In a couple of his more recent columns, Neal Farr has discussed the necessity of proper documentation as it relates to personnel actions, i.e., discipline, terminations, etc. Neal is absolutely correct. Documentation is extremely necessary as a defense of the action taken. Proper documentation records the events leading up to the specific action and lays the groundwork for potential future action.

For any manager, documentation should become a way of life. Document everything – good and bad. Whenever you provide feedback to an employee, document it. At the very least, a notation in a daily calendar/journal goes a long way in helping to prove that something happened. Although a good friend of mine who happens to be an attorney says “Just because it isn’t documented, doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen,” I would err on the side of documenting. Better too much than too little.

But let’s take a look at the reasons behind the documentation. I have known managers who would only begin the documentation process once they decided that they had a problem on their hands. The goal was to lay the proverbial “paper trail” so that they could eventually terminate the problem employee.

If this is the main reason for documentation, a review of the personnel files will have the individual case sticking out like a sore thumb, making it appear that the employee was singled out, unless the process of documentation is applied to all employees for a variety of reasons. If this person also happens to be in a protected class, it could set the employer up for a bias charge.

This kind of reasoning also puts the manager in the position of looking for the bad and ignoring the good. I have suggested before that our actions support our beliefs. If the belief is that the employee is a problem, then our actions will make sure that he/she remains so.
Many employers, as well as the judicial system, support and encourage progressive discipline. Progressive discipline increases the level of the consequence for repeated offenses of the same nature – verbal warning, written warning, suspension, and finally termination. Documentation of the initial and subsequent steps of progressive discipline, done properly, creates fairness in the eyes of the courts because the employee is warned of the next level of consequence in each step of the process. This allows for the employee to choose between the acceptable behavior and its resultant lack of any consequence and the unacceptable behavior with its corresponding disciplinary measure.

But what of the thought process and focus behind the progressive discipline approach? To me, it smacks of the parent-child relationship. When we discipline children we are teaching them that the choices we make in life each have consequences. Hopefully, by the time that someone is old enough to enter the workforce, he/she has learned this particular lesson.
Progressive discipline, I believe, treats the employee more as a child and less as an adult. The focus is negative, and when someone is treated as a child, the frequent response is to act as a child. How then, do we shift the focus into something more positive, that treats the employee as the adult that he/she is? What do we use instead of the traditional progressive discipline approach?

First of all, let’s assume that we, as managers, have adopted the “habit” of documentation. Let’s also assume that we are providing a continual stream of feedback to each of our employees. We will be praising them for their accomplishments and letting them know when improvement is necessary. Additionally, we will assume that this feedback is “in the moment” and fairly informal. This does not mean that it isn’t documented.

These are just the kind of interactions that should be noted in the manager’s daily journal. This “habit” is just good management practice. It shows that the documentation is a matter of course and not done just to create a defense. The feedback provided also prevents the employee from being surprised when more formal action is taken.

When more formal action does become warranted, I would suggest an approach that has a supportive thrust rather than a punitive one. I would suggest something in the nature of a “Performance Improvement Plan.”

Just shifting away from the traditional “warning” creates an atmosphere that is focused on developing the employee and not on the “don’t do that again” approach. The Performance Improvement Plan attempts to create a more collegial relationship instead of reinforcing the traditional supervisor/ subordinate roles by requiring collaboration in the development of the plan.

The basic plan is in two parts. Part I is for the supervisor’s statement and is broken down into four basic steps. The first step requires the supervisor to provide an evaluation of the unsatisfactory performance or unacceptable behavior. This evaluation should be based on specific observations and/or measured results.

The next step asks the supervisor to describe the expectation for improved performance or changed behavior and should provide the employee with measurable objectives in terms of performance standards, or a description of the appropriate behavior expected. It should also include the time frame within which the employee is expected to accomplish the improvement.
Step three provides the supervisor with the opportunity to describe the support measures that will be provided to the employee. Support can be specific coaching, feedback, additional training, etc. The final step for the supervisor is to describe the nature of the monitoring that will be done, and the frequency with which the monitoring results will be reviewed with the employee.

Part II of the Performance Improvement Plan requires the employee to describe the steps that he/she will take to meet the expectation outlined in Part I. It also asks the employee to describe any additional support that may be required to assist the employee in the successful completion of the plan. This may require some negotiation with the supervisor to ensure that the steps the employee is planning on taking are appropriate and doable within the context of the particular work environment. The emphasis should be on having the employee take responsibility for the improvement process and be as detailed as possible. “I will try harder” is not an acceptable plan of action. Likewise, this is not an opportunity for the employee to rebut the supervisor’s report.

The final section is the area for signatures. This does include a statement that says the employee acknowledges understanding that if he/she fails to complete the Performance Improve-ment Plan satisfactorily, then disciplinary action will be forthcoming. While this is similar to a warning, the emphasis in the plan is not on the punishment, but rather on the individual’s development.

If we view the process as developmental and see our managerial role as one of support and guidance, our actions will shift accordingly. Imagine the difference in a work group when an employee emerges from a meeting with the manager and tells co-workers that, “He/she wants to help me improve my performance” instead of “I just got a warning.”

Will this work in every situation? Probably not. However, the majority of adults will react as adults when confronted in an adult manner. There is less stress in a workplace where the supervisor and the employee share in the responsibility for development than there is in a workplace that relies on punishment as the motivation for change.

Whichever route you take, documenting the actions taken is an essential function of the manager’s job. Personally, I would prefer to show documentation that demonstrates that, as a manager, I have taken every step possible to assist the employee in improvement prior to taking any adverse employment action.

Andrew Coutermarsh has an MS in management from Antioch New England Graduate School where he is an adjunct professor teaching human resources development. He holds SPHR (Senior Professional Human Resources) designation from the Society of Human Resource Management, and is director of human resources for Prime Resources Corp. He can be reached at acoutermarsh@primeworld.com.