Thankfully in writing this, I was not the worst employee ever, but unfortunately in my line of work, I believe I had to deal with one. As I have discussed in my other blog posts, I have devoted my career to non-profit work. I always found that in order to work in this field, the majority of people were unselfish because they were accepting below average salaries for the greater good of their communities. This is as reputable as it gets. I understand that this field is not for everyone, but for those who it does fit, we perform our duties out of admiration and integrity for the greater good of our society. Around every corner lies someone who needs a helping hand. Whether it’s the homeless, returning veterans, people with medical issues, or special needs, non-profit is a huge industry comprised mainly of volunteers. I believed that as a whole, we care more about other people than ourselves. Except for one person.
I’ve been taught by my mother that if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all. I have no intentions of dragging this person through the mud. The only reason I bring this up is to help others acquiesce the knowledge of how I used aspects of LMX to assuage the situation. Many of you maybe familiar with the term “grandfathered in.” I ascended from coworker to boss which is one of the most difficult things to do in the workplace. Many of my coworkers were already my friends and even drinking buddies. Upon the reception of my new position, my boss explicitly laid down his rules and regulations. His one stipulation was that all employees were to be maintained, and that they had a “clean” slate because they had a new boss. This was to my chagrin, because I had already had different a different plan.
For most bosses who create a schedule for their employees, this is their least favorite activity, as it was for me. As early LMX theory points out (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga 1975), I already had an in-group and an out-group due to my previous relationship as a coworker. As much as I wanted to include more of the out-group, one person was more of an outlier in the out-group than anything. As the notes constitute, this person also had no interest whatsoever in belonging to the in-group. The craziest part of it all, was that they worked one day a month. It is integral that I have two employees working at all times. If I could have offered overtime pay for someone to work with that person I would have, but the fellow employees still would have insisted on not working with them. With a staff of fifteen, not one single person wanted to work with them. If they were scheduled to work with them that one day, it could affect our employee/boss dynamic. I would be hated. As a leader, I essentially had to bribe them to maintain the continuity.
This person’s strongest skill was tact. They showed up for their one shift on time every time. I held biweekly staff meetings and this person was the only one to make it to every single meeting. And that’s where it ends. They were impersonal, yet not enough for dismissal. One shift a month was not enough to maintain the knowledge to perform the job in the proper manner, yet they were protected by the grandfather clause. For their shift, they would rearrange the desk to their liking, throwing off the person taking over. When asked a question, instead of finding the correct information, she would answer with what they believed the answer was, or what it should be. Procedure was always incorrect, their way was better. Under no circumstance, would they ever cover anybody else’s shift, which occurred regularly. Those who covered the most shifts, most definitely helped their position in the in-group.
The worst part was that we were non-profit. They were the antithesis of who I believed wanted to work in this industry. This person had no interest in helping others or making a difference in someone’s life. When asked if I could take them off the schedule, I received a resounding NO. Since we are non-profit, all our employees are asked to donate an amount per paycheck for the cause of our organization. Our goal is that everyone donates even if it is one dollar for only one paycheck. I repeat, only ONE dollar, ONE time, from ONE paycheck. Not only was this employee not willing to donate a single dollar, but they were offended to be asked. I had college kids who were donating up to ten dollars a paycheck who had tens of thousands in student loans to pay off. And this grown up, with no student debt, was not willing to help whatsoever. They had the gall to be offended when asked to donate to the non-profit organization they work for? Talk about a fish out of water.
Part of being a good leader is getting to know everyone in your group. Try your best to minimize your out-group and include as many as you can in your in-group. As the lesson points out, entirely eliminating the out-group maybe ineffective and detrimental, but a proper balance can benefit your team. In this situation, many times I had to quell the gossip and support the “undesirable” employee. The in-group did not understand this. I spent more time and understood that family was more important to this employee than the organization. As our exchange grew, so did their attitude. A change was beginning that I could see as well as others. They began to cover a few shifts here and there and learn a little respect back from fellow staff members. A change was happening because I embraced the leader member exchange, and took the time to get to the root of the issues at hand.
The lesson here is that our interaction with our followers can impact not only one individual on your team, but the entire team as a whole. If you have a problem figure it out and talk about it. If both sides are building in frustration, there’s bound to be an explosion. Don’t let it get to that point. Be a bigger person and a better leader.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G. G., & Haga, W. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership in formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78
Jarreau Christian Francis says
Great job on the post. You clearly had an LMX issue which stemmed from having to maintain a relationship with members of the in-group and one member of the out-group.
The first thing that came to mind while reading your post was the unenviable position that you were put in when you had to manage those same workers that, at one time, were you your friends and colleagues. My employer tries to avoid this situation, if at all possible. When anyone is promoted to supervisor, they are immediately reassigned to another division so they aren’t supervising old friends. You obviously showed your worth as a leader, being able to effectively navigate this difficult situation.
The other point I think you effectively targeted was the reasons why some choose to be in the “out-group.” While reading this weeks lesson commentary on LMX theory, I had to stop and really think about the three situations that were presented which inevitably will result in an “out-group” worker. I even had to consider if I fit one of the criteria.
What I came up with is, I, just like your employee, have gained a “strong social identity that fulfills me,” not at my place of employment but rather primarily through other groups like my family and my pilot community. It is not that I don’t identify with my workgroup; but rather that I identify more strongly with other groups. Like you mentioned, a good leader will get to the root of the problem and typically will then be able to use that information to build some sort of bond with that employee.
-Jay
References
Grabarek, Patricia. Psych 485. Leadership in Work Settings. PSU World Campus. Leader-Member Exchange Theory. LMX.