“How do you handle a worker who refuses to follow the simple
rules? Repeatedly? What if there was
nothing in the contract that allowed you to discipline them?”
This was the question that had me stumped today. Hmmmm
There are really only two ways to get someone to choose to
do the right thing. Positive
reinforcement or negative reinforcement.
So in thinking about this, now I relate it to how I raise my
children. I instruct them, guide them
correct them, correct them again. At
some point I have to acknowledge that their disobedience is rebellion deserving
of negative reinforcement.
But the negative reinforcement can’t be reactionary. It’s only truly effective if it is not
reactionary, but rather a calculated discipline. You have to explain to them why it is they
are being disciplined. And dealing with employees is often like dealing with children.
So if I take the principles of “Resolve conflict at the
lowest possible level” and “Positive reinforcement before negative
reinforcement”, then apply it to this question, what do I come up with?
First the activity has to be identified as wrong. The individual must receive instructions
clarifying that his actions are wrong and why.
Should this be a repeat offense the individuals actions should be
brought to his direct supervisor to once again correct with positive reinforcement
and continue to monitor. There is no
black and white answer as to what point is correct to shift from positive
reinforcement to negative reinforcement.
But at some point discipline must become the method of behavior
adjustment.
Now in this particular scenario, there was no option for
discipline to be used as a method of behavior adjustment. Thus you end up in the less than idea
situation of repeating the positive reinforcement over and over again, until
the subject succumbs just to get you to leave him alone. Your positive reinforcement becomes negative
reinforcement by its obnoxiously repetitive nature.
One thing I’ve learned is the old adage, “where there is a
will, there is a way” is almost always true.
The value of the challenge must be more than the resistance to the
challenge. Or in this case, the value of
correction must be more than the resistance to correction in order for the
leader to be motivated enough to find a solution to the conundrum.
So truth be told, I still don’t have an answer to the
question. Only the knowledge that there
is always a way if the will is strong enough.
In the words of Sean Connery, “What are you prepared to do?”
