r have changed sufficiently that a real pressure point has been created in the leader/employee relationship. Remember, a social contract between a leader and employee works as long as there is “mutual consent and valid consideration” for both parties. If a new agreement and shared vision of common goals can be reached, then a new state of leader/employee stability and equilibrium will be achieved. If not, the leader and employee should begin tLeaders and Managers often ask us, ‘What do you do when you have tried to coach and counsel an employee about a performance concern, and the employee has not responded?

Unfortunately, we see far too many cases where the leader hasn’t, in good faith, tried to coach the employee or to put the leader’s concerns into words. Often, leaders look for a quick fix alternative to what is perceived as a difficult and painful confrontation.

We have also learned from first-hand experience that management coaching is not a one-shot effort. It takes regular ongoing discussions and experiences to achieve the level of support and cooperation needed. When you have truly exhausted all your good-faith efforts to coach an employee into change, you have the right to move to the next best alternative, a coaching based solution.

In certain situations, employees have grown accustomed to and dependent on heavy authority in the workplace, or they just don’t feel attached to the job or organization. We are not advocating that the leader wait for someone to pass out a permission slip to try a different approach; rather, the leader should tell the employee that the management coaching approach hasn’t worked and it is time to take a different path. Probably the best thing a leader can do is literally call a time-out, pull back, and reexamine the entire interpersonal/working contract or agreement with the employee. The leader needs to reconsider the basic assumptions and understanding about the employee’s role and terms of employment in the organization. This is a major renegotiation effort.

It is very possible that the job demands or personal expectations and objectives of the employee or leader have changed sufficiently that a real pressure point has been created in the leader/employee relationship. Remember, a social contract between a leader and employee works as long as there is “mutual consent and valid consideration” for both parties. If a new agreement and shared vision of common goals can be reached, then a new state of leader/employee stability and equilibrium will be achieved. If not, the leader and employee should begin to

ave also learned from first-hand experience that management coaching is not a one-shot effort. It takes regular ongoing discussions and experiences to achieve the level of support and cooperation needed. When you have truly exhausted all your good-faith efforts to coach an employee into change, you have the right to move to the next best alternative, a coaching based solution.

In certain situations, employees have grown accustomed to and dependent on heavy authority in the workplace, or they just don’t feel attached to the job or organization. We are not advocating that the leader wait for someone to pass out a permission slip to try a different approach; rather, the leader should tell the employee that the management coaching approach hasn’t worked and it is time to take a different path. Probably the best thing a leader can do is literally call a time-out, pull back, and reexamine the entire interpersonal/working contract or agreement with the employee. The leader needs to reconsider the basic assumptions and understanding about the employee’s role and terms of employment in the organization. This is a major renegotiation effort.

It is very possible that the job demands or personal expectations and objectives of the employee or leader have changed sufficiently that a real pressure point has been created in the leader/employee relationship. Remember, a social contract between a leader and employee works as long as there is “mutual consent and valid consideration” for both parties. If a new agreement and shared vision of common goals can be reached, then a new state of leader/employee stability and equilibrium will be achieved. If not, the leader and employee should begin t

solution.

In certain situations, employees have grown accustomed to and dependent on heavy authority in the workplace, or they just don’t feel attached to the job or organization. We are not advocating that the leader wait for someone to pass out a permission slip to try a different approach; rather, the leader should tell the employee that the management coaching approach hasn’t worked and it is time to take a different path. Probably the best thing a leader can do is literally call a time-out, pull back, and reexamine the entire interpersonal/working contract or agreement with the employee. The leader needs to reconsider the basic assumptions and understanding about the employee’s role and terms of employment in the organization. This is a major renegotiation effort.

It is very possible that the job demands or personal expectations and objectives of the employee or leader have changed sufficiently that a real pressure point has been created in the leader/employee relationship. Remember, a social contract between a leader and employee works as long as there is “mutual consent and valid consideration” for both parties. If a new agreement and shared vision of common goals can be reached, then a new state of leader/employee stability and equilibrium will be achieved. If not, the leader and employee should begin t

e best thing a leader can do is literally call a time-out, pull back, and reexamine the entire interpersonal/working contract or agreement with the employee. The leader needs to reconsider the basic assumptions and understanding about the employee’s role and terms of employment in the organization. This is a major renegotiation effort.

It is very possible that the job demands or personal expectations and objectives of the employee or leader have changed sufficiently that a real pressure point has been created in the leader/employee relationship. Remember, a social contract between a leader and employee works as long as there is “mutual consent and valid consideration” for both parties. If a new agreement and shared vision of common goals can be reached, then a new state of leader/employee stability and equilibrium will be achieved. If not, the leader and employee should begin t

r have changed sufficiently that a real pressure point has been created in the leader/employee relationship. Remember, a social contract between a leader and employee works as long as there is “mutual consent and valid consideration” for both parties. If a new agreement and shared vision of common goals can be reached, then a new state of leader/employee stability and equilibrium will be achieved. If not, the leader and employee should begin to explore and plan a way to separate effectively.

Some leaders say they can’t get along without the employee. No problem – you simply need to look for creative ways to restructure the employee’s job or reassign or retrain the employee to cut your losses and limit your exposure. You may consider “down-sizing” the employee’s role to fit the needs of the situation.

Another strategy is to pursue a path or formal disciplinary or probationary action. Obviously this is riskier; it may be a path of no return in the sense that cultivating a healthy relationship in a climate of hostility and possible resentment, anger, and embarrassment over disciplinary action is difficult. You may be forced to pursue this path to the unpleasant end of a separation, the ultimate challenge for any leader.

The other thing you may consider is to take two aspirin, grin and bear it, and go on lots of short vacations.