Discuss the risks of avoiding confrontation of a problem employee.

Second comment from Student, response required

The risks of avoiding confrontation of a problem employee are so high that it is justifiable to avoid confrontation by other means. In my experience, confrontation is very ineffective. Confrontation in the wrong way can be a very negative experience for the person who is confronted. I also have found that confrontation may be necessary even if it is very uncomfortable for the employee who is confronted because the risks of a negative experience are so significant. It is better to let employees learn by trial and error and make mistakes independently than for the firm to be caught by surprise when a problem occurs. If the company has to confront an employee, it can do so anonymously and, if possible, without the employee's knowledge. However, this is not always possible. N cases where this is not possible may be necessary to give the employee a chance to work things out. Sometimes this can be done with a "talking to" about the situation. The employee who is confronted must understand the situation and the reasons for it. He/she must understand why the employer has chosen to confront him/her. The employee must be given a chance to improve before firm discipline is considered. Often when the employee has not seen the problem, it is not clear who is the cause of the problem and in what way. It is essential to distinguish between cause and symptoms. If a problem is caused by one person or department, then that person/department should be accounted for. If a symptom is the result of two or more people or departments, all should be brought to account for their contribution to the problem. If the employee chooses to be confrontational, then a chance must be given for the confrontation to be effective. If the employee is not confrontational, then there must be a reason for this. The employee may not choose confrontation because of fear, ignorance, or apathy.

Suppose an employee's attitude is confrontational and disruptive, and the firm is determined to solve the problem (Carnevale & Hatak, 2020). In that case, it is sometimes a positive experience for the employee to be caught and faced with his/her behavior. It may be the case that the employee, although disruptive, is aware of the firm's position and sees the confrontation as an opportunity to change his/her attitude. For the firm's part, it may be clear that confrontation is not enough to change the employee's behavior. It may be that firm policy, procedures, or performance standards are the key. When employees are confrontational and disruptive, they often look for confirmation of their attitudes and firm policy. In such cases, the firm must provide clarity and reinforce the rules and standards. If a firm policy is not clear or the firm is unclear about its policy, the employee may have a right to confrontational.

 

Reference

Carnevale, J. B., & Hatak, I. (2020). Employee adjustment and well-being in the era of COVID-19: Implications for human resource management. Journal of Business Research, 116, 183-187.

He, P., Peng, Z., Zhao, H., & Estay, C. (2019). How and when compulsory citizenship behavior leads to employee silence: a moderated mediation model based on moral disengagement and supervisor-subordinate Guanxi Views. Journal of Business Ethics, 155(1), 259-274.