CNNMoney.com
Companies Economy International Corrections Pre-market Trading After-hours Trading Winners/Losers/Actives Bonds Currencies Commodities World Markets Money Magazine Real Estate Taxes Jobs Ask the Expert Money 101 Autos Mutual Funds The Help Desk Loan Center Best Places to Live Ask the Expert Ultimate Guide to Retirement Retirement Calculators Rules of Retirement Best Funds Best Places to Retire Fortune Brainstorm Tech Apple 2.0 Blog Big Tech Blog Sectors and Stocks Tech Talk Resource Guide Small Business Makeovers Questions & Answers Small Business Video 100 Best Places to Launch FSB 100 Fortune Small Business Fortune 500 Brainstorm Tech Investing Management C-Suite Rankings Main Create Portfolio Edit Portfolio Create Alerts Edit Alerts
How to Manage a Hothead
Will counseling for an angry employee really do any good? Readers weigh in. Plus, more on how much medical history to reveal in job interviews.
By Anne Fisher, FORTUNE senior writer

A few weeks ago (June 28), you may recall, I fielded a reader's question about what to do when a subordinate is always angry, and I asked you all to tell us if (and how) you've ever managed to make peace with an office hothead. In that earlier column, I suggested steering the person to an employee assistance program (EAP), available in most big companies, for anger-management counseling. Thanks to Jennifer Hudson at ComPsych for pointing out that, these days, not only big employers offer these programs. ComPsych provides EAPs to about 6,000 U.S. corporations, including GE, DuPont, and Sprint, and has done research showing that many small employers, too, are getting in on the EAP action. Among companies with between 250 and 1,000 employees, Hudson notes, more than half (60%) have an EAP in place, as do 75% of companies with 1,000 to 5,000 employees. That's good to know.

But alas, many readers question whether, in the case of my correspondent's constantly enraged subordinate, counseling will do any good. Leslie Nolen, principal of the Radial Group, a Texas consulting firm, writes: "I've got 20-plus years under my belt of dealing with difficult employees. People who throw things and slam doors aren't just angry, they're violent.... It doesn't matter that [this employee's] results are otherwise good. How employees get things done matters just as much as what they accomplish.... Workplace counseling is almost certain to fail, and to burn far more time and money than is reasonable. It's time to let him move on."

Marie McIntyre, Ph.D., is head of Executive Counselors, an Atlanta-based coaching firm. She's written a terrific new book about office politics that I'll be talking more about in a few weeks -- it's a must-read -- but we happened to chat a bit the other day about the angry-employee question, and guess what: She's with Nolen. "Often people 'act out' angrily at work because they feel they can't bring up what's really bothering them," says McIntyre. "But if you as the manager have already tried to open up an honest line of communication with this person, and nothing has changed, then it's time to move on to the consequences." Make sure the hothead knows that, if he doesn't shape up, he will be asked to leave. Then follow through.

Adds another reader, who is chief of human resources at a large, well-known company, and who asked to remain anonymous: "Annie, your advice to try and talk it through with this employee was well-meaning, and fine as far as it went. The trouble is, chronic anger is a sign of deeper problems that are usually resistant to reason. One such person can poison an entire office, which is unfair to everyone else, including the boss. Tell the manager who asked you this question to do three things. First, document the problem. Then, warn the employee. Then, if she must, fire the guy. She'll be glad she did."

And while we're on the general subject of advice with which you disagree, I got lots of thoughtful comments on my July 18 column about whether a cancer survivor should tell job interviewers why, exactly, he was out of the workforce for two years. A reader named Chris makes the excellent point that explaining a long hiatus in vague terms "sounds like the applicant is hiding something. Prison time? Drug rehab? Imaginations can run wild." Another reader, Mark Horstman, writes that he went so far as to do an informal survey on this question, asking "several HR managers, recruiters, and hiring managers" for their views. He says these folks unanimously favor frankness -- that is, they think my earlier correspondent should simply say that he had lymphoma and is now recovered. "All things being equal, I would be more apt to hire a cancer survivor," declares a reader named Glenn Myers. "They are fighters, they know something the rest of us don't, and they have their priorities in place." He adds: "We all know someone who has experienced cancer. If he or she has the ability to do the job, it's a moot point." Hear, hear.

-------------------------------------------------------

Next, see FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For.

Find the best employers in your state.

Got a question or comment? E-mail me hereTop of page

YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
Follow the news that matters to you. Create your own alert to be notified on topics you're interested in.

Or, visit Popular Alerts for suggestions.
Manage alerts | What is this?
© 2009 Cable News Network. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Privacy Policy. Advertising Practices.
Copyright © 2009 BigCharts.com Inc. All rights reserved. Please see our Terms of Use.
MarketWatch, the MarketWatch logo, and BigCharts are registered trademarks of MarketWatch, Inc.
Intraday data provided by Interactive Data Real-Time Services and subject to the Terms of Use.
Intraday data is at least 20-minutes delayed. All times are ET.
Historical, current end-of-day data, and splits data provided by Interactive Data Pricing and Reference Data.
Fundamental data provided by Morningstar, Inc..
SEC Filings data provided by Edgar Online Inc..
Earnings data provided by FactSet CallStreet, LLC.