|
First off, it sounds like you're creating this problem for yourself by failing to document your own policies properly. You say the de facto policies were once one thing, and now they're something else, leading to "confusion". From the sound of it, this person knows what they're supposed to be doing, so it isn't so much confusion over what is expected so much as confusion over what is required. You must rectify this by putting the policy down in writing and making it publicly available. Distribute a copy to each member of the group and post it in the common area.
Second, it sounds like all your interactions have been verbal and informal, or have been indirect, by way of a collective meeting, or a hydra-headed discussion, rather than a 1:1 interaction. That won't do. Call this person down on the carpet - arrange a formal meeting in the office, preferably with the supervisor sitting and playing an observer role, and say, "My expectations are so-and-such. You are failing to meet my expectations. You must meet my expectations or be disciplined. Dismissed."
Third, document everything. For any event which is not optional, it is your job as supervisor to keep an objective, written record of attendance. Make your people self-accountable by having a sign-in sheet, say, on a clipboard, then just scan the sheets into your computer once every two weeks or so. Documenting performance is necessary to action it in a professional way.
Fourth, establish clearly the difference between what is expected, what is required, and what is strictly optional, and make it clear to your subordinates what they have to gain or lose from each. If you fail to do this then you will cause the sort of drama you see now where subordinates feel they aren't being dealt with fairly because they are ducking events they believe, or can plausibly claim to believe, are optional. Conversely, if optional events really aren't so, and are instead expected, you likewise run the risk that people will get angry when they feel they've been dealt with unfairly because they are being denied some perk because they did not take part in what they had reason to believe was a strictly superficial event.
Finally, consider adjusting your expectations with respect to their relevance. You say these seminars "help". Are you sure? What, exactly, is the goal? Write down the means and ends in clear bullet points and make those objectives available together with the documentation detailing the expectations. If you are requiring, or expecting, things that your people don't perceive as necessary or beneficial, then you're undermining both your own authority and the perceived (and real) value of the program. Do not make activities that do not have real value mandatory. Also, would it be possible to offer participants different ways to achieve the same goals?
My recommendation is to (literally) lay down the law, make it clear in no uncertain terms that you expect this individual to adhere to the law, then action her if and when she violates your edict. It would not be fair or appropriate to action her in the here and now as the situation appears to be due at least in part to the ambiguity that you yourself have contributed to.
Aestu of Bleeding Hollow... Nihilism is a copout.
|
