CHAUDHRI: Poor oversight breeds poor employee behaviour

Article content

Once in a while, employers come across a unicorn – a motivated, self-starting, conscientious employee who acts as a steward of good citizenry for their organization.

Unicorn employees can be trusted implicitly. Employers know that even when unicorns are out of sight, they are diligent, meticulous and hardworking. If you’ve met one, or had the fortune of working with a unicorn employee, you know exactly what I am talking about.

You would also know how rare it is to find a unicorn.

Most employees, while not unicorns, are still quite wonderful to work with. But the majority benefit from various forms of support, mentorship and oversight in order to perform to company expectations.

Employers have had to invent all kinds of tools over decades to measure and support productivity, attendance and punctuality. Most organizations can’t afford to simply ‘have faith’ that expectations are being carried out. The advent of the punch clock, swipe card and weekly ‘check-in’ are all various examples of productivity tracking in the form of employee oversight.

As the famous saying goes, what gets measured gets managed.

But not all employers manage well.

Take for example the recent story of City of Toronto crews tasked with maintaining Toronto’s public parks. City maintenance crews are responsible for the upkeep of public parks, including park facilities like water fountains and bathrooms.

A recent report from the city’s auditor general uncovered that some maintenance employees misrepresented time spent on sight and instead drove to plazas and other locations during the workday.

In one example, the auditor uncovered that while a crew reported stops at eight locations in their daily log, GPS data confirmed their vehicle didn’t stop at five of them. Instead, the city vehicle was parked at a plaza for more than two-and-a-half hours and it was returned to the yard three hours before the end of the employees’ shift.

The audit found that while on average crew workers reported a little over four hours of maintenance work during a typical eight-hour shift, GPS data confirmed the average was closer to only two hours and 36 minutes.

While the conduct described here is alarming and objectively well below standard, what is more shocking perhaps is the auditor’s finding that park management had no clear policies on how to review scheduled work. According to the audit, park management “has not established key performance indicators” for employees. The report underscored the park’s lack of employee oversight as performance was simply not being measured in a consistent way.

RECOMMENDED VIDEO

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

Try refreshing your browser, or
tap here to see other videos from our team.

Play Video

Even if there was a unicorn employee among the ranks of the city crews maintaining the parks, they likely would not be identified, much less celebrated.

Beyond that, when productivity is not measured it becomes more difficult to discipline employees for misconduct. Even though some city employees were found to have been dishonest on daily work logs, the city may have few options to discipline these employees, particularly where work expectations have not been communicated.

While some employees thrive working autonomously, the lion’s share of employees thrive in environments where clear metrics are identified, expectations are discussed and performance is measured. Establishing a results-focused environment creates clarity and room for growth.

Poor management often leads to poor performance with little recourse.

Have a workplace question? Maybe I can help! Email me at sunira@worklylaw.com and your question may be featured in a future column.

The content of this article is general information only and is not legal advice.