I am writing to you regarding a somewhat major team management disconnect within my department. I would like to address the disorderly professional conduct of a Team Member within my department. Following, I would like to explore possible solutions or corrective measures for said issue. There is a probationary method to propose as an option.
The Team Member has regressed in professionalism, commonly displaying an outright flagrancy for instruction and support for insubordinate behavior. This behavior consists of mocking myself and others, engaging in unnecessary arguments with myself and fellow Team Members, and defying directions given. I find this manner concerning for the success of the fellow Team Members. It is no longer an isolated and controllable incident. This situation has escalated for a period of time now, and it has become a public nuisance within the agency. I have reason to believe that the Team Member is completely aware of their inappropriateness.
This situation is clearly hazardous to the propriety of our department. However, it also severely and negatively impacts our productivity. The Team Member has become a constant distraction. This has an unfortunate effect on their peers’ capability to complete tasks. Just as well, it affects my capability to oversee all operations, rather than a singular focus and micromanagement of said Team Member. I worry that further inaction to correct the problem will set a standard that may become infectious within the rest of the agency. I do not wish to condone this behavior in acquiesce.
I understand the complicated procedure to seek the termination of any Team Member. That said, I also worry that terminating this Team Member might send the wrong message to the rest of our department, and I do not wish to invoke a sense of worry for each Member’s employment. Thus, I am seeking experimental corrective measures to re-establish a positive working environment that operates under collaboration and cooperation. Through this, I also hope to employ a preventative strategy from this incidence becoming regularity.
Primarily, there is a stark absence of employee review within our agency. This is of the foremost importance that terms be set, and that a Team review be conducted at the end of each term by a Representative of Human Resources. Furthermore, each Team Member should also receive a review in front of a panel consisting of the Department Head and a Representative of Human Resources. The usefulness of this concept is bi-fold. This would provide the opportunity to examine options to strengthen each Team Member’s performance, but also to award exemplary performance. Just as well, this places a focus on the Team as a whole, and allows for an opportunity to analyze problem areas within Team coordination, communication, and productivity.
There are several courses to take from this initial review, hypothetically. If there are no worries to merit, then the Team Member can continue progressive employment as usual. However, if there is a worthy reason to reconsider employment based upon negative information brought forth at a Team Member’s review, a probationary period begins. This probationary period will consist of a three “strikes” allowance before necessary measures are taken to terminate employment. The basis for what constitutes a “strike” will be specifically outlined in writting and acknowledged by Human Resources, Department Head, and Team Member alike by signature. This document, in effect, becomes a legally binding contract regarding the terms for the termination of the Team Member’s right to employment as a government employee.
“Strikes” will be assigned by the Department Head, using the necessary guidelines as created by the panel and Team Member. This should be a well-equipped document tailored toward the problematic behavior of the Team Member consisting of specific potential items of violation. “Strikes” will be submitted by the Department Head to the Human Resources Representative in a written documentation citing the date, location, Team Member’s name, probationary term, and the violated item per the written probationary agreement. There will be no further disciplinary action in tandem with a “strike” – it will stand alone as a harsh disciplinary measure. Upon the receipt of a third “strike,” the Human Resources Representative will initiate an Emergency Termination Review, in which all pieces of evidence regarding the Team Member’s probationary violation will be presented. From this point forward, Administration can proceed with termination. On the other end of the spectrum, if a Team Member reaches an end of term review while on probation without a single “strike,” then it is fitting for the probation to be revoked. The receipt of any “strikes” while on probation will not guarantee revoking at the end of the term and can be handled on a case by case basis.
I have a firm belief that this course of action will provide beneficial results in the case of the Team Member in question. I do not wish to create a status quo where our department’s administration becomes a “no tolerance zone.” That said, allowing no room for corrective disciplinary action aids in the creation of a frenetic, volatile working environment. This is not the image of the agency I wish to paint. Furthermore, I believe that this measure will not be a distracting form of punishment within the workplace and can be handled in a private, discreet manner. Please let me know if there is any other information I should provide regarding this situation. I look forward to the prospect of discussing the implementation of this program.