When poor performance or unacceptable behaviour can no longer be tolerated, employers must proceed with caution. Regrettable though it may be, there are occasions when – despite one’s best efforts – the ‘problem employee’ must be tackled. In such circumstances, adherence to proper procedure is influential in the majority of court determinations on such matters. Indeed, such judgments frequently focus more on the procedural provisions than the merits of the case. In 2015, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) issued instructions to employers availing of its services under such circumstances. The instructions stated that, prior to the hearing, employers “must set out the facts of the events leading to the dismissal including, where relevant, disciplinary meeting(s) held, investigation undertaken, disciplinary hearing(s) conducted, internal appeal(s) conducted...” This instruction goes to the heart of many unfair dismissal judgments, as the Courts have always taken the view that procedural fairness is a key dimension in its determinations. Consequently, to get the best out of the all-important hearing and to avoid unfavourable findings down the road, it is advisable that disciplinary interviewers proceed with caution before, during and after such interviews. Before the disciplinary interview An inadequate investigation of a situation on the part of an employer may give rise to a dismissal or disciplinary action being deemed unfair. Accordingly, a reasonable and fair investigation of the matter should be undertaken prior to a decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings or dismissal. An appropriate investigation will involve establishing the facts of the case, the range of relevant documents on the employee’s personal file (e.g. previous warnings, training received, appraisal records etc.), the required and average performance standards on the job, and the organisation’s disciplinary procedure and precedents. Indeed, it may be that, having completed the investigation, one decides to take no action or to settle for an informal ‘off the record’ counselling session. Depending on the nature of the alleged offence, the timing of the interview will normally be close to the incident. However, it shouldn’t compromise management’s responsibility to do the all-important preparatory work. In some instances, a cooling off period may be required to ensure that all parties approach the interview rationally rather than emotionally. If the alleged offence is adjudged to be of a serious nature, the employee should be advised immediately of the situation in the presence of her or his representative or nominated colleague and given an opportunity to respond. The employee in question may even be suspended (with pay) pending the investigation into the alleged misconduct. Management should then plan the interview structure and agree on the key questions. This can entail writing down all the facts and being prepared to substantiate each one. One should also note any assumptions and be prepared to inquire into them. Decisions will need to be taken as to the personnel to be involved in the process, ensuring that no-one plays two roles in the process (for example, witness and investigator). Where issues have reached a serious stage, at least two management representatives should be present to ensure correct and consistent application of the rules and procedures. One should also be clear as to who has the authority to formally warn or dismiss staff. The Government-issued Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures recommends – in addition to the employee’s right to be accompanied by a representative – that the employee concerned be allowed to confront or question witnesses. Notably, a recent High Court judgment indicated that where serious allegations are being made that could result in dismissal or reputational damage, a right to legal representation also applies. Having completed the preparatory work, the employee should be advised of the interview’s time, place and purpose, and their representation entitlement. Where appropriate, the employee should also be provided with supporting evidence from the investigation. During the disciplinary interview Don’t be cosy, yet don’t be rude at the disciplinary hearing – strike the right balance. In any interview, the interviewee deserves a fair hearing. You don’t want to intimidate the employee to the extent that you only hear her or his side of the story when it is told by her or his legal representative at the WRC or the Labour Court. Management should make the opening statement. This can take the form of advising those present that – without pre-judgement – it is an interview under the organisation’s disciplinary procedure, the stage the procedure is currently at, one’s role relative to the procedure, and the function of other people present including ‘on call’ witnesses. The structure of the meeting should then be outlined. The structure of the meeting entails the aforementioned opening statement and posing questions. The employee and her or his representative will then reply, question witnesses and produce their own witnesses. One can then further question the employee and her or his witnesses. The employee should also be encouraged to highlight any issues she or he considers important, including any mitigating circumstances. Having determined whether there is any mitigating evidence, the action that management takes depends on such circumstances and the seriousness of the offence. When determining the action to be taken, the test of ‘reasonableness’ (i.e. does the punishment fit the crime?) must be borne in mind and should take account of these mitigating factors. In effect, this means that every situation must be evaluated on its own merits – though one must also be careful to be consistent, ensuring that one individual isn’t victimised or disciplined for behaviour that is tolerated elsewhere in the organisation. Prior to closing the disciplinary meeting, management should summarise to ensure that everyone understands the key issues. This summary should reflect the key points of the original case, the employee’s reply, the changes to the original case that have arisen during the meeting, the circumstances pertaining to the case as it now stands and the matters that warrant consideration or investigation during the adjournment. After this adjournment, one reconvenes the meeting to convey the decision, outline the outcome and state the action to be taken. Should the evidence point toward disciplinary action, management’s position should be explained to the employee who should be made fully aware of her or his shortcomings, the nature of the improvement required and the means for its achievement, together with the consequences of future transgressions. This is also an appropriate time to remind parties of their right of appeal. After the disciplinary interview After the disciplinary hearing, management must write up the records, advise relevant personnel, and send copies to appropriate parties (the human resources department, the employee and her or his representative, for example). Accurate records should be kept of all disciplinary issues but in particular, they should set down the dates, parties involved, the original case, the changes to that case arising in the proceedings, management’s action and its relationship to previous actions, and the particular circumstances of the case and how they affected the final action. Of course, good managers will work to prevent any deterioration in relationships. Disciplinary action can be a source of discomfort and resentment. While management’s final action may be fair and reasonable in the circumstances, it may not endear one to staff. Hence, the disciplinary action should be followed up to ensure that the problem does not arise again and that the process has been approached in a manner designed to help avoid the unacceptable behaviour or performance from recurring. Finally, the slate should be wiped clean in due course (if appropriate), as warnings should remain on an employee’s record only for as long as is consistent with the nature of the offence and in accordance with the organisation’s rules and practice. Gerard McMahon is Managing Director at Productive Personnel Ltd., a HR consultancy and training company.

Six executive coaches reflect on the benefit of reflection at an individual, team and organisational level. Six executive coaches walk into a bar where their main objective was to discuss the type of cultural environment that makes it easy for an organisation to benefit from highly effective teamwork amongst its people. For the sake of anonymity, we’re calling them C1 to C6. For the sake of transparency, we need to admit that two of them were us. Learning and blame “Above all else, teams need to work within a learning culture,” began C2 when the first round was safely in. “As David Garvin wrote in the Harvard Business Review: ‘The world is changing. We’ve got new business models. If your rate of learning isn’t greater than the rate of change, you’re going to fall behind.’ I’ve been thinking about this a lot.” “Oh yeah,” exclaimed C1. “I like that a lot.” As did C6, adding, “This makes real sense to me as a coach. It provides clarity around what I’m seeking to achieve. I want to help organisations create an environment in which team members are constantly learning and refining what they do. But sometimes it’s hard to get there, isn’t it?” “Definitely,” said C3. “I’m working with a team right now who really struggle to reflect meaningfully on the ‘what just happened?’ question. The members seem more interested in justifying their positions than in harvesting any lessons from the outcomes that derive from their work together.” “Ah,” muttered C5. “It’s the old blame culture, isn’t it? I come across that so often in the organisations I work with and it’s so crippling, so counterproductive. It’s like Matthew Syed wrote in Black Box Thinking, ‘When something goes wrong, we like to point the finger at someone else.’ It’s hard to learn from ‘what just happened’ when we’re counting the fingers that are pointing at us.” At which point, five fingers turned towards C5, suggesting that it might be time for the next round. Resilience and business as usual By the time C5 returned from the bar, the conversation had moved on and C4 was holding court. “I think there may be too much talk of resilience within some of the organisations I work with. Do you not think that sometimes, staff are expected to bear too much?” “Absolutely,” replied C1. “Perhaps we should be coaching them around how best to resist, rather than to be resilient.” At which point, C3 reached for a handy napkin that was lying on the table and drew the following diagram while the rest looked on: “You see,” said C3 when the masterpiece was complete, “I’m getting worried that in some of the organisations I’m working with, resilience is now being seen as being a prerequisite for carrying out business as usual, rather than as a way to manage stress when something tough comes along, which requires you to dig deep.” “You know,” interjected C6, “that’s got me thinking. I mean, if the pressure to produce is so high in an organisation that its people need resilience just to get through a typical working day, what resource can they reach for when a crisis hits their sector or their company? That’s a great diagram, C3.” “Thanks,” said C3 modestly. “I suppose I’m just learning to use caution while seeking to develop greater levels of personal and team resilience with my clients. I see it as avoiding collusion with any organisational stakeholder whose world-view is one of ‘weaponising’ resilience by cranking up performance requirements to the point where it becomes a non-negotiable necessity when carrying out business as usual.” “Wise words,” said C2. “Now, go and get your round in.” Alignment and emotional intelligence “I’d like to talk a bit about the whole notion of alignment for a while,” said C2. “There’s a lot of talk about how important it is for an organisation’s people and teams to be aligned to its mission and values, but what does that mean in the real world? Is this really something it makes sense for teams to align to?” “Particularly in light of the ‘values inconsistency’ we so often see coming down to middle managers from boards,” chipped in C1. “That really confuses a lot of the people I coach.” “But,” asked C3, “if we don’t have a clearly articulated mission and values, how do people answer the ‘what do we do now?’ question?” This drew quite a lengthy response from C5: “I listened to a podcast recently in which alignment was described in terms of a person or team being tuned into what their system was wanting, saying or feeling at any one moment. The speaker felt that meaningful organisational alignment occurred when a team could match up the stuff it was feeling, wanting or saying as an entity in its own right, with the bigger picture; with the stuff that was being felt, required and articulated across the organisation as a whole.  They called it emotional alignment – I liked that.” “I heard that podcast too,” said C4. “It’s the one where the speaker talks about an organisation having an essence and a character. And that essence and character having a voice to which its people and teams can learn to attune their own voice. Perhaps it’s helpful to look at this as the deepening of collective emotional intelligence across an organisation and its various teams. Would that be helpful, do you think?”  “Speaking of the group collective voice...,” said C1 and headed swiftly towards the bar. Trust and vulnerability “A lot of this stuff comes back to trust, doesn’t it?” asked C1 on returning from the bar. “I’m finding quite a bit of cynicism in some of the teams I work with. It seems to be rooted in a dilution of trust both amongst colleagues and between an organisation and its people.” “Yes,” answered C3. “It’s like Amy Edmonson says in Teaming: when people trust and respect each other, it produces a sense of confidence and psychological safety. And this, in turn, encourages them to share their thinking without fear of being embarrassed or rejected.” “Patrick Lencioni calls that the ability to be vulnerable,” said C2, “because team members have a confidence that their peers’ intentions are always good so there’s no need to be self-protective. That, I think, ties back to the whole blame culture stuff we were discussing earlier.” “Yes, Lencioni says that a dilution of trust is the first and perhaps most important sign of a dysfunctional team,” said C4. “I find that to be true so often. It’s been particularly so in the climate of competitiveness that seems to be a necessary evil in many organisations. It’s hard to turn off those competitive instincts to develop a trusting environment within your team.” “I think the wider organisation needs to involve itself in helping to make this happen,” added C5. “It’s in their interests. I mean, think of the time and energy that’s wasted in teams trying to understand and manage other team members’ intentions. It’s a shocking waste of resource and really serves as a drain on morale.” Reflecting on organisational culture The issues discussed by C1 to C6 are all big issues for reflection at an individual, team and organisational level. Time spent reflecting on these issues can pay big dividends in terms of morale, engagement and performance. We don’t always have to reflect together in the boardroom. It’s often better to visit a decent coffee shop, restaurant or the local pub – or even organise a hotel-based away day. All of these discussion points offer an opportunity to establish some ground rules around banishing blame and exploring vulnerability – at least for the duration of the conversation – while considering some of these hugely important organisational culture issues. We’ve found reflective practice amongst peers to be a highly effective approach, both in our own firm and in working with our clients. We recommend it wholeheartedly to all organisations. Ian Mitchell and Siân Lumsden are partners in Eighty20Focus, a boutique firm of consultants, executive coaches and leadership trainers.

As the number of virtual teams grows and the amount of face-time declines, managers must take an innovative approach to trust in their teams and organisations. Teamwork plays an increasingly vital role in organisational life. An impetus behind this development is derived from the ever-growing presence of millennials moving into positions of influence and leadership. Meanwhile, technology is disrupting old methodology fast and creating opportunities to develop new ways of working. This in turn presents new challenges for managers, mentors and coaches – many trained and developed before VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity) times, and perhaps feeling ill-equipped to leverage their skills to good effect within the new paradigm in which they are required to work. The virtual team One significant arrival in the workplace is that of the virtual team, which is defined by leadership development adviser Beth Millar as being comprised of members who are not located in the same physical place but in different cities, states or even separate countries; using technology and specific skills to achieve a common goal. This is all very exciting, but it presents challenges. There are challenges to team members themselves – how does a team based in five different locations and who predominantly use phone, tablet and screen to communicate develop what Prof. David Clutterbuck calls “situational team knowledge”, the almost intuitive interpretation of each other’s cues and intentions? And then there are challenges for their coach – be that an external or internal coach, or indeed their line manager – in helping them develop, harvest, build upon and leverage this situational knowledge for the benefit of themselves and their organisation. Some of the most important work in this field has been carried out by American executive coach, Dr Pam Van Dyke, who concludes that a coach must understand that there is an art and a science to creating a virtual presence both during the session and in between sessions. Having understood this, the coach then needs to pay careful attention to developing both disciplines. Commenting on Van Dyke’s work, UK coaching guru Peter Hawkins argues that elements of this art or science begin with the need for the coach to work in real time with the team when it is working together. This will involve joining teleconferences and web-based discussion, and perhaps establishing a closed web-based workroom, where the coach can meet team members in a place that feels secure enough to allow them to become vulnerable. The essential ingredient Vulnerability is an essential ingredient in the building of trust between team members, which is itself vitally important to the development of a healthy approach to conflict resolution. In a world where online relationships can become almost synonymous with anonymity, pretence and manipulation, one vital role of the coach is to create and hold a space that is contracted to be secure, honest, confidential and non-judgemental. A place where, as Patrick Lencioni put it, team members can share their skills and display their weaknesses without fear of reproach. Other productive areas in which a coach can work with a virtual team include two very helpful ideas from Harvard Business Review, the first of which is to help the team to build its own working rhythm. By its very nature, remote working offers individuals the opportunity to create their own working patterns and behaviours, and the very act of agreeing together to set some clear and mutually acceptable touch-points can be the first step towards a commitment to develop mutual accountability, which is a prelude to high performance. The other suggested area is for the coach to work with the team to create a virtual water cooler. The image of co-workers gathering around a water cooler is a metaphor for informal interactions that share information and reinforce social bonds. In its absence, team meetings can become task-focused at the expense of team cohesion and unity. As an initial coaching intervention with a virtual team, this change might generate some great ideas, create excellent working chemistry and set a very positive tone for the ongoing coaching project. A new challenge Michael Eisner, former CEO of Disney, has said that “the worst decisions I ever made were on conference calls”. However, increasing globalisation, cost of travel in terms of money, time and world resources means that we will need to find ways to build trust with less face-time than we have previously been used to. This presents a new challenge for team coaches and managers, one that will have to be addressed both quickly and effectively if the potentially positive disruptive power of technology is to be fully leveraged into strong bottom line human performances. Ian Mitchell and Siân Lumsen are Partners at Eighty20 Focus, a boutique executive coaching firm.