Previous Manager’s Choice dilemmas

Last year, as director of personnel for Zenith City, West Dakota, you received a request from Tanisha Foushee, the parks commissioner, for some help in getting rid of Alfred Bell, an obnoxious goof-off employee. And, in the intervening year, you and Foushee have received and followed the advice of a number of experienced public managers. (For details, click here.)

First, you helped Foushee begin the formal process of disciplining and, ultimately, dismissing Bell. Every time Bell missed a deadline, Foushee documented it. Every time he did a task incompetently, she documented it. Every time Foushee learned that Bell had treated a citizen badly or disrupted a team, she assembled all the necessary details and documented it. Bell didn’t change his pattern of flagrant misbehavior, so Foushee had plenty to document.

For example, a mother recently complained that when her young daughter missed a trash basket in Meridian Park, Bell swore at them. And back in February, when Bell was a member of a team working on a new approach to park maintenance, he was so difficult that the team actually voted to oust him.

You also assisted Foushee in following the procedures for “helping” an employee improve. Foushee personally counseled Bell. She set (and documented) specific performance expectations. She offered to provide professional assistance or training. Again, with your help, Foushee mastered all the steps outlined in the personnel manual.

Next, Foushee initiated Zenith City’s sequential disciplinary process. With your guidance, she reassigned Bell. She created a formal disciplinary file, and issued specific warnings. She placed Bell on formal probation. Finally, she issued a formal report and (with your and the mayor’s concurrence) fired him.

Nevertheless, Bell has continued to exploit fully the city’s formal procedures. Thus, he still “works” for the city.

Meanwhile, you took steps to make it easier for Zenith City’s managers to deal with future Alfred Bells. In particular, you eliminated the annual evaluation form, replacing it with two new forms: a “commendation form” and a “warning form.” No longer does your personnel department require all Zenith City supervisors to complete a formal performance evaluation every year for every city employee. Rather, supervisors can, at any time they think an employee’s actions deserve a commendation or warning, complete the appropriate form, put it in the employee’s file and have a meeting with the employee to discuss the relevant actions and give the employee a copy.

The warning form, however, generated some controversy. The basic format is the same as that of the commendation form, but the committee charged with creating the warning form vigorously debated what to call it. Some advocated calling it the “counseling form,” arguing that the purpose of the form should be to help the employee improve performance. Others insisted that supervisors should do counseling on an informal basis and only use this second form for a real mistake. Thus, a few people even suggested calling it the “error” or “failure” form. Some suggested that they create two forms — a “counseling” form and an “error” form — but many thought this would be too confusing; thus, the committee compromised on the word “warning.” The two new forms added nothing to the supervisors’ tool kit. City supervisors always had the authority to write a letter of commendation or warning and put it in an employee’s file. But few supervisors understood this; still fewer did it.

As with any new system, initial implementation was uneven. The city’s supervisors were happy to be relieved of the burden of filling out the annual performance evaluation. Many recognized that future goof-offs would no longer be able to accumulate a long series of “meets” or “exceeds” expectations. And these supervisors were the ones who were the most frequent, effective users of the two new forms. Some supervisors, however, issued strictly commendatory forms, while others specialized in warnings.

The new forms helped Foushee in her battle with Bell. “Now, when I put a ‘warning’ in his file,” Foushee noted, “I didn’t feel as if I was discriminating against him. With this new system, I give lots of my staff both warnings and commendations.” Bell, of course, continued to do many more things that warranted warnings (and many fewer that deserved commendation), so his file was bigger and more unbalanced. But over the past year, the new forms — and Foushee’s frequent and consistent use of them — undercut Bell’s efforts to claim unfair treatment.

Nevertheless, Bell has parried each of Foushee’s moves. When Foushee reassigned him, he filed a grievance. When Foushee formally disciplined him, he filed another grievance. When Foushee fired Bell, he took the city to court and somehow managed to get a restraining order. He forced the officials of the city’s employee union to reluctantly back his case. And although the Zenith City Tribune supported Foushee on its editorial page, Bell found a sympathetic columnist to trumpet his cause.

Thus, a year after you and Foushee initiated termination proceedings, Bell is still hanging on, still “employed” by the city. Moreover, he is only nine months from early retirement.

For Bob Behn's approach to this month's public management dilemma — or to post your own ideas — click here.