Progressive Discipline?

John Cambell, an HR guru, spoke to us in class on Tuesday. He started his lecture with a roll play demonstration. He pretended that he has an employee who is being difficult. This employee is always complaining and speaking negatively. As the student in class asked him questions, she asked, “Did you document these conversations? What coaching have you done with him?” John stated that he is tired of dealing with this employee. Tired of him not getting along with John and the other employees.

Most of the time, in John’s experience, the “troubled” employee is a good employee with documented success with the company. So, why is there this difference? How can the supervisor be positively engaged in improving the employee?

One of the ways that a manager can be engaged in improving an employee behavior is with progressive discipline. My original thought of progressive discipline is that it is a warning for the employee - a “one last chance card.” As I learn more about HRs roll, training, and discipline, I am beginning to understand that progressive discipline is not a “one last chance card,” but rather a “hey, this is a concern, this is why, we are documenting it, and what can we do to help you” card. That’s why companies have the verbal warning, written warning, 2^nd written warning, and so on documentation. These progressive disciplines could be a lack of motivation from the employee, ignorance from the employee, or more rarely a blatant decision to disobey. But this brings up a new point. Why would an employee want to be “blatantly” disobedient? I may not fully understand this, but I would assume that it is because they have either given up or they don’t like what is being asked of them. Giving up is a personal issue. Even if you hate your boss, the people you work with, and the work at hand, giving up is still a personal choice… though those things do make it harder to choose not to give up. The other idea, not agreeing with what is being asked of them, would probably be the more common factor for an employee not doing what the company wants. In my experience this employee generally does not agree with what is being asked of them either because they are not comfortable doing it or they do not see/understand the benefit of doing what is asked.

At my job we are asked to talk with our customers about specific things. At first I saw this as a hindrance to my ability to really help my customers with what they need. But that is just the problem… what they need was all I was giving. If I am to excel as a salesman and if the company is going to grow its business (profit) then each customer needs to buy more! Not just the minimum. I know that this seems simple, but in real life not very many businesses actually practice it. I now have a new attitude; my business (personally, my employees, and the company) cannot afford to do the minimum, even if the minimum is of good quality. We need to take every opportunity to bring in more money (more sales).

So to step off my soapbox, my next question is, what do my actions or my employee actions have to do with progressive discipline? The answer – EVERYTHING! Corrective action should not be a means to try and fire an employee. It should be a means to help the troubled employee understand the business they are losing for the company because they are not performing in the expected areas. Progressive discipline should be a training session for the employee and their supervisor – both need to gain from a poor performance issue.

I feel that these ideas have begun to help me become a better manager and hopefully they will also help my employees become better themselves.