What should manager do about quarrelling co-workers?
November 18, 2008 by Sam NarisiPosted in: Discrimination, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Recent Decisions
When two employees can’t get along, the best solution is often to separate them. But when that happens, managers need to be careful about how the decision is made.
In one recent case, the manager supervised two employees — one male, one female — who had a verbal dispute.
When it was clear the two couldn’t work together, the woman was transferred to a different office. Her pay was increased because of the change in location.
Problem solved, right?
Wrong.
The woman complained that the transfer increased her daily commute by two hours. She also claimed her new job duties made the position less desirable, despite the raise.
She sued the company for discrimination, claiming she was moved because she was a woman. Allegedly, the man involved had a history of picking fights with female co-workers and had never been punished, despite several complaints.
The court ruled in her favor. The transfer was considered an adverse action because of the longer commute and the change in duties. And there was ample evidence that the male co-worker was treated favorably because of his gender.
Cite: Maglietti v. Nicholson
November 19th, 2008 at 11:19 am
It would seem that the company used the “duck the head in the sand” approach to problem solving and got in trouble. And it seems that you approve of this method as a “best solution.”
I would think that a temporary move of one or both employees on the short term, coupled with correcting action addressing inappropriate behavior on one or both parties would have resulted in a different outcome.
Employees argue and have disagreements. That is a fact of life. It is when their behavior associated with an argument or disagreement violates policy (disruptive behavior, foul language, threats, failure to communicate or cooperate to get the job done, etc.).
The company apparently made a “permanent” decision which is evidenced by the change in compensation. There was nothing mentioned about dealing with inappropriate workplace behavior.
Problem solving that does not focus on the actual probem and address workplace issues/behavior will almost always result in poor results, disparity, and deterioration of performance.
November 19th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
What do you do when you have no other place to send the employees to separate them. We are a small (8 employees) non-profit agency and the two employees work in the same department, but with different titles and they are the only two employees in that department. And they are always quarrelling.
November 19th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Natalie, I know there are generally not extra funds in a non-profit but, if possible, you could consider requiring the two employees to attend counseling or some facsimilie to work through the issues, if possible. If not, and these two employees infect the rest of the office with their behavior, you could tell them to shape up or they both will be shipped out, easier said than done I know. I suspect this is less than pleasnat for everyone else.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Natalie: In this economy, there is no reason to put up with fighting employees. I agree with Jackie, tell them to get along or both will be out. Be sure that the problem is not just with one of the two. It could be that one is picking the fight. There are lots of great employees available now and you should not put up with this. Start a confidential recruiting effort for their replacements while you go through this. Be prepared to bring in their replacements in quickly.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:54 am
Maggie: I agree that your point of view about replacing employees because there is a glut of unemployed workers in the current economy is efficient and is held by many executives. I submit that it may not be the most effective in most cases for the following reasons:
1. It doesn’t identify and solve the conflict at work. If a work system or process is the root of the problem, it will continue to exist. If it is due to a personality conflict, emotional problems, stress, etc. it is usually more cost effective to resolve the problem through EAP rather than start over with new employees.
2. If you simply terminate and replace one or both employees, you could have to pay for unemployment and still could have to defend your decision in the face of a discrimination complaint. Also, consider other workers looking on and how they percieve the company. If they think they are considered so replaceable, then whatever company loyalty existed could easily evaporate. You may get immediate compliance and have no arguments in the work place, but be ready for a season of high turnover as they find other companies where they feel their employment is more secure. Also if an employee gets the idea that they are next to go, their performance will probably suffer.
3. There are many workers available out there. Not all have the skills to do all the functions you may need. None know your facility, your people, and your processes so there will be a period of adjustment and lower productivity until the new worker gets up to speed. Of course, every worker comes with some baggage and issues so if they have difficulty with a co-worker, you will be starting the process all over again.
4. Of course if you don’t treat all workers equitably, say don’t terminate quarreling employees who were replacing quarreling employees who were terminated, and any were in a protected group, be ready to explain the disparate treatment to the EEOC investigator.
Generally, the best solution is to identify the problem and solve it. The employees will appreciate it and will probably be more productive. Their co-workers will feel more secure in their positions and will probably be more productive. Your recruitment will be easier because word will get out that you are a caring company, and who doesn’t want to work for someone who cares. You will have less turnover and that means more focus on training and safety for the HR staff, rather than selection, recruitment, and terminations.
As an HR professional, I think we need to look at our employees as “human resources” who need to be developed and trained in order to build the company. If an employee is unable or unwilling to do the job or presents a danger to the company, then I am all for termination for the company and the employee’s sake.
November 24th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Thanks to all of you for your feedback. The Director and I agree to send the employees to a class that would help them in the workplace and hopefully, I won’t ever have this conversation again regarding these two.