Web Statistics The Importance of Dealing with Problem People - OhMyGov News

Follow OhMyGov! on  OhMyGov on Facebook      

  LOGIN  

The Importance of Dealing with Problem People

Why you shouldn't just move poor performers elsewhere

By Stewart Liff Jul 18 2011, 12:55 PM

Whenever I teach a class to government supervisors, I always pose the following question to the group: "What does the government do with a problem employee?" Invariably, the entire audience answers as one, "They move him."

What a sad commentary on the state of human resources management in government. The people who are responsible for managing the government's employees believe that the way to deal with problem employees is in essence, to not deal with them.

The net result of this commonly held belief is that almost everyone is unhappy -- certainly the general public is displeased because they feel its civil servants are virtually invulnerable; many members of Congress are upset because they think that government employees are not being held accountable; government managers are frustrated because they believe they are powerless to properly deal with non-performing subordinates; and the top 90% or so of the government's workforce is also less than happy because they don't appreciate working very hard while seeing a co-worker who does not pull his weight receive the same salary, bonus, etc.

 

Beware the Downward Spiral

In fact, the only group that seems pleased with this arrangement are the employees at the bottom...and why not? They put in the least effort of any group, complain to their hearts' content, and skate by year after year with nobody doing anything about them. Moreover, they continue to collect government paychecks, receive excellent benefits, become eligible for periodic step increases, build their retirement portfolios, etc. What a great deal!

Meanwhile, everyone else concludes that the government is not serious about performance. After all, if poor performers are not dealt with, the unspoken message is that whatever they do, their performance is still good enough for government work. In essence, the old cliché becomes the reality -- once you have a government job you are untouchable. At the same time, the other employees see this, conclude that it is not worth killing themselves if mediocre or worse performance will result in the same consequences, and before you know it, you have an organization that is on a downward spiral.

The commonly held belief is that no one deals with poor performers because the system makes it too difficult to deal with them. It takes too much time, too much effort and in the end, nothing is going to happen anyway, so why should the supervisor waste her time when she has better things to do...like supervising the rest of the employees under her?

 

Be Firm and Prompt

The problem with this line of reasoning is that management gives up before it even tries to turn the employee around. In other words, since we can't get rid of the employee, let's not waste our time trying. If the employee becomes too big of a burden, we'll simply move him to some unsuspecting supervisor and he will become her problem. Unfortunately, this happens all the time and as a result, people watching this little farce conclude there is no discipline; no accountability; and that excellence is not important.

The real issue here is not the system; although admittedly, the government's personnel system can be rigid and sometimes takes too long. No, the real problem is government supervisors who either do not know how to deal with problem employees or are simply unwilling to do so.

If supervisors begin dealing with their problem employees in a fair, firm and prompt manner, it would send a powerful message that would resonate throughout government. People would see that there is accountability, there are consequences for poor performance and excellence is valued.

Of course, in the short term, there will be some pain, as you are likely to have a pushback from both the employees and the union -- but that is to be expected and is the cost of doing business. However, if you withstand the first wave and continue to hold your ground, while treating your employees fairly and equitably, everyone will get the message you are serious and you will be on your way to changing the culture and improving your organization.

So, the next time a problem employee comes to your attention; resist the urge to move him. Take a different approach -- deal with him and you will be glad you did.

 

More from Stewart Liff on Government:

How to Win the Hearts and Minds of Your Employees (Part 2)

How to Win the Hearts and Minds of Your Employees (Part 1)

Winning the Hearts and Minds of Government Employees

 

Stewart Liff writes on human resources management issues in government for OhMyGov. A recipient of the President's Council on Management Improvement Award, he is the author of five books, including the just-released Improving the Performance of Government Employees. His expertise includes employee relations, labor relations, Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), performance management, staffing, training, rewards and recognition, metrics, systems design and succession planning.

 

Read More: Careers, Self Improvement, Management Tips, Surviving The Bureaucracy, Morale, Hot Issues, News and Research

 
 
 
Submit
COMMENT

National Whistleblower Allen Carlton
July 18, 2011 4:22 PM

Welcome to the American Holocaust the aftermath of the Postal Holocaust.  Terrorism begets Terrorism.   Answers to all questions can be found in undisclosed USSC 99-565 & supplement.  YHVH solution Peoples Righteous Kill Defense [YHVH].

Clair
July 19, 2011 10:12 AM

I'm just curious - have you ever worked as a supervisor in the Federal Government workforce?

Tom
July 19, 2011 10:15 AM

How does one deal with a problem manager?

A more efficient department makes for more productive employees. More productive employees will result if bad managers are disciplined as is required by law. This will improve morale.

The Notification and Federal Employee Anti-discrimination and Retaliation (No Fear) Act states, among other things, that employees who engage in misconduct be disciplined. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo , a senior policy analyst at the EPA, was a driving force behind the creation of the no fear law. The system before No-Fear, Coleman-Adebayo said, has been anything but just to employees who suffer years of discrimination or retaliation at the hands of managers who are never punished for their actions. She went on “The spirit of the No-Fear law was that managers were to face major consequences as a result of findings of discrimination against them. We will demand that the government live up to the spirit of the law. These are not victimless crimes, and for someone to get slapped on the hand when you have violated someone’s human and civil rights, you do not have a right to work for the federal government. (emphasis added)”

The law, designed to hold agencies accountable for discrimination and retaliation in the workplace, is to result in tough penalties, including termination, for federal managers who violate a co-worker’s civil rights.

Amoral managers are not being punished for their illegal actions. The No Fear Act is an empty shell. No outside agency is charged with the responsibility to enforce its provisions; not the Office of Special Counsel, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission nor any other agency.

It is left to the agency itself, such as HUD, to police its own managers. This is not being done.

I retired in 2008 because of the hostile conditions under which I have been forced to work. If the Agency took its responsibilities regarding disciplining its managers when they commit atrocious acts seriously, then it would not have been necessary for me to leave.

Tom
July 19, 2011 10:19 AM

What about dealing with problem managers?  Managers are not being punished for their illegal actions.

In Sept., 2010, EEOC Judge Macauley issued a decision in which he found that HUD retaliated against (Redacted) for a federal lawsuit based on disability discrimination. Judge Macauley found that HUD had denied a promotion for (Redacted) that had been granted to every engineer in the country. The HUD official responsible for the denial of the promotion was Mirza Negron-Morales, then Director of Public Housing. Judge Macauley found that her testimony in the case was not credible and that the justification she advanced for not promoting (Redacted) was "a mere pretext to retaliate" against him.

Less than two weeks later, on September 13, 2010, Adolfo Carrion, Jr., HUD’s Administrator for NY, promoted Negron-Morales to the position of Deputy Regional Administrator.

Notably, this was not the first time Judge Macauley had found that Negron-Morales had discriminated against (Redacted). In 2006, Judge Macauley found that Negron-Morales had retaliated against (Redacted) by suspending him on two occasions. In that decision Judge Macauley found that Negron-Morales admitted that she suspended (Redacted) in retaliation for his protected conduct and that she "has expressed her retaliatory animus against [(Redacted)]"

In June, 2007 HUD placed (Redacted) on unpaid leave claiming that a psychiatrist had determined that he was a threat to himself and others. He reached this conclusion after being provided false information by Ms. Negron-Morales.

(Redacted) provided a Fitness for Duty report. HUD still would not allow (Redacted) to return to work. In June, 2008, more than one year after being placed on administrative leave, (Redacted) was reinstated.

(Redacted) resigned from HUD and filed an appeal with the MSPB alleging constructive termination. In 2011, HUD paid (Redacted) about $680,000 to settle the appeal.

I am not seeking that action be taken against Negron-Morales

stewart LIff
July 19, 2011 7:41 PM

In response to a few questions:

I was a government manager or leader for 28 years, so I am very aware as to what the challenges are.

You deal with a problem manager the same way you deal with a problem employee. You address conduct and/or performance problems in a timely, firm and direct manner using your organization's HRM systems and processes.

Tom
July 20, 2011 11:40 AM

Mr. Liff,

By HRM I assume you Human Resources.  My experience has been that HR acts to protect managers who violate the law.  They assist the managers in harassing employees.

Ms. Negron-Morales asked  HR for assistance when the Assistant Secretary for HUD ordered all engineers be raised to the GS-13 level.  She did not want to promote me.   The Director of HR wrote back:"One possibility is to write the certification guardedly, e.g., there is no evidence that he's performing GS-13 level duties today; however, he will be assigned the following duties prospectively......This would provide you some distance from the action without putting you in either Mr. Liu's or the engineer's line of sight."

In response to an inquiry by me, the Director of HR gave the following suggested response to Ms. Negron-Morales which she then sent on to me:"The Department has not established a GS-13 career ladder for General Engineers in field PIH offices.  The career ladder remains at GS-12.  The HR Division in Atlanta has responsibility for servicing PIH field -wide, for staffing and classification matters.  PIH management requested a review of General Engineer positions in the field.  HR in Atlanta conducted this review.  Those General Engineers who were found to be performing GS-13 duties and responsibilities on a regular and recurring basis were promoted to the GS-13 level based on accretion of duties."

The problem with this response was that it was a lie, HR in Atlanta never conducted such a review.

This lie was revealed at the EEOC Hearing.  Ms. Negron-Morales admitted that HR in Atlanta never conducted such a review.

concerned commenter
November 15, 2011 8:32 PM

www.washingtonpost.com/.../gIQA8g97eI_blog.html

Can Mr. Liff explain the above article?

Stewart Liff
November 20, 2011 8:08 PM

In response to the Concerned Commentor:

The Post article is passing on information from a DOL/OIG report that mischaracterized what I did at VETS. (e.g. my relationship with Mr. Jefferson, the consulting fees paid, what I did there, etc.) The truth is I was directly involved in spearheading some of the most important and effective initiatives at VETS, e.g., the “100-day Sprint” initiative. I could not be more proud of what I was able to do for that organization. I handled myself with integrity at all times, bringing to the organization all the skills and experience that I’ve acquired in my 30-plus years of government management. The taxpayers got more than their money’s worth from my hard work and dedication to VETS’s mission, and the feedback from the veterans themselves regarding our initiatives has been resoundingly positive. I am pursuing, through my attorney, options to rectify the inaccurate DOL/OIG report and Post article.

 

          


 

 
 
 


 

 

 

 


 



  






 

About OhMyGov!

A leader in social media analysis for politics & government

Read More
Press Coverage

Friends

Follow OhMyGov on Twitter and Facebook

See Our Partners


OhMyGov! Feeds