Malcontent and Disgruntled Employees . .
What's a Supervisor to Do?
Published by:
The Police Chief Magazine
February, 2001
Written by:
John (Jack) J. Harris, M.Ed.
Kevin M. Gilmartin, Ph.D.
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.
