50. Unsatisfactory employee performance demands appropriate response from a 1 h" H) S/ M X; r$ D3 v/ s
manager or supervisor. The question is what is appropriate? Some managers might 3 v3 Q& h' @9 i5 w+ ]. G q
claim that verbal abuse and intimidation are useful in getting employees to improve. 2 W$ q M! |' N( U; v5 }4 f
While this may be true in exceptional cases, my view is that the best managerial & y0 U- @8 c5 m3 `( W# e
responses generally fulfill two criteria; (1) they are respectful: and (2) they are likely to
$ L' g7 q& P9 u9 x# Kbe the most effective in the long run.
: w, O- M4 q0 R! @7 c7 L( }6 i/ r Treating employees with respect is important in all contexts. Respect, in the most
- I" R5 H9 u+ a0 k/ m4 ~7 x" obasic sense, involves treating a person as equal in importance to oneself. For a manager
. _( F0 a* C- f2 bor supervisor, this means recognizing that occupying a subordinate position does not 3 |: V1 Q' |+ b% h5 `- S* i
make a worker a lesser person. And it means treating subordinates as one would want to % i2 M$ U/ J6 l3 ?6 B- C- {
be treated—honestly and fairly. Using threats or verbal abuse to elicit better employee
- h$ y: \ ?1 l4 N! }performance amounts to treating a worker like the office copy machine—as an object 4 v$ _ g$ q- \3 A' M+ v& m
from which to get what one wants.
7 @) I/ ^8 f* X7 P" x3 i. e Moreover, while verbal abuse might produce the desired reaction at a particular
+ b) z5 u# L/ W4 e8 c0 M4 Qtime, it is likely to backfire later. Nobody likes to be abused or intimidated. If such , I. H: {: r) s3 M2 O2 I% i
methods were the general practice in an office or division, overall morale would
5 j: a: O _, [3 v# F( J4 Z5 g7 z2 Nprobably be low. And it is unlikely that employees would give 100 percent to managers
3 F9 @4 j2 p9 M! P1 S; Z5 r/ twho so obviously disregarded them.
$ M3 q% p9 `) T1 u* ]$ R6 m More beneficial in the long run would be careful but clear feedback to the worker
0 ]& k$ B8 M2 z; Y& X1 _" tabout specific deficiencies, along with ideas and encouragement about improvement. In
$ C8 z0 R* w* ]( i5 Waddition, supervisors should allow employees to explain the problem from their point of $ `; O; |: I; k. ?
view and to suggest solutions. Of course, a supervisor should never mislead a 3 K+ l! a' g/ l; } a' `5 u
subordinate into thinking that major problems with work performance are insignificant
. |0 f$ x. c+ bor tolerable. Still, an honest message can be sent without threats or assaults on self-( _- T3 d0 V+ Z' E) s8 @$ ]. A; \- o
esteem.4 G A6 j( \2 o# V/ \2 A( M+ q
In conclusion, supervisors should avoid using verbal abuse and threats. These + Y2 b4 C+ r) A4 B3 p
methods degrade subordinates, and they are unlikely to produce the best results in the
! y2 Y. t/ H- [long run. It is more respectful, and probably more effective overall, to handle cases of 8 @, n( Y6 S; u d/ d, n
substandard work performance with clear, honest and supportive feedback. |