Errant employees are a window into corporate culture: "retiring in place"

Washington Business Journal, column, Corporations on the Couch, by Dr. Lynn Friedman, Washington DC Psychologist

John hasn't done his job for years. While at first this caused real difficulties, over time, superiors, co-workers and subordinates simply learned to work around him, completing his essential tasks themselves or persuading others to pick up his slack.

He is, as they say, "retired in place." No one counts on him, ever. Unless of course, you count not counting on him as a form of counting on him.

His boss, Tom, hasn't helped matters, either. Busy slaying his own dragons he hasn't personally been troubled by John's sloth -- in fact, he's benefited from it. He's never had to worry that John might displace him. So, the setup has worked out pretty well or at least adequately. Adequately for everyone except for Mary, the junior-level employee, who has been informally carrying out John's managerial functions -- with neither recognition nor compensation -- for years.

As the senior executive, you were completely oblivious to the matter -- because it was occurring fairly far down the food chain until you needed something -- and Mary served it up with aplomb. Wanting to recognize her impressive performance, you discovered she was not actually doing her own job but rather was doing John's work.

As you studied the matter further, you learned that this long-standing pattern had persisted for many years, never having been addressed by anyone. The gender divide here did not escape your attention. In fact, the inherent inequity chafes at your sense of fairness, not to mention your view that someone, or some ones, have been ripping off the organization.

You are angry. You feel a bit betrayed. Your first impulse is that heads should role. But whose head? Or heads? You wonder if you should fire anyone and, if so, whom?

On the face of things, it may seem obvious to some that John or Tom should be separated from the organization. But, as you call your human resources department or legal counsel, ask yourself why (and how) John got Mary to do his job, and what does this reflect about your organizational culture?

Answering this question will undoubtedly inform your decision as to what to do about it.

This is not a simple question. Focusing on John for a moment, it's important to clarify why he wasn't doing his job. Did he lack the requisite skills? Was he unclear as to what was expected of him? Or was he, should we say, otherwise professionally occupied while at work?

If he has a skills deficit, then, what stopped him from seeking training to overcome it? If expectations were unclear, then, what factors led to his lack of clarity? Beyond this, consider what stopped his boss from identifying John's difficulties and developing an effective staff-development plan for addressing them. And if he was using work time for other pursuits, to what was he devoting his time, and how did he get away with it?

In each of these scenarios, John wasn't given feedback that his performance was problematic. Before firing John, it might be important to know whether he might respond effectively to constructive feedback.

He might be told what is expected of him and -- in the case where he lacks essential skills -- he might be helped with an effective staff-development program.

You can fire John, but if he's never been given constructive feedback, you may be, in effect, scapegoating him. Scapegoating is problematic in that it attributes the blame for organizational dysfunction to one source. Scapegoating is dysfunctional in that it fails to examine all of the organizational factors that contribute to dysfunction. Firing John doesn't change the underlying cause of the organizational dysfunction. Rather, it merely provides a Band-Aid solution, and the phenomenon is likely to be repeated elsewhere in the organization.

If you fire John without first coaching him, then you may be sending a message, albeit an inadvertent one, that employees -- not their supervisors -- will be held responsible for missteps. Such an approach could lead employees to cover up their deficits and uncertainties.

Ideally, after receiving feedback and training, John will change his ways. However, if he doesn't or can't, retaining him sends a message of a most demoralizing sort.

Now, what about Mary? She diligently carried out John's duties without well- earned recognition or compensation.

Consider what stopped Mary from making someone in authority aware of her plight. Assess whether she tried to address her concerns and with whom. If she tried and her effort proved ineffective, try to understand what got in the way. This is serious because John's behavior, Tom's tolerance of it and the fact that everyone seems to be aware of it, leaves the organization vulnerable to lawsuit.

Assuming that she didn't attempt to talk about her situation with someone in management, try to explore what stopped her.

Was she fearful of some sort of retaliation? Was she concerned that any efforts to seek fair play would be ineffective? It's essential to have ways in which employees can address these kinds of concerns without fear of reprisal. The absence of effective mechanisms for redress can lead to a troubled organization rife with rivalries and resentments.

Efforts to understand why Mary has been doing John's job will undoubtedly lead to questions about John's supervisor, Tom. But, before handing him his head on a platter, study him. Is he simply an exceptionally poor supervisor or do his difficulties reflect something more endemic to the organizational culture?

To wit, John and Tom may not be the only employees napping on the job. And Mary may not be the only person picking up the slack.

That is, your organization may have evolved a "culture of unaccountability."

Finally, take the most challenging step of all. Examine your own role in creating such a culture.

What steps can you take to build an organizational culture founded on trust and accountability? Clearly define your expectations for employees at every level.

In tandem with this effort, develop an effective evaluation and staff-development program that is tied to corporate goals. If you are confident in your HR department, seek guidance from it.

In more sensitive situations, it can be helpful to speak with an executive coach. Such an individual can support leaders in designing and implementing a strategy for making the organizational culture more accountable.

Errant employees are a window into your corporate culture: "retired in place" by Dr. Lynn Friedman has been republished with permission from the Washington Business Journal.