How to Deal with Tough Employees - Essay Example

As the de s, this article is about managing difficult employees of an Organisation. No doubt, all difficult employees cause a negative effect to the whole team as well as to the productivity of the team. The article begins by describing what can be assumed to be negative behaviour at work, as well as why employees engage in such negative behaviour. Then the author gives a list of ways to handle difficult employees, which includes talking to the employees about the problem as well as for managers to take action as soon as the problem manifests itself, otherwise the problem would become bigger and cause more problems consequently. The workplace should be a place with as little conflict as possible for it to be conducive for productivity. It is important, according to the article, to interact with the employee to resolve the problems. Moreover, a list is provided for the most difficult employees, with bullies at the top, along with ways to deal with them according to the behaviour they manifest. For example, the author states that a dictator is someone who likes to take charge in everything and wants to intimidate others; therefore, to deal with such a person, it is best if one does not challenge them, but at the same time remains learns to say no to them without being intimidated. The list of difficult employees includes bullies who like to frighten and manipulate others, martyrs who crave sympathy and often crib about how they are mistreated prompting guilt and attention from others, narcissists who are only involved in themselves and do not work with the team, chatterers who love to talk, serial fault finders who, as the name suggests, only like to pick out faults in the work of others, clams who are the exact opposite of chatterers and who keep to themselves, dictators who like to run the office their own way and not accommodate others but to order them around, and finally whingers who like to complain about everything big or small. No doubt dealing with so many employees is hard on the manager as each has his or her own individual temperaments. According to research, it is important to first realise why the problem occurred in the first place, a topic dealt with in the article. It was put forward by experts that it is important to first deal with the problems that face the employee before trying to deal with the employee (Albright, 1978), so much so that it is important for the manger to be aware of the problems facing the employee and to eliminate them even before they start having an effect on the work of the said employee. The basic theme of the article is how to make the work environment more productive by getting rid of all the negativity that the difficult employees bring to the workplace. Though it is important for the manager to take care of these employees, however, each employee on his/her own can and should also learn how to deal with them, as ultimately it is the co-workers who have to deal with them, more than the management at least. However, there are times when the underlying cause of this “acting out” cannot be discovered, and unfortunately, in these cases the manager is left with no choice but to dismiss the employee, a topic not dealt with in the article at all. One of the most important arguments of the article is that to effectively deal with any difficult employee or his/her attitude, it is important to detach oneself from the situation and deal with the problem as soon as possible, as the longer it takes to deal with the employee, the more harm is done to the work environment. Moreover, the article emphasizes the use of humour in situations to dispel the stress and to make the task easier to handle. The article, as stated before, mentions who difficult employees are and then expounds ways to deal with them. First off is the bully, who uses aggression to deal with others, and causes his anger and aggression to seep into the work place. The first thing to do in this situation is to instruct the other employees not to be intimidated by the bully, however, this is not an easy task, as sometimes these bullying employees create such fear in the minds of the others that the latter are more than reluctant to complain to their managers about the behaviour (Benison, 1997). This, then, is the job of the manager to see whether there are reasons enough to label an employee a bully and then to take steps to stop that employee from his bullying behaviour. This can be done by finding out the reasons behind his/her behaviour and dealing with them effectively so that the employee can refrain from his negative attitude and become a model employee (Glomb, 2003). But that is one way of dealing with the situation: to diffuse the anger. What does one do when there is no aggression/anger involved, but the employees are still not productive? There may be an employee who is always criticising the team or other employees and hampering their work productivity. According to this article, one of the best ways to deal with such an employee is to ask him/her to give both positive and negative feedback. For instance, if the fault finding employee gives out negative feedback, ask him/her to find something positive in the over all assignment as well. This shall help the other employees in seeing for themselves that the work done was not completely bad, or that the faultfinder was merely trying to put them down. The problem with such an employee is either his low self-esteem or his jealousy with regard to some or all of the other employees. It is often found to be the case that an employee’s motivation is nothing but professional jealousy, something the manager must always be aware of, and monitor (Thome, 1993). Moreover, the backbiting that goes on in an office is often also the cause of consternation for the employees. People of all nature want to be liked and approved of by their peers. It is a cause of great distress to the workers to be talked about negatively behind their backs. Most of this backbiting tends to be very malicious and is often done due to envy and/or jealousy, however, that does not cause any happiness to the target and causes them to be unproductive at work (Bedeian, 1995). This topic, however, was not effectively dealt with in the article. Backbiting and social ostracism is one of the biggest causes of low work output and it is often carried out by a single instigator who gets the others involved in his scheming and negativity, but there was no mention of this at all in the article. A dictator on the other hand, or a control freak as s/he is often referred to in modern parlance, does not create problems for the employees directly, as s/he is often only concerned with his or her own work and how to get it done, however, any team work that the employees might be engaged in doing can be, and is, often negatively affected by this behaviour. A dictator likes to run things according to his or her own likes and dislikes. S/he does not take into consideration the opinions and views of others. Any teamwork that is to be done with such an employee involved can be very disruptive. It is best to either manage them actively and try to make sure that they do not get into their “dictator” mode, or to make them busy with some activity that involves individual input. This, again, is something that the article does not mention. We have already established that it is best to deal with employees based on their individual needs and temperaments, especially when it is recognized that it is next to impossible for them to change their behaviour patterns. Again, there is a need to reiterate that difficult employees are not necessarily bad at their work; they are just hard to deal with in a group. If the dictator’s work is good on his own, it is always best to give him or her individual assignments rather than forcing him to work in a group and to cause disruption and disturbance to the team. When it comes to whingers and complainers, the article states that it is best to either solve their problems by listening to their complaints or, if their complaints are baseless, to try to divert their attention and merely giving them orders with no regard to their “pained expressions and mutterings”. Research has shown that organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) is an intervening mechanism between the antecedents of job satisfaction, affective commitment, procedural justice, distributive justice, and leader-member exchange quality and workplace complaining (Heck, Bedeian, and Day 2262-2289). Therefore, it is best to deal with the complaints and solve the problems of the employees. It is best to make the employees feel that they are being heard, and not to give them the impression that the management is not concerned with their personal well-being or does not effectively listen to complaints. This would foster a sense of security in the employees, making them more productive; it would enable them to feel respected at their workplace. However, if the complaints are useless and it is the habit of the employee to whine all the time, then it is best to just ignore the complaint, merely give orders, and let the employee know the consequences of not finishing the job assigned to him or her. When it comes to “martyrs”, the article states, it is best to ignore them and not to let them have the satisfaction of knowing that their negativity is affecting all of the other employees. The article states that it is best to let them beware that their behaviour will affect their own professional career at the organisation. This will cause them to think twice about gaining attention by portraying themselves as victims. It is ultimately up to the management to validate the “martyr” and reinforcing his belief that s/he is a victim or making him or her realise that his tactics are not going to affect anyone other than him or her self. However, there is a danger of the manager putting in too strict a method to deal with such a person, in which case, s/he will be reinforcing the “martyr/victim complex” of the employee. It is best, in such a situation, to be firm, yet reasonable and to give out orders effectively, yet firmly. The article gives a concise point-by-point summary of the characteristics of a difficult employee and then enumerates the ways to deal with them. It is quite effective in illustrating both the problems and the situations, and it does not go into useless details to emphasise a point. It is well constructed and is written in an easy to understand manner, whereby technical jargon is avoided, thus making it an easy read for both the professionals and the laymen. It offers quite a bit of help to those who need to manage difficult employees as well as those who work with them. Though the article is not targeted towards the difficult employees, it also effectively helps them to change their behaviour pattern for the better, by recognizing the symptoms and correcting them or eliminating them from their work behaviour. However, the article does not cite any examples from real life and merely expounds on theories relating to the subject matter. There are no cases given from real life (or from the experiences of John Shetcliffe) where an employee’s negative behaviour was countered through any of these methods. Not only that, the article does not give any clue as to how tension created between co-workers due to one employee is to be diffused. It does give solutions as to how to handle the difficult employee, but does not expound on how to deal with him/her and his/her co-workers once the situation is over. Moreover, it does not relate that such difficult employees are not necessarily bad at their jobs, but it is only their behaviour that negatively effects the work environment. We know that handling everyone according to his or her own temperaments is important; the article does not effectively deal with that principle. Also, there are a lot of factors that the article does not take into consideration with regard to reasons behind the negative behaviour; jealousy (whether professional or personal), for example, has not been broached as a reason for the negative employee behaviour, even though that can be, and often is, one of the major reasons behind the employee’s negative behaviour. Also, the article does not state the obvious that sometimes it is the work environment itself that is creating these problems. According to experts (Johnson & Indvik, 2000) there are 12 basic reasons for an employee to “act out” so to speak, which are: 1. General Harassment (sexual or other types) 2. Favouritism of one employee over another 3. Insensitivity by managers 4. Depersonalisation of the contemporary workplace 5. Unfair performance appraisals 6. Lack of resources 7. Lack of adequate training 8. Lack of teamwork 9. Withdrawal of earned benefits 10. Lack or violation of trust 11. Poor communication 12. Absentee bosses None of this is dealt with effectively in the article. To deal with the underlying causes that result in an employee being “difficult” at work is just as important as trying to curb these negative attitude of the employees for improving work productivity and fostering a better work environment for both the problem/difficult employees and those who are affected by such employees. Overall, the article is well conceived and enables the reader to be able to deal with tough employees in an effective manner. It is helpful to all those who seek to create a better work environment for their employees or even for themselves. Though its target audience is the managerial sector, yet it is also beneficial for the employees themselves. It can also drive those employees involved in negative behaviour to change their habits and to improve their work ethics, thus giving better output professionally. There are fields in which this article is wanting, however, for a small article, it does give a lot of information about workplace productivity improvement and employee handling. It is, according to me, a must read for all those involved in managerial tasks, as after reading it the reader has a lot of insight into the reasons behind employee problems as well as ways to avoid or deal with such problems. References: Ajango, Deb. “Dealing with Difficult Employees.” Alaska Business Monthly, 11 (1995): 49-51 Albright, Elaine M. “Handling Employee Problems.” In H. Goldhor and R.E. Stevans (eds) Supervision of employees in libraries (Papers presented at the Allerton Park Institute November 12-15, 1978): 81-89 Arnold, Vanessa D., and Terry D. Roach. “Organizational Behavior: Coping with Difficult Co-Workers.” Journal of Education for Business, 67 (1992): 160-163 Ayres-Williams, Roz. "When Managing Gets Tough." Black Enterprise Vol. 22, 01 March 1992. Bedeian, Arthur G. "Workplace envy." Organizational Dynamics 23(1995): 49-56. Bensimon, H. “What to do about Anger in the Workplace,” Training & Development, 51 (1997): 28-32 Gerber, G. "Problem Personalities: Employees Who Drive Us Up A Wall," Getting Results, 41 (1996): 5. Glendinning, Peter M. "Workplace Bullying: Curing the Cancer of the American Workplace." Public Personnel Management 30(2001): 269-286. Glomb, Theresa M. "Interpersonal Aggression in Work Groups: Social Influence: Reciprocal, and Individual Effects." Academy of Management Journal 46(2003): 486-496. Heck, Anita Konieczka, Arthur G. Bedeian, and David V. Day. "Mountains Out of Molehills? Tests of the Mediating Effects of Self-Esteem in Predicting Workplace Complaining." Journal of Applied Social Psychology 35(2005): 2262-2289. Johnson, Pamela R., and Indvik, Julie. " Rebels, Criticizers, Backstabbers, and Busybodies: Anger and Aggression at Work." Public Personnel Management 29(2000): 165 – 174 Marsh and Arnold," Address the Cause, not the Symptoms of Behavior Problems,” Personnel Journal, 67 (1988): 92-98. Thome, L. “Professional jealousy & backbiting: can you protect yourself?” Industry Week, Vol. 242, No. 14 (1993): pp. 24-30. Whichard, Judy, and Nathalie L. Kees. The Manager as Facilitator. Praeger Publishers, 2006. Yandrick, Rudy M. "A Strategy for Managing Behavioral Problems at Work," HRMagazine, 41(1996): 150-160 Read More