Employee Problems? Blame it on Yourself

In my job, I have the pleasure of viewing how a number of other people run their companies. It is always interesting for me to hear them talk about their workforce. One of the most common is the "problem employee". I never really understood why people get "stuck" with problem employees. It just doesn't make any sense.

I had the good fortune of working for two Fortune 500 companies in operations as a young adult. I learned how to hire, how to fire and everything in between. Because of this, I have very strong opinions on why middle market employers have only one person to blame for problem employees: themselves.

It never ceases to amaze me that employers have scheduling problems with employees. Do they not look at their applications? Do they not review their availability? Do they not ask the right questions during the interview process? I honestly think that many employers are so happy to find employees that "appear" to be exactly what they are looking for that they don't spend any time preparing for the interview by studying the application. Why? I think it has to do with a lack of organization. Employers in middle market companies don't have the benefit of in-house human resources departments, they don't have in-house legal counsel, and they certainly are spread across multiple tasks. While hiring may help them to have more time in the long run, the issues lie in the short term investment. I realize this sounds logical, but most employers don't want to spend any more time than they have to preparing. As we know, they are already spread thin. That being said, the following information is invaluable as you are preparing to schedule interviews for open positions:

• Does the availability of the employee match the needs of the current job and any anticipated future changes? When I was in retail, we would not interview anyone without them having completely open availability. We certainly would not let them accidentally get hired. You can cure a lot of future heartburn by paying attention to the availability of the applicant prior to the interview. The only exception that was made was for students that could not get to work until after school? If your application does not have an area for the applicant to disclose their availability in writing, you should make this modification sooner than later.
• Does the applicant have access to reliable transportation? While it is unacceptable to ask them if they have a vehicle, you can ask if they have access to reliable transportation. It is none of your business if they take the bus to work or ride a bike. You just want to know that whatever method they are using is reliable.
• Has the applicant given you complete information on the entire application? Nothing bugs me more than someone applying for a job and not paying attention to the details of the applications itself. If information is missing from an application, I feel like it is because the applicant is either sloppy, or trying to hide something. While I don't expect them to know the contact information of every prior supervisor, I do expect them to write that in the information section. Would it be a problem to write: Contact information to follow?
• Did the applicant sign the application? It is vital to have their signature on the application warranting the information contained therein.

I always liked to interview people that wanted to come to work with me. I feel like I always do a good job of creating a team environment and I like the ability to talk to those people that are going to be on my team. However, prior to talking to me, I would allow one or two of my team members to talk to the applicant first. It is amazing how many people on my team would ferret out a bad egg, thus not subjecting me to a waste of my time. By allowing my team members to "interview' applicants it did two things: first, it allowed them to weed out bad applicants and keep me from wasting time as stated before; second, if they did sign off on the applicant and I hired them, they had no room to complain about the applicant down the road because I only went with their recommendation.

In addition to this practice, I always like to use open ended questions. I ask things that start with "Tell me about a time when....." I want to see how well the applicant expresses themself as well as whether they are being genuine and honest. This is a great technique because it really lets you determine if you are talking to a team player that will integrate with your specific culture.

I used to get hung up on the dress of the applicant. I would be irritated if someone wore anything less than a shirt and tie (a pair of dress slacks and blouse for the ladies) to come and talk to me. While I was in the retail industry, my opinions changed. With the implementation of "instant interviews", I never knew what I was going to walk into. People who thought they were coming to the store for a mop and some floor cleaner were sitting in my office telling me why they would make a great guest relations person. I learned more to focus on the content of answers. I actually think it was good for me to experience this.

So, we have talked a little bit about the application and a little bit about the interview. Now, let's talk about the probationary period.

 Assuming you have done the first two things correctly, this is a moot point.  However, every now and again there is a slippery applicant that manages to fool you and actually gets the job.  The good news is that they can only fool you for so long and they don't have the endurance to last very long.  Most companies have a 90 day probationary period so that the employee can determine whether or not they like the job and also whether or not the employer likes the employee.  During the probationary period, it is essential that management pays attention.  If they employee is consistently late, has customer complaints or complaints from other team members, get rid of them.  Don't carry them past the 90 day mark and then wonder why they are so horrible.  99% of all employees will accurately portray themselves during the 90 day probationary period.  As I look back over my career, every single employee that I have ever had to terminate for poor performance should have been terminated during their probationary period, and in most cases, they should have never been hired.  Hiring out of desperation to fill positions has been the number one cause of heartache for me.

While the above three pieces of information are not all encompassing, they certainly are a good starting point to help you avoid hiring and retaining problems. If you are currently having issues with an employee for performance, tardiness or otherwise, look at the information above and see if you could have identified the issues by incorporating the above. Leading and managing people is a tough job. Most companies have tools in resources in place to assist you and make that job just a little easier. The bottom line is that if you interview, hire and retain problem performers, you really have no one to blame but yourself.

David R. Carothers, CIC, CRM is a Risk Management Consultant and Licensed Insurance Agent with Praxiom based in Tampa, FL. To contact David Directly, please email him atdrc@praxiom-rm.com.