Deciding the Fate of an Employee: Second Chance or Termination?
Running a small service-oriented business with a limited team can be a balancing act between ensuring productivity and fostering a supportive work environment. As the owner of a company that manages outdoor services for large commercial properties, I recently encountered a dilemma involving one of my four employees that could significantly impact team dynamics and client trust.
Each of my team members is entrusted with a company vehicle, which they use to service 10-15 clients daily. Given the size of the properties, the work often goes unnoticed unless a thorough inspection is conducted. However, a situation has arisen that demands immediate attention.
One of my clients, having noticed discrepancies, brought to my attention that an employee might have been falsifying his service logs for months. This employee has reportedly not been visiting the site as logged, a suspicion backed by the availability of security footage capturing over a month of these alleged no-shows. Before making any definitive conclusions, I plan to personally review the footage to confirm these claims.
In response to this situation, I have proactively installed GPS trackers in all company vehicles to ensure transparency in the future. Interestingly, all team members, including the accused, agreed to this measure without objection. When approached about the matter, the employee in question appeared perplexed and maintained that he should indeed have been on-site during those times.
This individual has otherwise been a reliable team member, but this incident has cast doubt on his daily activity recording. Knowing the GPS will ensure transparency moving forward, I am faced with a critical decision: Should I allow this employee another opportunity under closer supervision, or does this breach of trust warrant termination? Complicating my decision is the knowledge that this employee is a combat veteran who may be dealing with PTSD, although it hasn’t visibly impacted his work to date.
Ultimately, the decision must weigh the potential for redemption against the need to uphold the integrity and reliability that our clients expect. The choice will define team morale and client relationships in the future, so it cannot be made lightly.
One Comment
This is such a nuanced and thoughtful post—thank you for sharing your approach. Balancing accountability with empathy in situations like this is indeed challenging. Implementing GPS trackers as a transparency measure seems like a fair and proactive step, especially when combined with a fair review of the evidence.
Given the employee’s military background and potential underlying issues such as PTSD, it might be worthwhile to explore whether there are external or internal support options available, like an Employee Assistance Program or a confidential dialogue to understand if there are underlying challenges affecting his work. Offering a second chance with clear expectations and support can sometimes lead to redemption, especially when dealing with veterans who often show resilience and a desire to rebuild trust.
At the same time, maintaining client trust and service integrity is paramount. Perhaps an alternative could be a performance improvement plan, coupled with increased supervision for a defined period, before making a final decision. This approach shows both fairness and a commitment to the team member’s growth while safeguarding the business reputation. Ultimately, clear communication and compassion, combined with firm standards, will help guide the best decision for everyone involved.