Dealing with difficult people

Our nemesis boasts superhuman powers to resist change, drain morale and mess up management initiatives. 'That's not my job', 'it's not fair', 'we never used to do it that way' – our devilish dissenter is armed with explosive phrases. And, judging by the trail of despondent managers and mounting tribunals, we find it hard not to go up in smoke. Procrastination makes the problem worse The problem begins when managers do nothing, according to lean consulting and training business, SA Partners. Managers have a natural tendency to avoid conflict, according to psychometric testing of over 250 managers and 400 hours of one-to-one coaching by the company. Manufacturers, bred on the five whys, prefer to find fixes by questioning, probing and inquiring, results show. The good old-fashioned rebuke is less familiar ground, so leaders can delay confrontation, the theory runs. Ducking the difficult employee is a mistake, warns Patrick Mroczak, operations director at reigning Factory of the Year, Aimia Foods of Haydock."You must address the problem. If you don't, the majority of your workforce will feel despondent because they can see that person getting away with it." And other, less astute colleagues may react. A toxic attitude is contagious More impressionable individuals will flock to the difficult employee's diva antics like toxic groupies. "Mr P was a classic type C," explains David Fox, chairman and CEO at PowerPanels in Walsall, an advocate of the employee classification system used by former GE chief Jack Welch to grade employees A-C on attitude and performance. "Mr P was technically excellent and was promoted to foreman. But when we changed our sales strategy to repeatable designs for OEMs, he just didn't want to change. He was unhelpful and antagonistic, and pretty quickly the eight people working for him became exactly the same." Restoring order doesn't need to be aggressive, says Mroczak. "I would take that employee aside and suggest going for a walk to have a chat. If they were refusing to do something, I'd ask them to give me their reasons. Maybe there's a fear behind their refusal to change?" The advantages of showing empathy Managers who show empathy have a greater chance of winning over awkward employees, claims Mroczak. "You break the barriers down," he says. "What you get is, 'I'll give it a go. Okay Patrick, I see your point: you've taken time out, you've alleviated my fears'. Usually there's a genuine reason why they feel that way and if you can tap into that, you make good employees out of them." It's a softly, softly approach heralded by management gurus. Marilyn Pincus, author of bestselling training book Managing Difficult People, says: "People are still people and the manager has to remember that. They have the old basic concerns and they think of themselves, which is not a bad thing. The manager has to pay attention to that. If you can do something to minimise the fear factor, you've gone a long way." Difficult as it might be, try putting yourself in the problem employee's shoes, Pincus advises. The symptom might be screaming blue murder at the mention of some new 5S campaign. The cause could be fear that greater efficiency means job cuts, or a past encounter with a management 'priority' that faded into obscurity. But, whatever the motive, if compassion continues to meet with angry conjecture, then don't be afraid to change tactics, she concludes. "Some people are not salvageable. So, for the manager to keep his or her sanity, you have to realise that. Don't beat yourself up over it – also, you might be devoting too much time to one individual." Spotting a prodigal son from a prodigious problem can't be expressed in a simple formula, adds Pincus. "Sometimes there is not a one-size-fits-all answer. Part of the reason you've become a manager is you've demonstrated an ability to do things well. Have some faith; remember you didn't get here by magic. You've got the skills, now use them." Misconduct vs underperformance One of those management attributes should be delegation. Pick up the phone up to HR at the outset. advises Teresa Dolan, partner and seasoned tribunal advocate at law firm Eversheds. Working together, you should deliver a disciplinary process that hands the employee every opportunity to improve, according to Dolan. However, don't be afraid of taking a tough line with individuals who refuse tasks on attitude rather than a lack of ability, she adds. "It's all about whether the employee can't do, or won't do – where it's a case of 'can't do', the tiered warning and improvement plan is appropriate. But if it's a case of 'won't do', managers are entitled to impose a tougher sanction." Rejecting legitimate management requests (which can alter working practices from contractual agreements providing changes have been through consultation) is misconduct, says Dolan. Managers should swoop into action with an immediate showdown with the dissenter, advises Wie-Men Ho, principal associate in the HR group at Eversheds. "The manager may say, 'I appreciate your concerns, but this is what the change is going to be," says Ho. "It's legitimate and lawful and it's going to happen." You are entitled to sack the employee on the spot for gross misconduct if the offence is serious enough, according to Eversheds. Written warnings and suspension can be issued for milder dissent or repeat offences, says Ho. There is a critical proviso to the final punishment you decide on. At tribunal, employers must show they've acted reasonably and consistently throughout the disciplinary process, stresses Dolan. "If an employee can demonstrate that a colleague did something similar and only got a slap on the wrist, it's going to look really poor at the tribunal. You need to take action proportionate to the crime." Just as frowned upon is managers letting something go one day and then unleashing hellfire the next, says Tracey Marsden, partner in the employment department of law firm Nabarro. "The first excuse is, 'you were there when I said it and you never said anything was wrong – now, six months later, you're bringing it up'." Inconsistency is particularly flammable when employees are trying to prove unfair dismissal on the grounds of race, gender or disability, adds Ho. As well as tackling misconduct, managers may also discipline employees over underperformance. In these 'can't do' cases a worker will be falling below the minimum expectations of their role. You should be looking to draw up a performance improvement plan, including training needs, and meeting regularly to measure progress. Those one-to-one meetings should include some form of note taking, advises Ho. "Tribunals love a paper trail," he says. "If you can show contemporaneous notes of meetings and outcomes, your acting lawyer will love you for it. There's nothing more frustrating than having a good case where your client says they have done all these great things but can't back it up." The burden of proof on the employer adds fuel to the fire to those who bemoan a legal framework that's out to get them. "I disagree," counters Holden. "The qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims has just gone up to two years. That's two years to identify behavioural or performance issues and tackle them without fear of ending up in a tribunal." Get disciplined at dealing with difficult So don't be tempted to turn the other cheek to tears and tantrums. Address your agitator today and you might avoid having to explain why you didn't at an employment tribunal tomorrow. "The main mistake is not dealing with these issues as they arise," concludes Marsden. "It's not easy telling someone their performance or behaviours are not up to scratch... Half the claims that reach tribunal do so because an individual has been mismanaged. "Managers have shied away from dealing with misconduct or performance or, when they do deal with it more formally, the individual feels aggrieved because they've never been told." Five ways to deal with difficult employees 1 Tackle insubordination early: Ignorance is anything but bliss when it comes to the problem employee. The manager who ducks the issue subconsciously endorses poor conduct. The dissenter takes heart from going unchallenged and, cocksure and confident, starts to win the adulation of impressionable colleagues. This can multiply poor behaviour and encourage the ringleader to ever greater acts of insubordination. Others who don't follow the dissenter will feel downcast that they've been allowed to get away with it. Procrastination simply does not pay. 2 Call in a good cop: You can't beat a good cop-bad cop partnership. Twinning your troublesome employee with a star performer might sound like mixing chalk and cheese. But good habits could rub off and your dissenter will be inundated with examples of best practice and positive outcomes. Make sure you give your role model plenty of support, as spending time with the awkward employee is going to be energy sapping, even for a high achiever. 3 Widen your focus: Spending sleepless nights buried in management manuals might be a natural urge as you strive to solve the enigma of the awkward employee. However, you will end up overlooking the other strong performers in your team. Those individuals could quickly become disheartened as your efforts to tackle the bad distract you from celebrating the good. Instead, make a song and dance about what the best do well, creating positive peer pressure. The astute manager will then be on hand to coach aspiring employees to realise their ambitions. 4 Don't recruit them in the first place: Tweaks to your recruitment process could remove the potential for subsequent headaches, according to legal experts. Introducing a value-based recruitment process could flag up any awkward employees in waiting. "You can introduce a number of structured tests to find out someone's real character," says Holden of Eversheds. "Ask a candidate how they would react in team situations, how they cope when given clear instruction or even where they stand on ethical issues." Most HR teams will have their own value-based systems, adds Holden. 5 Strike a Compromise Agreement: The compromise agreement (CA) is the Hail Mary of the difficult employee dilemma and should be used sparingly. It can be used if the employee shows no signs of improving and they seem likely to contest dismissal through the courts. CAs mean the employer offers to pay off the employee's contract in return for no claim. The tactic can be used where employers are unsure of their case, or simply want to play the percentages. However, the tactic is rife with danger, warns Ho of Eversheds. "If you start by focusing on a CA, there's no guarantee the employee will leave. You've revealed your hand too early and any improvement process you follow will look like a sham." Leave mention of a CA until you've made formal attempts to tackle underperformance or misconduct, he advises. "You could talk to the employee off the record and say, 'we both know where this is going. We can either get to that place or come to an alternative agreement'." One final downside is the potential impact on morale if news of the agreement leaks out.