I can recall several serious incidents in my time with clients where employee dismissals involved verbal and physical threats of violence. While in most cases the threats did not materialize, in some, I have no doubt that preventive steps taken beforehand made the difference. Sadly, in some cases, violence resulted when no threats were made. This brings home the main point that safety is an issue every time the loss of a job is at stake.

First, a well-drafted and communicated Violence in the Workplace policy will help to establish healthy boundaries for what should not be tolerated in the workplace. Over the years, I have learned through employee interviews (conducted for various reasons) that violent behaviors are tolerated because employees simply don’t speak up out of fear for their job or because they are unsure of what they should tolerate as part of the job.

Second, an employer can use an employee assistance program to assist with an employee exit.  Whether the employee behaves in a frightening manner or is a time bomb waiting to be set off, do not hesitate to bring in the professionals to help lessen the manager’s burden of telling someone they no longer have a job.  Depending on the situation, the nature of the employee assistance may be career counseling, or counseling for areas of personal need. A good employee assistance program will sort that out and offers the added advantage of being off site and away from the source of the anxiety.

Finally, an emergency plan and back up is critical if there is even the slightest hint of violence:  A security or police officer apprised of the situation, or at the least a person nearby who is aware of what is taking place and can call for assistance if needed.

For more information, check out an article this week in the The Wall Street Street Journal. Here are a few tips from WSJ for safeguarding the workplace:

• Establish and strictly enforce a zero-tolerance policy for violent behavior or threats, including seemingly empty threats.
• Create an emergency-action plan if you are an employer covered by OSHA. An employer with 10 or fewer employees may communicate the plan orally to employees, while larger firms must put it in writing.
• Keep a written record of any disciplinary action and have the employee sign it.
• Devise a termination strategy that doesn’t discriminate; follow the same protocol when firing both executives and laborers.
• Conduct dismissals in a private setting and enlist a senior company leader to serve as a witness.
• Upon terminating an employee, immediately disable his or her access to the company’s computer systems and confiscate keys.
• If the demeanor or behavior of a person being dismissed is questionable, consider calling law enforcement for support.

Recently, I blogged about, How Many HR Staff you should have. Today there is a related article in a United Kingdom publication about efficiency in government workers versus private workers.  I should preface these findings by saying that just as is the case in the U.S., the U.K. is facing major cut backs in government budgets. This research essentially says that the public sector lacks the management skills to improve efficiency. Not a popular message, but if you are a proponent of professional management in local government, you will appreciate the emphasis on the importance of involving employees in order to make them more accountable.

Some key findings.

*        In the U.K., private businesses generate more personal accountability than the public sector for performance, allowing them to achieve better staff efficiency. Staff utilization rates for private and public differed by 14%.  To illustrate the difference, the study offered an example of a 30,000-person county council. If utilization rates were improved from 32% to 44%, the same work could be done by approximately 22,000 staff (8,000 fewer), a staff reduction of 27%.

*        Managers and supervisors in local government were found to be spending fewer than 15 minutes per day (only 3% of their time on average) engaged in ‘active’ management such as following up on work assigned to their team.  But at 25 minutes per day (5% of the time) the average private sector manager was not much better.  

 The consultants in the study point out that simply cutting back budgets will only result in reduced services and “chaos”. Far more significant changes are needed, including a change in mindsets, improved management skills and a shift in culture to include more involvement by employees.

 The following quote from the researchers illustrates this point:

“For instance, during our observations most managers were found to be uncomfortable confronting the poor performance of staff or even establishing with staff what good performance meant. Many seemed more comfortable spending time doing hands-on work in the mistaken belief that they were ‘helping’, rather than managing people and performance levels. Often they were observed busily carrying out administrative tasks, while outside their office their staff were clearly under-utilized; it is crazy to have well-paid managers spending so much time on administration or doing the work of their people when their greatest value would be to spend more time ensuring their staff’s performance is being optimized.” 

Amen.

Performance Reviews and Workplace Stress

The NY Times Health section recently reported on workplace studies that show the negative health effects of stress at work and in particular, cited performance reviews as a cause. Although performance reviews are necessary to separate the high performers from the low performers and provide adequate documentation, most of us also acknowledge the difficulty in delivering effective feedback and even those of us who agree they are necessary, cringe at the thought of giving reviews.

So is anyone surprised at the link between performance reviews and workplace stress? In fact, this finding relates to a much broader area of research which links high stress levels, low productivity, low engagement and low morale, to one major factor: the relationship with and/or perceived competence of the front line supervisor.  The Conference Board research cited in this article is only one among many studies showing that employee satisfaction is greatly impacted by the quality of managers.

Two important lessons can be taken from these findings: In brief, there is no one-size-fits-all and a performance review system does not need to be overwrought.  Oftentimes I consult with organizations that do not have the will or the means to develop a system that integrates performance with competencies, pay or organization-wide goals.  In such cases, I stress the following:

• Start a performance review program by sitting down with each employee once a year and reviewing the job description to discuss changes, perceptions of the job and expectations, all the while keeping the discussion focused on the job.
• Then establish goals for the coming year that reflect priorities for the organization. Set timelines, and target dates to report on progress.
• Finally, keep a record of summary comments by supervisor and employee about the outcome of the interview.

This type of review process steers away from judging attributes or personal characteristics which often give rise to the perceptions of unfairness, especially where trust is in question.  Rely on a well drafted personnel policy with a discipline policy to address problems that disrupt business and relationships at the workplace.

The second important lesson is that while after years of research, we now know that leaders with emotional competence (“people persons”) create less toxic, less stressful workplaces. What is becoming more evident in the research is the stronger link between first line supervisors and stress.  So we need to think more about assessing people skills in lower level supervisory positions as well as assessing and coaching in this area.  Some specific suggestions include:

• Develop internal mentoring relationships to promote informal coaching and feedback.
• If possible, provide formal coaching by an external person to help supervisors follow a more structured development plan.
• Provide an outlet for employees to report problems with supervisors (this is where a good HR person is vital). 

 Good relationships lend themselves to productive feedback. So leaders who hire can, and should, place a premium on people skills.  Also, use performance reviews sparingly and consider all the various ways to deliver feedback. The main idea is to communicate what is important in the job, both short term and long term. So, conduct mini-reviews everyday on yourself and your staff and then ask yourself, “what important conversations do I need to have today?”

OTHER NEWS AND UPDATES OF INTEREST

Save the Workplace and Fire Bad Supervisors and Managers  This blog post continues the discussion on supervisors and performance evaluation.

Another piece that compliments today’s topic: How to spot a liar and why it might be harder if he’s the boss.

Be aware! One of the proposed amendments by the DOL for the Fair Labor Standards Act is that all employees will be considered non-exempt unless proven exempt.  In order to “prove” exemption, the employer will need to show that a position has been analyzed, that the job incumbent has reviewed the analysis and that the analysis is kept as a record for review by wage and hour in the event of an investigation.

Did you know? Employees harassed by Third-Parties: Male Prisoners Harassing Female Correctional Employees  In this case, the employer was responsible under Title VII for harassment.

Inability to get along with co-workers can be sufficient basis for adverse employment action – from Employment Law Matters – note that this case highlights the importance of good documentation.