How to Deal With Entitled Employees; A Follow-Up

My recent post discussing how to deal with entitled employees received such a strong positive response that I wanted to share more specific details on my original argument. 

To recap, if ‘perceived entitlements’ is the issue, I argued the best way to address the issue is to ask, ‘what is the business problem caused by the employee’s behaviour (entitlement claim) and how can I solve that problem?’ 

Then I argued this is different from the traditional approach advocated by AHRI that still requires us to check the requirements of the appropriate policy and then investigate. 

Let’s dig into the difference: 

The traditional approach is based on a legal framework which is fundamentally adversarial in nature. 

• Someone makes an accusation. 

• Someone else investigates. 

• The claim is put to the accused. 

• A decision is reached. 

We probably use this model in HR because the legal system creates the employment rules (through the Parliament and the Industrial Relations Commission) and when things are appealed, it is legal system again (The Commission or the Courts) that review the case.  Historically, HR Practitioners seek guidance on policy development and managing claims from people imbedded in this legal framework. 

The only thing wrong with this legacy approach is its adversarial nature. 

I argue a framework better suited to today’s more contemporary workforce is one based on problem solving. 

• Someone identifies something has potentially gone wrong. 

• An investigation occurs.  This may include a range of people. 

• The problem is identified.  This may be interpersonal differences, inappropriate behavioural, outdated systems, outdated policies, or flawed processes. 

• The persons involved come together to agree on the problem and a solution that will ensure the problem does not occur again. 

• Changes are made and the agreement documented. 

Yes, you probably recognise this as the way engineers, scientists, pilots, tradies, medical staff, teachers, and other technical persons approach things in life. 

Now here’s the choice.   

1. Do you apply a model that less than 2% of the workforce deal with on a day-to-day basis (the adversarial legal framework)? 

2. Do you apply a model that 98% of the workforce tend to use on a day-to-day basis (the problem solving model)? 

People are comfortable with a model they know and one that does not blame indivisulas or generate stress through is adversarial nature.  That’s why I have found it a better model when dealing with ‘entitled persons’ and a model I hope you agree with as well. 

Ps.  The pièce de rèsistance is you can always apply the legacy legal model if the problem-solving model fails to deliver a sustainable outcome.  Win-win all around!