Why We Don't Write Up Employees

We don't write up employees.

That doesn't mean we don't hold people accountable. We absolutely do.

We just don't call it a write-up.

We call it a coaching.

There's an important difference.

The phrase "write-up" has become synonymous with punishment. Tell an employee—especially a 16-year-old at their first job—that they're getting written up and you've already changed the conversation.

They're nervous. They're defensive. They're wondering if they're going to get fired.

And they probably aren't thinking very much about whatever you're about to teach them.

I tell our employees and managers all the time:

Coaching isn't bad.

Tom Brady was coached. Wayne Gretzky was coached. Lionel Messi is coached.

The greatest performers in the world don't reach a point where they're too good to be coached. Why would we expect a 17-year-old at their first job to be any different?

The purpose of coaching isn't to punish someone for doing something wrong.

It's to make them better.

Process vs. Person

One of the defining concepts I teach our managers is Process vs. Person.

Whenever something goes wrong, we ask:

Is this an issue with the person, or is this an issue with the process?

Another way to think about it is competence versus commitment.

There's an enormous difference between an employee who can't meet your standard and an employee who won't meet your standard.

Managers often treat them exactly the same.

Let's say a manager tells Jake to clean the restroom.

Jake comes back and says it's done. The manager checks it and isn't happy. The floor isn't properly mopped. The mirrors have spots. The toilet needs attention.

Before we decide Jake doesn't care about his job, there's a question we need to answer:

Is Jake's definition of "clean" the same as ours?

Ask Jake what he was taught.

Maybe he says:

"They told me to wipe down the counters and pick up the trash and stuff."

Well, that's exactly what Jake did.

Jake didn't ignore his training.

Jake followed it.

We just didn't train him correctly.

Writing Jake up would mean disciplining an employee because management failed to establish the standard.

That's not accountability.

That's passing the blame downhill.

Competence Problems Are Training Problems

If Jake doesn't know how to clean the restroom to our standard, we go back to training.

We show him the process. We clean the restroom with him. We explain which chemicals we use and why, how we mop, and why restroom cleanliness matters to the guest experience.

Then we do something extremely important:

Teach and teach back.

It's not enough to explain something and ask:

"Got it?"

Of course Jake is going to say yes.

I want Jake to explain the process back to me.

Better yet, show me.

Now I know he actually understands it.

Jake leaves that coaching better equipped to succeed than when he walked into it.

That's the point.

Both-Win Management

This is part of a larger philosophy I teach called Both-Win Management.

When we address a problem, I want both the company and the employee to walk away better off.

Think about the traditional write-up.

We bring Jake into the office. We tell him he did a bad job. We write him up. He signs the paper and leaves.

Great.

What did we accomplish?

Jake feels worse about his job. The manager can say they "handled" the problem. And unless we corrected the training issue, Jake still doesn't know how to clean the restroom correctly.

Nobody won.

We could ignore it instead. Jake doesn't get in trouble, but the restroom still isn't being cleaned correctly.

Jake wins. The company loses.

Both-Win Management asks:

How do we actually solve the problem?

We identify the gap. We retrain Jake. We have him teach it back.

Now Jake is a better-trained, more capable employee.

Jake wins.

The company now has an employee capable of consistently meeting its standard.

The company wins.

Accountability Goes Both Ways

Now let's say Jake keeps showing up late on Wednesdays.

He's supposed to be there at 3:30. He's late one Wednesday, then another, then another.

It would be easy to conclude:

"Jake doesn't care about being on time."

Write him up. Tell him to stop being late.

Except Jake comes in late again.

So maybe we should try something before deciding he's a bad employee.

Ask him why.

It turns out Jake watches his younger brother until his mom gets home from work. Usually she's home early enough for him to make his 3:30 shift.

Sometimes she isn't.

Okay.

Let's change Jake's Wednesday availability to 4:00.

Boom.

Jake isn't late anymore.

We didn't lower our standard. We didn't tell Jake punctuality doesn't matter.

We found the actual problem and solved it.

But that coaching document doesn't just record Jake's commitment.

It records ours.

We agreed to change his Wednesday availability to 4:00.

If the manager forgets and schedules Jake at 3:30 the following Wednesday, and Jake shows up at 4:00?

That's not Jake failing to meet his commitment.

That's management failing to meet ours.

Accountability doesn't only travel downhill.

What Happens When It Really Is Jake?

Of course, sometimes it is.

Let's go back to the restroom.

We've trained Jake. He's taught the process back. We've watched him perform it correctly. He has the proper supplies and enough time. He understands the standard and why it matters.

We've coached him.

And Jake still chooses not to do it.

Now we're dealing with something different.

This isn't a competence problem anymore.

It's a commitment problem.

And commitment problems absolutely require accountability.

Both-Win Management doesn't mean everyone gets endless chances or poor performance doesn't have consequences.

Sometimes an employee simply doesn't care.

At that point, I have a pretty simple question:

Why does an employee who doesn't care work for you?

Process problems are solved by fixing the process.

Competence problems are solved through training.

Commitment problems are solved through accountability.

Good managers learn not to confuse them.

Why Do We Only Document Bad Things?

There's one more thing about traditional write-ups that has never made sense to me.

Why do we only document employees when they screw up?

If coaching is genuinely about performance, then great performance deserves coaching too.

An employee handles a furious guest exceptionally well?

Document it.

An employee gets mentioned by name in a five-star review?

Document it.

Someone notices another department getting slammed and jumps in without being asked?

Document it.

Someone does an exceptional job training a new hire?

Document it.

Now their employee record isn't simply a collection of everything they've ever done wrong.

It's a record of their development and performance.

Six months later, we're discussing a promotion.

Instead of:

"I think Jake has been doing pretty well."

We can look back and see examples of leadership, guest service, teamwork and improvement.

That's what performance documentation should be.

Coaching Isn't Punishment

The words we use matter.

If every coaching conversation means you're in trouble, employees learn to fear coaching.

That's the exact opposite of what I want.

I want employees to understand that being coached means somebody is investing time in making them better.

Sometimes that means recognizing something they did exceptionally well. Sometimes it means teaching them something they were never properly taught. Sometimes it means figuring out what's preventing them from succeeding.

And yes, sometimes it means having a difficult conversation about commitment and accountability.

But the objective should always be the same:

Leave the employee better than you found them.

Tom Brady needed coaches. Wayne Gretzky needed coaches. Lionel Messi needs coaches.

Your employees need coaches too.

So do your managers.

And so do you.

The next time an employee screws something up, don't start by asking:

"What do I need to write them up for?"

Start with a different question:

"Is this a problem with the person, or is it a problem with the process?"

You might discover that the person who needs coaching isn't the employee at all.