How serious is serious? - assessing workplace problem behavior

HR Magazine, May, 1998 by Terry L. Leap, Michael D. Crino

An evaluation of 12 criteria helps assess the severity of problem behaviors in the workplace.

The late Jean McKelvey, the first faculty member of Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations and a former president of the National Academy of Arbitrators, noted that discipline and discharge cases are among the most difficult disputes to arbitrate.

"The facts are often complicated; credibility is difficult to evaluate; emotions may run high ... and the misconduct itself may be sordid and shocking. ... There is no such thing as a simple case," she wrote (Arbitration in Practice, ILR Press, 1984).

A major complicating factor in such proceedings is determining the seriousness of such behaviors. "Standard" problem behaviors such as drug abuse, excessive absenteeism and theft can be difficult enough to evaluate in a fair and intelligent manner. Unorthodox or bizarre employee behaviors, however, present an even greater challenge. Such behaviors are often impossible to anticipate and may be so wildly out of the ordinary that managers can only shake their heads in disbelief.

When confronted by unexpected or eccentric employee behaviors, managers may react to the peculiarity or uniqueness of the behavior rather than to the consequences of such behaviors on the organization and its stakeholders. Consider the following situations: * An off-duty production worker encounters a plant supervisor in the stands at a football game. In a drunken rage, he curses at the supervisor and makes scurrilous remarks to the supervisor's spouse.

* A sales representative tells several racist jokes to a group of 30 clients during a recent product exhibition. Several clients complain to the regional sales manager.

* A disgruntled department manager constantly criticizes top management's corporate strategies and policies. At times, her remarks are vicious and defamatory.

* A dozen or so employees place bets with a bookie who visits the company parking lot every Thursday morning as the employees arrive at the workplace. On Monday mornings the bookie returns to pay the winners.

AN EVALUATION MODEL

Incidents such as these can be evaluated intelligently and fairly. The accompanying chart provides 12 consequences-oriented criteria that may be used to evaluate the seriousness of problem behaviors. The criteria are 1) the extent to which an incident created a disruption to the workflow; 2) damage to products and equipment as a result of the incident; 3) the extent to which a safety hazard was created; 4) whether a customer or employee suffered bodily injury as a result of the incident; 5) the acceptability of an employee's conduct in light of his or her training or professional norms; 6) whether the incident violated a federal or state law; 7) the extent to which an incident results in the misappropriation of organizational resources; 8) the impact of the incident on the morale of co-workers and customers; 9) the ease or difficulty with which the employee's behavior can be corrected; 10) the possibility that the employee's behavior is a danger signal for more serious problems; 11) the extent to which the employee's actions damaged the public image of the organization; and 12) the degree to which the problem behavior undermined management's authority.

For all or some of the 12 criteria, incidents can be categorized as minor, moderate or serious. For instance, under the fifth criteria (acceptability of conduct given the employee's professional status and organizational level), an example of a minor violation would be a cashier using mildly profane but nonthreatening language to a customer within earshot of other customers. A moderate violation could be illustrated by a lawyer with a large law firm who becomes agitated and raises his voice at a client. A serious violation might be committed by a university faculty member who loses his temper with a graduate student, calls him a "communist" and throws a drink in his face.

USING THE SYSTEM

As it would under any disciplinary system, management should gather as much information as possible about the alleged incident. Standard sources of information in disciplinary cases include physical evidence, photographs, statements from persons who witnessed or who have knowledge of the incident, copies of relevant company policies, and personnel records of employees who are involved.

The next step is to examine the problem behavior in light of the 12 criteria in the chart. This examination might be performed by an employee's immediate supervisor or by a disciplinary or grievance committee. In some instances, only one or two criteria will be relevant to a particular case, whereas in other instances several criteria may apply. By examining an event in a systematic fashion against the criteria, the chances of over- or underestimating its seriousness are reduced.

Once a determination has been made regarding the seriousness of an incident, mitigating circumstances should be considered before a sanction is imposed. Extenuating circumstances often arise due to factors beyond the employee's control such as malfunctioning equipment, inclement weather or the actions of co-workers, customers or others. Furthermore, management may precipitate or contribute to a problem behavior through discriminatory practices, inadequate training, unclear instructions, inconsistent enforcement of work rules or abusive language toward employees.