21 and Out?

Back in my steel making days, Carlo an employee at the Plant came to my office inquiring about a pension estimate.  As HR Manager it was my job to help him out.  New collective agreement negotiations were not going well.  As the jungle drums beat throughout the place the prospect of another ugly and prolonged strike loomed.  For those of you who remember, strikes were not uncommon in the Hamilton steel industry during the 80s.  

Carlo wanted to know how much of a hit he would take on his pension if he retired early in advance of the strike date.  I assured Carlo that when I had a few minutes I would work it out for him.  Later that day I grabbed his file and emptied it on my desk and lit a cigarette.  For those of you who remember the "good old days," this too was not uncommon.  

If you asked anyone from the frontline supervisors to the Plant Manager they would all say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Carlo was the best employee in Plant.  I remember hearing foremen, on two different occasions remark, "if they only had ten more Carlo's they wouldn't need the other 1200 guys."  He was punctual, honest, an exceptionally hard worker, and great at his job.  

As I combed through Carlo's file, I was shocked to find no fewer than 21 disciplinary letters that had accumulated over the course of his career.  Each letter was for the same minor quality control issue.  He had been inattentive for a few short seconds and let a defect slip by him.  Each time he had been formally disciplined.  The Plant's mechanistic discipline system required this approach when a quality control problem was spotted.  The bottom of each letter (ironically indicating a verbal warning had been given) read,

"Further incidents of this nature will lead to further action up to and including termination."

We didn't mean it.  Not one supervisor in the Plant would have ever considered going up the discipline ladder with Carlo, let alone firing the guy.  But we had told him we would 21 times.       

I had the realization that what we were doing was ridiculous.  In management's desire to be consistent we had blanketed the Plant with discipline letters.  Many of them we didn't mean.  This policy effectively rendered them worthless.  We had really been asking for our militant workforce by threatening to sever any sense of belonging people had to the place.  Heck, we told our best employee that we'd kick him to the curb 21 times.  

The discipline dilemma

In my 30 year career I saw many more situations like Carlo's.  Though the names, faces, and places changed, the song usually remained the same.  When the only tool supervisors have to address performance issues big and small is discipline, problematic and predictable problems occur.  Many an experienced supervisor will tell you, managing the big employee issues or incidents is difficult but not as challenging as correcting bad habits with otherwise productive and on the whole "good" workers. Ignore these troublesome issues and they will likely blossom and spread. Come down hard and watch the repercussions on morale and employee engagement for what most will see as nitpicking.  

I think that we all inherently understand that small issues can not be left unchecked, but our thought processes become confused and cloudy when problems become habitual and little chats no longer have an impact.  Add to this rules and regulations, management pressures, and in some cases collective agreements and we have a recipe for inconsistency and low morale in spite of our best intentions.

Home grown common sense

I found my solution in a little home grown common sense.  At home, with our kids, we would never consider playing with their sense of belonging.  The great majority of our kids grow to be healthy and well adjusted (though not always perfect).  We would never say to a child who is fussing with his/her veggies that, "If you don't eat your steamed carrots I'll eventually put you out of the house."  It seems foolish because it is.  But why do we do this at work?  

This formed the basis for a program I wrote to address that addresses this "discipline dilemma" with good employees - Turnaround Interview®.  Turnaround Interview® combines home grown common sense, behavioural psychology, questioning techniques, and ways to overcome natural defensive reactions to correction.  Using Turnaround Interview® leaves employees with an ultimatum: Eat your veggies because we want you to grow with us, or don't and watch the rest of us eat.  But, we won't keep indulging you until we find something you feel like.  In this house good health is not negotiable.  This is a very consistent principle that I think every parent/supervisor can agree with.  Turnaround Interview® never uses the threat of discipline yet most people choose to eat their veggies.  

Happy healthy families, like happy workplaces, are not made by ignoring the issues, giving way to crying, allowing carrots to be tossed around the room, no more than they are made by threatening to put the highchair outside.         

George Raine, is creator of Turnaround Interview® - Fixing bad habits in otherwise good employees.  A program that has just been nominated for a 2010 ACHRA award for Best Innovation in Human Resources.  George was a central figure in the establishment of the Canadian Council of Human Resources Associations and the national standard for the HR profession, the CHRP designation.  His career has spanned four decades and included executive HR roles with Stelco, Frigidaire, and the Irving Group of Companies.