Attention Supervisors: Hold Employees Accountable! No Excuses!

The supervisors who are all too eager to jump on poor performance unfairly are usually the ones who come to mind when we think of “toxic supervisors”. However, poor morale, high turnover, incompetence and preventable expenses spread like wild fire in the toxic environment brought on by the supervisor hesitant to address poor performance. When a supervisor defends their “inaction”, they often give clues about why they hesitate to address poor performance. In this article, I review four of the most common excuses supervisors use and explain some of the assumptions these excuses may be masking. This information is helpful when identifying the training needs and preventing deleterious effects to the corporate culture.

Top Four Excuses Used to Justify Inaction:

1. “Relative to other employees, his/ her poor performance isn’t so bad!”

• When the supervisor invokes this “theory of relativity”, it’s a pretty good sign that other employees have worse performance problems that need to be addressed!

However, the term rheumatism might apply to the symptoms of cheapest levitra toxicity may appear, however usually they don’t. For now the only pill which is trending and making a move to get it. india levitra In many cases, sexual dysfunction or lethargic sexual responses may be caused by poor systemic health, stress, viagra levitra viagra the build up of toxins and unhealthful lifestyles. Men who have ailments like the ones mentioned and Zenegra in strength of 20mg, generic levitra online browse to find out more 40mg, 50mg, 60mg etc.
2. “I’ve told the employee the correct way a million times but he/she won’t listen”.

• This is evidence that the supervisor isn’t being taken seriously by employees and isn’t communicating the importance of correcting the behavior effectively.
• When questioned further, it’s often revealed that the supervisor didn’t tell the employee anything, but instead left a note in a common area for all employees to read, for the sake of diluting accountability.

3. “Why bother with disciplinary action? I’ll never be able to fire the person because they are (over 40, with a disability or perceived disability, ill, a minority, or some other reason).

• This is a fallacy often perpetuated by ineffective supervisors to cover up their own incompetence.
• This is toxic because it builds resentment toward the groups the supervisor alludes to and can create animosity toward the employee and the organization by their coworkers.

4. “Upper management won’t back me when I address poor work performance!”

• Further investigation often reveals that there was a legitimate reason that the organization didn’t support a specific supervisor’s decision in the past. For example, maybe the supervisor’s actions were seen as discriminatory. The supervisor inappropriately generalizes to all situations to evade personal responsibility, in part because they don’t have the confidence or they have a bruised ego.

The Meaning Behind the Excuses:

If we understand why supervisors evade their responsibility to address poor performance, we can prevent the effects of a toxic work environment by increasing the supervisor’s leadership skills or finding a position that better suits them. I’ve found the following themes and training points to be helpful in correcting the underlying assumptions they may be exposing in their excuses.

1. Sometimes supervisors think that high expectations contribute to low morale. In reality, it’s unreasonable expectations that contribute to low morale!

• High and reasonable expectations can increase morale and create a positive and stimulating work environment.

2. Some supervisor’s hate delivering bad news and believe that they are “getting someone in trouble” when the address poor performance.

• Addressing performance is actually an act of “training” and holding people accountable for work standards that contributes to the organization’s goals.
• Fostering a culture of continuous feedback prevents training from being perceived as punitive.
• If a supervisor holds employees accountable for what they have been trained and re-trained on, in performance evaluations or disciplinary actions, then that is what I refer to as “clear conscious managing”.

3. There is no law that prevents a supervisor from holding their employees accountable and providing corrective action because  he/ she is in a “protected class”.

• In every state of the union, the burden of proof is on the employer to prove that adverse actions aren’t taken on employees because of unlawful reasons.
• There are many laws and precedence that affect an employer’s decisions including those that have to do with contract law, harassment, and wage and hour law. Some employees are under contract with strict guidelines that govern the disciplinary process for employees. The laws still do not prevent an employer from taking corrective action for misconduct.
• If a supervisor has documentation to prove that the employee knows what is expected of them, not only is the supervisor legally allowed to provide corrective actions, it is imperative that they do so in the appropriate form (re-training, verbal or written warning, etc.) to maintain a positive work environment.
• An employer may inadvertently revoke their discretion in the disciplinary process by creating a verbal or written contract that obligates them to take certain actions before disciplinary action. A classic example of an employer revoking their rights and creating a contract with employees is when the Employee Policy and Procedure Manual specifies steps that will be taken before taking disciplinary action and / or prescribes specific penalties for breaking specific rules. Failing to follow through on such “promises” gives the illusion that a discriminatory practice has taken place, even if that is not the intent.

4. There are many reasons to document training and disciplinary actions and most of them have nothing to do with firing an employee!

• A record of prior trainings can prevent a supervisor from disciplining employees for information they were unaware of.
• Documentation allows supervisors to keep track of the time frame so that employees are held accountable for information that has been reinforced in a reasonable time and so that supervisors can provide refresher training as needed.
• Documentation and lack thereof may expose patterns of possible favoritism and discrimination that should be addressed because it can have a deleterious effect on the work environment and may subject the organization to litigation risks.
• Documentation allows agreement from the employee on what it is they are to be held accountable for and can promote a perception of fairness in the supervisor and employee relationship.

5. Sometimes a supervisor doesn’t address poor performance because they are afraid their employees will retaliate by exposing their own poor performance!

• Supervisors need to know that they lose their authority and ability to lead when they don’t maintain the same work ethic that they are supposed to hold employees accountable for.
• When on the defense, employees will “sing like canaries” and point out any offenses the supervisor is guilty of despite how much the supervisor has been letting the employee get away with poor work quality.
• A supervisor may be afraid that they are perpetuating an illusion of discrimination because they haven’t been consistent holding everyone accountable.

When a supervisor uses an excuse to justify inaction when presented with poor work performance, there probably is some underlying assumption lurking below the surface that cannot be ignored! If there is any legitimacy to a supervisors excuse, your organization may be in need of a favorable change to your corporate culture!  Ongoing internal audits, employee satisfaction surveys and exit interviews are great tools for identifying trends and patterns. In an effort to minimize legal exposure and prevent actual or perceived discrimination, a supervisor should always have corrective actions reviewed by an objective party, such as the HR department who can look for patterns. Once the underlying reasons supervisors hesitate to address poor performance are identified the reasons can be incorporated into leadership development programs or used to determine that the supervisor is not in an appropriate leadership position. This knowledge can prevent the deleterious effects of toxic ineffective supervisors!

Copyright Denise Scotti-Smith 2012. All Rights Reserved.