Leadership Articles

• Corrective Action, Not Coercive Action
  
  
  
  

• Human Resource generalist and consultant to management in human resources areas for over 35 years in Minnesota, Michigan, Washington State, Wyoming, and Nevada. Career about an even mix of union and non-union operations in mining, manufacturing and health care. Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration. Graduate work.
  
  
• Either negotiated, as chief negotiator, or a member of management negotiating teams during ten different union contract renewals.
  
  
• U. S. Marine Corps Veteran.
  
  

In 2002 I wrote a White Paper for the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). In that article I challenged HR professionals to throw out the traditional "Disciplinary Action System". I contended then, and I still do today, that that traditional system does not work. It is a throw back from the union contract, and in its traditional form, has no place in today's non-union handbooks. In fact even in union operations you should consider revising it to fit my version of how "Corrective Action" should work. Following is an updated version of that 2002 White Paper. I would really like to hear from you. Let me know what you think.

HR professionals are continually bombarded by literature from "experts" who contend they have the best solution for dealing with problem employees.

The services of consultants and attorneys are not always necessary when handling problem employees. Behavioral issues at work are handled just as productivity issues are handled, as an issue between adults who are fully capable of understanding and responding to concerns.

Will everyone respond to that method? No, but for those few that don't the traditional corrective action system is still available.

What often happens is that supervisors are not willing to deal with the early signs of negative behavior. Failing to deal with it early results in the behavior becoming a habit. Allowing the behavior to continue raises the potential of an unnecessarily serious confrontation later.

Changing Behavior - A Better Way

Traditional methods involve the discipline system of warnings, suspension(s) and termination. If the purpose is to document the termination process, with the least potential for challenge, then that method does what it was meant to do. If the purpose is to save the employee by changing his behavior, then it does not work.

The traditional discipline system is usually structured like this:

1. Verbal Warning (Documented)
2. Written Warning(s)
3. Suspension
4. Discharge

That system is fatally flawed. Change it to this system.

1. Early intervention
2. Formal warnings
3. Corrective action removal
4. File review encouragement

Early Intervention

This is the critical stage. At this stage, the emphasis is that the employee's behavior is unacceptable. He must recognize the problem and be a part of finding a solution. Remember this. Early Intervention does not mean formal corrective action such as a warning slip! If you want success in the early change of an employee's behavior, do not use formal corrective action at this point.

Here is an example of what I mean by unacceptable behavior. Shortly after I took over an HR department at a mine in Nevada, I was told about the unacceptable behavior of an employee. For two years this individual maliciously teased other employees, helped himself to food out of their lunchboxes and physically menaced people. He was the perfect example of the neighborhood bully. No one wanted to challenge him and he was careful not to break any serious rules.

In looking at his file before we confronted him, I found he had falsified his application. He had lied about being laid off from his previous job. They had actually fired him for the same conduct. At that point, we determined he was beyond saving. When confronted with his behavior and his falsification of his application, he said that was over two years before and we couldn't fire him for that. What he really wanted to know was what rules he had broken. We told him he had not broken any rules, but he was a disruptive influence in the workforce and we could not permit that to continue. He was given an opportunity to resign and he took it.

Several supervisors expressed appreciation for solving the problem they had not been able to solve. When I asked them why they had tolerated this behavior for so long, their comments said a lot about the traditional way they had been taught to deal with poor performance.

"We could never catch him at anything." "He never really broke any rules." "We couldn't get anyone to formally complain about him."

Doesn't that sound like a cop talking about why he didn't arrest a suspect, doesn't it?

Where does it say, "Cop" in a supervisor's job description?

Webster defines the job of a cop as "... detect and prosecute violations of rules and regulations."

That is exactly what those supervisors were doing. Waiting to nail him as soon as he broke the rules.

Unless they really are cops, their job is not to watch for infractions and nail offenders.

Supervisors must understand that unacceptable behavior doesn't mean breaking just the formal rules of the organization. Rules or not, if the activity is disrupting the efforts of the team, it is unacceptable. The danger is that failure to address this behavior early implies that the supervisor condones the activity. The longer the wait, the stronger the negative reaction is going to be from the employee when he finally is confronted. The rest of the team will also wonder why it took the supervisor so long to address behavior they have long since seen as wrong.

So why isn't this unacceptable behavior addressed when it starts? "If I ignore it, it will go away." "That person scares me. I can't deal with her." "I'm too busy. I'll deal with it later." "I hate confrontation." See a common thread here? The supervisor doesn't want to confront. The point is that it does not have to be a confrontation when it is addressed early. It is no different than addressing a productivity issue.

Learning to deal with unacceptable behavior is simple. Supervisors can easily learn it. It is far less stressful than the confrontation of a formal corrective action situation. Addressing that behavior early is not being a cop. It is being a leader, a coach, and a mentor.

Here is how it works. The supervisor and the problem employee sit down in a one-on-one private conversation. The supervisor assures the employee at the start that the meeting is not a corrective action session. (Bringing the suggestion of corrective action into this meeting ruins what the supervisor is trying to accomplish.) The supervisor outlines what the unacceptable behavior is in a non-threatening, factual manner.

Once the issue is made clear, the supervisor then asks the employee what he intends to do to change this behavior. Note that the supervisor is not saying she will change the employee's behavior. It is the employee's responsibility to change his behavior, not the supervisor's. Once the employee understands this, the two of them will agree on the employee's plan to make changes and they then set a date to review progress.

This adult-to-adult process will result in a change in behavior almost every time. Formal corrective action statistics drop like a rock and so will the supervisor's stress level.

Formal Warnings

Regardless of the supervisor's best efforts, if a change does not occur, then the formal corrective action system must come into play. Note that "corrective action" replaces the word "discipline". Ban that word from the workplace.

Even if the early intervention effort did not pay off, it is still critical to this process. With the behavior having been addressed early on, the employee is not going to feel set up once the formal corrective action portion starts.

A documented verbal warning is a formal notice that things now become part of the record.

The next step is the written warning. The supervisor is now starting to put the pressure on. Three written warnings in 18 months for whatever reason will result in termination, without exception. Written warnings will now have a major impact on both the supervisor and the employee. It automatically puts pressure on the supervisor to start attempting to change behavior earlier.

(By the way, for the record, immediate termination is still an option under this system for offenses requiring it, such as theft, assault, etc.)

In the traditional system, the next step is a suspension. Here is the next change to make. Remove suspensions from the corrective action process. A suspension never makes a positive difference in changing behavior. It is just the next step in getting the offender out the door. At the suspension stage, the supervisor can forget any hope of salvaging the employee.

We are not talking about throwing out the suspension pending investigation. The suspension you need to do away with is the suspension within the traditional corrective action system. It does not work.

So if it does not work, why is it still used? Here are some of the reasons. "It is traditional." "Union contracts have it, so we need it, too." "Can't remove it, it's in the contract." Here is the one I like best. "Suspensions are meant to firmly get the attention of the offending employee."

They sure do get the employee's attention. The trouble is that the attention is negative, both from the employee and from his family. The suspension is usually unpaid resulting in lost income while the spouse was suspended. (Some organizations pay employees to stay home a day or two and contemplate their future. Ask those employees what they think about a paid suspension? Most will say it's a joke. The real reason organizations use paid suspensions is that it makes the supervisor's confrontation of the employee less stressful.)

Paid or not the family is going to place the blame squarely on the organization.

Will that employee come back to work ready to make a positive contribution? No. What he will come back with is an attitude. An attitude that says the next time he sees a safety problem or notices a warning light on a piece of equipment, he will ignore them.

He has lost face in front of his peers and his family and he is not likely to forget it. He will take that resentment out on someone or something. It may be equipment damage, slowing down his performance, bad-mouthing the organization, or revenge.

So what was accomplished? Not much. The point is that this type of suspension is a relic of the past and has no business in today's work place. Remove it from your policy.

Finally, the last step is termination. Make these changes in your system and you will seldom, if ever, have to use it.

Corrective Action Removal - 18 Months

When 18 months has passed since the last formal corrective action, remove it and all other older corrective actions from the employee's file.

Supervisors may complain that the 18-month time frame is not enough. Not enough time for what? There is no rationale for any supervisor to wait 18 months or more to take the next step in a corrective action process. Let's face it, the supervisor is either continuing to tolerate unacceptable behavior during that period or the employee truly has improved and the supervisor should not be considering a corrective action anyway.

It makes no sense to keep corrective actions in the employee file forever. What an employee did at age 19, should not be around to haunt her at age 25. A work place statute of limitations, if you will?

Don't throw out those old corrective actions. Legal counsel will likely want them kept. Just don't let anyone use them when deciding any future actions, whether it is planning a promotion or addressing a problem.

See what is being said here? The reality of three written warnings in 18 months makes both the supervisor and the employee think seriously about their actions. Yet the employee knows that if he cleans up his act, the corrective actions will be removed from his file. That's part of the supervisor's bargain with her team. It is an adult-to-adult process.

File Review

To insure that this system is more believable, HR must actively encourage employees to look at their personnel file any time they want to. Don't make them get an appointment or make them wait when they do show up. Otherwise they will suspect someone is "messing" with their file before they see it.

Supervisors will say they cannot just let their team members leave the job to check their files. And HR doesn't want them to just wander in interrupting their day either. Right? Isn't that like customers who "bother" sales associates in a store by asking them for help.

It's part of our job! Remember, if it wasn't for those dang employees, would they need HR?

The reality is that few employees will take you up on the offer. But look at what it does for HR's credibility. By the way, with this system HR takes everything negative out of the file after 18 months, but leaves all positive documents in the file forever, right? Absolutely!

Let's recap here:

1. Early intervention. Get that team member's attention and put the responsibility for a change to a more appropriate behavior right on their shoulders. Do not threaten corrective action. This is not the place for it. Make notes of the conversation so both can agree later on what was said.
   
   
2. Formal corrective action. The early intervention did not work. You have now gone to a formal corrective action. Documented verbal warning is the first step in this procedure. The next steps are the three written warnings. These are used before termination, although termination can still occur on applicable first offenses. Three written warnings for any reason in 18 months mean automatic termination of employment. No exceptions.
   
   
3. Remove all corrective actions 18 months after the date of the last one. Put them away so supervisors cannot use them in future actions, but keep all the good stuff in the file forever.
   
   
4. Encourage inspection of their file anytime. No appointment necessary.

See what this does? This is a voluntary change. In return for appropriate behavior, HR is taking steps to treat their employees like they would want to be treated. Like an adult.

When To Use Corrective Action?

Does your system automatically require corrective action when an employee inadvertently damages a piece of equipment or a product? Change that policy now.

In one case, a long time quality employee with a clean record damaged a piece of equipment because she made the wrong judgement call. The first thing the organization did was to give her a written warning. What in the world were they trying to accomplish?

The purpose of a corrective action system is to change behavior. Here is a top-notch employee who takes a lot of pride in her work. She feels worse than anyone about the mistake. In all probability, she will never do it again. What possible behavior was the supervisor trying to change by the corrective action? An unintended change may be that now a top-notch employee no longer cares?

Purchasing can make a one-cent a gallon error on a contract for millions of gallons of diesel fuel, resulting in thousands of dollars of losses. It's called a learning experience. An hourly employee accidentally causes $500 damage. She receives corrective action because she "should have known better". Any wonder why employees are cynical about management?

Instead, the supervisor should document the incident for her file, stressing that caution be used in the future, but not threatening future corrective action. To do so is to say, "Screw up again and I will nail you." The supervisor might just as well have issued a written warning.

Nobody ever said organizations were democracies, but employees have a right to expect the rules to be fair. Take the initiative by putting this system in place. Trust me on this. They will respond.

Back to article index

---

All articles on this page are Copyrighted 2007 by James E. Suthers, President, Cascade Careers. All rights reserved. This publication may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of Cascade Careers, 19723 NE 150th PL, Woodinville, WA 98077