HELP HELP HELP, I need honest opinions please!

[cfield]

For those that don't know, I am a supervisor at a small bank. I've only had the position for a few months and am having my first real problem with one of my tellers.
Over the past several months, I've been notified of a couple of errors that are happening to many different customers. They are the same couple of mistakes, she's just making them with lots of people. And she knows how she's doing it and is not attempting to fix it. Following is my notice of probation. Is it understandable? Is it too harsh or too lenient? Keep in mind, we could be fined for making these errors if a customer wanted to pursue it. Especially since some of them have had it happen more than once. Feedback please!!


Kathy will be put on 30 day probation effective today to work on improving and correcting the following issues.

- She will be monitored for abruptness with customers, both on the phone and in person.
-Kathy seems short tempered when questioned by customers, whether it’s to complete a transaction request or when asked for information.
-When speaking with a customer, Kathy asks “what did you need” as opposed to “how can I help you” or “what can I get for you” which causes customers to feel as if they are a bother
-Kathy mutters under her breath when frustrated, in earshot of customers, making customers uncomfortable

-We will also monitor transactions completed for accuracy. Since October, we have had numerous calls and complaints from customers.
-There have been instances where Kathy pulls money out of an account that the receiving customer is not a signor but a beneficiary only due to not verifying ownership codes.
-Money has been deposited, by Kathy, into accounts which the depositor is not owner of. (In one instance, the correct account number was written on the check by the customer at the time of deposit and the funds were still put into the wrong account.)

After discussing these issues with Kathy on multiple occasions, there continue to be errors occurring on several different accounts.

At the end of 30 days, we will reevaluate for accuracy and politeness. If there have not been significant improvements, we will reconsider more training and an extended probation period. However, employment may be terminated if there is no substantial visible effort being shown by Kathy to make these adjustments over the coming month. At this time, we will work on improvement and completing accurate transactions.

[billyskank]

1. Seems fair enough to me

[SofaKingLiberal]

2. If it's accurate, it's fair. n/t

[cfield]

4. Oh, it's accurate

and I left out a lot of other little things but they will be re-discussed with her as well.

I'm just not a confrontational person and I don't want to sound like I'm picking on her; but this is getting into legal mistakes.

[livetohike]

3. Sounds very thorough and the corrective action needed is

clear. How will you measure for accuracy and politeness? I think you need to be detailed there.

[cfield]

6. That's probably something that will be discussed in more detail

during our conversation. I get tired of hearing her yell 'well, what were you wanting?!'

Maybe she doesn't know that it's better to ask how she can help, or what she can do; I've talked with her about it before but it'll be more clearly defined this time.

She's just very blunt, even when she's being friendly, but to someone in the drive through she sounds rude. (A lot of the time she is being rude)

She also curses when someone has more than a one step transaction. All day I hear "oh Jesus, God" or "shit, I don't know"
If the drive up microphone is on, big problem!!

I've been lenient, because I realize most of it's her personality, rather than her _trying_ to be rude, but when I see a customer phyiscally flinch from her words, that's my bottom line.

[livetohike]

10. Good - just give her examples of what she has said and tell her agian

a better way to say it.

I sympathize with you. I was in management for over 20 years. Just be prepared to carry on to the next level if this doesn't work.

Good luck. :-)

[flvegan]

5. I'd dump the first part, or at least

make it measurable:

Kathy will be put on 30 day probation effective today to work on improving and correcting the following issues.

- She will be monitored for abruptness with customers, both on the phone and in person.
Monitored how? Taped, under constant supervision, customer feedback or lack thereof? She needs to know how specifically she'll be monitored.

-Kathy seems short tempered when questioned by customers, whether it’s to complete a transaction request or when asked for information.
"Seems short tempered" How specifically will this be corrected? Will there be customer service training? It's also accusatory.

-When speaking with a customer, Kathy asks “what did you need” as opposed to “how can I help you” or “what can I get for you” which causes customers to feel as if they are a bother
This seems to be covered in the previous one.

-Kathy mutters under her breath when frustrated, in earshot of customers, making customers uncomfortable
When specifically did she do this? Is this documented?

Seems as if your employee needs some customer service training and, since there's a measure of accuracy, testing on her 10-key skills.

To be honest, if it's in writing, I'd simply say that she's on a temporary probation due to complaints received due to her customer service and accuracy in her job. Then, give her the parameters of acceptable mistakes in performance. Let her ask about the customer service issues, and what specific issues there have been.

[cfield]

12. All of the specifics she's either aware of

or will be notified of in our conversation. The accuracy issues are due to her laziness/refusing to verify account ownership. Our system shows whether a person is owner or signor or beneficiary on the first page that pops up and she just doesn't look for that.

I'll work on the specific outlines for improving the service skills.

Hmmm, so many little details.
Thanks for all the input! My supervisor will be in the meeting with me, but I can't get her opinions until Tuesday.

[flvegan]

24. But here's the thing

You get too specific in the warning letter or delivery or whatever, and there's room for her to do OTHER stuff wrong while improving on the specific things mentioned.

Her problems: customer service and accuracy. Both need to be brought up to acceptable levels by the bank. The discussion should be very specific, but the warning vague. Last thing you want is for her to meet your specific criteria for probation while slacking back in other areas. It seems you'd be covering ALL bases with a less-specific warning in writing, and a more specific discussion.

[RoyGBiv]

29. I hate to disagree ...

... but I do.

Written probationary warnings have to be specific. If they are not specific, and if the employee loses their job over the problems, it opens up the company to forms of liability with EEOC and whatever form of employment commission that is present in the state. I've known many people who have been given authorization to sue by EEOC and received unemployment compensation due to ill-defined disciplinary measures. I certainly see what you are saying, but in a legal context, being as specific as possible, to the point of wordiness, is not only acceptable but necessary. You basically want to make very clear that the person is facing possible termination due to specific actions on their part. On a related note, since this is a bank and subject various, stringent regulations, as member of management, the OP also wants to make clear, in writing, that disciplinary action was taken against an employee who has been guilty of doing anything that could get the bank in legal trouble. If that is not made clear, the management could be held liable as well as the employee.

[flvegan]

32. Nonsense.

But then, maybe we disagree as my state is not a right to work state.

Furthermore, if the employee sues, then they sue. If an employee needs to be replaced, then so be it. I'd rather use staff attorneys to litigate than lose another minute of productivity, and not open my employer up to additional liability because of said employee.

Specifics are important, if requested. That's what the subsequent discussion is for. The probationary setting is vague, but when questioned or challenged, the specifics as to the expected performance is set forth in terms. I believe that's what I stated.

Also, you certainly do NOT want to suggest that said employee has been guilty of doing anything that could get the bank in legal trouble. Disciplinary action or not, you just stated that yes, somebody did something wrong, and yes, it cost someone else money, and yes, they are suing, and yes, the bank is liable. The first question counsel will ask? "Why didn't you fire him/her?" An answer of "well, we put them on a probationary status" isn't going to win any court case.

[RoyGBiv]

33. That's quite wrong ...

My state is not a right to work state either. As a random example floating around my head because of its similarity, a woman who had worked as a bank examiner for 20 years was fired after a bad evaluation. The evaluation was very unclear on what aspects of her performance were lacking, using very simple expressions such as those you suggested. (There were very good reasons for firing her, but those didn't come out until later and had little impact on the eventual court case because they were never documented.) She filed with the EEOC, suggesting she had been fired because she is an overweight woman, which in fact is what her evaluations could have been interpreted to suggest when they mentioned "improper and sloppy appearance" without mentioning specifics. She was granted the right and sued both her employer and her manager, and she won despite the very good reasons for her dismissal. Also, she was paid unemployment during the entire time due to the circumstances of her dismissal, despite the terms of her employment revolving around the "hire at will" doctrine, which of course actually means "fire at will." Exceptions to that always exist.

And the real reason for her dismissal? She was staying at home rather than actually examining the banks. She falsified the reports and travel records. The manager never documented any of this behavior, fearing reprisals against him by his management, and was eventually fired himself for covering it up. That's not as extreme as what we'd have here, but that's where this kind of creative discipline goes eventually. I do not suggest a manager get in the habit of it because if it is easy for the small things, it becomes easy for the big things.

Your last statement is flat out bad business practice given the context here. "We put the employee on probation" may not win the court case, but "we failed to report these infractions and intentionally never documented the incidents despite customer complaints" will damn sure ensure you lose it. Furthermore, these regulatory agencies are all perfectly willing to take their pound of flesh out of the lowest person in the food chain. They do it with phone companies, for example, regularly, waiving fines on the condition offending employees are fired and managers who failed to correct and report the behavior go with them. The company itself makes off with reduced or no fines because of this. The key in this case is that for anything to get to the point of something like a court case, the infraction is already on record somewhere, so we're not talking about some idiot who left the "sale price" poster up too long and never got caught in a way that left a clear paper trail. No, you don't admit to that kind of thing in writing. However, if you have an employee that left the "on sale" poster up too long then refused to sell the item to a customer at that price, you damn well better make clear you disciplined that employee for that specific infraction, or it's you, as the manager, that looks like the one encouraging illegal sales practices. Reference some cases where "bait and switch" tactics were used and where these practices were not officially discouraged by management.

Banks leave trails everywhere. I gather from the OP comments that the customers are quite aware of the problem and could already be in a position to file official complaints that, when investigated, are going to wind up right back in the manager's lap. "What did you do about it?" Without written documentation, signed by the employee, it becomes a game of "he said/she said" and the company, to maintain its productivity, will kindly offer them up as sacrifices to the regulatory gods and just rid itself of both of them to avoid the hassle.

But don't take my word for it. I suspect this is all spelled out in policy documents with the company somewhere. If those policy documents state otherwise, go with that. I simply know that my company, also heavily regulated, makes quite clear that infractions by employees that break laws will be detailed in full in any disciplinary action.

[flvegan]

34. Hold on...

First of all, two words..."better lawyer." I mean, c'mon..."may not win the court case?" might as well be a battle cry for ambulance chasing personal injury attorneys everywhere.

That said, this other statement, the basis for much of your piss with me is "We put the employee on probation" may not win the court case, but "we failed to report these infractions and intentionally never documented the incidents despite customer complaints" will damn sure ensure you lose it.

At what point were the infractions not reported, nor documented?

Also, if I have a floor staff member that left the "on sale" poset up too long, then refused to sell the item to a customer at that price, then I'd wonder why that situation wasn't escalated to a manager that understands that there would still be profit, realized or unrealized, in the sale of the item at that price, and would thence, sell the item to the consumer at the incorrect price, and correct same immediately.

Lastly, as a good manager, I say this...if one wants to "take their pound of flesh out of the lowest person on the food chain" then have at it. But that person better not be under my watch. If the person's wrong, they're gone, but if you're looking to lay blame on low man on the totem to avoid a problem? Well, I'm your huckleberry. I'm also in the minority, and that's what wrong with business in this country.

[RoyGBiv]

35. I don't "have a piss" with you ...

Geezus why does disagreement have to center on such firey rhetoric? I just disagree with you for pity's sake. Reasonable people can do that. You're okay. I'm okay. We just have a different opinion. Okay?

Anyway ...

I don't understand your first statement. I was just using your comment.

Second, I think you misunderstand the bulk of my point, so I'll restate it outside the context of this particular situation.

Regulated businesses, that is businesses that are subject to detailed audits of their business practices and service to customers, have to be very open about their disciplinary actions with regard to employees who break laws or other rules that apply to the business. Again using the model of a phone company, the big thing years ago was "slamming" or acquiring a person as a customer without that person knowing it. Other forms of this existed and still exist, such as subscribing a customer to services he or she never requested. These kinds of actions can result in enormous fines for the company. However, the regulatory agencies responsible for auditing these companies and for investigating complaints don't immediately go in and start handing out those fines unless they find a pattern of abuse. Such a pattern can be defined by a manager not disciplining employees who do things like subscribe the customer long distance service without the customer's permission. To determine whether that manager has disciplined employees for this, the regulatory agencies request written disciplinary reports that detail the behavior. If the manager can produce the reports and show that the employee has corrected the behavior or been dismissed, the company will not be held liable through a certain number of offenses. (And, of course, it goes up the ladder from there. The manager's manager will then be in the eye of the regulators, and the dance goes on.)

Your last comment is a very different situation from this and is not related to the regulatory agencies at all. Back to the original context, we're talking about a bank and an employee who has committed offenses that can be prosecuted if a regulator takes a mind to do so. A manager of that employee does both himself and his company a service by making clear that this employee has been disciplined for that action. Once again I will make the caveat that one should consult the company's policy document on things like this. I simply suspect, having browsed through a number of them from businesses like this, that he policy documents pretty much agree with what I've been saying since I'm basing much of what I'm saying on those documents and the reasons for them.

And on that note, I'll add a bit of an addendum to this after some further reflection. I think the OP needs to go into this situation with the understanding the employee in question will very likely not be employed with the company in 30 days. The written warning is a necessary formality at this point, but I think the possibility of honest mistake has already been dismissed with the fact the employee has been aware of the problem and already has taken no steps toward correcting it. I, personally, would terminate her employment unless improvement on a scale more dramatic than I have ever seen takes place. Getting back to a point you made, the company's productivity is being affected by the distraction. In fact I suspect other employees are demoralized by her behavior as well and that it serves as a distraction and bad model for them.

[flvegan]

36. When one says that

what you've stated is "flat out bad business practice" it sort of turns into a piss. I understand and respect what you've stated here, and agree with much of it. My original point draws to your last paragraph. This is a necessary formality at this point, a likely conclusion already drawn that this employee isn't working out. Seeing that, I've put down groundwork to terminate, without recourse, and her lawyer would have one hell of a time raising a compliance issue out of my disciplinary action. I've made a case to terminate an employee that, as a manager, I see as being beyond improvement. If I'm wrong, great. Show me, I'll give you the opportunity. When you do, we're back to square one, no harm, no foul. If you don't, I'm sorry, and good luck to your lawyer.

Your last statement is so very true. I fear that many folks in leadership positions don't see that. Excellent point.

[RoyGBiv]

37. We were talking past each other ...

I don't particularly disagree with what you've said here. As for the "flat out bad business" comment, my apologies. I can see how that would be interpreted as a bit over the top.

I think I misunderstood your position to some extent originally and did not clearly provide proper context for what I was saying in my reply. That is, I was focused on the fact "this is a bank" because of what I've seen happen in similar situations. (I also got sidetracked by the example of the woman filing with EEOC. It was an extreme case and very bizarre in many of its details.) In those cases, while lawyers are certainly involved, it's not all about the lawyers. What the lawyers want are documents, the kind I was suggesting be made clear and verbose. To be blunt about it, when an employee at my company is disciplined for something like this, legal is involved, and details are put in writing as a protection to the company. Without that protection, we're talking about fines on the order of $10,000 per infraction, and since on average employees who engage in habitual abuse are not caught until after they've made 30 or more infractions, we're talking about sums of money that could bankrupt the company. Generally speaking, the fines are never levied *if* discipline for the abuse is clearly documented.

[flvegan]

38. And this is how it should be

I also see how we were talking past each other, and it would appear that the specifics/non-specifics of this case aside, we probably agree a great deal.

We could, though, sit here and bash each other with metal chairs, WWE style, you know, just to live up to the hype of a former potential disagreement...

[RoyGBiv]

39. You have more hearts that I do!

DIE DIE DIE!

(whips out metal chair and commences bashing)

:toast:

[flvegan]

40. Best

laugh I've had all day.

[Lochloosa]

7. I would also prepare myself to terminate her in 30 days if not sooner.

If I'm reading your notice correctly and your post, I suspect you she will not respond positively to this.

Good luck.

[catmandu57]

8. It sounds like grounds for dismisal

I don't believe she's happy in her work do both of yourselves a favor and suggest that she may be happier in other employment.

[cfield]

13. Any discussions we've had since October

have resulted in her saying "yeah, I remember doing that" followed by "awwrite" when telling her it can't keep happening. This lady is 55 years old! She doesn't excuse it, nor does she apologize or commit to double checking herself.

I don't think she'll be here much longer, but I don't have anyone to cover her position right away and I really do think she can improve.

[NMDemDist2]

9. the only thing I'd change is to put the BANK business first and the

interpersonal stuff second.

the "shortness" etc can be subjective, but the messing with accounts is the main issue and (I"m sure) against bank policy and if it comes down to firing her, that's gonna be why you do it, it will save on headaches later.

[Benfea]

11. Can't you just have Cheney shoot her in the face? -NT

[XemaSab]

14. Being cranky is one thing

But if my money went into the wrong account I'd shit a brick!

Sounds like being a teller is maybe not her best choice for work.

I got laid off in August, and it was, in retrospect, because it wasn't the right job for me and I was better off without those assholes. :P

[LeftyMom]

15. Do you have to do the probationary period first?

If she's inaccurate and rude, it's not going to work out. Why waste time dragging out the inevitable if you don't have to?

[cfield]

17. We don't have to

but we try whenever possible. We're getting new systems this weekend, which should end the problem of money going into non-owner's accounts. Any accuracy errors from then on will be totally inexcusable and she'll be gone immediately. She will be clear on this after our discussion when my supervisor returns; assuming I wait that long to have our little chat.

[tjwash]

16. Sounds like she needs to try a different line of work.

Customer service is not for everyone you know. Some people just don't have the personality for the job. She may just have talents that lie in an as-yet undiscovered area.

[skygazer]

18. I agree that the inaccurate transactions should go first in the write-up

I think it makes sense to start with the most serious problems and work down to the less critical. Obviously, customer service skills are important but making mistakes with people's money will enrage them quicker than being short with them. Guaranteed.

If you have to terminate, I always loved the line one of my old managers used to use - he'd put on a caring, concerned face and tell the person, "You know, this job isn't for everyone." :rofl:

Good luck - sometimes it's no fun supervising people.

[elehhhhna]

19. I'd delete the "we'll consider more training & an extended probation..."

from the last paragraph. You also need quantifiable improvement, imo, i.e., how many errors do other tellers make and what is the accepotable number? Put it in writing. Once she passes it , y'all should can her on the spot. Her attitude alone is reason to get her gone. For every customer who's complained there are at least 10 who didn't bother. She is what I like to call a Staff Infection.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

20. I have no advice for you, my dear cfield.......

Since you've gotten some excellent advice here, and I have never had to supervise anyone, much less write anyone up....

But what I do have: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: I hope these will help!

[cfield]

21. Oh thank you!

Hugs definitely help! I will work more tonight on the notice, and I think I'll cut out the opportunity for more chances after the next 30 days. We'll concentrate on improvement, and any errors between now and then that will be cause for immediate termination will be discussed thoroughly.

I really don't think she's enjoying the job which is why she's so uncaring about mistakes. We're in the middle of a merger and she's been hinting for a couple of months that the new company will probably just let her go. I haven't been able to get her to say she wants to go, because she knows I could make it happen so that she'd get her severance pay, but I'm starting to believe she really does want out.

I will switch around the order of things, and be a little more specific in some areas. The rest will be detailed during our conversation and I'm confident that it'll only get better no matter if she stays or goes. Thanks everyone!!

[dogday]

22. 90 Day Probation period

usually there is one, has she somehow managed to exceed it? If so, have you verbally sat down with her and spoke to her about this? That is usually the first step. So, if you have and she continues to make these errors, then your probationary action is warranted.

I would make sure I had someone witness everything you say and do with this teller, if you know what I mean. Worked at a bank for 12 years, I do know the ins and outs....

[cfield]

26. She's past her first 90 days

and we've spoken on more than one occasion about the repeating mistakes. We've discussed it formally in detail several times, as well as informally to just point out that she needs to keep an eye out on account codes etc.
I have documented all but one of the complaints/errors. We have copies of everything and she's seen them all except for the two most recent-both of which I was notified of Saturday. The biggest annoyance at the frequency of the errors is that it's the same account code causing the errors (O for owner or BN for beneficiary) and the codes show on the very first screen that comes up when the name or account number is typed in. And, after the first or second warning (which came after two different accounts had multiple errors on them) I expect her to acknowledge that the codes are a difficulty for her and to have her watching the account numbers. Especially the customer that had his account number written on his check and she still put it into the wrong account.
I will wait until our branch manager gets back on Tuesday before discussing the two most recent as well as the probation notice. The three of us will sign the notice before it gets sent to the HR director who gave me the encouragement to proceed with probation.

[I Have A Dream]

23. I have been in management, and it's the worst experience of my life.

I don't envy you at all. I had one person who worked for me brag to other people about doing as little as she could get away with doing, which put me in the position of being her babysitter.

Bottom line, the job that she has requires two things: being detail-oriented and being service-oriented. She's neither. I respect that you're giving her every opportunity to fix things, but if she screws it up now, I wouldn't allow myself to feel any guilt about terminating her because she caused her own problems. I learned this the hard way. It's a real problem to be too soft-hearted in reference to people who cause problems because of negligence or bad attitude, which seems to be her in a nutshell. My guess is that the other people who work with her resent the way she works (unless she's part of a clique, which will probably defend her with their last breath), and morale will probably improve if she leaves.

Good luck, and, most of all, don't blame yourself in any way. (This would be my issue -- maybe it's not yours.)

[cfield]

27. She has definitely hurt morale

We are a small branch, three tellers, me, and our manager/loan officer. None of us like this one, but we're adults so that's not an issue. We all get along fine because we're mature enough to know that even if we wouldn't be friends outside of work, we're going to be together all day and we all work well together.
The problem is errors that keep coming up.
My supervisor is a little more easy going and lenient; and she doesn't realize the severity of the mistakes. She tends to think she can apologize and the customer will say no big deal. We know our customers very well, and I've been able to smooth every error out; the worst one took a 45 minute arguing match between me and the two customers whose numbers got confused. By the end of it, they were calm and apologized for causing me trouble for having to explain to them why we corrected the error. Now, it's starting to happen to people who are less forgiving. Some people won't just accept us admitting we fucked up and have fixed it and promising it'll never happen again. (Which I'm tired of promising because it keeps happening)
I was encouraged that our HR director spoke in favor of probation because our branch manager was hinting that I should work on training. I will work on some customer service training, but the deposit errors aren't anything she needs trained on, rather it's her laziness.
But, my manager told me to do what I think needs to be done, and I know she'll back any decision I make. I'm still going to have her present/sign off on the probation discussion. It'll all be okay.

[BlueJazz]

25. When I was the Manager of a Home Depot store, I came to realize...

..that people are either "Nice" or they are not.
I don't think you can Train them into being nice..

[cfield]

28. That's the conclusion I've reached

Even when she's speaking with someone she's known for years, she speaks with rude words; it's just her personality. I can accept that, because I know our customers have come to realize that she's not being rude, she just has a gruff attitude.
We'll review some kinder word usage and even though her tone will sound harsh, if she can correct some of her wording I'll cut her some slack. I have a feeling she won't change though. When her daughter comes through the drive, she turns the speaker on and practically yells 'what' in bored tone. And that's when she's being nice to the girl!

[Lars39]

30. Not harsh at all.

I've known of tellers to be let go for much less.

[RoyGBiv]

31. I'd re-write some parts....

A written warning of this sort can be a document of evidence, and it needs to be very clear.

This line:

Money has been deposited, by Kathy, into accounts which the depositor is not owner of. (In one instance, the correct account number was written on the check by the customer at the time of deposit and the funds were still put into the wrong account.)

for example is not entirely clear. I am assuming what you are trying to get across is that the employee has placed deposits into an account other than the one the customer desired. I have intentionally made deposits into many accounts of which I am not the owner; this is how I paid my rent with a landlord a long time ago, in fact. I'd re-write that in a concise, declarative statement that works the example into the statement.

Avoid using words like "seems," such as in the notation that the employee "seems" short-tempered. Use action words, e.g. "The employee exhibits behavior with customers indicating a lack of patience and shortness of temper."

Also, define what "abruptness" means, using a specific example. One can always argue "abruptness" is merely your interpretation of the employee attempting to work quickly through busy periods to maintain an efficient flow of customers. I assume you mean here that the employee is not exercising good customer service skills, not exploring the customer's needs, or, related to the above, losing her temper with customers.

Not necessarily related to the warning itself, but just as a suggestion, try having your tellers say to employees, "I can help you." This phrase uses a positive, action word. It also is not as commonly used, which both gets more attention from the customer and causes the employee to have to think about what they are saying until it becomes habitual, at which point you've trained them not to use trite expressions overall.