In the Trenches: Acme learns that employees react differently to praise

In this edition of In the Trenches, Acme learns that different personalities have different responses to success.

1 of 2 < 1 | 2 View on one page

Acme’s empirical HR research revealed that the best workers are much like Rose Ahriebede, a shy, quiet, competent worker who had no interest in being in the limelight. This class of worker didn’t make waves and, thus, tended to minimize the workload in Acme’s HR crew. Rose’s attitude was simply to get to work on time, do the job as well as possible, keep her head down, be pleasant to coworkers and go home at the end of the shift, all this with the aim of staying employed during these economic hard times. She represented an extreme end of the sociability spectrum.

Other employees were, shall we say, a bit more gregarious than Rose. Acme didn’t run a sweatshop, after all. For some people, the ability to interact with coworkers provided a psychic reward that compensated, to some measure, for the eight hours a day they remained voluntary captives on the plant floor.

One such person was Polly Urataine. She worked two production steps downstream of Rose in the same department. Polly was confident in her outgoing manner and felt she was a great friend to everyone she met. She tried to be Acme’s biggest booster. A regular people person, it was common for Polly to go nearly giddy when Earl Gratey, the department supervisor, publicly praised her coworkers for doing a better than average job. She’d cheer and hug the lucky person unashamedly. Most responded in kind, grateful for the additional recognition.

One day, Earl appeared on the floor to gather the department together to announce that something Rose had done was over and above the normal job demands. He congratulated her, which only embarrassed Rose. As was her custom, Polly appeared out of the crowd to offer her celebratory hug to a thunderstruck Rose. Rose shrugged off the physical contact and moved away from a confused Polly.

Later that day, Polly snuck up on Rose to gave her a hug and a back rub, then got real close and whispered “I love you, sweetie.” Rose then left her work station and walked to Earl’s office to complain about the unwanted attention. Earl wanted to keep things cool and arranged a meeting with the two women to settle the matter.

Most companies don’t acknowledge exceptional performance and should do a lot more of it.

But, Rose still felt that Polly was hanging around her much too closely for comfort. When an additional complaint to Earl didn’t make a difference, Rose filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It wasn’t long before everyone plugged into the Acme grapevine knew of Rose’s situation and hoped it would be resolved during the scheduled mediation sessions planned for the following week.

Still, mediation was unsuccessful in resolving Rose’s complaint. Of course, the morning after mediation concluded, Rose’s coworkers wanted to know the outcome of her sparring match with the mighty Acme. Rose now found herself to be somewhat of a company-wide celebrity. Uncomfortable with the attention, reluctantly she told people about her adventure and her disappointment at coming off like a complete idiot. The more that people bugged her about it, the angrier she became at Acme, Polly and her job, finally saying that she felt like popping somebody in the nose.

Not long thereafter, Acme suspended Rose for a week without pay, claiming that she disclosed information about the mediation proceedings in direct violation of the confidentiality agreement that every employee must sign before they can be hired. Acme also claimed that Rose made violent threats against unspecified Acme employees. Ultimately, Acme fired Rose outright, which prompted her lawsuit alleging sexual harassment and retaliation.

How could this situation have been avoided? Should supervisors publicly praise employees? Does management have any obligation to keep different personality types apart? Would it make sense for Acme to institute a “no touching” rule on company property? Could it be enforced? Do hiring-day secrecy agreements cover situations such as this?

An academician says:

As they say, “you get what you reward.” And if you want extraordinary performance, you have to somehow reward that type of behavior, even if it’s just singling a person out for an “attaboy” (or “attagirl”) in a department meeting. Most companies don’t acknowledge exceptional performance and should do a lot more of it. With respect to Rose, I doubt that her “attagirl” in front of the group was much more than a slight embarrassment, and she probably was secretly pleased that she was recognized.

So, the issue wasn’t the recognition, rather it was Polly embrace that was the problem. This is a difficult situation for companies — one person’s “normal” behavior might be another person’s “offensive” behavior, and it’s difficult to keep both sides happy.

My approach would be to explain to Rose that Polly’s behavior wasn’t meant to be offensive and actually meant to be supportive of Rose. And then to tell Polly in fairly blunt language that while she was well-intentioned, Rose is a very private person and likes her space. Further, given that fact, Polly was to keep away from Rose — no comments and no contact. If that doesn’t handle the situation, Acme’s next action is to move Polly, or Rose, or both, such that they wouldn’t have any contact with one another. That’s probably what most companies do when a so called “personality conflict” arises among employees. This usually works well enough to keep the peace (out of sight, out of mind).

What if this doesn’t work to Rose’s satisfaction? Then Acme will just have to deal with Rose’s issues and complaints. They would have dealt with the situation in a reasonable way and have made a reasonable accommodation to address Rose’s concerns. That is usually what the EEOC is looking for in a company’s response to an employee complaint. And given that Acme has some evidence to back up their charges against Rose, my take is that that Acme would have a pretty solid case in their favor.

1 of 2 < 1 | 2 View on one page
Show Comments
Hide Comments

Join the discussion

We welcome your thoughtful comments.
All comments will display your user name.

Want to participate in the discussion?

Register for free

Log in for complete access.


No one has commented on this page yet.

RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments