Suspension over Performance
PHS09
42 Posts
Any advice on when a suspension is appropriate? My company has used it in the past if some had poor performance but I feel that it should only be used for extreme circumstances (i.e. harrasment, poor perrformance that results in a financial burden on the firm, indangerment to other employees). Do any of you use suspension? if so, in what sort of situations?
Comments
When a written warning has already been done or is too light in view of the entire situation but where termination is clearly too much.
We don't typically advise our clients to suspend employees without pay. Here's the reason: if s/he engaged in gross misconduct, termination is warranted. If performance has been poor in spite of verbal and written warnings, we suggest one day of paid leave (which shows good faith) during which the employee is told to make a decision to either a) decide to correct the performance problem or b) formally decide s/he is not and the termination process can begin. If the issue requires an investigation (such as a harassment allegation), I think it is better to put the person on paid leave until the investigation is complete (of course, often the complainant often wishes to be on paid leave as well because the environment is so tense). This communicates the 'innocent unless proven guilty" message.
Joni E. Johnston, Psy.D.
Joni E. Johnston, Psy.D.[/quote]
There are situations, particularly involving high performance creative people such as are sometimes found in engineering and sales, where the personality is prone to boundary testing as a component of what makes them successful in their role. Sometimes task performance and goal completion are exceptional but the personality is outrageous yet the behavior does not count as "gross misconduct". You can only shake your finger or issue written warnings so often. These types are also often good at knowing what's not quite across THAT line while also realizing their value to the company. I think there's a place to suspend without pay as a matter of punishment but it is only for exceptional situations (example is just one type where it could be appropriate) and not something to be used as a matter of course. I'm sure that any of the grizzled veterans here can recount stories in which top performers were fired and the rest of the team's performance improved. I'm sure others can relate stories in which top performers were fired and the company simply lost revenue. I would imagine that in many of those cases, it was merely a matter of the manager being tired of trying to manage the maverick rather than the prima donna actually doing any one thing that would normally trigger termination. The point is to realize the difference between those two types of sitations and not take an overly bureaucratic stance about to handle people and situations. More tools are generally better than less, if your staff has the talent to use them. If you have to hire or manage at the lowest common denominator, you get your county tax office. The larger the Company, the more this is an issue for a variety of reasons that are probably obvious.
Sending people home for a day of paid leave to decide whether or not they want to fix their problem or not is a great idea and I've seen it used successfully but not used that techniqque myself. Not all companies have an appetite for paying people in the course of disciplining them. Although the logic is sound, management is not always about logic and not everyone will respond well to that treatment. I can see some taking it as a free day off from work, returning very contrite, and poisoning the well with spiteful talk about how they were wronged by the company.
Paid leave during investigation should be common practice where separating parties, imminent harm, or allegations against an individual include gross misconduct of any kind should be commonplace.