Failure to separate personal and performance matters proves costly
A Westpac manager who crossed the line between assisting an employee with personal and performance issues entered “dangerous territory”, a South Australian Court has found.
The employee was diagnosed with depression attributed to a “pathological gambling disorder” in 2007.
His work suffered, and the following year he sought help from his team-leader’s manager. She agreed to give him advances on his salary amounting to $2,900, and to monitor his personal spending. She also administered a $5,000 employee-assistance grant from the company foundation.
Before long, the manager noticed the worker making suspicious withdrawals. She placed a “stop” on his account and suspended him on full pay for using bank funds for purposes “outside” their agreement.
A formal warning followed, and when he was later offered payment to resign, the worker accepted. Four months later, he claimed compensation for work-related depression and stress.
Before the South Australian Workers Compensation Tribunal, the worker denied giving the manager access to his bank statements and said the suggestion that he resign made him feel “incredibly” depressed and without an alternative.
Psychiatrists agreed the worker’s employment was “a substantial cause” of his condition. The “boundary violation” caused by the manager’s involvement in both his performance and financial affairs was of particular concern – even if the worker had given her permission to monitor his spending, it was still “grossly inappropriate”, they said.
Westpac contended it “bent over backwards” to assist the worker through personal difficulties and provided “astronomical” and unprecedented support, even though his issues were not work-related. However, in retrospect the manager admitted she had become too involved in the worker’s personal affairs.
Deputy President Judge Peter Hannon accepted evidence the worker’s psychological condition was influenced by his work, and said that in monitoring his funds, the manager had entered “dangerous territory”.
She acted “with the best of motives and out of true concern”, but should have referred the worker to a staff member who did not have an interest in his performance, he said.
Judge Hannon said that although the worker had given the manager permission to monitor his spending, her actions became unreasonable when she placed a stop on his account.
The manager was also wrong to issue a formal warning couched in terms that implied a breach of contractual obligations. The worker’s spending was a personal issue, not a performance issue, the Judge found, awarding him income maintenance and medical expenses.
Equip managers with a framework for tough decisions
Learning Seat general manager Tim Legge says the blurring of boundaries is a “classic mistake” that’s most often made by managers who lack experience.
Particularly in a tight job market, where promotions based on functional skills become more common, employees can be thrown in the deep end, he says.
The problem with being involved in a subordinate’s personal life on one day, is that you might need to performance manage them the next. Even if a manager’s heart is in “completely in the right place”, their actions can be damaging.
“We want to be friends with our colleagues at work,” he says, but managers must also understand the risk.
“It comes down to a matter of training,” says Legge. Training can give managers a framework to help them to know when to be a person’s friend, and when to be their boss.
“So much about HR-related management training is to do with risk management,” he says. “So much of it is about, ‘What happens if the worst-case scenario eventuates here?’ And as a leader you need to be constantly asking yourself that.
“It is a judgement call – there’s no hard and fast rule – [but] what management training is going to give you, is a set of questions to ask yourself,” Legge says.
Related posts:
my Boss is my Friend