Looking at this new perspective wherein
past performance was determined to be poor and there has to be a form of discipline,
initially no particular example came to my mind. I think one of the main
reasons for this is that most of the time I work in a group in university, it
is for an assignment and is only a one-time setup (we won’t have to be in the
same group again). Therefore, usually, once the assignment is over, there is no
need to consider using a form of discipline for anyone who performed poorly or barely
participated. Other times, if there are multiple group assignments in a class,
if there is a particular person (or people) who did not perform well when I was
in a group with them, I ensure to choose a group of new people who I feel will
perform decently. Therefore, in this case also, there is a lack of incentives to discipline
team members since it is just a short-term arrangement.
After giving it more thought, I realized
that most instances of discipline vary largely. For example, in my internship during
the summer of 2018, I recall that when the manager/head of the office would
discipline someone, it usually would not be one person in usual but rather the
group that person is a part of. I think this is a much better way to discipline
someone than do so individually, because this ensures that no one feels
targeted. I noticed that after he would talk to any specific group, they would
have a discussion amongst themselves for a few minutes about how they can improve.
Disciplining in this fashion ensures that the group works more productively since
they feel more responsible about how effectively the rest of their group works.
This also meant that he had close personal relationships with everyone in that
office.
Another example is my internship I went for
last summer and went to the same company but worked on a different project and with a different team. The manager/head of this office would discipline his subordinates in a completely different way: He would specify a few people who he
felt were not doing their fair share of the work delegated to their group in
front of everyone and give them feedback. While he would give them constructive
criticism, I feel like those who were singled out would often feel embarrassed and/or
upset that he did not have a personal conversation with them instead. On rare
occasions, some people would get really upset about this and others would have
to comfort them which resulted in lower productivity.
In fact, in one specific situation, he
mentioned two people who were two of the most experienced employees in that
office, which lead them to get angry at him later in the day and caused a huge
argument in the office. This led to a lot of time being wasted during the day
since the manager and a few other people went into the conference room to talk
it out in private. While I did not directly speak to anyone who was upset, that
day everyone was irritated at the manager because they felt that he was trying
to divert blame and did not manage the situation well. This could have just
been out of bias to support their personal relationships with their friends
though. In my opinion, I do not think he was too bothered about sustaining
personal relationships, maybe because he did not think that doing so was in the
best interest of him or them in terms of productivity. However, despite him perhaps
not disciplining his subordinates in the best way, all the groups in this
office were extremely productive and rarely missed their deadlines (perhaps his
form of disciplining may have hardened them and encouraged them to work more
productively to prove him wrong). In comparison, in the first example, the groups
were not as productive and often missed deadlines due to poor planning and time
management which I think was partially to do with the manager looking to
sustain personal relationships and did not give the most critical feedback.
That being said, had I been in either
managers’ position, I would not single out anyone in front of everyone else but
rather have a private conversation with everyone in a group (if they are not
working productively) to understand the cause and then have a conversation with
the group as a whole to help provide constructive criticism to them as a group
and provide some ways that could help them work more effectively (but
eventually leave it up to them to figure out the best course of action). I
think that while it is important for a manager to have a good relationship with
all their subordinates, it should not get in the way of providing the most useful
feedback, which is why finding the best mode of discipline is of the utmost
importance.
Let us note that discipline is supposed to be "progressive" which means there are various steps. The first step might be comparatively mild and if it is sufficient then the next step won't be necessary. At each subsequent step there is the hope that it will be the last one needed. The last step, of course, is firing the employee. The hope is that the process won't lead to that.
ReplyDeleteThe first step, more than likely, is simply identifying that there is some problem with performance. The manager makes this known to the employee (for the moment, let's not worry about how that is done). If the employee was previously unaware is now is willing to make changes, that might be enough. Suppose, instead, that the employee understood that the performance was not good from the get go but was deliberately performing that way as a result of harboring some resentment. This is particularly troubling when the resentment is directed at the manager. Now a ready solution may not be at hand and the many steps in the progressive discipline process need to be taken.
On your comment about singling somebody out in front of a group, I think the larger social dynamic needs to be taken into account. Was there some expectation by the manager, perhaps, that the workgroup itself would take care of its own, mean the discipline would come from peers rather than from the manager? In this case the manager behavior you described as wrong might actually be justified.
Another possible explanation is to consider punishment as deterrence. Mild punishment might not deter where stern punishment would, provided both a credible. In the old days of the Cold War, the use of a nuclear bomb by the USSR or the USA was deterred by MAD (mutually assured destruction). In the absence of a nuclear bomb (where the arsenal of weapons and delivery systems should be sufficient to display credibility of the threat) how would a manager make a stern punishment credible? That employees in the office might not like such a demonstration is not enough to argue that the demonstration was a mistake. If deterrence was the real goal, was that achieved?
So I'd encourage you to consider this from different perspectives. This includes whether the manager thought through the alternatives or instead was merely acting on instinct. The latter might indeed be a mistake. But the former might make some behavior you don't like seem to be the correct solution to the issue.
In the second example I mentioned, the manager would single out specific people in the group in front of the entire group who he felt were not productive. I cannot be certain whether the workgroups were meant to provide feedback and discipline their peers instead of the manager but I do not recall many instances when anyone apart from the manager would discipline or provide feedback or constructive criticism to a peer. Also, I should clarify that I did not think his method of discipline was 'wrong' but that there were much better methods he could have used (based on the reaction of the people he disciplined and the office in general).
ReplyDeleteDespite the negative reactions, everyone would still work productively. I do not know whether productivity would generally better as a result, but the fact that all the groups would still meet their deadlines regularly indicates that they were productive for the most part. Based on this, maybe the method the manager used was effective since it encouraged his subordinates to work more efficiently. I would agree that just because employees may not like the way he dealt with disciplining does not mean that it was a mistake, but I think it is also important that the manager has stable relationships with everyone in the office, which is something I do not think (as an outsider) he was able to ensure. However, if he was attempting to deter employees from not working productively, I think he achieved that because I think part of the reason he was able to maintain a certain level of productivity was because people did not want to be disapproved by him especially in front of their peers.
Since I do not know whether the manager considered his options or made on-the-spot decisions, I can't be sure as to whether it was a mistake, although I doubt that he would not have considered any alternatives. Based on that, it is likely that he considered the alternatives but decided that that was his best choice, in which case it may have been the correct solution. In the case that the manager was attempting to increase productivity, I think he was definitely achieving that consistently and was successful in that manner. However, if he was striving towards a progressive discipline process I think he should have dealt with such situations differently.