Clarification:
In this case, I am not focusing on the problem of being late, but on all possible minor misdemeanors that a valuable employee can commit. Therefore, reading the post, instead of being late, you can substitute any other offense that is, plus or minus, is equivalent in importance.
What does the term “being late” mean to you?
First, you need to understand the rule that was violated. So, is the requirement to show up for work on time your prank, system, or justified need?
If the performance of an employee does not depend in any way on the time of arrival at work, and the company does not suffer in any way from the free schedule of visits, is it worth paying attention to this aspect? Good question that you need to find an answer to.
If, nevertheless, there are justifications for the requirement - let's move on ...
What does the term “valuable employee” mean to you?
Is he a super expert, or is he a person who is pleasant to you in communication, or is he an ordinary employee, but you are dependent on him and you have to make concessions? This is the second important question worth answering.
Why is he late?
The third question is: "Does this valuable employee have objective reasons for being late?" Do not be surprised, even regular misconduct can have objective reasons.
For example, in my practice there were two employees, the reasons for whose regular delays I consider objective and worthwhile:
1) The employee took the child to the kindergarten in the morning. The situation was completely independent of him. So, he could have come to the kindergarten earlier, but he had to wait for the teacher who might be late. He always came back to back and was often late.
2) The employee wanted to have breakfast with her husband and go to work with him. But, since her husband had a freer schedule, he was in no hurry, and because of him she was late.
The second example may seem rather dubious, but, firstly, we are talking about valuable employees, and if so, we have to consider all their requests, regardless of stupidity. Secondly, the aspect of “family” and “breakfast with husband” was important for the employee, and for the company this is a very cheap way of motivation (to satisfy the employee's main motivator). Thirdly, this reason coincided with my values: I am for the family, for a joint breakfast, for a strong relationship. Therefore, it was not difficult for me to understand her motive and satisfy him. I consider her lateness to be justified and correct.
Perhaps you yourself provoked the employee to be late?
So, if the company did not have a rule to come on time, everyone came and came as they wanted, is the employee to blame for his lateness? Undoubtedly, his fault is, but is it worth starting the solution of the problem with his person.
Lyrical digression
As I wrote in one of my previous articles, the leader sometimes attends education, he gets tired of the mess, and he decides to live in a new way. Most often this happens on weekends ... He comes to work on Monday, gets up at the door and begins to catch and read offenders. That is to say, it brings them into tone. But, this approach is extremely wrong and will not cause anything except surprise and demotivation.
Therefore, returning to the topic of the question, if earlier the structure worked loosely and people came when they wanted, it is worth starting with changing the existing approaches and rules, and not with the violator ...
We take the employee out of the regulations
Despite the fact that I am for the system, at the same time I have repeatedly used the approach of “taking an employee out of the regulation”. That is, I canceled some rule for him, and it no longer applied to him.
With this approach, the leaders may be visited by such concerns:
1) "Am I authorized to do this?"
I believe that the leader has full authority to determine the terms of cooperation with his subordinates. He has the right to determine who and when should come to work, to whom and what task to assign, who and what to teach / develop,…. If he does not have such powers, such a leader is inferior and cannot be 100% responsible for the results of the entrusted employees and the structure as a whole.
Therefore, if you are a leader and you are tormented by the doubt “can I decide this,” the answer is “you can” (unless you are expressly prohibited from doing so).
But, let's say that the rule “come to work on time” is established by the director and applies to the entire company. Then, of course, you should not cancel this rule with your own word (this cannot be done). But, and leaving everything as it is and responding to the employee “well, such rules ... I can’t do anything” is also impossible. So what do you do? Go to the person who established this rule and agree on the individual terms for your employee.
Important! Prepare enough arguments so that your reasoning does not sound like "he is a good employee and I am happy with him." You have to show in numbers what exactly he is good at, and how his work affects the results of the company.
Remember that the rules are designed to help the company achieve the results it wants. If a rule has the exact opposite result on an employee, this means that either the rule is inadequate, or the employee needs to be taken out from under it. So, if it is important for an employee to have breakfast with his family and this employee is really valuable, the company should make concessions and for him to cancel this rule.
2) "The rest will be offended that he can, but they cannot ..."
Yes, if you just take and punish some for being late, and others not, employees will be offended. Therefore, we should not leave our individual conditions a secret from the collective.
Once a decision has been made about the individual conditions of one of the employees, you need to hold a small information meeting in which you:
- announce this decision;
- explain the reasons;
- explain your logic.
The last point is the most important. You need to clearly explain to people why you are ready to cancel the rule for Ivanov. You must tell us: “since Ivanov does his job perfectly (and this should be supported by figures), I am ready for any individual conditions for such employees. And if someone wants the same approach, his performance should be just as good. ”
PS We should try to tell everything as it is, but not necessarily. So, for example, if an employee does not want the reason for the change in the schedule to become public, you should miss this moment. After all, is it all the same for the team why it needs to come later / earlier, the team is interested in why you make concessions to him, and everyone else does not.
3) "Others will also want to be late ..."
Yes, they will. But let's change the terminology and meaning a little. We do not “allow to be late” - we “set an individual schedule” for the employee.
For example, I had an employee who was always late and simply could not help but be late. An attempt to shift his work schedule by +1 hour (to start the working day not at 9, but at 10) did not lead to anything - he was still late for his standard 5-15 minutes. Then, I went for a more flexible approach. I introduced a schedule for the employee to work out the required number of hours and deprived him of the need to be late (his functionality allowed this). He could come at any time, but he had to work exactly 8 hours (plus an hour for lunch). It worked, the issue was resolved. And, what is most interesting, the employee began to come earlier, as the prospect of staying up late did not make him very happy.
Conclusion: if an employee is valuable, he can be relieved of the action of any rules and regulations, if this does not affect the efficiency of work (his and the structure as a whole). Find
other cases in my telegram channel: t.me/OS_management
Subscribe! Then there will be ...