In the managerial folklore about discipline there is a type of stereotypically problematic employee which one consultant described as the professional weeper. In other words, some people respond to any dissatisfaction being pointed out by an acceptance that they never have been any good at anything or that what is expected in some way impossible for them to achieve and appeal to the manager for enough compassion to just let them carry on as before, but trying really hard. A second stereotype is the counter attacker who either flatly denies the allegation or produces vigorous counter arguments to undermine the management’s dissatisfaction. The idea that the counter attacker actually has a problem that needs to be dealt with is simply not accepted.

How would you deal with both of these stereotypes?

Two different people have complained that the chairs they have are bad for their backs, so could they have better chairs? The supervisor, Barry Jones, who has a better chair, says that they must just get on with it. The matter has been referred to you. You suspect that part of Barry ’s problem is that he regards his chair as a tangible sign of his status. You also know that one of those complaining (Margaret) does have a bad back and has returned to work after childbirth slightly earlier than her doctor recommended.

Apart from the other person who complained ( John), everyone else in the office is happy with their chairs.

Margaret still has two weeks’ unexpired maternity leave so you suggested that she should take those weeks leave and then try again. She refuses, claiming that she cannot afford to be ‘out of the loop’ for any longer and that it is reasonable for her to have a chair ‘like that idle slob Barry’.

How would you deal with 

(a) Her request,

(b) Barry 

(c) John?