Dealing With the Critical Employee
Author's
note: After writing this article, I
realized that the term 'critical' employee could mean one who is critical
(important) to the operation of the company, or it could mean an employee who
criticizes on a regular basis. My
intention was to discuss the employee who criticizes. At this point, however, I'm still not sure
that they are not one in the same.
Who among us has not found himself working over or alongside an individual who seems to find fault in everything. It doesn't matter if it is a time-tested, traditional method or just a habit that the organization has fallen into, this fault-finder seems to constantly criticize the way things are done. He always "knows" a better, faster, more efficient, and more cost effective way of doing the same procedure.
So, how do we handle this employee? Often as a manager the first instinct is to discharge this person, thereby eliminating the problem. But is this always the most appropriate or prudent course of action? The purpose of this article is to examine this question. We will look at the motivations underlying the behavior of the critical employee as well as what can be done to work with him within the organization.
Psychological Factors
Those who study the internal processes of groups have determined that when people are in groups they have a tendency to become fearful of the group and of the group's leadership. This phenomenon is characterized by fear, suspicion and resentment, a sense of hyper-alertness and cautiousness on the part of the staff. This is the origin of the "rumor mill". Closely related to this phenomenon, but still different, is the tendency for members of the group to unconsciously attempt to displace the predominant authority figure. This could be conceptualized as the adult version of "King of the Hill". Since we have all been in groups, our unconscious mind is aware of these phenomena, even if our conscious mind is not. With our unconscious mind aware of this we realize, on an unconscious level, that those working under us also engage in this type of behavior.
People also have a strong tendency to attribute their own characteristics to others. This is because we all want to believe that we are just like the next person. Thus, if I feel this way or act that way, then it must be a "common" experience and everybody is like that. And when we see something in someone else that we dislike, it makes us emotionally uncomfortable to consider the possibility that we are also that way. Put in other terms, a manager may view the employee as critical because he, himself is critical and has yet to come to terms with that aspect of his personality. He tries to hide it from himself, but when he sees it in others it so disturbs him that he overreacts to it. Consider the possibility that it is actually you that is the critical one that you are angry with and you are just projecting this anger onto somebody that reminds you of this. When those around us see this, we may hear something about the "pot calling the kettle black".
People often respond emotionally to someone as a result of their resemblance to an individual in their past. As such, if your employee reminds you, in any way, of your Uncle Rutabaga, who was very critical of you when you were growing up, you will react to this employee as if he were your uncle (and therefore, critical), even if he has never said one thing to give you that impression. This resemblance could be physical. It could relate to mannerisms. It could even have to do with the type of car that one drives. Anything can trigger this response. This is the basis for stereotyping.
But let us assume that the employee is actually critical. Certain factors must be taken into consideration before we rush off and start filling out the pink slip. Among the factors that must be considered are: cost factors, the effect on other employees, the possibility that the criticisms are valid and the motivation behind them, and potential interventions. If these factors are overlooked, the results could be costly, both in financial terms, in the loss of a potentially good employee, and in the emotion well-being of the critical employee, and to the remaining employees.
Cost Factors
One extremely good argument against termination of the critical employee is cost. Time and effort has been put into training this individual for their particular position. It is assumed that once they are gone, they will be replaced. But the replacement process is not without cost. Advertisements must be placed, the candidates must be interviewed, and a decision must be reached. These details take up a manager's valuable time, as well as being stressful. 'Help wanted' ads can also carry a hefty price tag, depending on the publication, size, and duration of the run.
Once you find the right person for the job, they must be trained or at least become familiarized with your company's methods. New employees are non-productive or at least low-production for weeks, but still collect a paycheck. This means that they are a financial drain on the company's profits until they start to be productive enough to generate as much income for the company as their gross wages plus employer contributions to taxes, benefit costs, profit margin, et cetera. Because of the initial loss taken on a new hire, the average employer does not break even until that individual has been with the firm for a number of months.
Depending upon the circumstances surrounding the dismissal, it is likely that this employee will collect Unemployment Compensation. This will eventually have an effect on the rates that your company is charged by the payers of this benefit. Also, since you must respond to your ex-employees claims for benefits, you again have a loss of time, especially if there is a dispute and it goes to a hearing.
Also, if the critical employee was let go prior to starting the replacement process, more than likely other employees will have to compensate for the loss. In short, working overtime. Employees love it (to a point) because it pays better. But who pays? The company pays! If the critical employee had been retained and dealt with properly the business would not have been disrupted, inconvenienced, and tapped financially.
Effects on morale
We as managers always want the maximum that we can get out of our employees. As a result, we are often concerned with employee morale. If this were not the case, company picnics and Christmas parties would not exist. We often buy the latest technology (toys) to make our employees jobs better or their work environment more pleasant. Unfortunately, we often do not take their wants or needs into consideration. We tend to buy what we would want. This is like me buying a new table saw for my wife (or 10 year old daughter). I might think that it is a great present, but does it satisfy the recipient? For this reason, morale can frequently be elusive to those not in touch with the workers in the trenches.
Because the critical employee is looking for someone to help him change things for the better, he is vocal. This means that he often has the attention of others around him. As such, your response to him will have a tremendous effect on how management is perceived. If we terminate him, we are seen as being punitive and unaccepting of any criticism, constructive or otherwise. If we ignore him we are seen as being uncaring toward our employees. For this reason, it behooves us to take this criticism as constructive and at the very least look into its feasibility. Then if it is feasible, do a pilot test. Try it out to see if it is a change for the good.
It is important to remember that employee morale is going to be based on your response to the critical employee, not on their criticisms. This is because of the psychological factors mentioned earlier (the rumor mill, King of the Hill, the pot calling the kettle black, Uncle Rutabaga). Many employees will assume they have some type of personal alliance with their immediate supervisor, but this perceived alliance is not nearly as strong as the pressure exerted by these group dynamics.
Why does he criticize us?
Let's face it, we all feel threatened when we are criticized. If that criticism is aimed at our profession, the career that we chose over all others and that we know probably better than anyone else (or so we'd like to think) then that criticism not only threatens, but actually wounds us emotionally. Our work is part of what we are. So by attacking our profession, he attacks us. If we are in public and our occupation is lambasted most of us will not sit idly by and accept it. We stand up and defend our chosen field. It is much the same with attacks from within the organization.
Closely tied to the emotional threat that is posed from within, is the possibility that the critical employee actually may be right. Perhaps he does have a better way to perform a given task. Maybe he does have a way that we can increase our profitability. If so, it infers that we are in some way incompetent. But inferences are not always correct. Fresh blood within any organization has a way of not being blinded by traditional methods. He can see the forest for the trees. He is not married to the prevailing paradigm. And if he is correct, then we would be fools not to take advantage of his insight. And our bottom line is what ultimately suffers.
Restaurants conspicuously place cards out in public view inviting their customers to comment on the services rendered. The critical employee is similar to a comment card. After all, what do restaurants learn from the cards that say, "Great service!", "Wonderful food!", or "Nice atmosphere!"? They certainly feel good about themselves, but what have they really learned? Nothing! Only the cards that say, "The service was impersonal." or "My food was over-cooked and cold, probably because that service was so slow!" expose their weak points, which is what they must change in order to stay in business and succeed.
Motivation
Often the tendency is to assume that the critical employee is uninterested in his job and is complaining because he dislikes where he works. We assume that if he liked his job he would just keep quiet and do his work. This couldn't be farther from the truth. If he truly disliked his job he would probably find another job or even quit without having other employment lined up. The critical employee would not see where changes need to be made if he were not interested in the welfare of the organization or at the very least desired to make his job more pleasant (which would automatically increase productivity). On the contrary, the silent employee who never makes any suggestions is either too insecure to open his mouth, too slow to be able to see where changes are needed, or simply wants his paycheck without rocking the boat. He is the uninterested one. Often these individuals are the ones to be promoted because they do their job come rain or shine, even if it involves tremendous waste or resources. This is quite sad, because if we could learn to accept criticism from within as well as we do from 'comment cards', we would see that the real innovators and leaders are not the ones with the quiet demeanor, they are the ones screaming, "Hey, look at this. You should really consider changing this!" Unfortunately, we are too often impressed with ourselves and our way of doing things. But it is important to remember that no person and no organization is without flaw.
Interventions
So now we've done all that is humanly possibly to try and cope with this individual. We have tried out some (or all) or his ideas, but none of them worked. Still he persists in criticizing the working conditions or methods or the management for not listening to them. We are just about to pull our hair out. So what do we do?
First, keep your hands off of your follicles. Second, consider the possibility that this individual is having some type of interpersonal conflict with another employee or someone in their personal life. It is probably in your best interest to sit down with this person and have a heart-to-heart talk. If this is not your style, or if you tried this and it was fruitless, ask him if he would consider seeing a counselor. In order to show that you are supportive of him, and as an incentive for him to seek help, it is a good idea if you offer to pay for the first session or two and allow them to take time off during the work-day, without being docked. You will likely find that you now have a strong advocate in the employee ranks if you sincerely show your concern for this individual. And you will probably have a much better worker.
Conclusion
Make no mistake about it, the critical employee can be a problem. He will eventually start to have a negative effect on morale. But if his suggestions, as well as those of other employees, are not taken seriously, then morale can be devastated. It indicates to all of the employees that they have been discounted and are of little or no worth within the organization. This means that it is incumbent upon the manager to be pro-active in objectively reviewing all suggestions and attempting the ones that are feasible. If not as a chance to improve the firm, at least to maintain the employees' confidence. Trying out these ideas is also a no-lose situation for the employer: if the suggestions better the work environment or the bottom line, the employer wins; if the suggestions do not have the positive effect anticipated by the critical employee, then he is less likely to try to spread discontent about the company within the ranks, again the employer wins. On the other hand, if the employer fails to implement any of the critical employee's suggestions, then the employee has found another reason to be critical and the employer loses.
Many churches and businesses have learned from experience that the last words of a dying organization are: WE'VE NEVER DONE IT LIKE THAT BEFORE! I'll be honest, I'm as closed-minded as the next guy, but I also realize that if we are to succeed and prosper, then we must listen to any criticism, take any suggestion, and try any ideas that could bring us one step closer to our companys' goals, whatever they may be. If this includes promoting our industry (and I hope that it does) then we must first promote the welfare of its member. Your business is not the building or the equipment, the paperwork or the datastream. It is the people that we work with day in and day out. If we push them down, then we are also pushing the business down, one man (or woman) at a time.
Who among us has not found himself working over or alongside an individual who seems to find fault in everything. It doesn't matter if it is a time-tested, traditional method or just a habit that the organization has fallen into, this fault-finder seems to constantly criticize the way things are done. He always "knows" a better, faster, more efficient, and more cost effective way of doing the same procedure.
So, how do we handle this employee? Often as a manager the first instinct is to discharge this person, thereby eliminating the problem. But is this always the most appropriate or prudent course of action? The purpose of this article is to examine this question. We will look at the motivations underlying the behavior of the critical employee as well as what can be done to work with him within the organization.
Psychological Factors
Those who study the internal processes of groups have determined that when people are in groups they have a tendency to become fearful of the group and of the group's leadership. This phenomenon is characterized by fear, suspicion and resentment, a sense of hyper-alertness and cautiousness on the part of the staff. This is the origin of the "rumor mill". Closely related to this phenomenon, but still different, is the tendency for members of the group to unconsciously attempt to displace the predominant authority figure. This could be conceptualized as the adult version of "King of the Hill". Since we have all been in groups, our unconscious mind is aware of these phenomena, even if our conscious mind is not. With our unconscious mind aware of this we realize, on an unconscious level, that those working under us also engage in this type of behavior.
People also have a strong tendency to attribute their own characteristics to others. This is because we all want to believe that we are just like the next person. Thus, if I feel this way or act that way, then it must be a "common" experience and everybody is like that. And when we see something in someone else that we dislike, it makes us emotionally uncomfortable to consider the possibility that we are also that way. Put in other terms, a manager may view the employee as critical because he, himself is critical and has yet to come to terms with that aspect of his personality. He tries to hide it from himself, but when he sees it in others it so disturbs him that he overreacts to it. Consider the possibility that it is actually you that is the critical one that you are angry with and you are just projecting this anger onto somebody that reminds you of this. When those around us see this, we may hear something about the "pot calling the kettle black".
People often respond emotionally to someone as a result of their resemblance to an individual in their past. As such, if your employee reminds you, in any way, of your Uncle Rutabaga, who was very critical of you when you were growing up, you will react to this employee as if he were your uncle (and therefore, critical), even if he has never said one thing to give you that impression. This resemblance could be physical. It could relate to mannerisms. It could even have to do with the type of car that one drives. Anything can trigger this response. This is the basis for stereotyping.
But let us assume that the employee is actually critical. Certain factors must be taken into consideration before we rush off and start filling out the pink slip. Among the factors that must be considered are: cost factors, the effect on other employees, the possibility that the criticisms are valid and the motivation behind them, and potential interventions. If these factors are overlooked, the results could be costly, both in financial terms, in the loss of a potentially good employee, and in the emotion well-being of the critical employee, and to the remaining employees.
Cost Factors
One extremely good argument against termination of the critical employee is cost. Time and effort has been put into training this individual for their particular position. It is assumed that once they are gone, they will be replaced. But the replacement process is not without cost. Advertisements must be placed, the candidates must be interviewed, and a decision must be reached. These details take up a manager's valuable time, as well as being stressful. 'Help wanted' ads can also carry a hefty price tag, depending on the publication, size, and duration of the run.
Once you find the right person for the job, they must be trained or at least become familiarized with your company's methods. New employees are non-productive or at least low-production for weeks, but still collect a paycheck. This means that they are a financial drain on the company's profits until they start to be productive enough to generate as much income for the company as their gross wages plus employer contributions to taxes, benefit costs, profit margin, et cetera. Because of the initial loss taken on a new hire, the average employer does not break even until that individual has been with the firm for a number of months.
Depending upon the circumstances surrounding the dismissal, it is likely that this employee will collect Unemployment Compensation. This will eventually have an effect on the rates that your company is charged by the payers of this benefit. Also, since you must respond to your ex-employees claims for benefits, you again have a loss of time, especially if there is a dispute and it goes to a hearing.
Also, if the critical employee was let go prior to starting the replacement process, more than likely other employees will have to compensate for the loss. In short, working overtime. Employees love it (to a point) because it pays better. But who pays? The company pays! If the critical employee had been retained and dealt with properly the business would not have been disrupted, inconvenienced, and tapped financially.
Effects on morale
We as managers always want the maximum that we can get out of our employees. As a result, we are often concerned with employee morale. If this were not the case, company picnics and Christmas parties would not exist. We often buy the latest technology (toys) to make our employees jobs better or their work environment more pleasant. Unfortunately, we often do not take their wants or needs into consideration. We tend to buy what we would want. This is like me buying a new table saw for my wife (or 10 year old daughter). I might think that it is a great present, but does it satisfy the recipient? For this reason, morale can frequently be elusive to those not in touch with the workers in the trenches.
Because the critical employee is looking for someone to help him change things for the better, he is vocal. This means that he often has the attention of others around him. As such, your response to him will have a tremendous effect on how management is perceived. If we terminate him, we are seen as being punitive and unaccepting of any criticism, constructive or otherwise. If we ignore him we are seen as being uncaring toward our employees. For this reason, it behooves us to take this criticism as constructive and at the very least look into its feasibility. Then if it is feasible, do a pilot test. Try it out to see if it is a change for the good.
It is important to remember that employee morale is going to be based on your response to the critical employee, not on their criticisms. This is because of the psychological factors mentioned earlier (the rumor mill, King of the Hill, the pot calling the kettle black, Uncle Rutabaga). Many employees will assume they have some type of personal alliance with their immediate supervisor, but this perceived alliance is not nearly as strong as the pressure exerted by these group dynamics.
Why does he criticize us?
Let's face it, we all feel threatened when we are criticized. If that criticism is aimed at our profession, the career that we chose over all others and that we know probably better than anyone else (or so we'd like to think) then that criticism not only threatens, but actually wounds us emotionally. Our work is part of what we are. So by attacking our profession, he attacks us. If we are in public and our occupation is lambasted most of us will not sit idly by and accept it. We stand up and defend our chosen field. It is much the same with attacks from within the organization.
Closely tied to the emotional threat that is posed from within, is the possibility that the critical employee actually may be right. Perhaps he does have a better way to perform a given task. Maybe he does have a way that we can increase our profitability. If so, it infers that we are in some way incompetent. But inferences are not always correct. Fresh blood within any organization has a way of not being blinded by traditional methods. He can see the forest for the trees. He is not married to the prevailing paradigm. And if he is correct, then we would be fools not to take advantage of his insight. And our bottom line is what ultimately suffers.
Restaurants conspicuously place cards out in public view inviting their customers to comment on the services rendered. The critical employee is similar to a comment card. After all, what do restaurants learn from the cards that say, "Great service!", "Wonderful food!", or "Nice atmosphere!"? They certainly feel good about themselves, but what have they really learned? Nothing! Only the cards that say, "The service was impersonal." or "My food was over-cooked and cold, probably because that service was so slow!" expose their weak points, which is what they must change in order to stay in business and succeed.
Motivation
Often the tendency is to assume that the critical employee is uninterested in his job and is complaining because he dislikes where he works. We assume that if he liked his job he would just keep quiet and do his work. This couldn't be farther from the truth. If he truly disliked his job he would probably find another job or even quit without having other employment lined up. The critical employee would not see where changes need to be made if he were not interested in the welfare of the organization or at the very least desired to make his job more pleasant (which would automatically increase productivity). On the contrary, the silent employee who never makes any suggestions is either too insecure to open his mouth, too slow to be able to see where changes are needed, or simply wants his paycheck without rocking the boat. He is the uninterested one. Often these individuals are the ones to be promoted because they do their job come rain or shine, even if it involves tremendous waste or resources. This is quite sad, because if we could learn to accept criticism from within as well as we do from 'comment cards', we would see that the real innovators and leaders are not the ones with the quiet demeanor, they are the ones screaming, "Hey, look at this. You should really consider changing this!" Unfortunately, we are too often impressed with ourselves and our way of doing things. But it is important to remember that no person and no organization is without flaw.
Interventions
So now we've done all that is humanly possibly to try and cope with this individual. We have tried out some (or all) or his ideas, but none of them worked. Still he persists in criticizing the working conditions or methods or the management for not listening to them. We are just about to pull our hair out. So what do we do?
First, keep your hands off of your follicles. Second, consider the possibility that this individual is having some type of interpersonal conflict with another employee or someone in their personal life. It is probably in your best interest to sit down with this person and have a heart-to-heart talk. If this is not your style, or if you tried this and it was fruitless, ask him if he would consider seeing a counselor. In order to show that you are supportive of him, and as an incentive for him to seek help, it is a good idea if you offer to pay for the first session or two and allow them to take time off during the work-day, without being docked. You will likely find that you now have a strong advocate in the employee ranks if you sincerely show your concern for this individual. And you will probably have a much better worker.
Conclusion
Make no mistake about it, the critical employee can be a problem. He will eventually start to have a negative effect on morale. But if his suggestions, as well as those of other employees, are not taken seriously, then morale can be devastated. It indicates to all of the employees that they have been discounted and are of little or no worth within the organization. This means that it is incumbent upon the manager to be pro-active in objectively reviewing all suggestions and attempting the ones that are feasible. If not as a chance to improve the firm, at least to maintain the employees' confidence. Trying out these ideas is also a no-lose situation for the employer: if the suggestions better the work environment or the bottom line, the employer wins; if the suggestions do not have the positive effect anticipated by the critical employee, then he is less likely to try to spread discontent about the company within the ranks, again the employer wins. On the other hand, if the employer fails to implement any of the critical employee's suggestions, then the employee has found another reason to be critical and the employer loses.
Many churches and businesses have learned from experience that the last words of a dying organization are: WE'VE NEVER DONE IT LIKE THAT BEFORE! I'll be honest, I'm as closed-minded as the next guy, but I also realize that if we are to succeed and prosper, then we must listen to any criticism, take any suggestion, and try any ideas that could bring us one step closer to our companys' goals, whatever they may be. If this includes promoting our industry (and I hope that it does) then we must first promote the welfare of its member. Your business is not the building or the equipment, the paperwork or the datastream. It is the people that we work with day in and day out. If we push them down, then we are also pushing the business down, one man (or woman) at a time.