What would you do?

[Elena Romero]

What assumptions are present in this scenario?

The most prevalent assumption that I am coming to in this scenario is that the employee hired has a full understanding of the expectations and requirement that are related to this position. The employer doesn't ask open ended questions to ensure that the new employee has an understanding of the expectations. I am also assuming that prior to his performance review, the employee had been spoken to in regards to the issues presented, and had received warning (s) related to his performance.

How would you respond?
Having experienced supervising staff with many personal issues that bleed into their professional performance, I have learned that it important to address these issues as early on as possible. Presenting staff with the EAP program (if possible) may help them address these personal issues without muddling the lines of personal and professional from an employer standpoint as well. At no point during the disciplinary meeting does this come up. Were it an option this would be the first thing that I would recommend. At the beginning of the conversation the employee also states that he "doesn't understand". The first thing that I would do is explain exactly what the job expectations were for this position reiterating what the employee was hired for, before entering into what the concerns were.

What would you do?
In this scenario, I would have used the opportunity to allow the employee to explain why his actions were inappropriate or unsatisfactory. The employer did most of the talking, making statements rather than asking questions. I do believe that given the extensive nature of the issues that he should have received a write up, but I don't know that I would have put this employee under suspension review. I think I would have immediately addressed the more major concerns (unauthorized trips in company vehicle, mistreatment of expensive equipment), and  taken those privileges away from this employee immediately. If possible I would have him shadow a more successful employee to see how he can work on his skills in the field.  


What questions did you ask yourself in coming to your conclusion?
One of the major questions I asked myself in coming to this conclusion was is this behavior correctable with more refined supervision? To me, that answer was yes, it seemed like if the employee better understood what was/wasn't acceptable in the workplace and HOW to approach these scenarios he may be able to adjust to what the employer needs are.
I also asked myself...was this employer supporting the staff enough to take extensive action against him? Was he supported as he made mistakes? Could things have been addressed sooner to avoid the extent of damage?

[Amanda]

I liked the major question you identified, "was this behavior correctable with more refined supervision?" and looking at the culpability the employer has in this situation. While we expect that employees will do the job they are hired to do, a manager's job is to manage. Managing involves being present, observing and listening. Steve did not commit all these transgressions at once, and it seems as though no one was paying any attention or alerting him that he was performing poorly.