Are dysfunctional workers ruining the culture of your organization?

WHILE THERE IS no perfect organisation, there are some organisations that are more tolerant of dysfunctional employees than others. There are several reasons why an organisation may put up with employees’ bad behaviour. For example, this may occur when the person who is responsible for discipline is not directly involved in the day to day running of the organisation. Another reason could be because managers do not understand the importance of effective performance management or are not equipped to facilitate it. Resource deficiency is also a reason. In organisations where there is a high turnover of skilled workers, the skilled employees with long tenure may be allowed to misbehave because the manager is afraid that should they leave there would be no one to carry on the business.

Today we look at ways in which organisations enable employees’ bad behaviours and the effects of this enabling culture. Susan Ways, SPHR, Head of Human Resources, Administration and Compliance at Nobelpharma America, LLC, in an article titled “How Organisations Enable Bad Behaviour.” Shared ten ways: 1. By dismissing the behaviour – Joan is a long tenure employee with over 30 years of experience. She is rude and disrespectful to her colleagues. When referring to Joan’s behaviour, her manager’s response is usually “Oh, everyone knows that’s how ‘Joan’ behaves. We can’t fire her.

Who will do her job?”

Ways argues that when organisations allow dysfunctional employees to grow and flourish, it not only affects those employees, because their performance is not efficiently managed, but it affects the morale of high performers on the team.

2. By making excuses

– “Peter is having marital problems, we should not compound his problem by giving him a warning for his bad behaviour.”

Ways agrees that managers should be aware of employees’ personal struggles, but does not support giving employees a pass for their bad behaviour. In reality, everyone experiences tough times, but tough time is not a license to misbehave.

Ways argues that when managers excuse employees bad behaviours during personal challenges, they send a message that there are times when it is okay to treat others poorly.

3. By qualifying – “I have never known Sylvia to behave like that. She is a nice person. She must have been provoked.” Ways said that at times managers present a complaint with a disclaimer because it is easier on their conscious.

However, Ways believes that if someone is inclined to be courteous to people, they should not be given a pass on the odd days when they are rude. Managers should consistently hold employees accountable for bad behaviours.

4. By ignoring the behaviour – Most managers dislike having difficult conversations with employees. Therefore, instead of seeking out conflict, they avoid it. Ways argues that when managers turn a blind eye to employees’ bad behaviour hoping that it will just go away, that only allows the behaviour to fester and grow.

5. By being too busy – Many managers prioritise technical responsibility over managing employees’ performance. They argue that they are too busy making sales or ensuring that the business have adequate stock. Therefore,

reprimanding employees’ bad behaviour is placed on the back burner. Ways argues that being too busy, like ignoring employees’ bad behaviour, enables the employee to continue acting out.

6. By valuing performance over behaviour – Some managers believe that once employees are actively contributing to the business bottom line, nothing else is as important. One of the comments managers frequently make is, “When it comes to the work, he or she could work but…”.Ways argues that valuing employees’ performance over their behaviour sets a dangerous precedent because you are allowing one employee to shine while others are being trampled in their wake.

7. By coaching the “victims” – Instead of holding bad behaving employees accountable for their behaviour, often managers counsel those impacted by the behaviour on how they could better deal with it. Ways argues that this behaviour by managers sends the wrong message. She suggests that appropriate measures be taken against dysfunctional employees so that they are motivated to modify their actions.

8. By not seeing it – Difficult employees are generally diplomatic. They may behave one way in the presence of their manager and a completely different way in the manager’s absence. This could cloud managers’ perspective on employees as they are judged based on their interactions with them. Ways suggests that managers take the time to investigate interactions so that they can genuinely assess employees’ behaviour.

9. By putting our peace of mind first – Some managers avoid managing employees’ bad behaviour because they do not want to deal with the discomfort associated with having difficult conversations. Ways argues that when managers avoid addressing the behaviour of dysfunctional employees, other employees lose faith in them and stop reporting bad behaviours to them. Ways said when employees stop speaking to the managers it is because they are either speaking among themselves or looking for a new job.

10. By allowing fear to guide decisions – One of the main reasons why some managers avoid addressing employees’ bad behaviour is because those employees have the potential to hold the organisation hostage.

For example, they can leave with intellectual property.

They hold key positions within the organisation and there is no succession planning. They are difficult to be replaced. Ways argues that eventually they will leave, or the bad behaviour will escalate to the point where it will be unreasonable to keep them employed. Therefore, it is always better to address the dysfunction as soon as it is identified and to be consistent in the way in which it is dealt with.