Part 2 of 5
Alfredo’s manager described Alfredo as, “a likable, high-performing employee who gets along well with others. He has been with us about eight months.”
The manager continued to say that Alfredo had been traveling a lot lately and the office manager became suspicious of his expense reports. Taxi fares seemed too high and some restaurant tickets included more people than necessary.
The manager confronted Alfredo about his expense reports and he responded, “I probably did inflate some of my expenses a bit. My previous company seemed OK with that. But I know it is wrong. I won’t do it again.”
About thirty percent of participants in my workshops say they would give Alfredo a warning and watch him closely. He is a good producer and a good team member.
But about two thirds say that falsification of records justifies termination. Alfredo did admit his discretion but only after he was caught. This is a character issue. It is probably not the first time and will not likely be the last.
While some managers tend to overlook such practices, especially for high producers, I side with the two-thirds who argue that it is a character issue and grounds for termination.
Part 1 of 5
A manager said to me, “I’m concerned about Jacob. He has really struggled during the last few months.”
“How long has Jacob been with you?” I asked.
“Almost fifteen years.”
“What is Jacob’s performance history?”
“He’s been a pretty good performer, not great but reliable. The volume in Jacob’s job has increased dramatically and we have become very dependent on technology.”
“Have you trained Jacob sufficiently?”
“Yes, we’ve offered extensive training. In reality, the job has probably outgrown Jacob’s abilities.”
“Do you have other tasks that you could assign to Jacob?”
“Not really. We are fully staffed and I’ve shifted tasks as much as I can.”
When a job outgrows an employee’s abilities, I think the company should try to reassign the employee to other tasks. However, as in this example, reassignment is not always practical.
Another option is to continue coaching and training and hope to get the employee up to speed. However, this usually does not work.
As tough as it sounds, the better option for both the organization and the employee is to compassionately remove the person from the organization and assist him/her in finding a better fit with another company.
While jointly writing checks to pay bills, one party says to another, “We need more stamps.” While the first party may simply be acknowledging a need, he/she is more likely, by implication, making a request of the second party to buy stamps. Communication by implication is fraught with risks.
Consider these implied messages from mangers to employees.
“We need to be more responsive to clients.”
“We need to improve our on-time deliveries.”
“We need to reduce overtime.”
In each of these examples, the person hearing “we,” may not see the need to do anything differently because the manager has retained co-ownership of the issue. Consider making the requests with the pronoun “I.”
“I would like for you to be more responsive to our clients.”
“I want you to improve your on-time deliveries.”
“I would like for you to reduce overtime in your department.”
By using the pronoun “I,” the manager owns the expectation and more clearly assigns the responsibility for achieving the expectation to the employee.
I understand the importance of teamwork and I get “there is no “I” in team. I also believe that leaders who use the pronoun “I” more clearly identify their expectations. And they do so without diminishing teamwork.