The dilemma of sensitive decisions

Imagine a summer recreation program where you have a staff member who is extremely popular among the children. She is highly competitive and actually keeps charts and records of her participants' performance, constantly encouraging higher achievement in all activities. At a recent field day, she upset some children and other staff members when she quarreled angrily with another staff person (in front of the children). The quarreling erupted into a pushing match stopped only when another staff member stepped in and broke it up.

How would you handle this situation? Clearly the competitive staff member acted inappropriately when she argued in front of the children, and engaged in a pushing match. In some agencies, her highly competitive nature and record keeping would be unpalatable, as well.

This scenario raises issues related to discipline and firing practices; some of the most sensitive decisions managers face. Many different people will be affected by whatever course of action is selected. Certainly, decisions must be made about how to deal with this staff member. While she has done nothing criminal, the ethics of her competitive drive as well as her arguing and physical involvement with another staff member must be addressed. There are a number of possible actions: speak with her informally, formally reprimand her, ask her to take time off, or move her to work with adults.

Any decision relative to this situation will be sensitive because it will deal with the personal style, drive and behaviors of an individual employee that have impacted others. Sensitive decisions encompass a variety of issues and may be characterized as those that deal with ethical--and sometimes legal--dilemmas that impact on the lives of staff and participants, and that reflect on the agency as a whole.

Recognizing Sensitive Decisions

Supervisors and administrators in parks, recreation and leisure services face opportunities for decision making in daily tasks. Some decisions are rather benign and might include the type of paper used in the fax machine; others are a bit more involved and could include such things as how to maximize staffing for a particular program. There are a category of decisions, however, that involve issues of a sensitive nature and for which there are no easy answers. In fact, responses to sensitive decisions often have long-lasting repercussions.

Sensitive decisions often heve no clear response or choice, involve the emotions of the individuals involved and have potentially long-lasting impacts. Furthermore, sensitive decisions may involve questions of ethics, policy, values, or legal issues. Sensitive decisions may be difficult to adequately describe, but most parks, recreation and leisure professionals recognize them when they arise. Information gathered from practitioners at a recent workshop indicated that professionals consider sensitive decisions to include the following:

* job performance--an individual not working as expected (e.g., sleeping on the job, breaking rules, theft, or falsifying paperwork)

* work ethic--arriving late, leaving early, "slacking"

* contractual--individual does not adhere to her/his contract

* drug and alcohol abuse an inability to work with people--lack of human relations skills

* learning of nondisclosure on job application

* child abuse allegations

* value differences between the employee and the agency

Issues that arise over value differences may be the most difficult to address for a variety of reasons. It is impossible to write policy that involves individual values; values are deeply imbedded within individual personalities, and are often hidden unless a particular situation highlights them. More importantly, values typically have their basis in religion or culture rather than facts. To assist in values-based sensitive decisions it is necessary for agency administrators and other staff to have a clear understanding of critical agency values and what they mean to daily operations.

To help make agency values clear to staff, agency personnel may wish to conduct an annual review and [re-]articulation of important agency values. By clarifying important values and explicating their meaning in terms of daily operations, leaders can create a foundation of understanding that will minimize the need for sensitive decision making.

Minimizing the Need for Sensitive Decision Making

Clarifying values is one way to create a work environment that minimizes problems before they occur. In addition to articulating agency values, it is important to ensure that staff understand their job expectations. The more clarity in expectations and values, the less the likelihood of inappropriate behaviors.

What makes your program unique? What kind of values or benefits do you want to provide participants? What types of behavior do you want your staff to role model? Answering these types of questions is important for both administrators and front-line staff as they begin the process of articulating the agency's underlying values. Building consensus between administrators and staff on these values gives staff direction by clarifying the philosophy of the organization (the "what are we about?" questions). Such actions also help organizations and their staff be conscious of the values they promote. Such "value sharing" during staff recruitment, hiring and training helps potential staff members to know the direction of the organization and determine if they "fit in." Table 1 presents an exercise which may be helpful to complete (with staff) during staff training.

TABLE 1. THE VTV THING

The connection between values, Tradition & Vision

Values
  * Brainstorm a list of values that you think are important to
promote in
your program.
  * Rank your top five priorities. Why are these five at the top of
your list?
  * What kind of values do you think the program should emphasize?

Traditions
  * What are some of the traditions of your program?
  * Examine these traditions. IS each of them positive?
  * Do they support the values that you listed in the preceding
section?
  * Brainstorm with staff the kinds of traditions they want to
incorporate
into the program this year. How might these traditions be
integrated?

Vision

  * What is the vision of the organization? Do you understand this
vision?
  * Can you "buy into" this vision? Is there anything else that
should be
included in this vision?
  * What implications does this vision have for summer programs?

* Those situations that warrant immediate dismissal

Understanding personal "hot buttons" helps in maintaining an even keel. People react strongly and with deep emotion when an action--or inaction-occurs that pushes a personal hot button. If both supervisors and employees are aware of their own--and each other's--hot buttons, they will have some control over their own behaviors and reactions. Hot buttons are those issues that get a rise out of people; they are primarily emotional and are based on personal history, baggage and issues of importance to self. Often, individuals are unable to articulate why they respond to certain issues with such emotion. Common issues that push people's hot buttons include:

* lying

* not listening

* whining

* taking shortcuts

* showing an apparent lack of common sense

* putting people on the spot

* using personal favors in hiring and promotion decisions

Also helpful in the preparation phase is knowing and understanding the available options for addressing employees involved in sensitive decisions. Understanding the options gives leaders access to immediate action. Possible disciplinary options available in most agencies include:

* assigning fewer work hours

* developing a behavior contract

* reassignment

* suspension (with or without pay)

* verbal and written warnings

* probation

* demotion

* termination

Often, deciding upon appropriate disciplinary action depends upon the philosophy of the agency. There are two general schools of thought: discipline may be punitive in nature or designed to help the individual employee develop and grow professionally. Each disciplinary choice has different impacts and influences on an individual's life.

Situations that warrant immediate dismissal might include those actions that involve breaking the law, putting other staff members in tenuous situations, behaving contrary to agency values, or placing participants in danger (either due to overt actions or actions of omission). Illegal staff actions that are not uncommon to parks, recreation and leisure include theft, alcohol and drug abuse,physical violence (fighting), and breach of contract. Situations that may put other staff members in tenuous situations might include not showing up for work, taking extended breaks, and frequent contradictions of other staff members' actions. Any staff actions or inactions that place participants in hazardous situations are of critical concern to all agencies. Issues falling in this category include allegations of child abuse, neglecting maintenance of structures or equipment and improper supervision.

Intervention in Sensitive Decisions

Once aware of one's own hot buttons, and the disciplinary options available, it is possible to articulate a philosophy or preferred method of intervention. There is no question that intervention is absolutely necessary in situations that put any person or the agency at risk. The first choice that arises when engaging in intervention is the underlying philosophy to which one adheres. Some practitioners view their role in sensitive decision making as that of handing down punishment for undesirable behaviors. This is a punitive approach, which is largely concerned with the immediate situation, and seeks to punish someone (apply consequences) for her or his actions/inactions. The underlying belief may be that the offending individual must "pay" for her or his behavior choices.

The other philosophy in dealing with sensitive decisions involves an underlying belief that all people are human, and that in the course of living, humans make mistakes. This approach may be described as a staff development approach, which is designed to help with changing the undesirable behaviors. Counseling and coaching are two styles a supervisor might use when working from this perspective with an offending individual. Some supervisors view these situations as teachable moments.

The intervention process begins when the behavior occurs or recurs. It is important to remember that behaviors that lead to sensitive decisions have both immediate and ripple ramifications for the staff member in question, the participants, other staff members, the program, and the agency itself. Because of these many connections, an immediate response to the undesirable behaviors is required. Immediate ramifications directly impact others (e.g., participants who were within earshot of the argument, the other staff member involved in the pushing match, the individual who broke up the fight) as the incident occurs. Ripple ramifications continue to affect individuals who may be a bit more peripheral to the situation (e.g. participants who hear rumors or tidbits about why staff were disciplined, parents, community members, individual staff members, other staff, administrators, and neighboring agencies). Ripple ramifications also include the long-term effects of the situation and how it was handled.

There are several questions to consider when initiating the intervention process: Who should conduct the intervention (and who should follow up)? When should the intervention response occur? What methods and media should be used to conduct the intervention, and where should the intervention be held?

In situations where there is immediate danger to an individual, the nearest person should intervene. If, as in the opening scenario, a staff member has become physical with another, the nearest person may wish to initiate the intervention process. This does not necessarily mean that a bystander should physically break up a fight, but she or he may make a loud noise, through in a towel, or engage in some other attention-getting behavior to cause those involved to stop. There are many methods and mediums through which intervention could occur.

As with all forms of feedback, it is best if intervention and follow up begin immediately This way, the incident is still fresh in the minds of those involved, and the agency is perceived as being accountable and acting with decisiveness. Follow-up intervention should continue as long as there is a relationship between the agency administration and the individuals involved. For example, in returning to the opening scenario we learn that the agency administration decided to change the staff member's job responsibilities from working with youth to working with adults. In addition, she received feedback from her supervisors about her over-competitive mindset. It appears as though the situation has been handled. The children in the group that witnessed her fighting, however, may still be experiencing various emotions from the incident. These youngsters should be counseled to help them through the confusing times.

While initial intervention may be verbal, all intervention processes should be well documented. The decision making element is inherent throughout the intervention process and is often the most difficult aspect of these undesirable situations.

A Decision Making Process

In making decisions related to sensitive issues it is important to remember both immediate and secondary responses to both the incident and the agency response to the incident, which impacts all constituents. On-going concerns such as the likelihood of media involvement, internal and community-wide rumor mills and involvement of the agency supervising board (e.g., board of trustees, city council, board of directors) will need to be addressed.

A variety of factors have potential to impact a sensitive decision: internal factors such as staffing needs, maturity level of the offending staff member, potential for learning by that individual, and the seriousness of the offense. External factors also may impact on the intervention process.

These include political issues, budgetary concerns, time constraints, staffing/replacement capabilities, and other factors. In weighing all of these considerations it is important to consider agency priorities, as well as who will be impacted.

When involved in the decision making process it is important to consider the following questions:

* What is the underlying agency philosophy--punitive or developmental?

* Who is affected by the intervention process (immediately and peripherally)?

* Who should intervene? Who should conduct the follow up?

* Who is of the most concern initially? long-term?

* What options are available for dealing with this incident?

* What consequences exist for each option? What is the intent for handling this incident?

* What types of follow up will be needed?

Documentation

In all sensitive decisions, it is vital to document the facts surrounding the incident and the actions taken. Appropriate documentation is useful to maintain clarity of facts, provide support for decisions, and as evidence in the event a legal issues arises later. As soon as an issue arises related to staff competence or behaviors, the documentation process should begin. All materials should be accurately dated, copied to a superior and kept in a secured place to ensure confidentiality and to ensure against tampering or falsification.

When documenting be sure to include factual information such as:

* what occurred

* when it occurred (date and time)

* where it occurred

* how it occurred

* who was involved (primary and secondary actors)

* who was impacted

* actions on the part of the supervisor

* follow up actions

Sensitive decisions affect every person in the field of parks, recreation and leisure services at one time or another. They are not easy decisions to address and often result in lament over, what to do. Before you get to that point, decide upon an underlying philosophy or approach and work to articulate the agency approach to dealing with these types of decisions. You can greatly minimize the need to make sensitive decisions by articulating values and expectations between staff, supervisors and your agency.

COPYRIGHT 1996 National Recreation and Park Association
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group