IN SEARCH OF ONE'S "FAIR SHARE" OF THE WORK
Employees and groups of employees can be dramatically different from each other. For example, while one manager complained of how her employees talk, talk, talk instead of work, another manager asked how she could get her employees to be more open and assertive with each other. Several of her employees apparently felt that 2 or 3 others were not doing their fair share of the work, yet none would say a word directly to these people or to the manager. Instead they complained to anyone else who would listen.
In a work group of any appreciable size, some employees are sure to feel that others are not doing their share of the work, and often these employees will share their complaints with all but the correct people. This condition may exist in spite of everything the manager does. The problem is partly a function of the personalities involved and partly a function of peoples' perceptions. Not all employees agree on what constitutes one's "fair share of the work," and, while most may see themselves doing an appropriate amount of work, the perceptions of other people may suggest otherwise.
The fundamental need may not necessarily be to get all employees to be more open and assertive with each other. One might rather wish to achieve thorough, open, honest communication in which everyone in the department, including you, the manager, participates on an equal footing. Openness is certainly desired; however, assertiveness, at best a hazy concept given the way the word has been bandied about in recent years, is far too readily confused with forcefulness or aggressiveness to be dealt with easily. What one party may see as assertive behavior another may see as aggressive; one party may feel that "I'm simply standing up for my rights," but others may see this as attempting to impose one's wishes on others.
When communication problems occur in a group of employees, one can usually find a number of sides to every story or issue. And there certainly will be multiple perceptions as to how much constitutes one's "fair share of the work." In short, unless there are some fairly specific measures of output available there can be no absolute certainty as to a "fair share."
There is one message that should be communicated to these employees diplomatically, but in no uncertain terms: They are wrong in simply complaining to "anyone who will listen." We know of course that people talk with each other all of the time and that some are going to complain about third parties, persons who are not present to defend themselves. However, the fact that this happens does not make it appropriate or acceptable. Complaints, whether about coworkers or supposed sources of aggravation, should be reported at the proper points within the organization. When simply passed around the work group, complaints take on the character of rumors and other grapevine transmissions-they disrupt work, spread discontent, and tend to divide the staff into factions. Rather, discontented employees should talk directly with you, the manager, and leave it to you to investigate their complaints. It may then be necessary for you to have private discussions with each complaining employee to bring out specific information.
Discussions with employees should not initially focus on what an employee's perceived fair share might be, but rather on what the manager regards as the fair share of each employee. In other words, have in mind some kind of productivity standard or other measure of an individual's work. This standard should be known by each employee; that is, each employee should know at all times what is expected of him or her. For your part, in dealings with employees you should be taking action based on whether or not the standard of performance has been attained.
This kind of problem calls for a great deal of emphasis on group communication processes. Matters of productivity and concerns with measures of work output can, in many respects, be topics of concern to all members of the group. Some staff meetings dealing with these common topics may be in order, and such sessions can give you the opportunity to help foster the concept of your department as a team-a group that exists for a common purpose-rather than a collection of individuals who are all doing their own work. Even if some staff meetings turn out to be gripe sessions, they may still be helpful in bringing the problems out in the open where they can be dealt with by all. In short, a group problem-solving approach is called for in which all can properly consider the same question: How can we work together to better accomplish the work of the department?
This issue of The Health Care Manager offers the following articles for the reader's consideration:
* "Workplace Deviance: Strategies for Modifying Employee Behavior" examines a number of forms of deviant behavior and offers strategies for managerial intervention intended to facilitate the prevention or modification of undesired employee behavior.
* "Strategies for Community-Based Capacity Building: Planning on a Shoestring Budget" illustrates how collaborations between universities and community-based organizations can lead to the development of successful management plans without committing extensive resources to the planning process.
* "The Hospitalist Model: A Strategy for Success in US Hospitals?" reports on a study undertaken to determine whether the hospitalist model of patient care delivery is likely to enhance overall hospital performance and improve the allocation of resources available for inpatient care.
* The Case in Health Care Management, "Managing the Drama Queen," asks the reader to consider how a department manager might deal with an employee whose reaction to any word of criticism or some occurrence out of the ordinary is invariably "over the top" emotionally.
* "360-Feedback in Health Care Management: A Field Study" reports on research conducted in a large public hospital to determine the effectiveness of a 360-feedback process implemented some 3 years earlier.
* "Reducing Medical Errors Through Better Documentation" defines medical errors, indicates what kinds of errors occur most frequently, and suggests what health information technologies can do to reduce errors through improvements in documentation.
* "Managing the Multigenerational Nursing Team" reports on a study undertaken to examine the characteristics, communication styles, and task significance of two broad generational groups of nurses to provide nurse managers with pertinent advice for dealing with these sometimes diverse groups.
* "Retention, Perceived Usefulness, and Use of Family Health Card in the Bangladesh Health and Population Sector Programme" reports on a study conducted to assess the effectiveness of Family Health Card utilization under the Health Card Population Sector Programme in Bangladesh.
* "Getting Your Ideas Into Print: Writing for a Professional Journal" provides advice and guidance for working health care professionals who are interested in the career-enhancing activity of contributing their thoughts and ideas to the literature of their fields.
* "A Manager Asks: Doing Their Own Thing in Spite of Supervision" provides the consolidated advice and experience of a number of health care managers in addressing the problems presented by the occasional employee who regularly pulls in independent directions often contrary to supervisory guidance.