HR Stories Podcast · 2026-08-25 · 35 min
Key moments - from our scoring
Substance score
50 / 100
Five dimensions, 20 points each
Documentation in HR serves three critical functions: confirming what was actually done, creating the foundation for future decisions, and demonstrating how decisions were reached. Chuck Samikian and John Toheimer emphasize that good documentation doesn't mean writing excessively - it means capturing enough information so someone unfamiliar with the situation can understand it months or years later. They reference Eric Meyer's analysis of ADA cases, where employers often lose not because they denied accommodations, but because they failed to document the interactive process, real discussion of alternatives, and undue hardship analysis. The episode includes two practical HR scenarios: Chuck's successful defense of a benefits eligibility question through a saved email, and a problematic no-call, no-show termination where lack of documented discipline created legal risk despite at-will employment status. The hosts stress the distinction between audit-proof (impossible) and audit-secure (closing reasonable gaps through thoughtful documentation), a concept from Lisa Smith of Help Desk HR. Documentation must capture what was known, what was communicated, what was done, and why - but it cannot fix fundamentally poor HR decisions.
Documentation should answer these key questions: What did we know? What did we say? What did we do? What did we tell the employee? What happened next? It needs to be useful and understandable to someone unfamiliar with the situation reading it months or years later - written so a judge or jury would know exactly what occurred.
In at-will employment states, yes, but lack of documentation creates unnecessary legal risk. If the employee had no prior documented warning about consequences, you cannot show they were clearly told termination was possible, making the decision harder to defend despite being potentially lawful.
Audit-proof (eliminating all risk) is impossible; audit-secure means closing reasonable gaps in documentation. You can do everything right and still face EEOC charges or audits, but documented evidence of your process makes a world of difference in explaining what actually happened.
Document the accommodation request, discussions with the employee about options, alternatives considered, which accommodation was selected or rejected, specific analysis of any undue hardship (with facts about cost, resources, size, operational impact), and the reasoning behind the final decision.
Without contemporaneous performance documentation, you cannot credibly claim performance problems exist at termination, even if an employee has perfect attendance. Managers must coach, correct, and document performance issues as they occur, not introduce them for the first time during a termination.
Our reviewer’s read on each dimension, with quotes from the episode.
The episode centers on a legitimate but well-established principle: documentation matters in HR. While speakers provide concrete examples (benefits enrollment email, no-call-no-show case), most insights are foundational HR knowledge rather than novel. The framework - good process, good judgment, good documentation - and the distinction between audit-proof and audit-secure are useful, but not groundbreaking for an experienced operator. Filler like extended throat-clearing and recap of prior episodes dilutes density.
Documentation does not fix, um, bad HR decisions. Right. You can document a terrible decision perfectly.
Documentation creates clarity, consistency, accountability, and fairness.
The core framing - documentation as a workplace culture tool rather than mere legal defense - is genuinely useful reframing, but the underlying concepts and examples are standard HR practice. The 'audit secure' concept from Lisa Smith is borrowed and presented as existing wisdom. The ADA interactive process discussion follows established guidance. Little here would surprise a seasoned HR professional or push thinking in a new direction.
it's about making the workplace better.
You can be audit secure, in other words.
Both speakers (Chuck Samikian and John Toheimer) appear to be HR practitioners with real operational experience, which is appropriate. However, they are also the show hosts discussing their own material and playbook, not external guests bringing fresh perspective. The episode relies heavily on anecdotes and references to their book rather than bringing in high-caliber external operators or experts. Lisa Smith and Eric Meyer are cited but not interviewed.
I had Something happen. Me happen to me. Just a, uh, few weeks ago
we had a great episode last week
The episode includes concrete examples: the benefits enrollment email confirmation, the three-year employee with perfect attendance and two no-call no-shows, the manager lacking performance documentation. These specifics ground the discussion. However, the examples are anecdotal rather than data-driven; there are no metrics, timelines, or aggregate statistics on documentation failure rates or litigation outcomes. The ADA discussion references guidance but lacks case law or specific numbers.
We had told him his transition to full time was complete. He had 30 days to select benefits
a three year employee. Other than those two situations, perfect attendance, week, day after day, week after week, month after month
The conversation between hosts is collegial but lacks sharp follow-up or productive tension. John occasionally pushes back - e.g., on right-to-work vs. at-will employment, asking for policy clarification on no-call-no-show thresholds - but these are minor. Most exchanges are confirmatory rather than challenging. There is little evidence of either host genuinely disagreeing or pressing the other on assumptions. The dynamic feels more like co-hosts reinforcing shared views than genuine inquiry.
But can I just jump in here? I am thinking about when I was a middle level manager at a big corporation.
So let me ask you this question, Chuck. I need more information before I weigh in on this.
Computed from the transcript - who did the talking, and the words that came up most.
Send us Fan Mail Bad documentation can create a bigger mess than no documentation at all. Chuck Simikian and John Thalheimer break down why the real goal is not paperwork for paperwork's sake, but creating a record that protects decisions, clarifies expectations, and makes the workplace better. Chuck shares a real HR moment that could have gone sideways fast, until one email proved exactly what was communicated and when. From there, he and John unpack why documentation matters most in the moments managers usually want to rush past: benefits changes, attendance issues, performance concerns, and the ADA interactive process.
Transcribed and scored by The B2B Podcast Index.
Speaker A: Hi, I'm Chuck Samikian.
Speaker B: And I'm John Toheimer. Welcome to the HR Stories podcast, where
Speaker A: there's a lesson in every story. Hey, John, I want to talk about, um, last week. Actually, I don't want to talk about last week. I want to talk about this week. But we had a great episode last week, and it kind of dovetails into this one a little bit. Kind of a cousin episode. But because my memory is not that great from like a week later, help me out. What did we talk about last week?
Speaker B: So, so last week we talked about discipline. And the take on it, which I thought was really interesting, was if we do discipline well, if we have to do it and we do it well, it builds the culture. If we do it poorly, it defeats the culture. Now there's a whole legal aspect, and we talked about that last week. Go back and listen to last week's episode. But it really was taking a legal case and talking about discipline in the workplace. And if we do it well, it supports the organization. And so we tried to give you the steps. And Chuck, in the, in the notes last week you gave us this great checklist that people can use. Right. And so kind of looking at that and doing that becomes important. And this is Chuck's weekly plug of the book. Um, kind of getting in there. So what do we want to talk about today, Chuck? What's the topic? What's the. What are we going to talk about?
Speaker A: Yeah, so what we're going to talk about, John, is why documentation matters. And it's like, there are probably people right now that are being like, you know, but listen, listen. Are you listening to me?
Speaker B: Because, John, am I supposed to be listening to you?
Speaker A: You're supposed to be listening to me here.
Speaker B: Okay, got it. I'm listening.
Speaker A: I'm gonna say three words today.
Speaker C: Okay.
Speaker A: That may make some managers roll their eyes. Document, document, document again. Here we go.
Speaker B: But can I just jump in here? I am thinking about when I was a middle level manager at a big corporation. And HR is like, you have to document their performance. You got to document their performance. You got to document their performance. Yes, sure. Right? You want that on top of other 500 other things they want me to do here. Um, I get it now. I understand it now. I understand the importance of it. But boy, it is hard if we're not explaining what, why documentation is good. And I think Chuck's going to do that for us today. Um, but we got to do that with our managers and leaders to make sure they understand.
Speaker A: Sure. You know, I had Something happen. Me happen to me. Just a, uh, few weeks ago that reminded me, uh, why I'm almost evangelical about this. You see, someone from our corporate office had a question about an employee we had moved from full time several months ago, actually move them to full time. They were part time.
Speaker B: Okay.
Speaker A: And we moved them to full time. And there's a window when someone can elect those benefits. Well, that employee never enrolled in benefits. And so then I got an email with a question. Did we tell him he was eligible? And, and did we give him an opportunity to enroll? And for that brief moment and you're thinking. You're thinking. I'm thinking. Look, I know we did, um, did we. So I went back through my emails, and bam, there it was. We had told him his transition to full time was complete. He had 30 days to select benefits, and he should come to HR if he needed help. I found the email. John, that's great. I'm telling you, John, when I find documentation like that, it is the sweetest nectar of employment. Litigation, defense. This wasn't even litigation, but I could answer the question from the corporate office immediately. And I knew we had done what we were supposed to do.
Speaker C: Yeah.
Speaker B: Chuck's done something right. Right. Yeah. Uh, no. And I think, I mean, again, Right. I love that sweet nectar. But I, I do think. Right. Uh, I, I, I kind of live that through you. I could see you going, oh, no. Oh, no. Did we do that? Oh, we did, uh, that off. Because, you know, I don't know if this was in your mind, but in my mind, I would have been like, oh, gosh, if I didn't. That means a lot more work for me.
Speaker A: Oh, it's hor. Oh, geez.
Speaker B: All this work, all this thing, and then the trust that I have with corporate office goes away. Right. And so there's all these ramifications, and to be able to go, yeah, I did it.
Speaker A: Yeah. I'm like, hell, yeah. Oh, yeah, yeah. So, um, look, exactly. Good documentation is not just something we create because we are afraid of being sued, though, or afraid of looking bad. But it does let people who are not in the room understand what actually happened.
Speaker B: Yeah, I like that. Yeah, I think that's a good point. Right. Getting that in there and making sure. And I love that kind of that, that viewpoint of, like, we're allowing people to understand that we're in the room. Right. And so if we leave or that person leaves or that person's not there, we have that documentation, or somebody from the outside goes, I want to know why you did this. You're like, well, this is why we did it. Yeah, I love it.
Speaker A: And Eric Meyer's ADA point. Eric Meyer from the employer handbook, folks. I need to tag him in some of our LinkedIn posts to get him engaged because we keep plugging him all the time and he's the inspiration for some of our, of our items. We just dig a little deeper and I kind of try and um, take a piece of what he said, think how can we use this? And so in this regards, we've been trying to make the workplace better and that's what we've been doing with some of our more recent stories. Not just compliance, John. Document, document, document. So that's why this recent piece that, ah, attorney Eric Meyer, it caught my attention. Eric writes, uh, that employer handbook again. And I love his stuff because he takes serious employment law issues, makes them readable. And his piece on Ada turning 36 years old and kind of where those ADA cases are won or lost today. His point is that since Congress broadened that ADA definition of disability through the ADA Amendments act, employers generally should not spend all their energy arguing over whether somebody is disabled enough. The more important question is what happened next? Did the employer engage in the accommodation process, if in good faith? And can the employer show what it actually did? And Eric puts the focus on that interactive process, emails, the documentation, the consistency and whether the employer can support an undue hardship decision with real facts rather than a hunch.
Speaker B: Yeah, and I don't know if you have, you're going to talk about this later, Chuck, but what I. One of my favorite checklists, uh, that we have in the book the Ultimate Guide to hr, um, is the, um, interactive process. In fact, I use it in my classes. Right. Because it's so thorough and it's such a good thing. And you put on the back of this checklist, these are the things you need to train your managers on and you have a list of all the things you need to train them on.
Speaker A: Yeah.
Speaker B: And it's so thorough. And it allows anybody in any organization, whether you're HR of one or you have no HR expertise or you're a department of five, you can look at this and go, all right, this is what I need to do in the interactive process. I'm going to follow that. And we talk about documentation, we talk about all the important things in it. Um, and so I love, I love that I read that article from Eric. I thought he did a good job kind of summing that up and doing that. And when we think about that definition Right. That definition of a person with a disability who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one of their major life activities. Um, it's an important definition. We need to know it, we need to do it. But it does cover a lot of different areas. Yeah.
Speaker A: Uh, so, you know, as you have pointed out in the past, a lot of managers want a yes or no answer immediately, but the process is often more important than a quick answer. Right. So they want, I want to know, I want to know what should we do? And that's probably the toughest part of my job when it comes to this aspect of the job is, whoa, slow down. There's a process. Oh, Chuck does it. Chuck's dragging his feet. Chuck's, uh, I'm like, look, there's a process. And the EEOC say it, John. Eeoc.
Speaker B: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Speaker A: Exactly. The guidance that they provide backs up the process piece. When the right accommodation isn't obvious, uh, the employer is supposed to make a reasonable effort to identify one, usually by, uh, talking with the employee. That's a novel idea. Right. They talk to the employee about options that would allow them to perform their essential functions. If the employer, uh, says something would create an undue hardship, the analysis looks at things like cost and resources and size and operational impact. So if we make a decision today and someone examines it six months or two years from now, what will they see? Will they see a real process or will they see a one line conclusion that basically says, oh, we can't do that.
Speaker B: Uh, I can't do that. I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I couldn't do it, Chuck. Uh, I couldn't do it.
Speaker A: And that's sometimes the answer. We can't do that, Chuck.
Speaker B: I think that what you're summing up there and what you're saying is the ADA interactive process is all about documentation. Right. And it's about being able to look back and go, what did they decide six months ago? Right. Not what did I decide? Because maybe I wasn't here or. Right. And you. And we started this episode and I don't know if you meant to do that. You probably did because you're a genius about like, oh, I don't remember what I. We talked about last week, John. What do we talk about? Right? And how many times we're in the office and somebody asked us something in the afternoon that we did in the morning, we're like, I don't know. And that's where that documentation is critical to be like, okay, I need that documentation, I need to do it.
Speaker A: And, yeah, it's huge. But I do want to point one thing out and one. Make one distinction. Very clear. Documentation does not fix, um, bad HR decisions. Right. You can document a terrible decision perfectly. And I just love that, that. That quote, you know, you can document a terrible decision perfect, perfectly.
Speaker B: Media clip.
Speaker C: Yeah.
Speaker A: Yeah, I. Thank you. I actually want to work on that phrase that I. I like that. I'm gonna. I'm gonna. I'm gonna put that back in the craw here and regurgitate around it.
Speaker B: You can document a terrible decision perfectly.
Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker B: Great. Thanks for doing that. At least we know what you did wrong.
Speaker A: Yeah. So maybe that should be the, uh, the title of this episode. Uh, Samantha, our producer. Um, but, hey, listen, what we want is three things with documentation. We want a good process, we want good judgment, and we want good documentation when it comes to these. These things, you know, that's the rule. Good process, good judgment, good documentation. The documentation could. Should capture a thoughtful decision, not try to manufacture a defense after the fact.
Speaker B: Yeah, you don't want to be like, oh, oh, oh, wait, they're here. Let me write this down like I think it happened. You do it in the moment. You kind of do that in there. Kind of. Kind of get in there and look at that and see that there. All right, so what scares me more, Chuck? No documentation or poorly written documentation? Oh, let me think about that. I don't. I don't. Gosh, both of them scare me now. I'm not gonna be able to sleep tonight. I'm gonna have nightmares. Um, I'm gonna say with poorly written documentation, right? Because when there's no documentation, it's kind of simple, straightforward. There's no documentation, there's no there. But bad documentation can take me down so many wrong avenues that can get me in trouble.
Speaker C: I don't know.
Speaker B: What do you think?
Speaker A: Well, it, you know, it's kind of like, uh, you know, uh, you know which way, how you want to die quickly or slowly. I don't know. You know, I mean, it's. It's like that's the danger if the documentation is emotional, retaliatory, sarcastic, inconsistent, simply wrong. Now you've created exhibit A, John, for the other side. So. Document everything does not mean write anything you want. So we gotta. Really. Yeah, yeah. Document everything does not mean write anything. So I got another example for a real, real world story. Let's, uh, just call it the no call no show. Um, for my own no show. Hello? Hello?
Speaker B: Hello?
Speaker C: Hello?
Speaker A: Are you Coming in today, I no call, no show. I no call, no show. So here's another example from my own HR life. Manager comes to me, wants to terminate an employee for a no call, no show. He says, this is the second time. Okay, wow, what happened? You know, Second, second time in 30 days this person just didn't show up to work. I'm like, wow, okay, uh, what happened the first time? He said, well, we sat down, we talked to him, we gave him a verbal warning. So I asked, did you document it? Did you write it down? Did you, did that person get, did they sign it? You know, did they, you know, what exactly did you tell him? Did you tell him that another no call, no show could result in termination? You know, you have, look, we're in Florida here. Many of you are in right to work states. Could we have terminate someone?
Speaker B: Sure.
Speaker A: But you really need to lay out
Speaker B: in the right, it means employment at will states. Just, just.
Speaker A: Oh my gosh.
Speaker B: Just to correct. Just to correct. Make sure that we don't make that mistake. Right to work is different than employment at will. Right to work as a union thing.
Speaker A: You're right, I did that on. Anyways, we really need to lay out the consequence. So there's nothing, there's no documentation. I look in the employee's attendance, I go back, uh, at least eight months, go back to the beginning of the year. The person's a, uh, three year employee. Other than those two situations, perfect attendance, week, day after day, week after week, month after month, is in it. And I'm talking clocking in at the exact same time, clocking out at the exact same time, takes the bus to work an hour each way. It couldn't have been a more perfect attendance record. Could the company have terminated him? Right. Because we are employment at will. Possibly. But from an HR risk and fairness standpoint, I didn't like that gap. And the first event had not been properly documented. I really could not show that the employee had been clearly told what the consequence could be.
Speaker B: So let me ask you this question, Chuck. I need more information before I weigh in on this. I need more information. So is your policy at your company that if a person does not show up or does not call for one shift, there is possible termination?
Speaker A: No, no, that's the thing. It's not, um, if it's a it, but, you know, you know, two and no, uh, call, no shows. Sure. Uh, you know, now you're showing a pattern. But you know something? You always say, John, is what's going on? What happened? This person had Perfect attendance. What is going on?
Speaker B: Yeah, I mean it's right, it's, it's a, it's a feedback loop and if we're not paying attention to it, be like, whoa, wait a minute, you've been great up to this point. Why? Yeah, and so again, I think everyone that's listening needs to go back and look at their no call, no show policy to see what it says. Is it one shift, is it two shifts, Is it three shifts? Typically I use three shifts just in case anybody's looking at me. Um, and so that's the one I'm looking at. Right? Three shifts. And so if they don't. And again, did they not call? Did they not text? Do they not communicate? Well, that's odd.
Speaker A: Why?
Speaker B: What's happening with this employee and seeing that as feedback to be like, hm, something's happening here. Let's think about that. Um, and this is where I start wondering about the employer, the manager's motivation.
Speaker A: Okay, so I've got another layer here. You know, manager. I had the man. Basically at the end of the day, I had the manager issue final written. And so now the expectation is clear. Now the employee notes the seriousness of the issue and what could happen next. And then the manager said, well, you know, his performance stinks too. Didn't use this, use the S word, but not stinks. Okay, and, and I see, yeah, great PG podcast here. I'm like, okay, great, show me the performance documentation. Let's take a look at when you've talked about their performance. And guess what? There wasn't any of that either. My answer was basically, giddy up and get going on this. If there's a performance problem, manage it, coach it, document it. Don't wait until you want to fire somebody and suddenly tell HR about 12 months, uh, later, right. Of, of that he's got terrible performance. Even though they've had perfect attendance.
Speaker B: Well, you can have perfect attendance and still have bad performance. I will just say that. But, um, here's my problem with this scenario is that we allow managers to get away from this, right? We don't discipline the manager. But my, my point of view, if I'm a leader in the organization and I find out that my managers are not doing performance, guess what, they're getting called into the office and we're going to start to progressive discipline on them. One of the expectations of this job is that you document your employees performance. You have not done that and therefore you're going to suffer the consequences. Meaning you're going to have to deal with that employee. And two, you're going to be written up. Um, I know that may seem harsh, but a lot of times we allow managers to get away with it because, oh, I'm too busy. I'm too this. Well, they're too busy because they're not focusing on the right things.
Speaker A: Yeah, sorry managers. That's okay. And my job is to ultimately protect the company also. So anyways, listen, I think there are three different things that documentation does to us. And if you've, you know, um, if you know of anything else, jump in. But first, it confirms what we did. You know, my benefits email, um, that was huge to me. Second, uh, it creates the foundation for the next decision. No call, no show the final word, include the document of the conduct. You know, what's the expectation? What's the consequence of another occurrence? And third, documentation shows how we get the decision. And that's where the ADA example is so important. If an employee asks for an accommodation, the record should show the request, the discussion and some options considered and was it selected and rejected and why and all that great stuff.
Speaker B: Yeah, I think that's all good. Here's what's going through my head, Chuck. And this is probably something that I would, was challenged with when I was a young leader, young supervisor, young manager. Um, that documentation process, right. Because I got better at it as I grew that I would have literally a file on every employee and I would be like, oh, I need to write a. You know, they're doing really well with this project and this kind of stuff and I would stuff it kind of in there. Um, but I think helping our managers and helping our supervisors actually with the documentation process, what does it look like? How much information do we need? How much specific does it need to do?
Speaker C: Okay.
Speaker B: Can be really beneficial because I think as a new supervisor, people are like, HR is always like, document, document, please document, document. And I'm m like, okay, I'm documenting. But what does good documentation look like? What does great documentation look like? How do I keep that comprehensive? So I can go to an employee and kind of like, okay, here's all the documentation I have.
Speaker A: Okay, so let me, let me try and answer that. And there's no like clear cut black and white answer here. But my, my, my kind of general rule on documentation. And by the way, exactly what you just said. Exactly. Okay, but good documentation doesn't have to be long, it has to be useful. My rule is write it so someone who wasn't in the room can understand it a year from now. Sometimes I say we're going to write it. So when the judge reads it or the jury reads it, they know exactly what happened. What did we know? What did we say? What did we do? Um, what did we tell the employee? What happened next? If the record answers those questions, Johnny, you've closed a lot of gaps.
Speaker B: I love those questions. And I think you could give those questions to a new supervisor to say, I need you to document your conversation. Here's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 questions, 6 questions you can answer.
Speaker A: There's another little checklist, right?
Speaker B: A little checklist. A little like, boom. This is the questions you're going to answer. This is what we're going to do, because it's going to help them, right? And so, again, you build that skill set over time by getting feedback from HR people and that kind of stuff, and you get really good at it, right? And you know, like, okay, this is what I'm going to do. And some people are going to be very fact driven. Driven. And then other people will be a little more narrative. It doesn't matter. As long as when I read that, I can be like, okay, I know what happened.
Speaker A: Yeah. So if we could kind of, you know, we've talked about the interactive process, but I want to, you know, go. I want to talk a little bit about audit secure, not audit proof. Okay.
Speaker B: Did you say audit secure?
Speaker A: I did. I didn't make that up. Who made that up, John? Who gave us?
Speaker B: That is from our friend Lisa Smith of the great help desk, One of the best tools in the world. Uh, that's the social media clip right there. Uh, the help desk. I talk about this all the time. It is one of the best tools for hr Department of one, because you have a person in your corner. You have a senior certified HR professional that's going to answer your emails. Get in there. Um, but Lisa talks about auto secure. When I was first introduced to her, I was asking her about her job and what she did, and she introduced us to audit secure. But I want to hear your story, how you define it and why it matters for us today.
Speaker A: Yeah. So Lisa has said this, and I've loved this and I've used it so many times, is you can't always be audit proof. You can be audit secure, in other words. And people that are watching this on video see my arms coming together, right? You want to close the gaps as much as you reasonably can. You know, you cannot do everything right. Uh, and still, uh, or you, I'm sorry, you can, you can do everything right and still have an employee disagree with you, you can still get an EEOC charge, you can still get an audit or corporate audit question. You can still have a lawyer challenged the decision. Documentation is not a force field. But when somebody asks what happened, there is a world of difference between saying, I think we talked about that, and saying, here's the email, here's the warning, here are the notes. Um, and here's the decision and why we made it.
Speaker B: Yeah. And I think what Lisa says, and she gives us a checklist, um, of, you know, one having that reasonable basis. Why did we make the decision that we made? Like, what. What authority were we using to make that decision? Um, and then always getting the. She always talks about the rules of three. Right? The rules of three. Making sure that we're looking at three different things, and then proactively having standard operating procedures or having a checklist that we follow. So when these things come up, it's not a mystery to us. Um, that's why I love checklists, because I can be proactive and create the checklist, and then when the situation comes up, I'm not in that panic, that fight or flight mode, I can go, oh, here's the checklist, Chuck. Let's go through it. Make sure I'm getting everything that I need to do, and then have that really well documented. Like, look, this is what's happening in there.
Speaker A: Yeah. So, John, we beat the documentation thing up a little bit. So. So I want to kind of just. Just get to the meat of the matter of what we are doing, you know, um, what I don't want people to miss. So it would be easy to make this sound like document, ah, everything so lawyers can defend you later. You know, that's part of it. But here's the deal. It's about making the workplace better. You're like, how does that make the workplace better? That's our whole thing here on the HR Stories podcast, Making the workplace better. Because documentation creates clarity, consistency, accountability, and fairness.
Speaker B: Mike drop, folks. Mike drop. Yeah, I mean, I think that's important, right? And so, again, I think it goes back to how do we make the workplace better? And it's a tool that every single HR person has been using for centuries. Maybe not centuries, but using it for decades. And it does make the workplace better when it's not a burden to managers just throwing it out there.
Speaker A: And here's the flip side. I want people to understand documentation is not just about documenting what the employee did wrong. What? I thought you'd been talking about documenting employees that aren't. Yes, you are. Correct. But it's not just about documenting what the employee did wrong. It documents what we did. Did we communicate? Did we follow up? Did we offer the benefit? Did we consider the accommodation? Did we, did we, did we explain the expectations? Documentation holds management and HR accountable, too.
Speaker B: I'm going to jump in here, Chuck, because I think one of the things that it's not just about employee did it wrong, but when they did it right, we want to document that as well. Right. And did we reward them and did we accommodate them and did we let them know and did we do all those things? Because you do not want to have an employee file that just has bad stuff in it. Because I'm going to open it up and I'm going to be like, you're telling me that this employee has never done anything good in their three years when they've been working for you, Chuck.
Speaker A: Yeah, exactly. So, so, you know, we've kind of beat this up a little bit. And, and, you know, about the clarity and the consistency. Um, and I, and I want to kind of go down to the next, you know, final wrap up here. Um, one of the things that I've said and you've said before is if it's not written down, it didn't happen. Right. And documentation is not about bureaucracy. Uh, it's clarity. And clarity helps people know where they stand. So let's close this out if we can. Can you work with me on this? Want to go down? Uh, uh, go, go on down to the funnel. Bottom of the funnel here and closing out. Yeah, documentation. Yeah, it's. Documentation is a better workplace tool. Bringing it down to the bottom here. Documentation, better workplace tool. You know, you may never see a courtroom. Hopefully you will not. Right. Hopefully you're not. Um, but someday, corporate hr, an auditor, an eoc, an attorney, a lot of times you could be talking to your attorneys. Right? Uh, or even you six months from now, thinking, what did I do? What did I say? Um, you're going to ask, how did we handle this? So I'm going to wrap up my, um, documentation diatribe here, and then I'll let you close us out on this episode of the HR Stories podcast. So, John, as I described at the beginning, and I've had this happen before, there are few better feelings in HR than being able to say, I've got it right here. Oh, I just. It just makes me so giddy. Right? It makes me giddy, you know, but the bigger win is that the employee knew what was happening, too. You showed you were more organized, you Showed you were more, um, you know, kind of with it. Good documentation protects the company. Yes. But great documentation creates that clarity, consistency, accountability and fairness. And that, John Tallheimer, leadership guru, is how I think we make the workplace better. Take us home.
Speaker B: I know. I like that. I really think that's a good kind of way to kind of sum up the session today, the podcast today. And it seems simple that it's a tool that we use documentation, um, but we don't think of about it as a better workplace tool. We think about it as a compliance tool. But it can be, when we do it well, be a good workplace tool. And I had to laugh when you said, what were the words? Um, even you forget six months later, right? Because that's me. I do something and I really catch myself. Even today. I'll write something down and I'll talk about something and I'll do something and I'll think to myself, am I going to remember that next week or when I come back from vacation, Am I going to remember that? And then I'm like, no, because I have in mind, like a sieve. Um, and so then I'll go and like, okay, I need to take a note for myself. I need to document that. And then that collection of documents. Right, Becomes this really important thing. And it does make our workplace better in the long term. Right. And so just doing that consistently and fairly becomes a really good kind uh, of history, too. Kind of history of your time in that company and what you did and what you did well. So I think that's it. I'm going to end there, Chuck and I want. Everyone, I want to thank you for listening to the HR Stories. Patrick. Uh, podcast. Where. Podcast, uh, where there is a good workplace in every story.
Speaker C: Thank you for listening to the HR Stories podcast. The material presented in this podcast is for informational purposes only. Chuck and John always recommend using an employment lawyer or HR consultant to handle any legal concerns or HR issues. We do our best to double check sources and make sure the information we are providing is accurate. We may eliminate or embellish without changing the basic narrative to make the story easier to understand. In certain circumstances, we may change identifying information to protect the innocent. The HR Stories broadcast is brought to you by the team at HR Stories. The team at HR Stories is designed to help anyone with HR responsibilities be better at managing the employee experience. To engage with us, go to thehrstoriesteam.com and learn more about how the team at HR Stories can support your business or nonprofit. Thank you for listening to the HR Stories podcast where there is a lesson in every story.
Other episodes covering the same guests and topics, from across The B2B Podcast Index.
Why Free Templates Cost You More: Ep. 57HR & Cocktails · on progressive discipline73 / 100
Meg Delp with Supporting Employee Mental Health Without Becoming a TherapistGood Morning, HR · on ADA interactive process64 / 100
368 Stop Repeating Yourself: A 3 Step Leadership Communication System to to Address Ongoing Performance ProblemsLeadership Without Losing Your Soul · on Performance management documentation62 / 100
Performance Management, Workplace Dynamics, and Employer Liabilities, with Mark F. KlugerThe Daily Leadership Conversations Podcast · on Performance management documentation62 / 100
Back of House: People-First HR in High-Turnover HospitalityHR Mixtape · on progressive discipline60 / 100Ep164: Disparate Impact Changes You Can't Miss53 / 100Ep171: Doing Discipline RightEp170: Engagement and Management - how to get your team backEp169: What Makes Work Better - Part 2Ep168: What Makes Work Better - Part 1