Office discipline: Right People, Wrong Attitude
We have the best in
our teams. They are knowledgeable, skilled, experienced and well-trained
on the job. However, despite all these facilitating factors, sometimes
it is impossible to ignore the dwindling productivity on the whole.
Having screened them for person-job fit and motivation, some may find
the cause rooted in something much more fundamental in any form of human
behaviour: discipline.
Be it lack of punctuality, answering calls at meetings, chatting with
friends over the phone during office hours or checking personal emails
and Facebook every half hour, workplace discipline is an escalating
problem for many managers. More and more managers complain about a young
work force that has no sense of respect to the system, organization’s
rules and unspoken guidelines based on common sense.
Discipline and self
control are the ground rules of the game and a deficit of these creates a
wrong attitude towards work. We probably all know that any form of
expertise is futile without the right mind-set to channel it to the
right place and right time. Workplace discipline is for improving
performance, dealing with unhelpful attitudes and to correct damaging
behaviour. It is also for turning performance around before termination
or suspension of jobs. However, it has to be noted here; workplace
discipline is not punishment.
Just so that we could
put things in perspective: if we are team leaders or managers struggling
to get our teams to optimally perform on a daily basis, we would
probably know how important the following points are, in disciplining
our direct reports.
Our approach should be
to understand the cause of the behaviour. It is vital to give the
employee the opportunity to explain why he/she is, for instance: always
on the phone. If the excuse is based on unjustifiable reasons, then it
is time to take charge.
It is important to be
specific. We minimize defensive behaviour by making it clear to our
employees what exactly we are disciplining about. Generic statements
like ‘you need to improve your attitude’ can only add ambiguity.
Relating the unruly behaviour to specific standards such as ‘you have
been seen on the phone laughing and chatting away during office hours,
and this is not acceptable’, is imperative.
Furthermore, putting the incident into context would add more clarity to
our inquiry. This could be done by explaining to the employee how their
behaviour disrupts the work flow and how it impacts on others’ quality
and timely output. Furthermore, we could explain how this projects a bad
image of the department or the team to the outsiders.
Specifying the change
that we expect from the respective employees is essential: ‘I would like
you to take your personal calls during the breaks and you have to limit
using the office phone for such long calls’. In being specific about
this expectation, we tell the employee that it is not a personal attack
but something that we would ask anybody else to carry out too.
It is also necessary to
explain the consequences of not adhering to the code of conduct. Since
this is verbal warning, the employee should be informed of what other
measures we would take if the behaviour is not to change; ‘if this
continues, I have to request a disciplinary inquiry’. This ensures the
repercussions of not changing and in turn makes him/her more
responsible. If the employee does continue to display the wrong
behaviour, we need to take action as mentioned. On top of being
consistent in what we say and what we do, this will also act as a
warning for others too.
Being consistent also
applies when we have to discipline employees who may also be our
friends. It is good to remember, that in the work environment our
priority is to manage our teams. It will definitely not look good on us
if we overlook behaviour in one person and not the other. Being
impersonal and informing that it is the behaviour that is problematic
and not him/her as a person, will help us to define our boundaries
amongst friends at work.
Providing support and
finishing on a positive note are crucial- ‘having said that, I want to
avoid going down the disciplinary route; your team needs you and you
play an important role’. The ending should promise a win-win situation
to the employee and the company.
Finally, what if the
problem is chronic and we realize our continuous attempt to rectify the
difficult employee is similar to pouring water on a duck’s back? The
harsh truth is that the company or team is better off without them.
Problems vary in their severity and managers are called to make some
hard decisions depending on the circumstances.
Discipline is as
elementary as ABC. It forms the foundation of a person’s character.
Discipline subsequently suggests ‘respect’ for oneself and others, and
it is not rocket science that without this respect, there will be no
progress in any form of system: family, organization or wider society as
a whole. (This columnist could be reached at rozaine@forte.lk).
No comments:
Post a Comment