The curious case of a disgruntled, young expert

Mario, 28 years old, is a cum laude graduate of mechanical engineering from a prestigious university and a board topnotcher in a licensure examination.

He’s a senior engineer with an impressive track record at a Japanese factory.

After seven years, he was sent to Japan for a three-year, all-expenses-paid training program that included an intensive immersion in kaizen problem-solving, culture and a must-learn Japanese language.

He signed a new employment contract that required him to stay in the company for a minimum of three years after the program. Otherwise, he’s bound to pay the pro-rata equivalent of about $100,000 investment by the company.

One week before Mario left for Japan, his Japanese boss, Mr. Kenji Suzuki promised him an instant promotion as a manager with a corresponding pay hike of four times his previous pay. After three years, Mario returned to the Philippines eagerly expecting a promotion.

Unfortunately, Mario’s promotion did not happen other than being given the minimum 20 percent pay increase and a promotion to a supervisory post, according to existing policies.

The case became complex when Mr. Suzuki died in a car accident while on a business trip to Europe.

There was no witness to support his verbal promise to Mario.

The human resource department elevated the issue to the Management Committee (Mancom), which handed down a decision requiring Mario to prove his worth in two years of service instead of three as required by his contract. After two years, Mancom will decide on his promotion based on existing policies. It was a rare exception to the rule.

Still, Mario remains unhappy with it. He maintains it was an unfair situation that forced him to leave his young family behind in the Philippines to comply with a difficult foreign assignment that required him to work 10 hours a day without overtime pay, six times a week.

Now, he has become troublesome and unwilling to share his expertise. One time, he was suspected of sabotaging a work operation causing defects worth $5,000, except that there was no direct evidence to pin him down. If you are Mario’s boss, how would you settle this issue?

Systematic

When I presented this case to thousands of managers who have attended my leadership program called “Superior Subordinate Supervision” which I have been doing since 2014, I received many encouraging solutions but not systematic and sustainable enough to solve the problem. Many of them favored Mario’s claim of a salary increase and promotion. There wasn’t even a decent attempt to have a win-win solution.

I objected to their proposed immediate promotion that would seriously upset the salary scale and internal equity system, making Mario’s salary higher than other managers who were decades ahead of him in the factory.

Last week, I found a novel idea from some managers of a multinational. They proposed to invite a third-party mediator, say from the labor department, except that it may entail an additional expense to pay for the mediator’s honorarium.

Earlier, I told them to use a systematic action plan that could be used as a template for solving similar management issues in the future. It meant using the expanded version of the PLOC (planning, leading, organizing, controlling) with an eight-point formula as follows:

One, prepare for a meeting with Mario and other managers. Anticipate all difficult questions and prepare for a collective answer for them.

Two, choose the right time and a private location for the meeting. The best time is in the afternoon, say at 3:30 pm or two hours before the close of office hours.

Three, continue persuading Mario to accept Mancom’s decision. Never get tired of this in the hope of striking a win-win breakthrough.

Four, emphasize that Mario’s claim has no legal basis. A verbal promise is difficult to prove, not to mention that it could create a bad precedent.

Five, offer many ideas to make it easy for Mario to accept. It includes a staff function position that could make him a top-notch expert, at least on paper.

Six, ask for Mario’s counter-proposal or other ideas. However, they must be within the bounds of current management policies.

Seven, bring Mario’s new ideas (if any) to Mancom. Explore all possible avenues without making any false expectations.

Eight, place Mario in a Performance Improvement Plan. If there’s no hope of settling the case, inform Mario that his performance will be closely monitored within six months.

Future steps

How would you prevent the situation from happening again in the future? It was one of those important questions designed to test the critical thinking skills of managers, one of the skills required in the “Future of Jobs,” according to the World Economic Forum.

This may sound like a pipe dream to some managers except that they don’t know how to practice them in real life for two reasons: Fear of antagonizing people and self-interest.

That explains why some managers are sympathetic to Mario’s claim for a pay increase, except that it has no basis in fact and law, not to mention the salary distortion that it can create. It is a solution that creates another problem.

To prevent a similar issue in the future, management is advised to revise its employment contract which includes a “no oral modification” provision. That prevents people from claiming the implementation of a verbal agreement, especially when the other party is no longer around to validate it.

Rey Elbo is a quality and productivity improvement enthusiast. Share your story with him via [email protected] or https://reyelbo.com. Anonymity is guaranteed.