The systematic solution? We put out rules, regulations, and recommendations in our Worker Handbook, looking at this policy assortment as a main system in itself – an enormous Working Procedure. (You’re able to find the whole 35,000-word record at KN.com, under Assets.) All workers must understand the company’s guidelines and, by signing a declaration, display that they accept them as a condition of work.
Per the handbook, these serious misdemeanors were the reason for employment termination. And that’s what happened. We finished their employment at that moment. There is no arbitrary, manipulative business judgment call. We just followed the conditions of employment -system that was set up beforehand.
Our system allows management to end up being utterly objective, staying beyond any emotional or manipulative positioning. The Worker Handbook clarifies our policies precisely and explains the effects of not matching them. Both of these employees knew that they were playing around. They dropped their particular rolls of the dice and their exits were basic and clean. Parties on both sides — and our staying employees — know why these terminations happened.
Because we adhere to our guidelines precisely, all workers understand that a purposeful action of going too far will never be met with any “don’t allow it to happen again” statements or endless second chances. After a significant misdemeanor, do workers deserve another chance? Well, simply no, as a question of policy they don’t. But due to this intractable position, any policy violations rarely arise and we aren't often confronted with letting someone go.
Workers want guidelines to be constant and fair, and as opposed to some conventional corporate wisdom, my partner and I believe that whenever we let someone go when assertively violating a simple policy, our remaining workers experience more security within their work, not less of it. Yes, we lost two people of value, however the losses were dominated by the positive, long-term influence on the rest of the rule-abiding employees who know what our rules are and that administration is trustworthy.
There is an essential subtlety here that I wish to make clear: Did we end the employment of the two individuals to create a good example? No. We ended their employmet because those are the rules. If a good example was set, it happened as a result of the termination.
Do you notice recurring negative situations with the people in your place of work where clarifying the rules in writing would remove potential upcoming issues? Does it seem sensible that creating specific guidelines in advance — before any combative scenario has occurred — would remove upcoming problems?