Forums
Employee Relations/Internal Investigation
General Forum
Employee Relations/Internal Investigation
Discuss workforce management, performance management, retention, communication, motivation, contributing to business results and other topics.
Situation: Newbie HR guy sent to interview staff in a department were staff claim their manager is a "tyrant" - trying to sort out issues and concerns in an objective manner.
Questions:
Any good a
0
Cat:Topic ForumsForum:ForumId53
Cat:Topic ForumsForum:ForumId53Discussion:DiscussionId35719
Forums » Topic Forums » General Forum » Employee Relations/Internal Investigation
|
Employee Relations/Internal Investigation
posted at 4/8/2009 12:15 PM EDT
|
Posts: 7
First: 10/16/2008 Last: 4/8/2009 |
Situation: Newbie HR guy sent to interview staff in a department were staff claim their manager is a "tyrant" - trying to sort out issues and concerns in an objective manner.
Questions: Any good approaches for tracking issues in a grid i.e. Issue/Background/Investigation/Resolution How do you interview and remain objective - staff are looking for reinforcement i.e. "isn't that terrible!" - What is the best approach for debriefing the accused and getting their side of the story. |
|
|
Employee Relations/Internal Investigation
posted at 4/9/2009 3:57 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 237
First: 7/10/2007 Last: 8/31/2011 |
I would use general questions about the work environment, how they like working there, anything they would change, do you like working with the people here, etc. This opens the door to comments without planting the topic youre seeking to address. You can call it a work environment assessment.
You can lead into more direct questions like Have you observed anything you feel is illegal or against company policies? or tell me one thing you think I need to know about this department. In order to address any issues with the manager you need specifics examples. I have used the same tactic when addressing vague/unsubstantiated accusations of harassment too. |
|
|
Employee Relations/Internal Investigation
posted at 4/9/2009 4:02 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 1783
First: 11/11/2003 Last: 5/13/2010 |
One has to take care not to send the message that the inmates can run the asylum.
How long has the so-called tyrant been in this role? If he's new consider that the staff may resent that he's doing some things differently than his precedessor...such as having the spine to hold staff accountable for their performance or lack thereof. Who is doing the complaining? I would find more credible those with a good track record than I would those whose performance has been so-so, particularly if we're talking about a new manager who may be stricter than his predecessor. How many are complaining? If we're talking a small minority, again I'd take it with a grain of salt. How does the turnover in this department compare with that of the rest of the organization? With that of similar departments in the industry? How effective is the department in meeting its responsibilities to the organization? About what specific behaviors have the staff complained? [If all the complainers can come up with is He's A Big Meanie then you've nothing to pursue.] |
|
|
Employee Relations/Internal Investigation
posted at 4/9/2009 7:40 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 1
First: 4/9/2009 Last: 4/9/2009 |
"One has to take care not to send the message that the inmates can run the asylum."
I tend to agree with this thought. Sometimes we get caught up in quieting the squeaky wheel. I would take my time with this, and observe. You can run your investigation until you are satisfied you have the correct information. Your credibility is at stake here and you want to make the right move. Observe, support the supervisor, and listen to both the employees and the supervisors input. Take a partner such as the supervisors manager to make the decision. |
|
|
Employee Relations/Internal Investigation
posted at 4/9/2009 8:50 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 464
First: 6/30/2004 Last: 11/22/2010 |
It is quite normal for people to want to get along with the person being interviewed. One of the talents needed is to fully engage the person in the conversation without being judgemental. You can elicit a forthcoming attitude without agreeing or disagreeing.
If they are trying to get you to buy into their perspective, just gently tell them it is not your place to make any judgement(s), you are just gathering information. |
|
|
Employee Relations/Internal Investigation
posted at 4/9/2009 9:28 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 50
First: 11/21/2005 Last: 11/2/2009 |
I don't know if it's the best approach, but we begin with questions about the unit's mission and vision and then ask about the dynamics between the various roles (trust, respect, communication etc)and then we ask about their perceptions of the quality of the product or service they offer to their customers (internal or external).
Then we ask about their job satisfaction (i.e. what could be improved, how they see their role and/or future, etc.) Finally ask what they would like to see as a result of the inquiry. This helps keep them focused on the mission of the organization, why they are there, why HR is there...and also allows them to articulate their feelings about the interpersonal stuff and maybe see how it interferes with the mission. If people use words like "tyrant" I would ask for specific examples, maybe remind them that although it is confidential, I may have to act on the information if it is about illegal or harmful behavior. The results are aggregated, confidentiality is upheld and the results are feed back to management in the most constructive and objective way possible. We try to help them see why staff might have negative perceptions. If we feel they are retaliating, we try to get management to mend the fences, etc. Sometimes the staff is just reacting to change and they fail to support one another and take it out on the manager; sometimes they fail to see that the manager needs their support; sometimes it is a matter of different leadership/communication styles; or it could be a past wound. I once saw a unit lash out at a new supervisor who had been hired to replace a dying boss and the transition was not handled in a sensitive way. Every situation is different so there is no sense in trying to define it before you have heard all sides and talked it through. Then we advise the manager to acknowledge the feedback and try to solve the issues. Sometimes this is done one-on-one; sometimes it is done in a retreat setting with objective facilitators. We tell the unit that they are responsible for improving the situation and we try to get them to problem solve and accept the accountability to make the improvements. Sometimes this works and sometimes it doesn't...I can't stress enough that every situation is different. The only constants are honesty, trust building and having the individuals take ownership of the problem. |
|
|
Employee Relations/Internal Investigation
posted at 4/24/2009 4:14 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 4
First: 4/24/2009 Last: 4/30/2009 |
Granted I do third party investigations so I am often called in when things have gone from bad to worse, but I still think you need to be more direct with the manager in question. He has the right to know the nature of the accusations against him and to be able to respond to them. This can be done in a tactful way after gaining rapport with him. |
|
|
Employee Relations/Internal Investigation
posted at 4/29/2009 8:01 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 19
First: 2/13/2008 Last: 7/27/2009 |
Re: confidentiality - need to be clear on what's confidential and what's not. On one hand, don't want to blindside staff by sharing all with their manager (depending on outcome of interviews) and risking retaliation toward them by manager, but OTOH, need to be able to share meaningful info with the manager so (s)he knows what you want the manager to do differently in the future.
HR (or whomever is driving this) needs to be clear in its mission and goals - is this exploration pretty much just for show or is there a process in place for mediating, facilitating, coaching or consulting the manager (and the group), pending the outcome? Finally, good questions to ask each staff person are: 1) how *he*(she) is contributing to the problem; 2) what is (s)he willing to do to help situation? I'm willing to bet that if HR is now involved, then the staff who've complained have now contributed their own dysfunctional dynamic to the situation. And by intervening, HR has now raised the staff's expectations (and maybe the manager's) that it will "fix" the problem. So managing staff's expectations by being clear re: HR goals will be important. |
|
|
Employee Relations/Internal Investigation
posted at 4/29/2009 8:04 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 19
First: 2/13/2008 Last: 7/27/2009 |
I respectfully disagree with the previous poster's comment that one needs to approach the manager in a tactful way after establishing rapport with him.
While it is inappropriate to be rude or disrespectful, feedback should be straightforward, behavor-based, and specific. |
|
|
Employee Relations/Internal Investigation
posted at 4/30/2009 7:32 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 4
First: 4/24/2009 Last: 4/30/2009 |
Since when did tact and rapport preclude direct, behavior-based feedback? I would argue both are necessary if you want to maximize the chance the person will actually "hear" what you have to say. |
Forums » Topic Forums » General Forum » Employee Relations/Internal Investigation
