“I feel you and I’ve very totally different definitions of holding somebody accountable!”
This really explains rather a lot.
You seem to wish to stick it to this worker–maintain them accountable, perhaps put them of their place. A really old-school administration type; there’s a motive I named Peter Parker’s boss.
I’m not targeted on holding ANYONE accountable. I’m targeted on resolving the problem. The REAL problem, 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 methods–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 are able to work on or with! Lodging for an government disfunction usually are not 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–time without work to get issues straightened out, for instance.
“I feel that managers shouldn’t be concerned of their reviews’ well being or private lives.”
OSHA, MSHA, DOT, and a bunch of different regulatory businesses would fairly strongly disagree.
“Teaching a report on how you can plan out when to eat in order that they don’t get grumpy and behave unprofessionally with their coworkers?”
This can be a scenario the place the story we inform ourselves determines our interpretation. You’re viewing it as “Telling a report how you can plan out when to eat.” I’m viewing it as “Serving to a report study to handle workload in such a means as to permit them to maintain themselves.” It’s not at all times as straightforward as you make it sound, imagine me!
I keep in mind a job the place I wasn’t in a position to eat till 8 pm for 2 weeks–no breakfast or lunch. It was resulting from a really particular problem on our shopper’s facet, that meant I used to be the one one who may do some important duties that wanted finished for each particular person 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 remedy the instant problem however made future tasks extra environment friendly, as a result of we have been prepared to research past “You’re an grownup, take care of it.” And no, I’m not saying that’s what’s occurring; I’m utilizing this instance as an example that your technique would actively hurt the staff.
“Bringing in snacks to feed them as a result of they’ll’t keep 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 downside with the staff–and certainly one of my jobs as a supervisor is to search out out the place that downside is and how you can repair it.
“Once 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’ve but to actually outline the likelihood area and “Private points that the boss can’t find out about” is inside that risk area. I’m not against the concept that is only a unhealthy worker, or a poor match, and that the most suitable choice is to allow them to go, both. There are factors in any good RCA the place you possibly can say “Okay, this looks like the ball is in your courtroom; let me know when you want any assist, however I count on this to be resolved rapidly.” I’ve seen that a number of instances–and the worker requested for time without work, or to be allowed to quickly work remotely, or another cheap and momentary lodging to resolve the problem. Generally they obtained it, typically not. However the necessary factor is, at that time we’d KNOW. Proper now we don’t, making it equally probably 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 thought of investigating. Meaning you’ll by no means know. You might be, actually, willfully unaware of the causes. The place you and I disagree strongest–and imagine me, I strongly disagree along with your method right here–is that I’m not prepared to be willfully ignorant relating to potential threats to my staff.
