(Published February 17, 2009)
For this week's blog, my baseball-loving spouse, fresh from watching "Hot Stove" on the MLB channel, suggested I write about employees who take performance-enhancing drugs. My first thought was, "Yeah, that would be a good topic if most of my readers owned or managed major league baseball teams. Or even minor league ones." But then I reconsidered.
We've all had employees who've enhanced their performance a little. Or a lot. Maybe they used a little artistic license on their résumé. Maybe they took credit for a subordinate's work. Maybe they fudged the results of a test or project. It's human nature to try to look a little bit better than we really are, and there will always be some who cannot resist the temptation to do it at work. After all, where do we spend the majority of our waking hours five days a week? So take out your disciplinary policies, and let's have a look at how they operate.
In a separate conversation, I asked my husband what will happen with Alex Rodriquez now. He went on for some 10 minutes about the effect of steroids on home run records and contracts and how this will affect the Yankees. That's very interesting, but what I meant was, what happens now? Does he get suspended? Fined? His contract revoked? What are the immediate consequences of his admission?
So, assuming that we catch up with these performance-enhancing employees, what do we do about it? A lot depends on the exact circumstances. I had an employee who claimed skills she didn't really have. She believed that, once on the job, she could teach them to herself fast enough to get by. She was wrong and was in over her head in no time flat. When I finally had to fire her, she was so relieved that she practically hugged me. Easiest firing I ever had to do.
But in the overall scheme of things, I think that fudging your résumé is less serious than taking credit for someone else's work or changing the results of a project or test. I didn't fire the employee above for exaggerating her skill level, even though I could have; that could be seen as falsifying her application. I fired her because she was unable to do the job. Had she been able to learn the skills on the job, I'd have kept her on. I might have given her a mild scolding, or I might have disregarded the exaggeration altogether. But I'm not sure I'd do any favors for the hypothetical employees in my other examples.
An employee who claimed credit for someone else's work, for example, is just not acceptable. If it were a team effort and both employees were involved in the work, okay, maybe that could get by. But otherwise, I see it as a form of theft. What does your disciplinary policy say about theft?
As for changing the results of a test or project? That covers a wide range, depending on what the incorrect results would mean in the long run. Does it mean a minor inconvenience, or does it mean that next year the FDA is parked on your doorstep? You need to act accordingly.
The bottom line is that your disciplinary policies need to be flexible enough to cover a lot of ground. Don't box yourself into a definite plan of action; leave yourself a little wiggle room for the situations that have variable effects.
Catherine Bannon is an HR consultant in Marshfield, MA (catherine.bannon@gmail.com). Bannon worked for 10 years in HR management before starting her consulting practice.
Home
