Another reason for putting these two types of interview together is that they have a number of points in common:
- Change is the key to all of them. The purpose of disciplinary interviews is, in the main, to change the performance and behavior of the interviewee; but they may also involve changing the manager's approach to the people he or she works with. The departure from an organization of an employee will obviously result in a major change to the employee's circumstances and to a lesser extent to the manager who has had to deal with the problem and to the organization itself.
- All have the potential to be emotional, anxiety-producing interviews - for both participants. Obviously, employees do not like to be disciplined, nor do they like to lose their jobs, so for them these interviews will produce a wide range of reactions from hurt and disbelief to anger and resentment. The managers, too, may suffer painful emotions, especially if they have been directly involved in the circum stances leading to the dismissal; and all but the coldest and most aloof manager (certainly not the ideal) will find the experience nerve-racking.
- They are easy to handle badly, not only for the reason given above, but also because the temptations to resort to personal attack, to repeat old arguments and to exchange blame and recriminations are sometimes difficult to resist.
- They all have to be dealt with coolly and systematically. They are at the end of a continuum beginning with the problem behavior, and by the time the interview takes place, they may have built up a considerable 'head of steam'.
Managers who think that way are not, I hope, beyond persuading that these interviews are essential for the following reasons:
- From employees who are resigning, management can learn about weaknesses in the company, in other employees and in management itself, because leavers are freer to talk about their jobs than those still in employment. Truths may be told that would not otherwise be revealed.
- If the employee is leaving for a higher salary, the company can find out what the competition is paying or what extra benefits are being offered.
- Employers can also learn that they are employing too many people who are dissatisfied with, and unchallenged by, the low standards expected from them, thus improving selection processes in the future and reducing staff turnover.
- They are an excellent opportunity for good public relations. Companies can show that they are good employers who treat their people fairly by listening to their side of the story, and, more important, by awarding them generous severance payments.
Problems come in all shapes and sizes, and it is a test of a manager's ability how quickly and effectively they are solved. Small problems can usually be dealt with as soon as they emerge, but some take longer and need more attention. Solutions to personal problems are frequently found through talking about them to an understanding and sympathetic listener, in other words, through interviews.
Most managers, however, find it embarrassing to talk to subordinates about personal difficulties, and, feeling inadequate to the task, they prefer to sweep the problem under the carpet in the hope that it will eventually disappear. Unfortunately, it seldom does, and by the time the personal problem becomes a work problem it is often too late to take action. For this reason a number of large companies employ their own counselors or, because people do not like to be seen talking to them, thereby revealing to their colleagues that they have a problem, outsiders.
For small and medium-sized companies, this can be prohibitively expensive, so it is usually left to the untrained manager on the spot to act as problem-solver. Some do it well; others not so well, and some enthusiastically seize the chance to meddle in other people's affairs, which can be a recipe for turning a minor into a major problem.
Few managers use any kind of system. They simply charge in and hope for the best. A systematic approach to the problem-solving interview can make even the most intractable problem more manageable.
You have just left your office, looking forward to your lunch, when you are approached by Kim, one of your employees, wishing to discuss something personal with you. Everything about her - posture, expression, the way she looks away when you speak to her - says that she is in some kind of trouble. You cannot postpone the lunch - it is with an important client and you made the arrangement weeks ago. What do you do?
What you don't do is tell Kim that you are too busy to talk and that she should come to see you later without specifying when. The unspoken message you are sending is that she is not very important and that you have more pressing matters to attend to.
What you do is explain your situation, that you can't talk, but you do not leave it like that. You go back to your office and fix an appointment to see Kim as soon as possible. Too long a delay may mean that she loses courage and the problem grows worse, because she thinks you are not really interested in hearing what she has to say. You will also need time to make some preparations of your own by checking her work record, for instance.
Most interviews are initiated by the interviewers; they define its purpose, set the time and place, and do the necessary preparation before the interview takes place. Problem-solving interviews are different. The initiator is often the interviewee who has the problem.
