Crushing Positive Employee Relations

Distracted managers not focused on the needs and expectations of employees is a major source of dissatisfaction for employees. Kudos (and my appreciation) to those committed to maintaining positive employee relations.

There are many things a manager can do to maintain positive employee relations. One thing a manager can do is to respect, acknowledge and appreciate their employees. Another, make sure you're as nice in email as you are in person. 

• Respect the impact an email can have on an employee. When an employee sees an email from their boss, their blood pressure actually goes up, no matter what the content of the mail is. But, understandably, blood pressure went up even more when employees got angry emails from the boss, or emails from a boss they perceived to be unfair. If you get in the habit of sending little bombs throughout the day, you will create a truly deadly workplace.
• Be consistent. People read a lot into emails because the emails are devoid of the nonverbal cues we use to judge a message delivered in person. If you usually send very cordial ones, and then send a cold one, people who depend on you will spend hours analyzing it. The more consistent you are, the more people will focus on your content and stop wasting time trying to figure out subtext.

Not sexy enough, I know, but being nice in email can help you to avoid legal landmines. Email transmissions are considered "documents," and can be used against an employer in a lawsuit in the same way as any written letter or memorandum. Moreover, deleted messages do not just "go away," but remain in the company´s electronic archives.  Deleted messages can be recalled, and an improper message can come back to haunt an employer months or years after the message was first transmitted.

Ready to fire off a strongly worded email, tip the balance of power in your favor and enjoy the illusion while it lasts?  Don't. Step away from the computer.

I expect more from a leader in my organization. You should too.

Departing Rants

A reader asks:

Any thoughts of how to address (departing) employee rants broadcast widely via email? Thanks

If the departure was of his or her choosing, thank your lucky stars for their assistance in ridding your company of the bad, bad employee. If the departure was because of you, pat yourself on the back.

The terms of the departure, time between disparaging email and departure date, the content of the e-mail, the position, role or influence of the employee in question are a few of the things to consider but I would tend to give it very little response or reaction. Employees are smart people and the good ones will see right through it and give the negative comments of a parting employee the weight they deserve - none.

Comments anyone? Agreeing and dissenting opinions both welcome!

When Do You Trump the Outcome of a Proven Process?

If your HR is anything like my HR, you have processes. If your organization is anything like my organization, you have people. If your people are anything like my people, they have professional opinions, personal opinions and their own views of the world.

When personal opinions and personal views of the world creep into a professional work place process, my position is to let the process run its course and to keep the personal stuff out of it, especially if the process is a proven one.

So, what if  the proven process runs its course and, in the end, the outcome is called to question. What if the outcome MAY be perceived as detrimental to the integrity of the program? In a perfect world, processes established would always support and honor the integrity of the program but, we are human, we are not perfect and it just doesn't always work that way.

At this point, there are two choices: accept the outcome or recommend a trump of the outcome. There are pros and cons to each and neither is without its repercussions. Weigh them out. 

• How did the process produce this outcome?
• Why is there an issue with the outcome? Is the issue valid?
Where does the program value lie: in the process or in the outcome?
• What are the risks in compromising this? What are the benefits?
• Is your organization willing to accept that? Are you?

Hard questions for a hard decision. The answer is often not very clear. So, quiet the noise, trust your gut and do what you feel is right.

If your instinct is anything like my instinct, it will never steer you wrong.

The Devil Is In the Details

Supervisor walks into my office and says, "I don't want to hear about that Wein guy, I just want to know if the union has to be at this meeting I am having today."  What does that tell me? No legal jargon, no references to the Federal Labor Management Statute or the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Just the facts, Jack.

As he is describing what he plans to do, I am listening and seeking to answer a few questions for myself.

• Is it a formal discussion? Does the meeting concern a grievance, personnel policy or practice, or a general condition of employment? What is the length of the meeting, the location of the meeting, is attendance mandatory, will he use a prepared agenda?
• Is it an investigative interview? Does it involve a  bargaining unit employee and a management representative? is it conducted in connection with an investigation? Does the employee reasonably believe that this could result in disciplinary or advers action?

There is a clear distinction in the nature of the discussion at each of these meetings and this distinction is important.  In the case of a formal interview, the right to representation belongs to the union. That means that the union must be notified and has a right to attend, even if the bargaining unit members do not want representation. In the case of an investigative interview, the right to representation belongs to the employee and the employee must request it. The devil is in the details.

In this case it is neither. Turns out the supervisor wants to review new performance standards with an employee. I have some questions for him and he has answers. Yes, the employee is the only person these performance standards apply to. Yes, they were forwarded to the union for their concurrence and yes, the union concurred (remember this scenario is for demonstration purposes only!). He is closing out the current performance year under the current standards and will implement the new ones with the start of the new cycle. He is rating the employee fully successful or above.

If the answers were any different, we would be picking up the phone and inviting the union to a meeting. The devil is in the details and he can be a tricky one.

Another Day In the Neighborhood

Supervisor took an action. Union grieved. Welcome to another day in the neighborhood.

Bottom line - what if you are faced with a relatively minor issue in the big scheme of things but are just not comfortable. Maybe it's not all about your comfort. Ok, let's think about that.  You are tooling along, taking the bumps as they come, varying off course and either getting back or changing it, doing what you can to be consistent. Interpretation is grey, however, it is further clarified by day to day actions and doing what's right.

An employee does something wrong. A supervisor speak with him or her. Puts them on notice. The employee does it again and the supervisor can take action. That action can range from choosing to do nothing at all to counseling on up to discipline. The "what" of what the employee did wrong can alter this greatly but what if the "what" was a number of relatively minor instances over a six-month period. What if the instances were all the same, i.e. AWOLs, unplanned sick leave, customer complaints, or poor workmanship?

Time goes on, the instances pile up and the supervisor keeps notes. One day, the supervisor has had enough and takes an action. He counsels the employee. Union grieves. How do you advise? It depends. Are you comfortable with the supervisor's action?

In this instance, I would not be. Why? The supervisor should have spoken with the employee along the way and put him on notice sooner. The employee never had an opportunity to improve.

You advise the supervisor. Supervisor does not hear. Welcome to another day in the neighborhood.

It Can't Always Be About Being Right

When do you take a calculated risk? Can you call it a calculated risk even if it is a little difficult to see the "calculated" piece beyond your all too apparent frustration.

Here's the deal. You are in the midst of a settlement agreement. You are encouraged to settle because it supposedly does not look good for you in the end. All things considered, you determine that it would be best all around to close this out quick and easy. Quick and easy, ha! Everything is tooling along . . . .and then the bump. 

In settlement discussions, many options and approaches are thrown out for consideration. Once considered further, the options presented may not be feasible. What sounded like a good idea in brainstorming, may not after further inquiry. You review the other party's settlement proposal and see that the proposal appears to be negatively impacting the very group they say they were trying to protect. They may not realize this, so you tell them. They don't budge or seem to care. Why? It seems to you that they can't see beyond their need to make a point. They just know that they are right.

Do you take a calculated risk, end the settlement discussions and take this to hearing because you don't feel the group of people in question are being represented properly? You feel they are being used as a means to an end. Are they? Or could it be that you don't like it when the balance of power is not in your favor and you can't see beyond your need to shift it? You can't see beyond your need to make a point. You just know that you are right.  

What do you do? Absolutely nothing for 24 hours. Then you talk with your people on this side of the issue.  When they tell you to let it go, settle and move on, you do just that. You settle and you move on. You do it without calculation. You do it with a smile.

Assessing Credibility

When working through employee conduct issues, do you frequently find that you have all the information you need, a solid evidence file, and maybe even a flat out "Law and Order" confession? More realistically, how many times do you end up with a "he said, she said" type of a situation? How many times do you get questionable information, are unable to get any further clarification and find yourself stuck between words on a paper and an employee's verbal explanation?

As life would have it, all of the facts are not always there. How many times do you go with your gut instinct? How often do you decide on a course of action because it seems or feels right.  Where the facts end, judgement begins. We make  judgements even when there seemingly isn't a fact in the room to support us. We determine that fact A is more plausible than fact B and that employee A is more believable than employee B. What is that all about?

If anything is a judgement or a gut reaction, a credibility determination is right at the top of the list. A credibility determination can be, actually must be, made in a factual context. Silence the noise. You are the head of an an Administrative Board of Investigation. Employee A comes in for an interview. You and your team ask questions, employee answers and at the end you smile, you have finally heard some testimony you believe. You share this, yet not all members of the team agree with you. If their blank stares didn't give it away, their demands that you "not believe the testimony of Employee A over that of Employee B, because Employee B has such a nice family," do. 

Your team has mutually inconsistent stories and need to decide who to believe. You reach for your crystal ball but it is not there (darn, did fiscal borrow that again?) and you just used up your last bit of Hogwart's magic yesterday on that "other employee thing" so what do you, as the team's leader, do? Hint: don't go down the "nice family" route. You can systematically consider the testimony at hand against the questions below aka the Hillen Factors.

1. The witness' opportunity and capacity to observe the event or act in question
2. The witness' character
3. Any prior inconsistent statements made by the witness
4. The witness' bias, or lack thereof
5. Any contradiction or corroboration of the witness' story by other evidence
6. The inherent probability or improbability of the witness' version of events
7. The witness' demeanor or non-verbal credibility clues (speed and/or tone of responses, eye contact, body language, facial tics/body movements, sweating, blushing)

Notice that questions about clothes, friends, family, money, cars, popularity, etc are not included. These may go to something (mainly noise) but they do not go to credibility. Take the noise away, focus on the factors and you may be able to confirm your gut reaction. What if the factors cause you to rethink your gut reaction, eliminate the noise and determine another as more credible? All the more solid your team's recommendation will be at the end of the investigation. Thorough investigation, solid recommendation, happy approving official - job well done.

Now, to get my crystal ball back . . . .  

Collaboration Does Not Equal Pushover

I had the opportunity to listen to an awesome attorney speak to our supervisors about labor management relations this week. During each of the two sessions, we went back to the basics. Federal labor relations is governed by statute so we spent the morning getting acquainted (or reacquainted) with the Federal Labor Management Statute. One portion of the statute of particular interest to management is section 7106 (a), Management Rights.

Management rights. We have them. We give them away. We have got to stop doing that.  We must be able to recognize a management right when we see it and when asked to give it away, we need to respond appropriately. When we take an action protected by 7106 (a) and the Union's response is, "No, you can't do it," a proper and correct response is, "Your request is not an appropriate arrangement."

Appropriate arrangement is a new phrase I learned this week.  It really does sound better than,  "What, are you freaking crazy?!" What other phrases and terms did I pick up? Reasonably foreseeable, anti-union animus, status quo ante, bifurcate and the "vitally effects" test.  I was reacquainted with the "covered by" doctrine and the Hillen factors, the supervisors were introduced to Douglas and his factors and we worked through past practices and duty to bargain.

Duty to bargain. We have it. We must abide by it. We must do it right. Management is not necessarily the king and queen of the hill when we change working conditions and conditions of employment for bargaining unit members. Supervisors can huff and puff all they want but it will not change the statute. Huff and puff, do it quickly, and then get over it.

The topic that resulted in the most heads on the table or hands through the hair was union misconduct. Bottom line, unless the union's behavior is physically threatening or qualifies as sexual harassment, there is not much management can do in terms of formal repercussions. History and case law continues to clearly support the union's "freedom of expression." It is what it is and it won't change anytime soon so take the high road, end contentious meetings, disengage when you need to. Your meeting, your sandbox, your rules. 

The desire of some supervisors to want to live by the letter of the statute did get me a little anxious. Remember the phrase  about living in glass houses and not throwing rocks? Labor management relations is not purely procedural. It is not black and white. It is, at least at this medical center, based on relationships. It is a complex system of give and take, of compromise, and of agreements to disagree. The supervisors saw very quickly that the union does not operate by the letter of the statute. What they did not see as readily was that neither does management. I am all for tightening up the system in some areas.  Knowing that stressing or changing one part of the system will affect others it must be done thoughtfully and plan fully, and we must anticipate the benefits and repercussions of doing so.   

I get heat for being "too collaborative" at times. Walk a mile in my shoes then let's talk.  I will always try to work it out collaboratively first and this works right now. I am not one to keep putting my hand out without reciprocation and I can stand my ground when I need to. We have had 3 ULPs in 4 years, 2 arbitrations and less then 15 requests for information. Our grievances are primarily filed only in response to issued discipline and our exposure to MSPB has been limited to probationary removals. Do we cave? No, we talk, we discuss issues and we resolve them informally when we can. We collaborate.

When I think of the energy wasted in filings, fights and positioning, I get tired. Just think of what else the parties in the situations could be doing instead. What processes could they be improving? What employees they could be recognizing? What working conditions could they enhance?

When Do You Lay Your Cards on the Table?

You are working through an issue. It could be an employee conduct issue, labor negotiations issue, EEO filing, etc. It involves you working with another person, with a different agenda, to bring closure. Closure involves agreement, concurrence, collaborative settlement. Basically, if a mutually agreeable solution is not reached, it goes formal and becomes, by design, positional and adversarial. Neither party wants to go there. 

A third party is involved. The third party is experienced, holds the cards as the arbitrator/gatekeeper/integrity of the action and while she holds a neutral position, the position of the person herself is not clear. She lives and breathes this process of which you are a relative newcomer. Says she is a straightshooter, reputation tends to support that. Phone call received, game has begun. Is it a good faith game or not? You clearly do not have the advantage and really are not sure.

What are you sure of? You are crystal clear that you are less experienced (by a long shot) and even though you researched and consulted and reviewed everything you could find, you don't know the unwritten rules of the game. Because of your research, you know that you do have options that have yet to be spoken but that you have the weaker hand. You know that in good faith is the only way you will play. 

Options, settlements, opinions are discussed. You are asked what you think about them. One sounds pretty darn good for you and it appears to you that she obviously doesn't know what you know. Heck, if she did, she sure wouldn't be suggesting this! This seems too good to be true!  Although this is the first time you are speaking with this person, you will speak with her again, and again, in your tenure in other issues - guaranteed.

What do you do?  What is the best approach to take? Do you hold your cards close? Do you take her at her word that you are working with a straightshooter and lay your cards on the table? Do you hedge, deny, delay, or remain neutral to test her out?

How do you know that she is not testing you?

Shuffling off to St. Louis

Houston, we have a problem. A proportion of the discipline actions being prepared for Title 38 employees (physicians, nurses, PAs etc) nationwide are being downgraded or overturned at the disciplinary appeals board level for technical reasons.

Fortunately, we have few to no actions of this type locally but if we do, they are a big deal. We need to be sure, for the employee, that actions are only initiated on valid causes and for the agency, that initiated actions are sustainable. So, off I go with my HR Manager colleagues for training. The training is being conducted by members of an awesome group and one that I am confident will make a what could be a VERY dry topic, VERY engaging.

For those non-federal readers who are interested in an HR primer: there are basically two types of employees governed by two different Titles, or Codes of Federal Regulations: Title 5 and Title 38.

• Our physicians and independent health care providers are governed by Title 38 and everyone else by Title 5.
• Title 38 and Title 5 differ in personnel systems, so the systems we use to hire, promote,  provide benefits for, evaluate, set pay, reward and discipline etc employees are very different.
• A little twister:  most dependent health care related occupations, such as pharmacists, social workers, audiologists, LPNs etc are not purely Title 5 or Title 38, they are Hybrid Title 38. So we use Title 5 rules for basically everything but hiring, pay setting and promotion and use Title 38 rules for this.
• Discipline actions, and associated processes, procedures and rights of review and appeal are very, very different for each title  and that is not even considering bargaining unit status and whether or not, if Title 38, the issue being addressed is related to professional conduct or competence.

Yeah, I know what you are thinking and you don't need to say a word. I am shuffling off to St. Louis for the week to learn more about the little niche we call Title 38 disciplinary actions. Have a great week!

Let's Talk. Let's Talk About Discipline.

Let me start with a few questions.

How does your organization communicate it's position on discipline? Does your organization have a stance on discipline? If so, is this communicated or just a supposed "known" in the culture?

Is determining an appropriate level of discipline left solely to a supervisor's discretion? How are supervisors trained? How are they synchronized? Are they synchronized, calibrated, or whatever to ensure consistent organizational responses to similar situations? Should they be?

Where does supporting supervisors start and ensuring equitable, reasonable and respectful treatment of employees end, or vice versa? Are they mutually exclusive?

What role do you, as an HR professional, have in the disciplinary process beyond the technical processing of an action?  Do you advise? Do you offer your $0.25 and let the final decision fall with the supervisor or are you an integral part of the decision making process? If so, are you part of the process to the degree where if you don't agree with the action it does not proceed?

If you are unionized, what percentage of your disciplinary actions are grieved? What percentage of grievances are denied with the original discipline sustained? What percentage are granted with the discipline reduced or even vacated? What percentage are resolved at the lower steps and how many are pushed as high as they can go? How do you fair in arbitrations?

Is the disciplinary process achieving it's intended goal. What is the goal by the way? Does leadership as a whole agree? Did you ask them? What did they say? 

Do you tire of trying to make sense out of the non-sensical?

Let's talk. As leaders, we must.

Looking Past "What" to Consider "Why"

"Where oh where did my Blackberry go, where oh where can it be?"

The climate in my organization right now is one where the loss of any information device is not a good thing. As you probably surmised from my opening line, I did not know where my Blackberry was. I opened my purse to plug it in for the day and it was not there, it is always there, where could it have possibly gone? Thankfully, by the end of the day it was back in my hands.

Where was it? In my daughter's clubhouse behind the couch, tucked safely away with her animals. When I realized that, I was relieved and shared the news. A number of times I heard the comment, "I sure bet she's grounded."  When I got home, I asked the kid if she took mommy's little computer. She said that she didn't know I was looking for it, she didn't want me to use it. Message sent, message received - loud and clear.

Did I ground her? I sure did. How? I called her over to me, got down on the floor beside her and gave her a nice, long heart hug.  In the process, I grounded myself too.

So, what does this have to do with HR? I have many conversations with supervisors and managers about appropriate discipline. About how to respond to an incident. About not bringing down the hammer every time. About not doing it just because you can.

My advice to them is to look past what happened to consider why it happened and above all, don't forget, for a minute, that there is a person on the other end of the equation.

Your Sandbox, Your Rules

Union officials are provided with great latitude in expressing their opinions and views. This is a fact supported by Federal Labor Relations Authority decisions.

Within the medical center, I would characterize our labor relations as collaborative. We agree to disagree often, yet for the most part, the relationships, interactions and conversations are respectable. For the most part. For the other parts, the latitude provided for expression is taken to an extreme. Interactions in these instances move down the continuum blowing right past reasonable and respectful towards confrontational, intimidating and, at times, bullying or threatening. When this occurs, I expect my staff, and medical center supervisors, to take the high road. It is not acceptable for them to engage at that level.

We are a pretty thick skinned bunch and can see past the chest pounding, positioning and posturing. We expect it. We expect to disagree. We expect to be challenged. We expect the engagement. We expect the confrontation. We expect the air to be charged. The phrase, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the fire, comes to mind here. We can stand the heat and, at times, we actually welcome it. Nothing like a good disagreement to get things going . . . .as long as it stays on this side on the line. What line? The line between good and evil? Maybe. But really, I am talking about the line you know was there at the very moment when it was crossed.

We can't control others actions but we do have the ability to define or impact how we will allow others to interact with us.  When that line has been crossed, I do not expect anyone to sit there and "take it like a man or woman." No way, not now, not ever.  My staff and our supervisors have my 100% support to end the meeting, right then and there. . . .any time, any place, any issue. Your meeting, your sandbox, your rules. NO QUESTIONS ASKED.

Time for a Joint Solution. Period

He says seniority. I say ability. He has six words he hangs his hat on and I have six that are in my favor. They are separated by a comma.

". . .to be accomplished based on seniority, consistent with effective and efficient staffing."

These twelve words in the one page Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that addresses requests for reassignment have caused me more trouble than I care to say. If you are familiar with Lynne Truss' book, Eats, Shoots & Leaves, published by Gotham Books, and you have read any of my posts, you may agree that I may have what she refers to as a 'clarification complex.' I use commas to clarify, to take a breath, to get up and stretch (!) and one could argue that I use them too much. The fact is that I use them, as do others, to do just what they are intended for - to clarify or modify. Note to union: commas do not signal the reader to ignore what follows. 

The agreement was made in 1998 and I unfortunately am stuck with it. No matter how many times I shred it up, it still keeps coming back. How do I see it? I see it akin to a modified seniority clause (hence the comma.) It is not a strict seniority provision and although, to my dismay, the agreement makes seniority a prime factor in selections for reassignments, it does not make it the only factor in selections. If the parties to the agreement had intended seniority to be the only factor in selections, they would have so stated and indicated by replacing the comma with a period and eliminated the rest of the sentence. They did not.

As we argue over words, intention and interpretation, we seem to have lost sight of one of the real issues at hand, the employees we are both here to serve. Do I think that behind closed doors, in his heart of hearts,  the union president really believes that the most senior is always the most qualified? He has proven himself to be a generally reasonable person and I would say no. So what is behind this all?

Opportunity. We hire many of our new nursing staff into our Extended Care and Rehabilitation service line. This service line requires 24 hour, 7 day a week coverage. All most everyone in Extended Care works shifts. Our Primary Care and Mental Health service lines have many opportunities for the Monday - Friday day shifts our Extended Care nurses so desire. The problem: Extended Care nursing does not readily, easily, or apparently transfer directly into nursing in some of the more specialized nursing positions in other areas of the medical center. The other problem: working shifts really does take it's toll on people and not having opportunities outside of the shift work results in disgruntled, unhappy and unsatisfied employees.

There are a number of possible ways to address this and the union has chosen that god-forsaken MOU. Why? Part of me says because those six words give them something to challenge and because that is something within their control. The other part has to wonder if they tried to approach it from the perspective of work design or if they did, did we not listen? I don't know.

What I do know is that the push and pull over selections, the grievance filing and prepared responses and the yet to be determined decisions on appeals filed on arbitrator decisions is not getting us anywhere. Maybe it is time for an open, honest talk about the issues and concerns we have in common and putting our effort into making it work both for the employees who want opportunities and for the supervisors and managers who must have qualified staff to provide quality care.

It is time for joint solution. Period.

Tina Turner Test

I am sitting down to write removal charges for an alleged inappropriate staff/patient relationship. As you can probably appreciate, there is a lot of emotion surrounding this. While the clinicians are up in arms (rightfully so) about the impropriety of it all, there is also lot of speculation, assumptions and presumptions made about what might have occurred.

So, what's a HR Manager and her staff to do? Well, we put the  "Tina Turner" test to use. 

As we review the papers, facts and actual evidence we can touch, we put aside the emotions and ask ourselves, minus the singing and dancing , "what's that got to do with it." (Or in this case we really can ask, "what's love got to do with it!") We need to get to the bottom line, we need to get at, in a word or two, what was wrong with what allegedly occurred. And then we sit down to write the charges. We will be held to proving every element of the charge we select. That the employee could have been charged with other things is completely irrelevant unless we bring them to the table. The way the charge is written, the way the charge is labeled, is of great significance because that charge, and not something else, must be proven.

The process to get there is iterative; it is full of starts and full stops and, at times, complete turnarounds. It is the process necessary to get at the heart of what occurred, or not. Frankly, sometimes having gone through this, we find that no matter how much a supervisor may not like what occurred, there is not enough to sustain a charge.  At the end of the process, you know the case inside and out and you know the strengths and weaknesses. While I'd like to be able to say there will be no surprises, I can't, but I can say that they will be few and far between.

So, "what's that got to do with it?" Absolutely everything if you want your charges to be solid and, really more importantly, if you want your charges to be of merit.

Taking Seniority to the Mat

The conversation goes like this:

Union: The nurse manager has to select the most senior LPN for the vacancy.

HR Lady: These are not similar positions.

Union: These are well-qualified nurses and the positions are similar.

HR Lady: Yes, we do have some of the best nurses in town and there is a world of difference in caring for Alzheimer patients and detoxing a patient who absolutely does not want to be there. Both very valuable, yet both very different.

Union: Their experience is related and you must select the most senior.

HR Lady: You are absolutely out of your mind and it is just not happening.

End of conversation but not end of issue.

I believe we should provide our internal employees opportunities for advancement, for training and for development. I believe that each individual is personally responsible for their development. A promotion or position change is not an absolute right or entitlement.

I support, all things being equal, that the senior employee be selected for the opportunity. We flat out cannot function effectively as an organization for our customers, patients and employees, if we select employees based solely on their seniority. This has not consistently been management’s practice in the past so we have a tough road against us and I am in it for the long haul.

Supporting selections based solely on seniority –not on my watch. This is a position I will take to the mat, to the bank, and very likely, to the Federal Labor Relations Authority.

The Value of A Fresh Start

First day back after a nice long holiday. An employee is selected for a position in another service line and they are in the midst of a disciplinary process. The proposal has been issued.  Do we proceed with processing the action or dismiss the action because of the transfer?

I  would not support dismissing an action solely based on the transfer so, how do we proceed in these situations? It depends. . . . it depends  on the nature of charge, on the employee's response - did they accept responsibility, it depends on their behavior during the process, it depends on their past history.  It depends.  

As supervisors and managers, we should not propose and issue discipline simply because we can. The ultimate purpose of the discipline process is to change behavior.  All things considered, if the process has achieved change short of issuing a final decision to impose,  consider the purpose served.

Employees come to work to make a difference and to do a good job. Employees are human and make mistakes - we all do.  Everyone deserves a second chance, and I urge you to not underestimate the value of a fresh start.

HR Confession #2 - Someone Lost a Head Today

Someone lost a head today - literally.

A few years back, my department of two gave me an "Ashes of Problem Employees" jar for my birthday. At first it was only a conversation piece, for a while it hid our chocolate, and then it became our stress relief. Since OSHA, Safety Officers and cleaning services alike do not take well to fires in their buildings, we had to come up with something else to relieve our stress. So, and I am not really sure where this came from - Amy?!, we began to cut out paper people. Remember the chain of paper dolls you made when you were in grade school? Yes, those are the ones. Now, how many of you remember how to make the paper people? Not only make them, but make them in a chain? Hint: It is all about the folds.

When things got a bit tense with a particular person, we would take a paper person, detach him/her from the group and rip their head off. Both head and body were ceremoniously deposited into the jar. If you look in my jar you will see a paper person with my name on it deposited there by a team leader a few years ago. Seemed like it just wasn't right for him to take one of my paper people, put my name on it and cut off my head, but a little voice, my better judgement, told me it was probably not the time to inform him of that. I keep that person in there to remind me that things go both ways, that yes, I can drive people crazy too and that I need to know when I do.

Heads roll in fun and as a way to relieve the stress of a moment. So, someone may have lost a head today but the relationship was spared and we understand each other a little bit better. Isn't that what it is all about?

Update on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 by Lisa

Same head, more pieces today. This is a relationship I value; this is a colleague I value. I will seek her out in the morning.

HR Confession No. 1 - I Like Working With the Union

I enjoy working with the Union, I really do. 

Our interactions come in many shapes and sizes - he is standing at my door staring me down and I must interact, we are discussing an employee issue that has been brought to his attention, I am notifying him of a management decision or action that is being considered or will be taken and we are discussing the implications from both perspectives, and in many cases, we are agreeing to disagree.

I see my relationship with the Union as one that impacts my ability to get my job done on a day to day basis as well as a strategic one for the medical center. Positive union-management relations enable us to get our jobs done collaboratively, to address issues at the lowest level and to reserve the very time consuming "appeal" processes, i.e. grievance, arbitration, unfair labor practice charges, for the times when there is no other option.

I don't receive a grievance, a notice to invoke arbitration, an unfair labor practice charge, or any other form of appeal or response that I was not aware of or did not have an opportunity to address first. We reciprocate by ensuring the Union President does not walk into a meeting unaware of what is happening and that he is kept abreast of decisions, process changes, selections etc that could potentially be an issue for an individual employee or a group of employees. There are required notifications per the statute or Master Agreement we must make to the Union but what I am talking about is beyond that - the courtesies that keep the ship moving forward and the waters calm. There is a time and a place to share information and when I feel it is appropriate, I do. I am not an open book and am very keenly aware that we may have different agendas, although in the end, we want to make it right for employees. In each interaction, I seek to find this common ground.

Yes, to me, the Union can be the annoying "bump in the road " and have what I feel are some pretty absurd positions. They appear to pull interpretations from the Master Agreement that are completely off the wall, and can drive me absolutely crazy with the position/issues they invest their time in. I am sure the feeling go both way some days.

Bottom line is - we have got to work together and it is a balancing act each and every day. Some days it goes better than others but it is a part of my job that I really enjoy.

Sometimes, Resignation is the Best Option

The employee - employer relationship is just that, a relationship. Each enters into it with an expectation that one or more of their interests will be met. When something goes awry in the relationship, do you try to hang onto to it and to preserve the relationship at all costs?

There are a number of reasons why the employee - employer relationship could go amiss. The bottom line is that there is an employee who feel that your organization is not holding up their end of the bargain and that is a problem.

So, what do you do? You stop what you are doing and look closely at the situation and options available to you to ensure the employee is treated fairly and equitably. In short, you make it right for the employee and the organization, chalk it up to an easy day in HR and rest assured, if handled properly, you just created an employee loyal to the organization.

But, what if you can't make it right? What if you have looked at all of the options and flexibilities and none are available to you to use because doing so would violate a handbook or directive or would create an obvious internal inequity? You listened, researched thoroughly and exhausted your options. You were respectful and honest and acted with integrity, told him/her what you can do and that was not enough.  When does a short-term solution to an immediate problem outweigh the potential long-term consequences? Does the squeaky wheel always have to get the grease? When do you lay the cards on the table and leave the decision to continue or end the relationship with the employee?

If an employee decides that "clipping coupons" is better than remaining with your organization, can you accept their resignation with grace and acceptance that this may just be what is best for all?