Problem employee

llusko

I have an employee who states I betrayed him and no longer wants to "manage upwards". He said that he will take his issues up with another manager of his choosing (which happens to be our VP) including to schedule days off. I gave him a "Does not meet standards" on his last monthly performance appraisal and stated the above. He agreed with it but would not sign it. He is now saying that I said things about him to other employees, but refuses to tell me what was said.

I asked him what the company can do to help solve the problem and he said nothing.

I again informed him that he will need to start "Managing Upwards" or he will continue to receive low marks which could lead to further disciplinary actions. He said that his job is not in jeopardy, mine was.

He has had a few instances where his car has been vandalized while at work and is now pointing his stares at me.

I brought this up with our VP and let her know that I have been stumped as to what needs to be done next.

Any suggestions?

Hatchetman

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 08-27-02 AT 05:15PM (CST)[/font][p]What do you mean "Manage Upwards"? Is the VP in the chain of command. The employee doesn't have the automatic ability just to go to any manager he wants to discuss work issues. Also, I'm sure your company has certain grievance procedures as well through which an employee can express a complaint or concern.

The VP should basically support you. If the VP is in the chain of command, then perhaps she should let the employee know, when he first approaches her directly, that before she talks to him, he needs to have discussed the concern with you and that will be the case in any furture discussions between the two.
When they do meet, she should tell him that she will discuss the issue with you
before doing anything further on his concern.

If the employee still keeps trying without talking to you, then perhaps the three of you need to meet to discuss exactly what the employee is required to do and make sure everyone is on the same page or the VP will maybe need "lay down the law." I'm not saying that the VP, in the chain of command, should be callous or uncaring toward the employee (even if he may be a jerk), but she has to indicate her desire that the employee first attempt to resolve work issues with you, the immediate supervisor.

If the VP is not in the employee's chain of command, then the VP needs to "shut off" the contact as soon as possible by just indicating that he is talking to the worng person and identifying who the right people are.

Mel in CO

I guess that I have a few questions first. Are you in an HR position or more of a management position? If you are not in HR, do you have an HR representative that can assist with this issue? Finally, I guess I have a question as to what you mean my "managing upwards" in your organizational setting. My suggestion, simply by the information that you have provided, I would say that you, the employee, and a mediator (possibly the VP or the HR individual) needs to sit down and discuss this issue. Everyone needs to move forward for the organization's sake and the employee simply not working with you and working around you (i.e. time off requests to the VP) is not conducive to any organizational environment. I think that a "round-table" discussion is in order to get everything out on the table and have issues resolved. If a discussion between everyone does not take place, it has been my experience that issues will escalate and come to a blowing point. That is not what you want to have happen.

llusko

Thank you for your input. Yes, I am the HR contact for our division. It is clearly stated in our employee manual that they need to go through the proper chain of command and if there is a greivance, they need to follow the procedures that are spelled out in our manual. He has yet to follow that.

"Managing Upwards" is our VP's way of saying communication. She wants us to keep her informed of what is happening in our departments and with our workflow.

He has had a run in with almost every manager in our company, but it is never his fault. "We" have the problem.

I did speak with our VP and said that we need to have a meeting to clear the air so we may move forward, she said that she would handle it. What is frustrating is she is a micro manager and will not keep you informed until it happens.

Don D

I'm assuming that the ee simply refuses to follow the company's established chain of command. As unpopular as it may be with a lot of new-think HR folks, most company structures are still based on a military model, which includes a stated structure for communications and supervision. This ee seems to have a total lack of respect for you for what he thinks is a good reason. I recommend that your immediate supervisor (perhaps your V.P.) sit down with the two of you and re-emphasize the company reporting structure (including leave approval) and tell him that although the company cannot demand that he respect any certain individual, the company DOES expect him to respect the position and the company's structure. If he continues to disregard it, he should be disciplined in accordance with your standards. It's a wild guess, but I suspect he may be a malcontent in other areas of his life and a bit of a ticking time-bomb for the company.

Pork

It reads like INSUBORDINATION to me. There is no room in my "world of work" which allows for individuals to take their issues around their "chain of command or authority". Even when there is only a "Bill Gates" type leader and everyone reports directly to him. If this is your situation then obviously you should not have been the one evaluating, unless your organization uses a peer rating system. I have "been there and done that" when an employee is a personal employee of the CEO/PRESIDENT! It was not pretty, but the employee over stepped his bounds in more than one relationship and the CEO helped him get out of the company before the employee destroyed the company. Insubordination can not be allowed to grow; if it is not stopped I would have my resume's and interviews going because this would not be a place for me. Large organizations and institutions most often choke to death over issues like this. It is often internal greed and power struggles that prevent organizations from moving up to the next level. Good Luck

Gillian

With all due respect to everyone and please don't take this as a lecture, but there are no problem employees. There are employees who just happen to have a problem. This difference is a very subtle mind set which governs what happens to the employee. Employees who are labeled "problem employees" are treated that way and the relationship between the employee and the employer is rarely bettered and the employee leaves or gets fired. On the other hand, there is more of a tendency to help an employee resolve a problem when it is viewed that way. Maybe it is because a "problem employee" is seen as a more permanent issue while an "employee with a problem" is seen as more of a temporary event. The whole thing is really a self - fulfilling prophecy. The end result is the result of all the actions that preceded it. This is not psychology mumbo - jumbo but the way the world works.

Paul in Cannon Beach

In a sense we are also discussing the idea of an "open door" policy in which an employee can go around their direct supervisor to discuss a matter. In situations where an employee is feeling harrassed by their supervisor it is understandable why the employee would need to subvert the normal chain of command and take up their grievance with someone higher up.

I think you are handling this right by having a meeting with the employee and VP. If the employee cannot present adequate justification for going around the normal chain of command, I suggest that the VP make it clear that the employee is expected to use normal lines of communication in the future (i.e. report to you)

For my part I see the need for both a formal chain of command to keep communication clear and prevent chaos and also an open door policy for those unusual situations where the employee needs to be able to address a grievance with someone other than their direct supervisor.

[email]paulknoch@hotmail.com[/email]

Don D

I agree somewhat with Paul, but, there's quite a bit of difference in an 'open door policy' and a subordinate (also an unpopular word, although a fact) emphatically announcing to a supervisor that "I will not go through you anymore, not even for requests for leave". That's not 'open door', That's insubordination.


"Remember to laugh; AT yourself and WITH others."

llusko

It was so nice to read all the replies and to know that I was not the only one who felt insubordination was surfacing.

Our VP will be back today and it will be nice to see if our meeting will take place.

I will keep you posted to the outcome.

Don D

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 08-29-02 AT 08:43AM (CST) by jrobb (admin)[/font][p]Don't be surprised if the meeting DOES NOT take place. You mentioned earlier that your VP was a micromanager. Micromanagers are good at one thing, micromanaging. Typically they are not as focused on results as they are ticky little process details. Often they cannot bring things to closure. It will be interesting to see if this fits your VP.

Paul in Cannon Beach

Yeah, let us know what happened.

[email]paulknoch@hotmail.com[/email]