Want to avoid an employee raising a grievance against you? We’ve used our experience investigating them to put together our top five tips for managers who want to prevent an issue with an employee becoming a formal HR complaint…
The vast majority of grievances raised by individuals against their managers include one or both of the following:
This is not surprising, given that people managers are the "touch point" between the individual employee and the employer.
Almost all grievances grow from fairly minor seeds. A common example being when a manager has procrastinated over dealing with some concern over an employee’s performance or behaviour which then becomes an established pattern.
For some managers, it can be uncomfortable raising the concern with an employee. This can happen if that individual has a strong personality or more tenure under their belt than the manager. This is especially true for new or inexperienced managers who have not yet become accustomed to exercising their authority.
The reason this is number one on the list is that a lack of early intervention is the leading cause of problems escalating.
When you do decide to act, it's important to act correctly. It may be tempting to wing it with a combination of good intentions and common sense; to use your management intuition.
However, it might be a good idea to double check what the right approach should be.
For example, imagine that you are faced with an employee who has been taking time off sick. You have noticed that this has affected their performance. How would you handle it?
Do you know how long an employee can be off sick before they should produce a medical note? Have you documented things properly? Should you refer the employee for an occupational health assessment? Do you need to make any resonable adjustments to facilitate their return to work?
By the time something boils over into a grievance, the person is so emotionally invested in their complaint that they can't accept anything but an outcome in their favour.
Once someone has decided that they have a righteous cause, that they're a victim, you will find it difficult to change their mind. You can't "un-ring the bell".
It's really hard to get them to see that there's another side to the story, or that they have misunderstood a situation.
Early intervention gives you a chance to resolve the issue before people get dug in to their positions. You can have a workplace mediation to try and reconcile differences, share understanding, and smooth ruffled feathers.
Mediation early in a conflict has a good chance of success. The longer you leave it, however, the less likely a positive resolution becomes.
All too often an aspect of a grievance is upheld because a manager did not deal with a situation appropriately. Even if they acted in good faith but failed to follow the correct policies and procedures, that could still be grounds for upholding the complaint.
Never be tempted to shoot from the hip, and never make decisions or take actions when you're irritated!
Always take a moment to evaluate the situation and consider appropriate action. If in doubt – or even just to get a second opinion on your planned approach – consult with your HR partner.
Most of the time, people want to do a good job and think that they are. However, if what the manager is expecting doesn't align with what the individual thinks is required, things can unravel quickly.
Getting negative feedback when you think you've been meeting expectations is never pleasant. People can sometimes react badly. Instead of recognising that there's been a miscommunication or misalignment, they may assume you're being unfair, unreasonable or that you have some personal axe to grind.
Interestingly, it can be a particular problem in mature environments. Managers assume that experienced people know what they're doing, and can inadvertently become guilty of "benign neglect"; they know what's needed, leave them to it, they'll squeak if they need something.
Any misalignment between performance and expectations may go undetected, which risks bringing up problem #1 above. When it does become noticeable, you'll have to deal with the "you never said anything before" objection.
Don't let this happen to you.
Also, ensure you document the expectations and a summary of the one-to-one reviews. That way, if you do end up with a performance problem to manage, you've got all the documented history you need.
This ties in with the mediation point in (1) above...
In a conflict situation, it's common for people to hold positions: what I want, how I feel, what the solution should be, and so on.
People end up either defending or opposing these positions, arguing about solutions. It can get quite difficult, especially if it becomes emotional and adversarial.
This is a particular risk in a reporting hierarchy, because the temptation to use management authority to push the manager's position is quite high. This can sometimes prompt a bullying or harassment grievance, if the individual feels that they haven't been heard.
To help avoid this, it is usually better to reframe the discussion to focus on underlying issues and concerns.
For example, if an individual wants to push a delivery date back by a month, you could push back and demand the project stays on time.
Or you could have a discussion about why the date needs to move. What concerns does the individual have?
By having a discussion, you have the opportunity to explore alternatives. Perhaps another way to make the date will emerge, or maybe an extension will be warranted. At least the individual will find it harder to complain that they haven't been listened to.
However, if you lead with a "no" without any discussion, there's a higher chance that the individual will feel coerced.
Saying or doing the wrong thing at a work social event can get you into trouble. Remember that there's a difference between being friendly and being friends.
Just because your co-workers are being friendly, that doesn't mean you can talk to them the same way as your usual pals down at the pub.
We've worked on a number of grievances where a manager has been accused of crossing a line, either by saying something inappropriate, getting into someone's personal space and, occasionally, unwelcome physical contact.
In many cases, the lubricating affect of alcohol was a factor.
By all means, participate in social events with your team. Just do so with moderation and avoid taking risks with jokes, banter, alcohol and so on.
Your reputation is what people say about you behind your back. You need to protect it.
As a human being, there will naturally be people you warm to, people you feel indifferently about and people that you just struggle to get along with.
As a manager, you will probably have all three of these types of people in your organisation sooner or later. Your feelings toward them can subconsciously affect your behaviour and your assumptions. Even though you won’t be aware of this, your choice of words, inflection and body language will give away subtle clues that your employees may notice.
We’re more likely to look favourably on people we like. We’re more likely to seek out negatives in people we don’t like. These subconscious biases can create a real minefield in the workplace. People do pick up on them and some may try to use them against you in a grievance.
It can get worse if, as a manager, you get drawn into non-work related debates on topics that involve viscerally held belief systems. Examples of this include politics and religion, or even something as simple as which sports team you support. You do not want an employee worrying that your worldview differences will influence your impartiality as a manager.
There have been cases where an employee has complained that a manager has exhibited favouritism, all because they saw the manager was “chummy” with others. Nobody outside a perceived clique (especially one that includes a manager) is going to feel that they are on a level playing field.
Naturally, people are different and they perform differently. It is not unusual for this to be reflected in remuneration awards and promotion opportunities. But what if these biases creep into your management decisions, e.g. performance appraisals or allocating pay rises?
Make sure you can justify these decisions, preferably with reference to documented goals, objectives or performance plans. Not only will this ensure your own objectivity, having data you can point to will protect you in the event somebody does decide to raise a complaint.
Being perceived as fair and impartial is as important as actually being fair and impartial.
In a similar vein, you need to practice what you preach. You can't pick someone up for lateness if you're regularly tardy too.
Ever heard the saying: “leadership is not a popularity contest”?
This is probably one of the most widely misunderstood bits of so-called leadership advice we have come across.
Some managers interpret it as saying that good leadership is in making the right decision, even if that decision is unpopular. Another interpretation is that it advocates management decisiveness over consultative decision making. These are simplistic interpretations that ignore the nuances of context and circumstance. There are situations where both of these interpretations would be false.
More autocratically minded managers occasionally declare that their business environment is not a democracy. You will even find a few who like to quote General Colin Powell; “being responsible sometimes means pissing people off” and using that to justify pushing an arbitrary decision down the throats of an unhappy workforce.
More attention should be paid to the very next sentence from Gen. Powell’s quote:
Good leadership involves responsibility to the welfare of the group, which means that some people will get angry at your actions and decisions.
The part about the welfare of the group is important and often overlooked. Yes, it is true that leaders should not shy away from making tough decisions for fear of being unpopular. Not everyone will agree with your decisions. However, widespread resistance could also be because most of the staff see a genuine flaw in the decision.
Also, as a military man it could be that Gen. Powell was referring to annoying, say, policy makers by refusing to use his forces in an irresponsibly under-resourced manner, rather than simply implying that a leader can ride roughshod over any internal dissent
Forcing a bad decision through does nothing for either the welfare of the group or your credibility as a leader. Even if the decision does not break any rules, disenfranchising your workforce is unlikely to motivate them to perform at their best. That, in turn, will make it hard for you to be successful.
A true leader seeks to unite their team behind a decision, even if it’s a tough one. Leadership is not standing behind the team, marching them forwards at metaphorical gunpoint.
There are, of course, circumstances where leaders do have to impose difficult decisions. For example, in the event that redundancies are necessary. Even then, there are procedures that managers have to follow.
Those circumstances aside, you should try to understand why your people hold a differing point of view. That way, the chances of you finding a route between where they are and where you need them to be are significantly improved.
A common mistake that autocratic managers make is to try and combat resistance or opposition with authority and force of will, even when the circumstances don’t warrant it. By not understanding the opposition, or by viewing it as either petulance or someone “just not getting it”, the manager may be tempted to just push.
The more autocratic the manager, the harder they push. This will only damage relationships with employees and may tempt the manager into acting or speaking inappropriately in frustration.
Most of all, understanding resistance to change is essential for overcoming it. That is fundamental to change management…and if you can’t manage change, you’re not going to be a good leader anyway.
