Managers, let me pose this question to you: Would you make the same decision for someone you liked as you would for someone you disliked?
I found myself mulling over this very question while I was sitting on an airplane flying to some indistinct location. Once again, I was searching for a flash of brilliance that would direct me to a management tidbit I could write about this month. But as luck would have it, I didn’t have to search for very long. My day-to-day events at work provided me with more than enough material and saved me from staring at a blank screen all night.
I’m sure that anyone who has had the privilege of being in management has been regularly confronted with an employee’s request to make an exception to the rules. Usually, this comes from one of the “good guys” who asks for a favor to get them out of the fire after they’ve screwed up. However, for every plea from one of the good guys, comes an inverse request for you to take aggressive action against one of the “not so good guys.” And many times, “aggressive action” means a full on beating.
Now, before I try to impose my “sage” wisdom upon you, I can proudly say I have blown this one time and time again. I am a sucker for a great story about poor ol’ “Bob.” We all know Bob; he’s the guy who’s been with the company for the last umpteen years. He’s the guy who has always taken the extra shifts, who keeps his unit clean and who roots for the Washington State Cougars (that one always works on me). But once again, poor Bob has failed to follow important policies and now he is looking at being terminated.
Who among us wouldn’t want to make an exception and save Bob? I mean, why not? Bob is great. We NEED more Bobs in the world. And, yes, he does not exactly follow the safety policy for backing up his documentation and his adherence to protocol is a little weak, but it’s Bob. Everyone loves Bob.
So, do we make an exception and save Bob once again, or do we ask him to start packing up his belongings?
Now before we can plow through and answer that question, we have to consider that other guy, “Joe.” I, possessing a slightly hyper personality, have an equally strong but opposite reaction when it comes to Joe. He’s the one with the off-putting personality and who doesn’t seem to like the company or his peers very much. Joe is the guy who you would never want to grab a beer with. And while he does have solid patient care skills — much better than Bob — Joe just can’t seem to help himself and is always on the hack list. One day Joe, too, goes one step over the policy line and everyone pounces on it like a box of doughnuts in the break room.
So what happens to Joe? Will we make an exception for him, like our gut tells us to do for Bob?
This situation seems on the surface to be a no-brainer: have your leadership team take Bob out back and tell him he is off the hook once again and that he is now on double-triple-secret probation. Then go and take Joe by his uniform collar and drag him out the front door. Take his keys away and tear his patches off in a public display of humiliation, just to show everyone in the department that you won’t tolerate the “bad ones.”
Now, if you haven’t guessed it already, that is not the way to approach this management dilemma. Doing so will be violating my number one fundamental rule for making human resource decisions. You have to ask yourself: “Would you make the same decision for someone you liked as you would for someone you disliked?”
The concept is quite easy, yet very effective. When reviewing Joe’s case, you have to treat him as if you liked him as a human being. While the concept is easy, the process is incredibly difficult. It is human nature to respond to hostile situational environments with a negative or guarded reaction. Dealing with Joe will test your ability as an unbiased examiner — a key component of your job. If you want to be perceived as a fair and just leader, you have to fight the natural impulse to make an example out the person who is pressing on your last nerve. More importantly, you have to take fair and just action against the one you would like to protect.
In the end, the correct decision in this simplified example is this: say a painful goodbye to Bob and develop an action plan to get Joe back on track. No doubt Joe is not doing your system as much good as he could, but he is actually doing the basic tasks he is assigned. Joe can be rehabilitated to be a more solid employee. Bob, on the other hand, has had a history of mistakes, and while we love him, the things we overlook will eventually come back to haunt us.
It would be great if all of our employees had Bob’s personality and Joe’s clinical skills, and managers could avoid having to make these hard choices. But we all know this is unrealistic. Love ‘em, or hate ‘em, Bob and Joe have to be treated fairly and equally. And while it will be hard to say goodbye to Bob, it will be far less painful than having to sit through a court deposition because Bob screwed up again and hurt someone. It would be even more painful to bring Joe back because of wrongful termination. If you thought Joe was marginal before, wait until he is back with a real reason not to like where he works.
