Canadian HR Reporter

CANADIAN HR REPORTER June 1, 2015 INSIGHT 19 Brian Kreissl Toughest HR Question Dealing with a bad apple 5 different types of attitude problems among employees – and how to deal with them Question: How do you deal with an em- ployee who has a bad attitude? Answer: It really depends what you mean by a "bad attitude." Just how bad is this person's be- haviour? Does she tend to be a little negative or is her behaviour downright toxic to everyone else around her, as well as the organi- zation in general? It is important to determine whether the person is aware of the impact of her behaviour on oth- ers. Has anyone called the person out for her behaviour? It also depends on the culture of the organization. Do you ex- pect everyone to more or less be "corporate cheerleaders" for the organization? While some allow- ance should definitely be made for an organization's culture, such an expectation might not be reason- able and you may be missing out on valuable input and feedback. You may also be fostering a ho- mogeneous culture and stifling diversity and fresh thinking with such expectations. After all, not every personality type is going to fit into a "rah, rah, rah" corporate culture, and people from some cultural backgrounds may be more reserved than others. But, assuming the person really does have a bad attitude, here's a list of five different categories of "negative" employees and how to deal with each: e saboteur It is possible the employee may be actively disengaged. Actively disengaged individuals are so disillusioned with their jobs and the organization, they frequently work against the best interests of the company or even actively sabotage organizational goals and objectives (and sometimes even its systems, tools, equipment or facilities). While there is no question em- ployees who engage in deliber- ate and serious sabotage should probably be terminated (likely for cause), there are no hard and fast rules. Depending on the severity of the sabotage, it may be possible to correct such behaviour through coaching, feedback and, if neces- sary, disciplinary sanctions. It is prudent to obtain legal ad- vice before deciding to terminate such an employee. However, if the individual is downright toxic to the organization, it is likely you will have no other choice but to terminate his employment for the sake of his co-workers and the or- ganization overall. e realist As mentioned, having a "bad at- titude" can mean many different things — particularly in different organizational contexts. It is pos- sible the person may not be aware she comes across negatively, and gentle coaching and feedback could result in dramatically im- proved behaviour. Such people often think of themselves as "telling it like it is." ey may not realize their nega- tivity is contagious and it is actual- ly doing harm to the organization and themselves. However, great care must be taken not to stifle all contrary viewpoints. Otherwise, groupthink sets in and the orga- nization could end up in serious trouble. e naysayer Some people like to think of themselves as playing the devil's advocate. ey may be present- ing contrary viewpoints even if they don't necessarily agree with them just to ensure people have thought of all possibilities. Such people will often say things like, "We tried that 10 years ago and it didn't work then, so I don't think it would work now." Again, if the person's behaviour is causing real problems to morale or the employee comes across as downright insubordinate, it is def- initely worth attempting to work with him by providing appropri- ate feedback and coaching. How- ever, playing the devil's advocate can be a useful tool for consider- ing all sides of a problem. e nervous nelly In many cases, it is important to listen to so-called negative peo- ple and deal with their concerns. This is particularly important in a change management con- text where it is vital to conduct a proper stakeholder analysis to determine what's causing the re- sistance to change. In many ways, people who are vocal about their resistance to or- ganizational change may simply be voicing many of the same con- cerns others have but are afraid to bring forward. And someone who expresses negative feelings about change could be voicing valid concerns the organization hadn't thought of. Concerns based on misconcep- tions or unfounded fears also need to be brought out into the open and dealt with through reassurance and appropriate communications. And concerns relating to organi- zational change need to be uncov- ered through dialogue, stakeholder analysis, effective communications and appropriate change manage- ment interventions. e former star Great care must be taken to en- sure top performers remain en- gaged. It is relatively easy for them to become disengaged — particu- larly when they are no longer chal- lenged by the organization. Man- agers need to intervene as soon as a high performer exhibits a sud- den change in behaviour. Top performers really need to be challenged. But managers in particular need to ensure these employees continue to do their best work and don't burn them- selves out. While "A" players typically put forward a great deal of discre- tionary effort, there needs to be something in it for them. Oth- erwise, they won't always be top performers. Rewards and recognition are important, although rewarding people solely through money may not motivate them. Yet, if compensation and benefits aren't internally equitable and externally competitive, that can lead to dis- satisfaction and turnover — espe- cially among top performers who are well aware of their value in the external marketplace. Awards of excellence, plaques, gifts, celebrations and extra perks such as an additional day off can help to show top performers their efforts are appreciated. Even an email message from an executive or recognition from a supervisor for a job well done can help motivate and engage such employees. By engaging a top performer, hopefully the organization can deal with his attitude problem. However, coaching and feedback might also be necessary and, even if he achieves fantastic results, termination may be necessary if the individual has become disillu- sioned with the organization and is actively disengaged and causing problems among colleagues. Brian Kreissl is the product develop- ment manager for Carswell's human resources, OH&S, payroll and records retention products and solutions in Toronto. For more information, visit www.carswell.com. Could Alberta implement a living wage? One of the boldest pledges made by premier-designate Rachel Notley is a $15 wage Alberta is poised to leapfrog over Ontario to become the province with the highest mini- mum wage in Canada. Premier-designate Rachel Notley has pledged to raise her province's wage floor to $15 an hour during her first mandate. That would catapult Alberta from the bottom of the national rankings, at $10.20 an hour, to the top, surpassing the current leader — Ontario, at $11 an hour — by a wide margin. "It is simply unacceptable that in a province as prosperous as ours that hard-working Alber- tans cannot make ends meet," the NDP leader said on the campaign trail. She calculates a $15 mini- mum wage — $31,200 a year for a full-time worker — would lift a couple or a single parent support- ing a child out of poverty. (at is consistent with Statis- tics Canada's low-income cut-offs, which vary from $15,371 in rural areas to $29,004 in large urban centres.) Notley's plan is much bolder than anything Kathleen Wynne was willing to risk. When she took office, Ontario's self-styled "social justice premier" raised the mini- mum wage by 75 cents to $11 an hour and tied future increases to the cost of living. (It is slated to go up to $11.25 in October.) Her decision was a crushing disappointment for anti-poverty activists who had been calling for a minimum wage of $14. "It is the fairest position we could have taken," said Wynne, arguing a higher wage floor would have hurt business and reduced employment. Under Wynne's formula, On- tario's minimum wage will reach $15 by about 2030. Notley intends to get there by 2018. Like all campaign promises, this one should be viewed with caution. e new premier's goal might prove too ambitious for her fellow Albertans. She might encounter such fierce resistance from restaura- teurs and retailers that she decides to lower her target or stretch out her timetable. Notley might discover her province's economy, weakened by last year's precipitous drop in oil prices, can't absorb a 47 per cent minimum wage hike. She might be consumed with other priorities. But if she proceeds, Notley will become the first political leader in Canada to legislate a liv- ing wage and the first premier to break out of the austerity regime that now prevails at all levels of government. In many ways, Alberta is an ideal place for the experiment. Its unemployment rate is low (5.5 per cent compared to a national average of 6.8 per cent). Very few Albertans — 1.5 per cent of the workforce — earn the minimum wage, according to provincial statistics. It has the highest me- dian family income in the country ($92,300 compared to Ontario's $73,700). And, so far, the damage done by last year's oil price shock has been minimal. Although Notley's $15 wage floor would set a new benchmark in North America — where statu- tory minimum wages range from $5.25 to $11 — it would not be a global game-changer. A study released by the OECD (Organisa- tion for Economic Co-operation and Development) last week showed a minimum wage earner working 20 hours a week can sup- port a family of four in Britain, Australia and Ireland. at is not solely because these countries have high minimum wages; they also co-ordinate taxation and benefit systems to ensure the lowest paid workers get to keep their earnings and don't lose vital social services such as childcare. "Tax policy may be as impor- tant a driver of net wages and labour costs at minimum wage levels," the study points out. By this standard, Alberta wouldn't do very well. It has a flat provincial income tax rate. Every- one, regardless of earnings, pays 10 per cent. Its human services department allows individuals moving from welfare to work to keep the first $230 a month they earn. After that, it starts clawing back their benefits. Ottawa compounds the prob- lem by requiring all workers to pay employment insurance pre- miums, although the vast majority of low-wage workers are ineligible for benefits. Nevertheless, as the OECD points out, legislated minimum wage rates are "the most direct policy lever" governments can use to ensure work pays enough to live on. ey also serve as a basic labour standard and an essential tool in poverty reduction. Notley will no doubt be warned Alberta can't afford to be in the vanguard in these uncertain times; that employers will balk; that jobs will disappear and the working poor will be the biggest losers. Every political leader in Canada faces these arguments. No one has ever tested them. Who better than the premier of the country's rich- est, most surprising province? Carol Goar is a columnist who writes regularly for the Toronto Star. Notley will no doubt be warned Alberta can't afford to be the vanguard. Carol Goar Guest Commentary

• Cover