If Employee A has an issue with the way Employee B is working/behaving/etc, would you prefer that A talk to B directly, or that A come talk to you first?
It really depends on their personalities and the dynamic between them. If they're relatively mature human beings, or at least A is a mature and socially skilled human beings and B is almost a mature and socially skilled human being, it would be good if they could talk to each other first.
On the other hand, people being the way they are, A would probably just make a mess of it.
I never approach a manager about such an issue unless I have attempted to resolve it first myself.
The important key to such issues is behavior. Behavior can be controlled. Motive can not. Don't stress about motive and come to an agreement about acceptable behavior.
When you go to the manager, be specific about the behavior that is causing trouble. What behavior needs to stop? What should replace it?
"A" needs to make sure that "B" is outside some acceptable guideline (company policy, regulations, codes, etc.) before approaching or making accusations. "A"'s opinion doesn't count for much if there are no quantifiable parameters against which to judge "B"'s behavior. Then it is just a personality conflict, which in general, managers like to avoid.
cvg, I'm not in on this... I'm watching from afar. There's one employee here who seems to run to the boss before talking to anyone, and I wanted to know if this was the standard expectation or not. The boss hasn't given any recommendations or comments.
What if person 'A' is having serious issues with person 'B's body odor from lack of bathing and use of deodorant (cultural differences)? I let the manager handle it.
So B is a problem creating personality and A runs to the boss at every new instance...
Guess who the boss thinks is the problem....
B isn't bothering the boss at all, because the boss doesn't have to actually work with B,
But A is continually whining to him.
Now if the manager actually went to B and tried to do something, and B didn't respond, then B would be the manager's problem. Along with A.
But I'd have to guess the boss just makes sympathetic noises and suggests to A that A should make allowances and try to ignore it.
Chances are there is nothing for the manager to latch onto to that would give him a safe course of action/solution so this is just an ongoing problem.
Probability:
HR got laid off as part of downsizing and I'd guess it didn't get any better yet (HR not replaced). So the chances are there may be some more "rationalisation - downsizing - restructuring" to come, planned or not (if it isn't getting better, its probably getting worse).
I'd guess A will feature higher in the hit list than B.
This is management's usual way of solving problems.
That and hoping for natural wastage to solve the problem for them.
It's best to work out your issues rather than going to management. That's a last resort for me.
I've gone to management and gotten mixed results. Sometimes they understand their position and function. Other times they've wanted to run from it, ignore it, or call me the problem. I don't admire that kind of manager. That's cowardly behavior.
If people have half a brain, they will be reasonable, listen, and make adjustments, if they see a genuine need. It's the people without half a brain that cause most of the trouble and never see a valid need.
Where I come from, A would probably be ridiculed as a sniveling little snitch who did not have the fortitude to stand up and at least attempt to solve a personal problem at a personal level. When I was at school, such people got rolled in the mud on their way on school so as to cause them to be "out of uniform" and therefore out of favor as a disincentive to be suck up snitch in future. I guess in this day and age such retaliation would be called bullying.
They may well find apples on their desk with a note, in case you forgot the apple for the teacher today or something similar. I guess today, even that kind of "taking the pi$$" would be called physiological bullying.
It is different if there is real bullying or coercion to do the wrong thing, or quality of work that may have repercussions or theft or sexual harassment etc going on, but even then it should be dealt with face to face between A and B and only when B says take a hike or even escalates, should it be taken to management, and by that stage you would hope that any management worth their salt would be preparing to intervene.
If it is personalities or annoying but not harmful habits, management would most likely and should ignore it.
If management does support someone that habitually runs to them with petty complaints, then I strongly suspect there will be more lay offs until that manager at least is gone.
Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &
To some extent a lot depends on just what the issue is and how significant it is, whether it's personal or work related etc.
In most cases I'd like to think that given we're at work not on the play ground that we could sort it out, even it if means person A being the bigger person or similar.
However, there are situations where it's arguably preferable to speak to management first. If nothing else if you're lucky enough that your manager is something approaching a mentor, then there may be times it's appropriate to talk to them about how they suggest you handle the situation.
I've been in person A's position quite few times thanks to my stint as a checker. I usually preferred to talk to person B myself, at least until I'd been bitten a few times. After that point I'd be more selective in picking my battles and sometimes go directly to my manager - at his request in some cases.
One of the worst situations was with the guy I currently share a cube with, he's not good at handling criticism/requests to change how he's done stuff etc. I basically lost interest in battling with him, I'd just occasionally let our boss know some of the stuff he was half assing and leave it up to him if he cared enough to make an issue of it. Often times he'd avoid the issue by finding someone else to do the changes/corrections or whatever which didn't sit especially well with me and was part of the reason I quit making issue with the guy himself.
One time, I had a person in HR tell me that, when two employees have a conflict, one employee must tell the other employee what they are doing is unacceptable. Until that conversation has happened, the company can't get involved.
For example, if employee A clips his nails at work, and employee B doesn't like it and runs to HR, HR would tell him to explain to employee A that it bothers him to clip nails at work and he would appreciate it if he stopped. If employee A continued to do so, then there may be an issue they could get involved with. But until the person communicates what they don't like to the other person, there is nothing the company can do.
I really like this strategy. It reminds all of us that others can't read our minds, and until we communicate what we expect, we shouldn't be upset with them.
