The Why Behind Documenting Employee Behavior
Raise your hand if you’re a manager and you’ve heard it: “If you didn’t document it, it didn’t happen.” With my vision blocked by an electronic screen, I already know we’ve all been victimized by this. It was one of my first big managerial lessons.
When someone’s acting up (or out) in the workplace, the easiest course of action is to give them the benefit of the doubt. You let small things go, or even have small arguments, but out of the hassle and fear of big conflict, you never escalate it. If left unchecked indefinitely, it turns into a cyclical, Tom-and-Jerry-style feud. Eventually you get fed up and you’re REALLY going to do something about it this time, so you call HR for help. They ask what you’ve done to correct or counsel, and you go on to tell your woes. They ask for proof. You don’t have any. The conversation ends with a nicely worded too-bad-so-sad, and now you’re stuck starting from the beginning, as if none of it ever happened.
By the time HR gets involved when you’re fighting for your life, it can seem cold when their only question is asking whether you have proof. The objective truth, though, is closer to the idea that if things were really as bad as you say they are, you’d have worked harder to do something about it. Without any documentation, you end up in a useless he-said-she-said.
As frustrating as that situation is, it’s necessary to teach leaders that documentation is critical to disciplinary escalation. Giving people an endless benefit of the doubt does absolutely nothing for you when you’re ready to take action. Most people assume that documenting issues or occurrences is about building the case against an employee, but it’s bigger than that. Documenting issues in a thorough, timely, and consistent manner creates an accurate, time-stamped record of an employment timeline.
The other part that no one likes to hear is that when you’re the boss, you’re held to a higher standard. There’s an expectation that you’re more mature, more professionally developed, more able (and willing) to express your expectations and needs. It’s usually fair given that you innately hold a higher level of responsibility than your direct report, but when tension is high, those details fall away. You want to be helped and protected the same way your employee does. HR’s job is to make sure operations are fair and consistent, or, in essence, to heighten the scrutiny on leadership.
Everyone has experienced a bad boss. Everyone has, at some time or other, been exposed to an environment where the boss isn’t all of those good, holy things, they really are targeting someone they don’t like, they really don’t communicate their expectations, and they really do not mind to battle high turnover when they’re feeling moody. When you’ve been on the receiving end of that, it’s easier to see how the company needs to ask questions on behalf of the individual contributor. Who’s to say you aren’t the villain? Who are they to take everyone at their word when you offer an offended, “Who, me?”
As the leader, you uphold the standard of the environment. You set the tone and behavior falls in line based on what you are or are not willing to accept. If you’ve been battling the same issue for the last 6 months or 6 years, details get fuzzy. When someone is asking for proof of where you’ve formally addressed the issue at hand, your memory is no longer a reliable record, no matter how clearly you can recall the scene. The same processes are used in court. No receipts? No proof.
The decision to discipline or terminate an employee is made by an organization, not just one manager. It’s the organization who assumes the risk for potential backlash. Let’s say your employee is disgruntled and they’re now bringing all kinds of accusations against you. Remember, you don’t have an official history, so their slander is equal to your very reliable memory. How can the company know who is right? It’s a written record that’s going to protect you from claims like “they bullied me”, “they never told me what they wanted”, or “they’re so hot and cold, so moody”. How could you defend yourself? No one knows what you said.
There’s a common misconception that “documenting” automatically means you’re writing people up; truly, that doesn’t have to be the case at all. Good documentation should tell the whole story, not just the negative parts. Any record that shows ongoing coaching, expectation-setting, support, successes, and failures shows a much more complete picture, and it can be as simple as sending yourself an e-mail. Tell yourself that a conversation happened on a certain date with a small recap, escalate by sending the next e-mail to the employee, and then move toward further action if it’s needed. “I told them” just isn’t the same.
Here’s a list of things it would be reasonable to document:
- Coaching conversations
- Performance expectations
- Attendance conversations
- Customer complaints
- Policy reminders
- Development conversations
- Recognition
- Follow-up commitments
- Training provided
- Resources offered
- Employee explanations
- Verbal recaps
Documentation should show a record of reasonable management over time. All of the above contribute to establishing the tone of the relationships we have within our team. If a sudden complaint comes up against you, these records can also be used in your defense! If you’re ready to escalate action against a team member, you’ll have a visible trail explaining why.
When you’re ready to fully move forward, HR’s questions will sound like:
- What specifically happened?
- Has this happened more than once?
- Were expectations clear?
- Were consequences communicated?
- What coaching, training, or resources were provided?
- Was the employee given an opportunity to improve?
- Is this employee being treated consistently with other employees?
- Does documentation support the reason for termination?
- Does the documentation show a reasonable progression of corrective action?
- Are there contradictory records or statements?
HR is anticipating issues with legal. At the end of the day, if there’s a risk to the company, (especially a large company) legal will shut down anything that reeks of a potential lawsuit. Your records over time will build a case where, no matter how trustworthy, your word cannot.
So what does good documentation look like? It should answer 6 questions:
- What happened?
- When did it happen?
- What expectation or policy applied?
- What conversation occurred?
- What did the employee say?
- What happens next?
Then, there are two bonus (rhetorical, but very necessary) questions to filter through:
- Is the language neutral?
- Would a stranger understand the string of events over time, if shown together?
If the answer is no to either of the last two, it’s not ready to send or share.
Guess what? Negative language paints you, the leader, in a bad light. Documentation is meant to be factual and specific. Adding subjective thoughts and emotions only shows that you weren’t in an objective space when you wrote it. If there’s a narrative that you lead from an emotional (read: negative) place, that works against you.
Avoid things like:
- Lazy
- Bad attitude
- Doesn’t care
- Always does this
- Everyone is frustrated
Here’s a real-world example. Your e-mail says…
“I told Sarah three times she needed to stop being late, if she keeps being late there will be consequences!”
vs.
“On August 4, Sarah arrived at 9:23 a.m. for her 9:00 a.m. scheduled shift. I reviewed the attendance expectation with her, also citing recent incidents from July 23 and July 28, and explained that continued tardiness could result in further corrective action. Sarah stated that transportation has been an issue but that she would make arrangements to arrive on time, and acknowledge that attendance will continue to be monitored going forward.”
The first reads as irritated and threatening, the second is neutral and objective, even though both have a similar message. Document facts, not frustration.
Note: More than what’s listed above should also be avoided. Make sure any necessary details or context are included and leave it at that. Sometimes, saying too much hurts your case too.
Reframing written follow-up from “annoying and unnecessary” to “something that will help protect me” makes it easier to go ahead and knock out. Feedback should be timely. No HR team will acknowledge 6 months of bad behavior because of one long e-mail describing it you wrote two hours ago.
When an adversary is at hand, documentation is what reminds you that you hold the power as a manager. Wield it responsibly, but in the case of documentation, wield it at all.