Trust is good, control is better

The word "control" usually has a negative connotation for employees. It means "troubleshooting, mistrust, surveillance". Employees occasionally complain that they are controlled too often and regard this as interference in their area of responsibility. Especially the qualified employees feel over-controlled, while younger employees in the training phase have more understanding for control measures of the superior and even welcome a feedback for their professional development. The supervisor achieves a positive understanding if he emphasizes the advantages of the control roles (best case) and contrasts these with the disadvantages in the case of non-control (worst case). In the context of quality management, control is often concerned with the adherence to fixed deadlines. Not only completed work, but also intermediate results are checked so that action can be taken immediately if delays become apparent. Checks are a signal that the employee's work has a certain value, because what is not checked has no special significance and is taken less seriously. The checking process gives the employee the feeling that he is doing something important and he will apply himself accordingly. If he knows the checkpoints and what is checked and when, he can create his own check-up.

What is allowed and what is not
Supervisors can monitor their employees or check whether they are complying with the rules of the employment contract, but labour law sets limits. The Swiss Labour Code (Art. 26 ArGV 3) states:

• Monitoring and control systems designed to monitor the behaviour of workers in the workplace must not be used.
• Where monitoring or control systems are necessary for other reasons, they must in particular be designed and arranged in such a way that they do not adversely affect workers' health and freedom of movement.

Inspections that are not permitted may not be used to prove misconduct, to criticise or to warn an employee. Exceptions may exist, for example, if the purpose is to uncover criminal offences.

Own or external control?
"External control" means that the supervisor carries out the control himself. In the case of "self-control", the employee controls himself on the basis of certain specifications, this strengthens his self-responsibility and increases his commitment. Those who check their own work results on the basis of defined criteria can identify deficiencies themselves and correct them before the supervisor criticises them. On the other hand, self-monitoring requires that one recognizes an error oneself and knows how to correct it. Those who take on this responsibility are under pressure. How intensively controls are carried out depends on the performance potential of the individual employee. A mixture of internal and external controls occurs when the work of the employees is interlinked and overlaps. The supervisor can agree, after consultation, that the employee gives him information about the intermediate status of the work. Marked control points in between (so-called "milestones") are communicated to the employee.

"Controls are not meant to take responsibility away from the employee, not to disempower them."

The employee is informed by the supervisor so that he can quickly see whether he is exceeding the limit values for deadlines, working hours, material consumption and quality requirements. "Self-control" requires a lot of trust in the employees, who control their work results themselves and bear the responsibility for their actions alone. Those who work on their own responsibility also check their results against a schedule and the specifications.

Controls should not take away the employee's responsibility, should not incapacitate him. The best thing for him to do is to regard his boss as a coach who stands by his side. If he feels the trust of his superior, the otherwise so unpleasant controls are more likely to be accepted.

Too little control - too much control?
Controlling is just as unpleasant for superiors as it is for employees. This is because the relationship of subordination is unintentionally expressed, the superiors as controllers and the subordinates as the controlled.

But who says that inspections will always uncover irregularities, that there will be criticism and complaints? If controls lead to positive results, everyone expects a short confirmation, especially if someone has significantly improved his performance compared to before. In this respect, the employees' need for recognition is also taken into account during inspections.

The type and frequency of the checks depend on the employee's level of development and skills. Ideally, checks are carried out at agreed times and in the presence of the employee. The AUGE method has also proven successful: A=determine deviation from specifications, U=determine cause, G=conversation for improvement, E=check achievement of goal. If there are no errors for a longer period of time, the control intervals can be changed or only spot checks can be made. Where initiative and independence are noticeable with coworkers, one can do without complete controlling. The effort of a control must also be justifiable, if one wants to have understanding of the team.

Outcome or behavioural control?
Experience shows that employees do not like to be observed while they are working. This leads to stage fright in younger employees and can make them feel insecure. The employees also draw each other's attention to e.g. awkward work or missed deadlines. If an employee notices the mistake of a colleague, he intervenes immediately and does not wait until the work is completed. The colleagues intervene and give tips. This is a kind of behavioural control, which has a different effect than if the superior carries it out. Behavioural control is accepted when the employee is annoyed by the cumbersome way of working. Nevertheless, behavioural control "from above" cannot always be dispensed with if the colleague is intransigent.

In most companies, only work results are controlled. The more freedom the experienced employee has in the choice of his behaviour, the more initiative and willingness to perform he will develop. Advantages of result controls: They promote initiative and creativity

Justice
The highest principle is the equal treatment of everyone in the team, so that everyone is observed to the same, appropriate extent. Low performers must not be embarrassed and devalued by conspicuously frequent interference. In such cases it is better to ask a colleague to help. During the training of a new employee, control is to be seen as "instruction, guidance, assistance".

If errors are detected during the control, there is a need for action and the entry into a feedback discussion begins. In contrast to criticism, feedback only describes the error, not evaluates it. Constructive feedback replaces criticism and makes it easier for employees to understand that controls are necessary and that they must improve. First of all, the facts of the detected error are named during the control. Then the cause is clarified and possible solutions are discussed. The consequences of proven misconduct can lead to criticism or a warning, depending on the extent of the misconduct.