion. This is where the "rubber meets the road" and where
supervisors report a tremendous amount of discomfort. In many cases, supervisors
avoid these discussions unless there is no alternative. Supervising friends,
wanting to be liked and accepted, unfamiliarity with the new role, not wanting
to be the bearer of bad news, supervising people who have more time with the
organization, dealing with people who think they (not you) should have been
promoted, trying to be fair to employees, the agency & yourself are some of the
most common reasons cited to making this supervisory/employee discussions so
uncomfortable. While nothing will completely eliminate this discomfort, a well
thought out operational plan is the first step. That coupled with increased
skills and practice will significantly reduce the discomfort.
The goal of every discussion should be to give employees information they need
in order to understand what they are doing well, make better decisions, improve
performance or correct problems and ensure mutual understanding between the
supervisor and the employee. While the supervisor is responsible for making sure
that the employee understands what the problem is, what he/she is expected to do
differently and what the consequences will be if the problem continues, the
employee is ultimately responsible for making the required change or face the
consequences.
One of the biggest challenges that a supervisor faces during this step is to not
allow their personal feelings, side issues and emotions to get the discussion
off track. The more prepared the supervisor is the easier it is to stay focused,
not get caught in traps and avoid side issues.
A template to help supervisors keep the discussion on track would include the
following steps . . . Start by describing the problem in clear, specific and
objective terms. Then, ask for the employee's side of the story. It is
imperative to get the employee's side before continuing because, at this point,
the employee's perspective is missing. Once the employee offers an explanation,
the supervisor can consider it before moving forward. Remember that a good
operational plan has to be flexible enough to take into account last minute or
changing information when it is appropriate to do so. From here, the supervisor
has to make it clear what the employee is expected to do differently and
articulate his/her expectations in clear, specific terms. The supervisor then
describes the consequences or disciplinary action that will occur if the problem
continues, again in clear, specific terms. Finally, the supervisor must ensure
that the employee has a clear understanding of the problem, what is expected and
what will happen if the problem continues. When supervisors fail to do this,
mutual understanding can be compromised and employees now have the opportunity
to claim (somewhere down the road), "I didn't know that is what you meant."
The discussion phase is where practical skill development, training and practice
offers the greatest rewards. As with any skill driven activity, success is not
determined by how well one can pass a test of regurgitate the material. The real
test is how well a person can apply the principals to real-life situations. It
is through skill development, practice and more practice (not increased
understanding or reading more books) where supervisors become more effective and
confident when dealing with all employees, especially malcontent and disgruntled
ones. Skill based training is the key to helping supervisors stay on track and
avoid the traps that will surface during meetings with employees. Some employees
are masters at diverting the focus of the conversation to other employees,
projecting blame on others, making accusations against other people, verbally
attacking the supervisor, or otherwise getting the supervisor off track. Without
these skills, malcontent and disgruntled employees will continue to have the
upper hand and remain more experienced at being malcontent and disgruntled than
their supervisors are at dealing with them.
After Meeting with the Employee
After the discussion is over, supervisors must thoroughly document what took
place (whether in a formal report, a supervisory note, employee evaluation,
letter of instruction, improvement plan, an entry in the employee's file, etc.).
The documentation should be done in a timely manner and must focus on objective
observations about job performance and job-related behaviors, rather than
personal commentary about motivation, perceptions and other subjective matters.
Good documentation is clear, specific and objective and is written to the
ultimate reader, that is someone who is unfamiliar or vaguely familiar with the
organization and has no prior knowledge of the problems that are being
addressed. Well written documentation will leave the ultimate reader
(arbitrator, judge, appeals board, etc), with a clear understanding of the
issues and problems, what the supervisor and organization have tried to do help
the employee, what the employees response or lack or response was and the basis
for the recommendations.
Without proper documentation, supervisors will find themselves starting all over
again every time a problem resurfaces or a new problem arises. More importantly,
lack of documentation is one of the major reasons appeal boards, arbitrators and
the courts throughout the country have overturned disciplinary actions.
Inadequate documentation has been a nightmare to more than one organization when
it came to defending discrimination, EEO and other labor law related suits and
it is becoming a significant issue when defending failure to supervise,
negligent supervision and other related civil suits. On too many occasions,
otherwise competent supervisors and mangers have had to endure the agony of
being crossed examined by an attorney who repeatedly uses their own
documentation to impeach their testimony. As one attorney said to each of the
three supervisors and managers that he was cross cross-examining one day, "Based
on the discrepancies between your testimony today and your previous
documentation, we know that you have lied. My only question now is "Are you
lying today in court or did you lie when you wrote the documentation?" Labor
organizations and attorneys alike will often point to the lack of or inadequate
documentation as the strongest part of their case. And finally, fairness and
progressive discipline requires having documentation that addresses problems
right from the beginning.
Regardless of how well things have been done so far, it becomes a waste of time
when supervisors fail to follow-up and follow-through. Follow-up means checking
to see if the employee is doing as he/she has been instructed. Follow-though
means supervisors doing what they said they would do if the problems continued.
Simply put, supervisors' actions always speak louder than their words. While
employees listen to what supervisors say, they pay much more attention to what
supervisors do . . . and quickly figure out whether they really mean what they
say or simply just talk a good game. Supervisors who do not follow-up and
follow-through are a big part of the problem! Not following-though virtually
ensures that the employee will continue to engage in unacceptable behaviors and
will undermine the supervisor's future attempts to deal with the problem.
Following-through can be very uncomfortable because of camaraderie, friendships,
believing it is easier just to give another warning, or hoping that the problem
will just go away. At the same time, supervisors become very frustrated when the
problems continue or get worse. Supervisors who are reluctant to take immediate
action usually act only when they have "had enough" or can not longer "put it
off." Putting it off allows frustrations to grow, and often leads to verbally
explosive confrontations. When this occurs if becomes very difficult to separate
personal emotions from job-related issues. Supervisors who avoid problems and
hope they will just go away are only fooling themselves . . . ignoring problems
simply postpones the inevitable and makes the problems much more difficult to
deal with.
The time spent dealing with problems in the early stages is relatively
insignificant compared to the countless number of hours spent dealing with
escalating problems over and over again during an employee's career. While
supervisors often express concern about the amount of time it would take to deal
with these employees, they are generally agree that if someone had taken the
time when a problem first surfaced, many of the long-term problems could have
been prevented or dealt with more effectively long ago. Supervisors can often
point to employees whose careers might have been saved had they not been allowed
to drift so far afield. While this does take time, the real question is, "If we
take the time to do the job well now, how much time and how many careers could
be saved?"
What Can Be Done
If an organization really wants to do something about malcontent and disgruntled
employees, it needs a multifaceted approach. While organizations must continue
their efforts to select and hire good people, they must also make an effort to
help maintain the people after they are hired. While each person is ultimately
responsible for whether or not she/he becomes malcontent and disgruntled, they
need some help. They need information and skills to help them become "Emotional
Survivors" rather than burned out, malcontent and disgruntled people. "Keeping
Good People Good" should become a priority of every organization. First-line
supervisors have to demonstrate the "Courage to Confront" and must be willing
and able to hold people accountable. Mid and executive-level managers have to
demonstrate courage, lead by example, give clear direction, provide meaningful
training, be mentors, hold people accountable and support supervisors who are
willing to address inappropriate behavior and performance.
Organizations do not have to sit helplessness and accept or tolerate malcontent
and disgruntled employees. There are things that can be done to make a
difference, but it takes a genuine effort and a lot of work. The question
remains, "Pay now or pay later?" . . . the choice is yours.
