For those who are intrigued by Best Buy’s Peer Review system, I have another interesting case for you. It seems a Best Buy employee was terminated for falsifying records and later disputed the discipline as unfair. A Peer Review panel ultimately agreed with the employee, overturned the termination, and reinstated her as a Best Buy employee. But, first, a little background.
Best Buy is often paid by vendors in return for displaying their merchandise in the store according to a very precise “planogram.” The employees in charge of our in-store merchandising process will take photographs of the display on a periodic basis, upload them to the vendor, and thereby document that the work was done according to planogram specs.
In this particular situation, a Best Buy employee was terminated for falsifying the documents provided to our vendor. Specifically, the employee took a shortcut and provided the same photographic “proof” to the vendor two weeks in a row. The Peer Review investigation revealed there was much more to the case, however. It turns out the terminated employee did not have responsibility for the planogram that day; a different Best Buy employee had done the merchandising work in question. Likewise, it did not appear there was any real intent to mislead the vendor:
The employee on planogram duty was having problems uploading new photos to the vendor and asked the terminated employee for help. When she also was unable to make the upload system work properly, the terminated employee suggested they simply upload the photos used the prior week. After all, nothing had changed in the planogram since then and the display was set up exactly as pictured one week earlier. What harm could there be in re-using identical one-week-old photographs?
After considering the facts of the case and testimony from all involved, the Peer Review panel found that the terminated employee did not actually “falsify” the documents. An improper workaround? Yes. Deception? No. The Panel also felt the other employee involved – the one actually accountable for the planogram work that day – was partially responsible for filing the incorrect report. It would be unfair to terminate one employee and not hold the other to the same standard.
The Peer Review panel voted to reinstate the employee (written warning only) and recommended a variety training steps to ensure the situation would not repeat itself. My questions for you:
1) Do you agree with the Peer Review panel’s conclusion that “falsification” did not occur?
2) Do you agree the other employee also bore partial responsibility for the issue and should receive similar discipline?
3) The investigation revealed that the manager who lodged the initial complaint had multiple performance issues with the terminated employee in the past, specifically related to filing incomplete paperwork. What role might that past history have played in his termination decision? More importantly, should past history be considered when taking disciplinary action for a current offense? Why or why not?
4) Where is the line between a seemingly harmless shortcut and a critical breakdown in standard operating procedure? How can you know when you’ve crossed that line?
1) Agreed, there is so much work that goes into planograms and on top of that, so much interference by store leadership. Sometimes the programs we are given to work with simply do not work and do you want your manager breathing down your throat because you didn’t get a picture uploaded? No.
2) No, the employee did the work, but in the end it should be the lead’s responsibility to confirm the work and send in the correct pictures. My work would be looked down upon if I had always taken the word of another employee that the work was done correctly.
3) I have learned much about the inner workings of a store and how “close” employees can get. And I have seen the backlash when those personal relationships fail, the work place becomes their battleground. I have seen an employee nearly fired simply because the relationship didn’t work with a manager and the manager slowly turned every other member of leadership against her. Who knows what is really going there and what “imcomplete paperwork” is?
4) I can not even come close to properly explaining how badly SOP is trampled in my store by leadership within and without. I think you always know when you are going around SOP or are being forced to go around SOP, I think you just hope you don’t get nailed on it.