More and more managers are abdicating the responsibility for resolving behaviorally related issues involving hard-to-handle subordinates. Opting instead to pass these troublemakers along to the human resource department. 

Perhaps the responsibility for behavioral management in your workplace has not yet been determined. If that’s so, and you decide to take on this responsibility yourself, here are some useful concepts to help get the process started.  

As a rule of thumb, the higher the level of organizational dysfunction the more complaints are voiced about other people’s shortcomings. The sad truth is that in an antagonistic workplace employees and managers both use disparaging terms that spawn misunderstandings, miscommunications and mistrust. 

Unfortunately, after experiencing an adversarial relationship for so long, the most troublesome people have resigned themselves to being at odds with the organization and almost everyone around them.

Restoring functionality

Regardless of who ultimately accepts responsibility for restoring functionality in your workplace it will be helpful to keep two things in mind:

• High performers will figure out what improvements are needed and determine for themselves how to make the necessary changes.
• Low performers don’t think about improvement, so don’t expect them to give much constructive thought to changing the way they behave.

As tempting as it is to get rid of the “deadwood,” be advised that multiple research studies on large scale staffing changes point to a chilling conclusion—dead wood floats. That’s because when the poor performers hear about performance upgrades, they immediately focus on survival—staying afloat long enough to outlast the competition. 

Shadow competition

There’s always a shadow competition going on between the functional high achievers and the dysfunctional low performers. I use the term “shadow” because management is usually in the dark when it happens. Fortunately there are several observable behaviors that will indicate when and why the shadow competition is taking place.

For example, dysfunctional employees will stand together in pointing out the smallest faults of their functional coworkers. 

One common technique is for two of them to hang around after a meeting waiting to catch their manager alone. Once they have him or her cornered, they’ll claim that it is hard for them to say something negative about a star performer, but they thought someone ought to know that so-and-so has been looking for another job. 

These folks are hoping to gain favor by casting aspersions on the high achievers. Before departing they declare their loyalty and offer to assume the duties of the “departing” employee, if that will help. 

Because the low producers have more at stake in staying put, they are more likely to “fight” for their job. 

This is not true for the best performers. Because they have the confidence to look beyond their current position, these people maintain an external network that keeps them abreast of job openings and potential career advancements. That’s why the roles and responsibilities of these “work horses” must be continuously upgraded and expanded—with matching rewards of course. If their functionality is not recognized, these highly-sort-after employees will seek appreciation elsewhere. 

Influential leadership

Before people will follow a leader, they must understand what is expected of them. They also need to know the best way to interact with the leader and others on their team. 

Functional employees can figure out who the leaders are and determine for themselves how best to work with them. Dysfunctional employees don’t fully understand their own actions, so don’t expect them to give much constructive thought to those of the leader.

As you try to influence the behavior of the poorest performers, remember that you are dealing with deep-seated feelings and fears. Dysfunctional employees can cover up their fears and hold their feelings in check as long as no one challenges their performance or questions their abilities.  But those fears are always waiting to crop up when the topics of personal improvement or behavioral change are broached. 

When their performance is spotlighted, these folks become fearful that their personal shortfalls will be exposed. So regardless of who assumes responsibility for bringing about a change in their behavior, those most severely impacted must trust that they will be treated fairly in the process.  

So, you might ask, why not ignore the dysfunctional employees and concentrate solely on the functional workers? 

For lack of a better strategy many companies are doing just that. It doesn’t work for long, however, because the high performers soon resent having to carry the load alone and start looking elsewhere for performance equity. And guess who gets left behind?