50. Unsatisfactory employee performance demands appropriate response from a
" C2 k9 h" K6 E! l: A" | [/ k' \manager or supervisor. The question is what is appropriate? Some managers might $ ] D0 P- K# V6 ~. b4 ^: a
claim that verbal abuse and intimidation are useful in getting employees to improve. ( H5 Q4 m* f y+ a9 J9 X. Q! o# l
While this may be true in exceptional cases, my view is that the best managerial
3 }' a' |1 a+ d( ]responses generally fulfill two criteria; (1) they are respectful: and (2) they are likely to + [ r7 q$ e) n9 ~9 ]- s' A8 I
be the most effective in the long run.
. l [6 K2 H' \/ p/ N( u Treating employees with respect is important in all contexts. Respect, in the most
Z# C: k9 e' A' f. L, i4 d# dbasic sense, involves treating a person as equal in importance to oneself. For a manager 4 a" Q, }$ c9 u% T d5 q
or supervisor, this means recognizing that occupying a subordinate position does not 2 ?. h* ^" X/ H$ \0 Q( U2 X
make a worker a lesser person. And it means treating subordinates as one would want to R7 w& @: |; H
be treated—honestly and fairly. Using threats or verbal abuse to elicit better employee
2 G F3 b# ]; f& @6 a8 Z5 Qperformance amounts to treating a worker like the office copy machine—as an object
. b+ k" O- [' j% |1 t* mfrom which to get what one wants.
s+ n# M- z0 i' ~5 R6 y) ` Moreover, while verbal abuse might produce the desired reaction at a particular
0 F$ w5 d# r5 h, E8 i" v3 S! ctime, it is likely to backfire later. Nobody likes to be abused or intimidated. If such y, P7 { |& e( l b8 r9 o
methods were the general practice in an office or division, overall morale would
3 E w: W* J2 ]1 Iprobably be low. And it is unlikely that employees would give 100 percent to managers . I! l( l m- N& i' {1 M
who so obviously disregarded them.
5 g/ [; M6 x+ e4 l; u More beneficial in the long run would be careful but clear feedback to the worker , {* F2 ]- q' n2 s" z
about specific deficiencies, along with ideas and encouragement about improvement. In ) X, B) k9 }1 d- W
addition, supervisors should allow employees to explain the problem from their point of
% k$ K. L) F6 R: g* sview and to suggest solutions. Of course, a supervisor should never mislead a
$ ^2 f( L; z1 m3 t7 R, {7 K$ ysubordinate into thinking that major problems with work performance are insignificant * J' k$ h+ B+ F# i& D% C+ o
or tolerable. Still, an honest message can be sent without threats or assaults on self-) C/ V: N1 N9 a6 G+ m. @ {1 P
esteem.
6 D( F6 p1 y" s+ \ In conclusion, supervisors should avoid using verbal abuse and threats. These
5 ^" @3 z) O) p- p; p! a) omethods degrade subordinates, and they are unlikely to produce the best results in the - C1 _1 e, S- Z$ K$ z
long run. It is more respectful, and probably more effective overall, to handle cases of
$ C! ?2 o+ Y3 a4 Csubstandard work performance with clear, honest and supportive feedback. |