“I believe you and I’ve very completely different definitions of holding somebody accountable!”
This truly explains so much.
You seem to need to stick it to this worker–maintain them accountable, possibly put them of their place. A really old-school administration fashion; there’s a motive I named Peter Parker’s boss.
I’m not targeted on holding ANYONE accountable. I’m targeted on resolving the difficulty. The REAL subject, not simply the easily-identified signs. At worst, by doing so I’ve given myself a possibility to determine the place flaws could also be within the staff’s programs–points with workflow, unreasonable workloads or expectations, that form of factor. These at all times warrant extra consideration than anybody provides them, and figuring out issues like this is likely one of the duties of a supervisor. If it seems to be private points, typically that’s nonetheless one thing we will work on or with! Lodging for an govt disfunction will not be inherently unreasonable, for instance. And if it’s 100% private, like that divorce case I discussed, there nonetheless could also be issues I as a supervisor can do to assist–day off to get issues straightened out, for instance.
“I believe that managers shouldn’t be concerned of their stories’ well being or private lives.”
OSHA, MSHA, DOT, and a bunch of different regulatory businesses would fairly strongly disagree.
“Teaching a report on plan out when to eat in order that they don’t get grumpy and behave unprofessionally with their coworkers?”
This can be a state of affairs the place the story we inform ourselves determines our interpretation. You’re viewing it as “Telling a report plan out when to eat.” I’m viewing it as “Serving to a report be taught to handle workload in such a approach as to permit them to handle themselves.” It’s not at all times as simple as you make it sound, imagine me!
I bear in mind a job the place I wasn’t capable of eat till 8 pm for 2 weeks–no breakfast or lunch. It was as a consequence of a really particular subject on our shopper’s facet, that meant I used to be the one one who may do some important duties that wanted completed for each individual on a ten-person staff. Was I cranky? Certain. However my supervisor agreed that in that case I used to be the sufferer, not the issue–and we have been capable of finding an answer (one which I wanted my supervisor to do, for authorized causes) that didn’t simply resolve the quick subject however made future initiatives extra environment friendly, as a result of we have been prepared to analyze past “You’re an grownup, cope with it.” And no, I’m not saying that’s what’s occurring; I’m utilizing this instance for instance that your methodology would actively hurt the staff.
“Bringing in snacks to feed them as a result of they’ll’t bear in mind to feed themselves?”
However that’s not what I used to be speaking about, in any respect. Once more, that’s simply coping with the signs, the easily-identified half. What I’m involved about is why my direct report feels that they don’t have time to eat. That signifies at minimal that there’s a drawback with the staff–and one among my jobs as a supervisor is to search out out the place that drawback is and repair it.
“Whenever you conduct your RCA, are you conserving in thoughts that the trigger is more likely to be one thing personal that an worker shouldn’t be requested to share with their boss?”
Certain. We have now but to essentially outline the chance house and “Private points that the boss can’t find out about” is inside that chance house. I’m not against the concept that that is only a unhealthy worker, or a poor match, and that the best choice is to allow them to go, both. There are factors in any good RCA the place you may say “Okay, this looks as if the ball is in your court docket; let me know should you want any assist, however I count on this to be resolved shortly.” I’ve seen that a number of occasions–and the worker requested for day off, or to be allowed to briefly work remotely, or another cheap and momentary lodging to resolve the difficulty. Generally they obtained it, typically not. However the essential factor is, at that time we’d KNOW. Proper now we don’t, making it equally seemingly that this worker is in disaster due to one thing the corporate, or the staff, is doing.
Proper now you’re hostile to the very concept of investigating. Meaning you’ll by no means know. You might be, in actual fact, willfully unaware of the causes. The place you and I disagree strongest–and imagine me, I strongly disagree together with your method right here–is that I’m not prepared to be willfully ignorant in the case of potential threats to my staff.