Newsletters
Business Advice
Departments
Fresh Inc.
June 14, 2005
Cracking Down on Employees After They Punch Out
Posted by Darren Dahl at 2:12 PM
Picture this scenario: You're out on the water taking a relaxing weekend boat ride with your family. Plenty of sun, fresh air and quiet... until a 500-horsepower speedboat rips by, dousing everyone on deck with its wake. After wiping the water from your eyes, you catch a glimpse of the rogue captain: It's John Smith, your head of IT, who happens to be two-fisting a can of beer and a cigarette as he menaces other pleasure cruisers like yourself. Of course you're upset, but come Monday, does John still have a job?
From political bumper stickers to unseemly leisure pursuits, seems that more and more employers are taking a critical view of their employees' behavior beyond the workplace. Sure, getting thrown in jail is one thing, but what about John Smith our IT manager? Where would you draw the line with an employee's activities outside the office and what kinds of rules do you expect your employees to adhere to?
Try a RISK-FREE Issue of Inc. Today!
Select Services
- Home |
- Contact Us |
- About Us |
- Subscribe |
- Advertise Online |
- Legal Disclaimers |
- Media Kits |
- Press |
- Privacy Statement
Copyright © 2009 Mansueto Ventures LLC. All rights reserved. Inc.com, 7 World Trade Center, New York, NY 10007-2195
Mansueto Digital Network: Inc.com | FastCompany.com | IncBizNet.com | IncTechnology.com | FastCompany.tv
It is concerning to me that companies seem to be dictating the norms of behaviour outside of the workplace -- it brings to mind the (failed) experiments of the utopians George Pullman and Robert Owen.
Beyond the stultifying effect on personal liberty, one has to wonder about the homogenizing effect of employees trying to choose leisure-time activities that will 'please' their employers. I wonder if the spillover of control into the personal sphere might be one of the reasons more people are becoming 'altrepreneurs' -- starting small businesses and new ventures less for the financial gain than for the freedom to live their lives without concern about the censure of an employer.
On the flip side, how much does this employee's "out of work" actions reflect on the company he/she works for?
Personally, I know that we have decided on vendors, contractors, etc., etc., in part, based on what we have seen their employees doing in their day to day activities, either on the job, or off. We've eliminated plumbers when we saw their truck racing in and out of traffic. We eliminated one vendor when we saw him stumbling out of the local tavern towards his car. Maybe he just tripped, but the perception was something else. Too bad. If "Mr Smith" in the article's premise works for a company that rely's on any business-consumer, business-business sales, service, etc., and people know who he works for, I'd be more than slightly ticked off by his actions. Makes no difference if he is wearing the company logo, or not... On company time, or not. His actions reflect on my decision to have him as an employee.
Unfair... to be sure. But as my mother told me on more than one occasion while growing up - "Life can be unfair, get over it."
I'll fire you if you do anything that reflects badly on my company, on company time or off. You may not like that, but too bad. I will NOT let you, or your actions, negatively influence other people's perception of me or my company. I have 50 other employees who want their job, who want to get ahead in life and I am going to do ALL I can to insure that they have that oppotunity.
If you do not like knowing that your personal actions may determine whether you have a job with my company, or not, don't bother sending in a resume to begin with.
As far as I am concerned what an employee does in there off time is there business and there business alone, a company has no business being involved in what one does after they leave the office, that can more or less be construed as an invasion of ones privacy. The only thing that should matter to that company is your performance in the office, and that is it!!
We have laws to dictate what public behavior is or is not appropriate. If an employee is involved in illegal activities then I think the corporation has a right to decide if they want to be associated with such a person.
But...what gives a company the right to impose their own arbitrary ideals of what is and is not "right" beyond the walls of the corporation? Corporations already have too much control over society as is.
It's sad to think that only those willing to "go along to get along" and submit to the powers that be will be candidates for "getting ahead in life". What ever happened to merit?
Live and let live.
I agree with the "leave them alone crowd" generally. This would be no different in my opinion. If an employee was being a jerk on his time away from the office and I saw him I may mention it if it was over the top, but I don't see a point in being a 24/7 babysitter and attempting to tell an employee how to live their life.
I can see behavior like that potentially skewing the chances for advancement, but as stated above I wouldn't see it as something to remove a person from their job for.
I know I have left companies in the past because they seemed to focus far too much on what an employee does during down-time. At one company a coworker was given an ultimatum to quit tending bar at the smalltown bar he had worked part-time at for 15 years because the owner thought someone may recognize him and not want to do business with the company. he did nothing illegal and was simply trying to suppliment his income with a job that he enjoyed. Would his boss have cared if he was donating his free time to the soup kitchen, or hugging trees?
A job is not a right, it is a privilege. No one twisted John Smith's arm to accept the job, and no one is holding him to the fire to stay. I think most people have a fairly good idea from the start, what is expected from them while at work. I think most employers believe, or want to believe, that the same core attributes of an employee exist both in and out of the work environment, and if those attributes become questionable, because of that employees behavior, whether on or off the job, the employer has every right to address it. The buttheads know they are buttheads, and personally, if John Smith, head of my IT Department, doused everyone on the deck of my boat, I wouldn't necessarily fire him, but I would address it, as well as keeping a closer eye on him at work. A persons behavior doesn't typically stop at the office door, it may just take awhile to show its true colors. My concerns would not be so much the beers he had in hand(s), but more so, the actual "dousing" part of the incident. How he relates with other employees, as well as the way in which he represents my company to those outside who have a direct effect on my company, has everything to do with my reputation and my bottom line. I don't care how talented the guy is in doing his job, without appropriate representation, he is a liability, not an asset.
I can see all points of view, but the word I see missing here and I see missing in so many places is courtesy. I don't want to manage employees activity outside the office. If they are professional on the job, and performing at an acceptable level, that's fine. However, if they lack common sense, common courtesy, in or out of the office, I amy not want them on my team.
I would be upset if I had an employee do the same, however the company cannot tell the employee what to do when they are not at work. If my employee had my company car, or had a company uniform on then they can be responspable. I have had a large company and I just started a small company 7 years ago I will stick to the small company any day you have a lot more control over what happens.
Question:
How can you write about and continue to take the position that you can help small business people when you have decreased the value of the magazine by 92%+ over only four years? It seems to me that the editorial management of Inc. should be writing about how to file for bankruptcy.
I love the last comment posted here. Classic stuff.
As for the dictators who think they can control the lives of their employees, ponder this:
What if public displays of affection where a no-no where you worked? That means no kissing, hugging, or hold hands with your spouse in public. How "on-board" would you be with that?
Now, back to the last comment...Larry, come check out my small biz site:
http://www.SoleProprietorMagazine.com
Let me know what you think...I value your opinion...good or bad!
An employee is looking for a job, not necessarily a lifestyle unless your job is being a celebrity or some other high profile job where paparazzi chase you down. Being at work as scheduled on time and being productive is what this is about. Dictating the choices that a person should or should not make outside of the work place is tantamount to waving the moral majority flag 24/7. Aren't we up to our ears in this stuff already? How about just making sure that you yourself act responsibly and in a civilized manner? Can an employer really afford to watch its employees on AND off the clock? Why not have a Chief Morality Officer? It is difficult enough, and much more important, to get an employee to be productive in the office, warehouse, field, wherever. That's where employee performance turns into dollars and cents - the language of the business. That's where the profits are made and that is what determines whether a business owner will stay in the game. JHB is worried about poor reflections on the company. The public knows that outside of work, employees are people too and that as people outside of work, they will make mistakes from time to time. Unless the person's offtime behavior is counterproductive to the mission of the company or injurious to the employees or customers of the company, you are on a slippery slope trying to decide what behavior warrants a reprimand and what can be passed off as offtime antics.
Employers like JHB keep labor and employment lawyers in business and are one of the primary reasons why Gen X and Y folk rightly forgo the outdated concept of company loyalty. With your attitude JHB, someday, one of those people you fire b/c of their personal actions outside of your company will hire a smart lawyer and you along with the 50 other poor souls who work for you, will be lighter in the pockets. Then, I'd love to be there just to see your face as the plaintiff recites the phrase so eloquently stated by your mother - "Life can be unfair, get over it."
What I did to my last employer:
http://www.FrontYardFights.com
It depends on what kind of business you're running and whether or not expectations in respect to outside activity are made clear to the employee at the beginning of his/her employment. I run a threat assessment and management company. Obviously I can't have any employee engaging in criminal or intimidating types of behaviour whether they're on work time or not. This is all spelled out in their contracts and the parameters and rationale made quite clear from the very beginning.
Beyond that, it's none of my business. If we were all to judge the personal lives of our employees, no one would ever understand the rules and an awful lot of people would be set up to be victimized by abuse of power, discrimination, etc.
Where would we be drawing the lines? What if your employer didn't like your spouse? What if your brother committed a criminal offence and it was all over the news and your employer decided to make you suffer for it?
I really think we should help our employees grow and develop. Micro-managing their personal lives is counter-productive. And who has time for that anyway?!
Okay, lets turn it around. What do you do if you work for the likes of Enron and MCI?
There is a very simple way to handle John Smith's situation. Rather than playing games behind the scenes and possibly creating negative office gossip, simply taking John aside in a protected environment and explaining to him your concern for the safety of your family and other boaters on that particular day. Explain, in a "no hard feelings" demeanor, that you understand that he was trying to enjoy his beautiful day off and simply request that he be mindful of others that are trying to do the same.
The intended result is that your future time off is no longer impeded by John's, and as an added bonus you create an awareness within him that he is constantly in the presence of those with which he works.
As an employee of any company you create a mutual obligation of responsibility with the company. Though the company shouldn't dictate what activities the employee can be involved with outside the office the employee must remember that the obligations of employment do not stop at 5 pm on Friday. The company continues to pay the person's health insurance, life insurance, retirement obligations even though the work day has ended. The same mentality must be assumed by the employee, especially if they are wearing company uniforms; using company equipment; etc. More than once I have made note of people driving company vehicles recklessly in the off hours. In the case above, the employee was operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The employee should be reprimanded at minimum.
The point is that if a employer decides they have a right to force upon you their morals in off time, then they should pay you for adhering to them. You are losing something by having them stick there nose in to personal matters, and thus if they act upon it they should purchase that right. Having a job doesn't mean you give up constitutional rights, and it only takes a few people to step forward and sue the company. I don't know how a jury would look upon a company dictating what is right or wrong.
Especially since most companies use the policy of "What is good for the company is parimount. Do you think they look for your best intersts?" I don't think so, and that being said. They should have a clear seperation, because if a company takes such a active interest in molding the personal lives of their employee. It won't be long before a creative lawyer says, "Your employee did something very bad, and because you help mold their behavior I am suing you as well for contributing factors. You got what you wanted and got control of what they do, and now I am suing you for your part in their bad judgement."
Engaging in offensive or dangerous activities away from work and doing those same activities away from work with company vehicles are two entirely different things. An employer does, and should, have the right to determine how a company asset, such as a company car, will be used at any time because the company owns the asset. By contrast, the company does not own the employee. Slavery has been abolished. An employer cannot own a person, no matter how much they pay. If people's actions are ridiculous enough they likely violate a law, in which case it would be for the authorities (i.e., police), not an employer, to decide what action to take, if any. This applies to Enron and MCI. The authorities and the courts are in the process of dealing with these folks as the situation warrants and the law provides.
Employers might terminate their employees if they do not approve of an employee's conduct outside of the office. Employment is generally at will unless by contract and then termination would be governed by that contract. If an employer does not violate discrimination laws, ADA laws, or contract provisions, they are within their right to terminate. This may be foolish if the person is a productive employee, though.
An employer does not earn the right to dictate employee lifestyle outside of the office by virtue of the fact that they are an employer.
Seems to me that once a compnay starts to control behavior outside the workplace, they assume a level of responsibility (liability) for the actions of the individual. Let a few get burned this way and watch the backpedaling begin.
"John, great news! I'm promoting you to weekend manager."
Problem solved. My weekend lake getaways are pure again.
Hah!
How profitable would an employee be who voluntarily met one or more of the following standards: 1. behavior that did not present even the appearance of impropriety 2. behavior that met the punctilio of honor 3. behavior that brings glory to God.
While it is difficult to reach high standards, the struggle might leave us in a better place than describing "the line" to draw at what used to be called poor manners or worse.
Post Your Own Comments