The firm had the privilege of presenting a webinar entitled EFCA or Not, Here Come the Unions late last week. The Webinar host and presenter was Lead Consultant for Employee and Labor Relations, Mr. Bob Oberstein. Following the webinar we received a question that was submitted too late to be considered during the broadcast so we are posting both the question and our answer here in the hope that the party who asked it or others might find our answer helpful.
Webinar Question:
Regarding “poor managers are a liability”, how do organizations address the issue of staff who is unwilling or unable to accept the fact that management has the right and responsibility to manage, regardless of how sensitively or gently this simple fact is stated to them? Managers and supervisors who are both technically sound and managerially astute are sometimes direct and honest with employees.
Mr. Oberstein’s Response:
This is actually several questions.
First: For the purpose of lowering an employer’s vulnerability to an organizing drive what behaviors define a “poor manager or supervisor” as a liability? (A point we did not address in our most recent webinar so thanks for bringing it up.)
Second: How can supervisors or managers who are acting properly deal constructively with employees who continually “push” the envelope regarding their “entitlement” to certain rights or to erode management rights? The subset to this second question is how do you maintain being right in the face of being baited by an employee who refuses to acknowledge the obvious?
Webinar Question 1:
For the purpose of assessing an employer’s vulnerability to an organizing drive what behaviors define a “poor manager or supervisor” as a liability?
Basically this type of manager is running his or her own little world with little to no regard for their employer’s best interests. To be fair, many employers tolerate these folks because the employer believes they have a positive impact on the bottom line. But do they really? An astute employer should check their perception against reality and if this individual is more of a liability than an asset it would be wise to stop enabling their behavior by continuing to give them satisfactory performance reviews, raises, etc: Instead, a face to face meeting to discuss the conflicting goals existing between their actions and company vision is what’s required.
Webinar Question 2:
How can supervisors or managers who are acting properly deal constructively with employees who continually “push” the envelope regarding their “entitlement to erode management rights?
This question reminds me of a grievance I once heard when I was the Executive Director of HR for a large elementary school district at the time. The teacher’s union representative was “pitching” the grievance and stated that the teacher’s rights had been violated. Not knowing which rights she was referring to and needing more specificity about the alleged violations I inquired as to what rights those might be? The response from the Union rep was the classic “I don’t know what rights were violated but she’s got to have them!” In fact, no such rights existed.
In short, many, if not most, of us presume, out of either a sense of innocence, entitlement, ignorance, arrogance or some combination thereof, that we have rights regardless of whether or not those rights actually exist. To make matters worse consider the expression “denial is a powerful opiate” and the reality that when illusion, especially self illusion, is our goal there is no amount of energy or resources we won’t expend to achieve it!
Additionally, I am presuming, based on the question that this is coming from a non-union shop since, in a union contract there is always a management rights clause which usually is very specific insofar as stating that unless something is stated in the contract as a management “must” or “cannot” then management has the right to do it! This is called the reserved rights doctrine and it is not surprising this would not be common knowledge in a non-union shop. It therefore seems that the individual referred to in the question, like the teacher’s union representative noted above is suffering under the same sense of entitlement and in the case of this employee, assuming they are laboring under the misbelieve that in a union shop they would have such rights, an additional dose of “the grass is always greener…”
I do need to point out, however, that even in a union shop with a strong management rights clause and years of past practice to support what is and is not a management right, these same rights are always under constant assault. This is primarily in a traditional labor management relationship it is one of the union’s goals to simultaneously continue to narrow the scope of managerial influence while expanding that of the union. Additionally, some organizations, in spite of verbal protests to the contrary, have conceded a portion of their management rights to “keep the peace” or to “have a good relationship”. The question, however, is always what kind of a relationship do such concessions create?
But back to our stubborn “true believer” in the question. If being both “gentle” and “direct” has not worked perhaps it’s because it’s just too easy for him to continue the disagreement. Believe it or not there are some folks out there who enjoy a good argument especially if they’re having too much fun with it! And since an agreement would stop the argument and therefore stop the fun they instead continue to be difficult. So what to do about it?
I would suggest management stop taking responsibility for coming up with an answer that would satisfy him (since apparently that will never happen) and switch the burden of proof to him by doing the following and hopefully taking some of the fun out of it for him at the same time.
First, tell him “You may be right.” Then elaborate by informing him that according to what you know and have been able to find out it appears he is wrong since you could not find anything to support his position. This moves the discussion from opinion to fact based. But nothing says management has a monopoly on either brains or information. So to that end you are open to examining any and all information he can provide to support his position such as the actual laws, etc: because if he’s right you will most certainly be open to making a change as you do wish to be in compliance with any and all requirements.
Even if he continues to operate as before by complaining without backing it up with facts I would urge you to continue to respond this way and to document it as you will be 1) building a record of being open & listening (dates & times and 2) providing him with the opportunity to convince (read self-teach) himself that he is incorrect or to exhaust himself. But under no circumstances is it your job to have to disprove any claim he has not established as fact.
By doing the above you will be capturing the moral high ground by being open to possibilities while relieving yourself of any responsibility to disprove a premise he has yet to establish. To put it another way and as I have often stated to the parties in my arbitration awards “To make a claim, and then fail to support that claim, is to admit you never had a claim in the first place.”
[For Mr. Oberstein’s Bio please see the Associates link on the firm’s website.]