On 23 Jun 96 Rol Fessenden wrote in part -
>
> I think I have been somewhat confusing also, because there are two quite
> different circumstances being discussed. One is when a person has fairly
> suddenly changed in his behavior from constructive to destructive and
> abusive. Assuming that this is caused by 'poor management' ignores that
> there are a lot of other non-work potential causes for such a change. I
> have the impression that in the US, work-life is not the majority cause of
> such a quick and destructive change. This person may benefit from some
> help.
>
> The second circumstance is one in which there is deeply rooted
> dysfunctional behavior. It could be abusive, it could be dishonesty, and
> so forth. We all know people like this. They are not all in management.
>
> By the way, the dysfunctional people I described in another posting were
> managers. Their behavior was particularly destructive because they were
> in management. Their behavior was inconsistent with my values. Since
> they appeared unwilling to change, I could not support my values and them
> at the same time. I also could not maintain credibility about my values
> with employees if I kept them in the organization.
>
> I would like to hear if anyone has any suggestions about how else to deal
> with such a problem within management. I would also be interested in why
> anyone would have different standards for managers than for employees. In
> other words, if it makes sense to terminate a manager for such behavior,
> why would not termination also apply to an employee for such behavior?
IMHO, Rol is right on the mark. We believe in a 6-9 month time frame to
allow the person to get on with significant change. Management must
apologize for their errors and explain these to their juniors and to
anyone else affected -- for starters. Meaningful change and plenty of
commitment must soon be evident or the boss should terminate or perhaps
transfer to another group within a company if that group willing accepts
the person "warts and all", i.e. with full knowledge of what transpired.
I would like to particularly second Rol's point that " I could not support
my values and them at the same time" and that "I also could not maintain
credibility about my values with employees --". We would go further. We
believe that the boss owes an apology to employees about this
dysfunctional person and clear indication that the boss appreciates what
employees must put up with while the boss is attempting to fix the
problem. Request that employees forgive the boss' error (having the
dysfunctional person around), but tell them that if effective change isn't
soon forthcoming, the boss will remove the bad effects on the people.
The above reflects how bosses must handle problems in the workplace. They
must be open and above board about any which affect other people
adversely. This is true for material, procedural, policy, people or any
other category of workplace problem. Don't be found protecting any person
who has made their problem public by having it affect others, particularly
managers. Affected people have a right as full fledged team players to
know what's going on to correct problems and if you don't give them
knowledge, they will never believe that you respect them or consider them
valued team members.
If a boss merely lives by high standards for all values as Rol has
implied, the actions required to do this become clear.
Just my two cents. Joan
type probles
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Pomo The Finest Tools for Managing People
Simonton Associates Based on the book
jpomo@gate.net "How to Unleash the Power of People"
--"jpomo@gate.net" <jpomo@gate.net>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>