Responsible employee in practical psychology - the level of professional and personal development. See Business Responsibility Line

It differs from a Specialist not in a set of knowledge (a performer or a specialist may have more knowledge), but in courage, determination, will - to do what is needed as a result. The desired result will be! Someone will not be - we will find, the people withered - we will stump or motivate, we are confused - we will figure it out; such an employee always has enough determination and will to get down to business and bring it to the result.

The responsible employee makes sure that the work is brought to the result. It is personally important to him that the client received what was required and was satisfied. If he made a report for the boss, it is important for him not only to hand over the report, he will try, if necessary, to make sure that the boss does not accidentally forget this report and does not lose it, so that everything goes into business.

"I agree to load a dump truck if we don't take it all to a landfill. We take it to people!"

For a responsible employee, the surrounding people, employees, boss and clients, are not strangers, but their own. This is where the responsible employee differs from.

The responsible employee knows perfectly well that the assigned issue must be closed. This means that it is necessary not only to fulfill the assignment, but also to report on the execution and receive confirmation that the manager considers the issue closed.

For him, the question is natural: Is there anything else that needs to be done? Is there anything I can do to help?

In relationships - the unconditional priority of a conversation with a leader (or other seniors) over conversations with equals.

If the manager is not satisfied, the employee does not make excuses and does not convince the manager, but, by asking, clarifies the essence of dissatisfaction and thinks how best to fix it.

Priorities and motivation

Can (dare) prioritize work.

More often a careerist. Drawn.

Responsible Officer and Leader

The next step in the development of business responsibility is the level of the manager (Middle Manager). For the majority of people who have reached the level of a Responsible employee, the line separating them from the level of a Manager turns out to be insurmountable... See Transition to the level of a Manager

My new show on PodFM is out, in which I explain why some people get paid twice as much for the same job.

Quite often, I see two employees sitting next to each other who do almost the same work. Let's call them, say, Petya and Masha.

Their positions are slightly different. Masha is an operator. And Petya is a senior operator. And their salary, respectively, differs twice: Masha has 25 thousand, and Petya has 50 thousand.

The question is - why is that? Why pay Petya so much? Why is he paid as much as 25 thousand extra for various petty nonsense, which takes no more than an hour a week from Petya?

I answer. Pete is paid for responsibility.

Many people misunderstand responsibility. Many people think that responsibility is when a person plays a "gag": he personally takes on any business that concerns him at least indirectly. Let's say it ended in the toilet toilet paper- he will go and put a fresh press in there so that the asses of other employees can somehow turn over before the cleaning lady arrives with a new roll.

So. Actually, it's not a responsibility. It would be more correct to call such a character trait pedantry or tediousness. Responsibility is when an employee takes responsibility for a certain scope of work.

Immediately an example from life. It is necessary to draw up an important document and fax it to another company.

An irresponsible employee will prepare a document, fax it to another company, and on this consider his task completed.

The responsible employee will additionally call in another hour and ask whether the document has reached and whether it is drawn up correctly.

It would seem trifles - a two-minute conversation on the phone. However, if this call is not made, there is a chance that the fax will fall into the hands of the wrong person and will simply be thrown away. important document will not be submitted on time, and in a month, when it turns out, the deadline for submitting the document will have already been missed. As a result - sometimes big losses and unnecessary hemorrhoids.

It is for this trifle - the ability to do the work to the end and check the results - that responsible employees are valued.

You can tell the responsible employee "do this" and forget. He will, and if he can't, he'll call you and explain why.

If we give an order to an irresponsible employee, then we will have to spend a lot of extra time on controlling him. As a rule, managers do not have this scarce time.

Another example from life. The company goes to the barbecue. One of the participants is asked to buy skewers.

A responsible person will drop by the store and buy them. If there are no skewers, he will go to the next store or call the others and say that there are no skewers.

An irresponsible person will look into the store, see that there are no skewers there, and ... on this he will consider his job done. And when they ask him in three days "where is the skewers" he will spread his arms.

Please note: a responsible person is not a hero who achieves the goal at all costs. This is not a masochist who voluntarily takes on other people's duties.

This is just a person who does not hang problems in the air. He always brings the issue to its logical end: either solves the problem, or, having stumbled upon an obstacle, shifts the responsibility back to the management.

Another example. An important device broke down, an employee is instructed to fix it. Repairmen say that it is necessary to wait two months for details.

An irresponsible person will order the parts and wait. The person in charge will call their manager and tell them about the problem. Then the manager will not suddenly find out in a week that the device is still broken and will be repaired no one knows when.

It should be noted that additional phone calls do not take any time. On the contrary, responsibility saves a lot of time, which otherwise would have to be spent on correcting one's own mistakes.

At the same time, responsible people are usually paid one and a half to two times more in the same position than irresponsible ones. The conclusions are perhaps obvious. Being responsible is both easier and more profitable in terms of money.

Source: Electronic catalog of the branch department in the direction of "Jurisprudence"
(libraries of the Faculty of Law) Scientific Library them. M. Gorky St. Petersburg State University

• The concept of a responsible worker in Soviet labor law.
  Starodubskaya, E. N.
  

  E. N. STARODUBSKAYA,

  PhD in Law

  THE CONCEPT OF THE RESPONSIBLE WORKER IN THE SOVIET

  LABOR LAW

  The current labor legislation operates with the concept of "responsible employee" in two cases - when it comes to establishing a monthly probationary period when hiring and when imposing disciplinary responsibility in the order of subordination. In the first case, this term is used in the Labor Code of the RSFSR (Article 22), in the second - in the Regulation on disciplinary responsibility in the order of subordination, approved by the decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR of March 29, 1932. However, neither one nor the other act explain this concept, do not give a list of persons who should be considered responsible employees, do not formulate the criteria from which to proceed when delimiting this category of employees. The concept of a responsible worker was formed historically. It received regulatory approval in the 1920s. Thus, in the resolution of the People's Commissariat of Labor of the USSR dated March 31, 1925, it was noted that wages at the rate of responsible employees should be paid to those political workers who take a responsible part in the cause of party, trade union, Soviet, economic and cooperative construction and are responsible not only for the technical fulfillment of the duties entrusted to them, but are also responsible for the political and ideological implementation of the duties entrusted to them. 1 The number of responsible, political workers included: chairmen of executive committees (district, city, district), heads of departments of executive committees, judges, prosecutors, heads of enterprises, institutions, organizations. executive editors of all-union, republican (union and autonomous republics), regional newspapers, etc. 2 It should be noted that even then the category of responsible employees covered a limited circle of people: for this purpose, a list of positions assigned to this category was established.

  Initially special legal regulation labor of responsible workers concerned only the issues of their wages. In general, the status of this category of employees was regulated by social norms contained in party, trade union charters and other documents. Over time, the scope of legal regulation were; includes questions relating to other parties labor activity responsible workers. For example, for this category, an administrative procedure for the consideration of labor conflicts was established. In a private explanation of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR dated February 7, 1927 on the judicial procedure for the reinstatement of persons incorrectly dismissed from service, it was noted: “taking into account the special nature of the work of employees public institutions And state enterprises, whose work requires not only proper qualifications, but also special confidence in this person, as well as persons receiving positions of responsible political workers, to recognize that complaints of these persons about improper dismissal should be considered only in an administrative manner. 3 The circle of persons subject to this clarification corresponded to the list of positions provided for by the already mentioned decree of March 31, 1925 on the payment of responsible political workers (and later additions to it). The administrative procedure for considering complaints on the listed issues also extended to persons of senior administrative and technical personnel of state institutions and enterprises enjoying the right to hire and dismiss. 4

  Along with the introduction of an administrative (higher in the order of subordination bodies and persons) procedure for the consideration of labor disputes, the list of responsible employees was specified. This category included: a) heads of enterprises, institutions, organizations and their deputies; b) leaders structural divisions the indicated bodies (heads of workshops, foremen, etc.); c) elected employees holding paid positions in the organization that elected them; d) other persons (for example, managing editors periodicals, fire chiefs in enterprises, chiefs of fire departments and teams, etc.). 5 The dominant category in this list was executives, which is also typical for subsequent lists. Thus, the resolution of the People's Commissariat of Labor of the USSR on the procedure for dismissal and reinstatement of responsible employees, adopted on October 18, 1929, whose cases on dismissal and reinstatement were not subject to consideration in the RSC and labor sessions, provided for the introduction of an administrative procedure for considering labor disputes for persons enjoying the right to hire and dismiss in all enterprises, institutions and organizations, as well as for other categories of responsible employees of state, cooperative and public enterprises, institutions, organizations holding positions listed in the three lists. 6

  List No. 1 (categories of responsible employees) was general, as it applied to all state, cooperative and public enterprises, institutions, organizations, except for transport and communications. Compared to the above list, it was expanded and consisted of 18 items. 7 In particular, it included such categories of responsible employees as chief and senior accountants of all institutions, enterprises and organizations, heading financial accounting and accounting departments and units; contractors with independent departments or offices; other executives classified as responsible by law.

  Lists No. 2 and No. 3 concerned responsible employees of transport and communications enterprises.

  In the 30s, the legal regulation of the labor of responsible workers received further development in the legislation on disciplinary responsibility. For responsible employees, disciplinary responsibility was established in the order of subordination, which was regulated by the decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR of March 20, 1932. .9 and consisted of 25 items.

  The main group among the categories of responsible employees in this list were also executives of enterprises, institutions and organizations. In addition to them, there were executive editors of periodicals and non-periodicals, their full-time deputies and assistants, executive secretaries of newspaper, magazine, book publishing houses and executive secretaries of editorial offices, technical and sanitary inspectors of departments, tax inspectors, inspectors of organizational departments of the CEC of autonomous republics, regional and regional executive committees and other responsible employees.

  The list of responsible employees who bear disciplinary responsibility in the order of subordination has undergone certain changes in connection with the adoption of the Regulations on the procedure for considering labor disputes of January 31, 1957. This Regulation introduced a single list of categories of employees whose labor disputes concerned both issues of dismissal, transfer and reinstatement in position and disciplinary action. However, unlike the previous ones, this list did not contain a direct indication that the employees included in it were responsible. The regulation on disciplinary liability in the order of subordination, as before, considered employees falling under this list as responsible.

  The legislator, establishing the list of employees whose labor disputes were considered in the order of subordination, proceeded from different criteria. In some cases, such a criterion was the nature of the functions performed (leading, elected, prosecutorial and investigative workers), and in others - a special way of filling positions (professional staff, employees of research institutions, artists and others). creative workers whose positions are filled by competition). If the first by the nature of the functions performed could be recognized as responsible workers, then this in no way applied to the second. With subsequent additions, categories of employees were included in the list mainly by the nature of the functions performed.

  The regulation on the procedure for considering labor disputes of May 20, 1974 made significant changes to the list of categories of workers whose labor disputes are considered by higher authorities in the order of subordination. The Appendix to the new Regulation contains two lists (instead of the previously existing single list). The basis for the inclusion of certain categories of employees in List No. 2 is a specific way of filling positions (their election to a position by competition) or a specific condition for maintaining a position (positive certification). After all, only in cases where the employees included in List No. 2 are dismissed from work in connection with the recognition of their inadequacy for their position (as a result of attestation or in another in due course) or due to not being elected by competition for a new term, they can file a complaint in the order of subordination to higher authorities. If labor disputes of employees included in the list No. 2 are caused by their dismissal for some other reason or are not related to dismissal at all (for example, the imposition of a disciplinary sanction is appealed), they, in accordance with Regulation 1974, cannot be considered in the order of subordination .

  Although the criterion for including certain categories of employees in List No. 1 is the nature of the functions performed (this includes, in particular, executive, elected employees holding paid positions in the organization that elected them; prosecutors and investigators; some employees of editorial offices and publishing houses, TASS, radio and television, bodies of the USSR Gosgortekhnadzor system, fish protection, bodies of the system of the main department for foreign tourism; employees of the Main Customs Department, diplomatic workers), these functions are very different in their content. Some relate to the management of an enterprise, institution, organization or their structural units (executives), others are related to the administration of justice, the investigation of crimes and the supervision of the rule of law (judges and prosecutorial and investigative workers), and others to the management of the activities of means mass media(employees of TASS, radio, television, newspaper editors), or with the relations of the Soviet state with foreign states (diplomatic workers) and citizens (employees of the Main Directorate for Foreign Tourism and employees of the Main Customs Directorate); this also includes control functions (employees of the Gosgortekhnadzor system and fish protection workers), etc.

  However, the posts included in List No. 1 combine common feature on the basis of which they can be classified as responsible workers - they all involve the performance of functions that the state recognizes as particularly important. The concept of a responsible worker in the form in which it was historically formed in our country does not mean one or another content. labor functions, namely their importance. The same meaning is given to the word "responsible" in a purely semantic sense. 10

  Therefore, recognizing the importance of the functions performed as a decisive criterion in the concept of a responsible employee and taking into account that responsibility in the order of subordination is characteristic primarily and mainly of the category of responsible employees, we must come to the conclusion that the normative basis for classifying certain employees as list No. 1 of Appendix No. 1 to the Regulations on the procedure for considering labor disputes of May 20, 1974 should serve as a number of responsible employees, although the term “responsible employees” itself is not directly used in it. In this regard, a one-month probationary period for employment should be applied only to those employees who are indicated in this list. It is hardly correct to take a different approach to the concept of a responsible employee when resolving issues of disciplinary responsibility in the order of subordination and the duration of a test when hiring.

  In Soviet literature, other points of view have been expressed regarding the concept of a responsible worker.

  According to one of them, “when deciding whether an employee is a responsible employee, one should be guided by the Unified nomenclature of positions of employees, approved by the Decree of the State Labor Committee of September 9, 1967.” 11 At the same time, employees classified by the Unified Nomenclature as managers or specialists are recognized as responsible employees. 12 Although this point of view has received some recognition, it was formulated in the form of a postulate and has not received any serious substantiation.

  Why, then, when referring this or that employee to the category of responsible employees, one should be guided precisely by the Unified nomenclature of positions of employees? To this question, none of the scientists who share given point vision, does not respond. There is no answer in the explanation of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the USSR. Supporters of the considered point of view raise another question - which of the three categories of employees provided for by the Unified nomenclature of positions of employees can be classified as responsible employees. Since it is clear that technical performers do not fall under this concept, it is concluded that the other two categories form it. But after all, the list of specialists in the Unified Nomenclature of Official Positions is extremely wide, it covers not only employees whose functions are undoubtedly essential for the state (for example, people's judge, prosecutor, investigator, envoy, embassy adviser, diplomatic courier, etc.), but and a number of workers who cannot be called responsible workers in this sense (for example, a librarian, bibliographer, merchandiser, economist, accountant, etc.).

  The unified nomenclature divides employees into three categories not according to the degree of importance of the functions they perform, but according to the nature of their work, and, perhaps, this is precisely why it does not use the concept of "responsible worker".

  Attention is also drawn to the fact that in judicial practice in criminal cases, when defining the concept of “official in a responsible position”, the Unified Nomenclature of Positions of Servants is not referred to. The decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR of July 31, 1962 stated that “the issue of the responsible position of an official accused of taking a bribe is decided by the court depending on the specific circumstances of the case, taking into account the nature of the position held and the importance of the functions performed by him (representatives of the authorities, executives of enterprises, institutions and departments, operational workers controlling and auditing bodies, etc.). 13 Of course, the criminal law concept of an official occupying a responsible position is not identical to the concept of “responsible employee” used in labor law, but when deciding on the responsible position of an employee (after all, a responsible employee is nothing more than an employee occupying a responsible position!) in labor law, the same criterion should be applied as in criminal law.

  A different point of view was expressed by V. I. Turanov, who identifies the concept of responsible employees with the commanding staff of the structural divisions of enterprises and institutions (heads of services and departments of plant management, heads of workshops, foremen, senior foremen, etc.), excluding the category "leading workers" from it (he refers to the latter only those officials whose activities are carried out on the scale of the USSR, union or autonomous republic, territory, region, national district, city, district, enterprise, institution, organization). In his opinion, responsible employees, unlike executives, “do not directly possess the administrative powers of the governing bodies or exercise them, but in a specific area and in other forms. The official powers of these officials are determined by the tasks of this governing body, the volume and nature of the work performed. Therefore, such persons have much less official rights and obligations than those of senior employees. 14 Undoubtedly, in terms of their competence and legal status heads of structural subdivisions of enterprises (institutions, organizations) differ from the heads of these enterprises, but both categories of officials perform managerial functions (albeit in different volumes and in different forms) and are included in the Unified nomenclature of positions of employees in the category of "managers", as well as in List No. 1 of the Appendix to the Regulations on the Procedure for Considering Labor Disputes of 1974.

  Of course, from the point of view of bringing these two categories of workers to responsibility by the organs of people's control, there are important differences, but they do not directly relate to the concept of responsible workers. To assert that the highest group of leaders are not responsible workers means to contradict both the logical meaning of the term "responsible worker" and the development of this concept in the history of Soviet legislation.

  1 See: News of the NKT USSR, 1925, No. 17-18.

  2 See: Regulations on the Remuneration of Remuneration of Responsible Political Workers of November 25, 1929 (Izvestia of the NKT USSR, 1929, No. 48-49); Circular of the NCT of the USSR of December 10, 1929 No. 374 On the procedure for implementing the Regulations of November 251, 1929 (Appendix to No. 48-49 of the News of the NCT of the USSR for 1929).

  3 See: News of the NKT USSR, 1927, No. 24.

  4 See: Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR of May 16, 1927 “On reinstatement judicial order persons incorrectly dismissed from service” (Izvestia of the NKT USSR, 1927, No. 29).

  5 Decree of the NCT of the USSR of March 16, 1929 “On the procedure for dismissal and reinstatement of responsible employees, whose cases on dismissal and reinstatement are not subject to consideration in the RCC and labor sessions” (see: Izvestiya NKT USSR, 1929, No. 15 -16).

  6 See: News of the NKT USSR, 1930, No. 1-2.

  7 See: Appendix No. 1 to Art. 1 of the resolution of the CNT of October 18, 1929 (Izvestiya of the NCT of the USSR, 1930, No. 1-2)

  8 See: SU RSFSR, 1932, No. 32, Art. 152.

  9 See: News of the NKT RSFSR, 1932, No. 24

  10 Explanatory dictionaries of the Russian language explain the word “responsible” as “associated with responsibility, very serious, important” (Dictionary of the modern Russian literary language. M., 1959, v. 8, p. 1273-1274), “essentially important, very serious ”(Ozhegov S, I. Dictionary of the Russian language. M., 1973, p. 427).

  11 Korshunov Yu. N., Lifshits R. 3., Rumyantseva M. S. Soviet labor legislation. M., 1976, p. 27.

  12 See ibid. The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the USSR gave the same answer to requests from courts and organizations regarding the application of the provisions labor law concerning the probationary period (see: Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the USSR, 1977, No. 4, p. 41).

  13 Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the USSR, 1962, No. 5, p. 11. The same provision was reproduced in 1976 in the decision of the Presidium of the Moscow City Court (see: Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR, 1976, No. 12, p. 9).

  14 See: Turanov V. I. Bringing to responsibility by the bodies of people's control. M., 1972, p. 12-14

Information updated:25.11.2003

Each candidate declares that he is a responsible employee. This is one of the most frequent qualities mentioned in a resume. How to determine whether the applicant is responsible not only in words, but also in deeds? In the article you will find six ideas for such a check.

In one of financial companies opened a new department - the development of banking and insurance products. The HR service was given a difficult task - to find real professionals, to gather "stars" in the new department. Salaries were set accordingly. Together with the relevant divisions of the company, the HR service has developed tests and cases that allow assessing the professionalism of applicants. Soon the division of "stars" was completed. However, time passed, and the results of their work left much to be desired. There are few creative ideas, and those that are, as it turned out, are not carefully thought out. Errors popped up, various technical failures occurred.

After discussing the state of affairs with the CEO, the HR director set high KPIs for the “star” employees, made a schedule for when they would report. But that didn't fix the situation. Then the HR Director talked to the employees who, by the nature of their activities, communicated with the "stars", watched them himself and understood what was the matter. They were too self-confident, they believed that they knew and were able to do everything. These professionals treated their work with coolness. In a word, the specialists did not approach the matter responsibly enough. And this cannot be compensated by strengthening control and increasing KPI. It was decided to fire all the "stars" and recruit new employees. But only now to evaluate whether such a quality as responsibility is inherent in them.

1. The recruiting manager and the head of the division may have different understandings of what responsibility is. . Use 7 Definitions of a Responsible Employee

What new employee should have such a quality as responsibility, the manager usually indicates in the application for selection, which he sends to the HR service. With all the seemingly obvious meaning of the word "responsibility", it can be given different interpretations. There are at least seven definitions of a responsible employee:

1. Responsible for his words, always fulfills promises, you can rely on him (or her).
2. Does not wait for instructions, knows how to make decisions and follow them.
3. Thinks about the team, takes responsibility for the work of colleagues and subordinates.
4. He does not look for the guilty, admits his guilt and his mistakes and corrects them himself.
5. Knows his business - works conscientiously, quickly and efficiently.
6. Comes to work on time and delivers projects on time.
7. Despite the difficulties, brings the work to the end.

It cannot be ruled out that the HR manager understands responsibility as something different than the head of the department. Therefore, ask hiring managers to check with the heads of departments how they understand responsibility in relation to a particular employee. Then many mistakes can be avoided.

2. Pay attention to the little things: did the candidate look at the location map, called if he was late

Even by the way a candidate gets to your company for an interview, you can judge how responsible he is. If, let's say, a candidate started calling you an hour before the interview and asking for the address of your company, specifying how to get there (although you sent the address and directions to email applicant), most likely, he is not a very responsible person. Otherwise, I would certainly have gone to the company's website, studied the location map, and if I called the company, it was only to clarify a separate nuance.

The level of responsibility is also evidenced by the behavior of the candidate in cases when he is late for an interview. If he calls in advance and warns that he has entered or drove in the wrong place, most likely he is responsible. If he calls at the time when the interview should already begin, or does not call at all and does not warn of being late, but simply comes later, it can be assumed that he is not responsible enough (for other little things that can serve as indicators of irresponsibility, see the diagram below ).

Scheme. 4 little things that show a candidate is irresponsible

3. Provoke the candidate to be frank, sympathize: “And you meekly performed such a volume of work ?!”

This can be said when you talk to a candidate about his previous jobs and responsibilities. Act like you're surprised how wide his circle was. job duties(maybe it really was wide). And then express slight bewilderment: “As soon as you had enough strength for everything ?! And you patiently dragged all this burden on yourself? You can also notice that there are unscrupulous employers who strive to put the entire load of work on those who are lucky, and then they also scold these executive employees for the slightest flaws, as if testing the patience of people.

See what the applicant's reaction to your words will be. Perhaps he will pick up your reasoning and begin to talk about unscrupulous employers. Then ask if the candidate had to deal with such employers, if he tried to somehow explain to the management that you can’t load employees like that.

Discussing negligent employers with an HR manager, the applicant said that he had to work for such. To the question of the recruiting manager about whether he had made any attempts to rectify the situation and reduce the unreasonably high workload, eliminate impossible requirements from the manager, the candidate said: “I tried, but it was useless. At some point, I just stopped doing some of the assignments. Yes, I lost part of the bonus. So what?! This part is not worth the effort. And the company is not my business. Why do I have to work for her 10 hours a day?!" There is a certain logic in such a position, and in principle the candidate can be understood. But the very fact that he simply took and silently did not complete the tasks suggests that he can be irresponsible. After all, the applicant was probably a link in the chain of business processes, and other people depended on his work. It turns out that he put them in a difficult position and, as follows from his words, did not think about it, did not even regret that he had to disrupt some tasks and let his colleagues down.

Let's say the following answer can be considered encouraging: “I realized that the workload was high, and when the management ignored my statements about this, I began to look for a new job. But before the dismissal, I tried to fulfill all the tasks. After all, the results of my colleagues depended on the results of my work. I could not let anyone down, and therefore I was late at work. This person is most likely responsible.

4. Invite the applicant to solve the case “I need a promotion”

So you will understand whether a person is ready to take responsibility. The essence of the case is as follows: an employee who has been in the same position in the department for several years asked the manager to promote him. He agreed, but put three conditions. The candidate must evaluate each condition. By what he says, you will be able to judge whether the candidate is afraid of responsibility or not. You can download the text of the case and the key to it in the Attached Documents section at the end of the article.

5. Ask: "What would a former boss say about you?" Then offer to call him

Ask this provocative question out of the blue: “If we asked your former boss, would he characterize you as a responsible person?” With a high degree of probability, we can assume that the candidate will answer: "Yes" (even if it is not). After that, say: “Let's call him right now. Do you have his mobile or work phone number?” Now observe the behavior of the candidate. If he says that he does not have the phone number of the former boss, or hesitantly says: “Well, I don’t know if this is good ...”, or suggests: “Let's not now?”, This most likely indicates that the candidate wants to get away from the conversation with the former manager. Most likely, the person is not sure that the boss will characterize him as a responsible employee, and the candidate is inclined to embellish himself.

6. Tell a story about an employee's mistake. Understand if the candidate is responsible for their actions or tends to blame others

This is a projective test: we encourage the candidate to think abstractly, but in fact we understand how he acts and thinks himself. History could be like this.

A highly qualified specialist worked in the company, whom all employees respected, and the authorities appreciated. But suddenly competitors began to poach a valuable specialist. He nodded and walked over to them. However, he soon realized that high salary due to the fact that you have to work in conditions of terrible multitasking. Three months later, a valuable shot ran out of steam, quit his competitors and asked to join the company. The CEO gave permission to take it back.

Find out what the candidate thinks about this story. If he begins to say that the bosses of the company from which the specialist left are to blame for everything, then most likely the candidate is inclined to shift the responsibility to others. If, however, he begins to rest on the fact that the specialist should have clarified and found out everything before moving to another company, remember the proverb “It’s good where we are not” and do not discount that he was valued in the company, then he probably lays responsibility for their own actions. And not inclined to act thoughtlessly.

Important Findings

1. To see if responsibility is really a character trait of a candidate, provocations will help: wonder how he could endure such a load. It may turn out that he ignored the tasks.
2. The candidate will show a true attitude to work if he asks projective questions and cases (“There are negligent employers ...”, “An employee was lured away by competitors ...”).
3. “Let’s call your manager now and ask if you were responsible for the matter?”. Offering this suddenly to a candidate, the HR manager will see a genuine reaction.

3.1. Disciplinary responsibility

The disciplinary liability of employees is one of the types of legal liability that is provided for by law for misconduct. Disciplinary responsibility is the obligation of the employee to be punished, provided for by the norms of labor law, for the unlawful failure to fulfill their labor duties.

The basis for bringing to disciplinary responsibility is a disciplinary offense. A disciplinary offense is a failure to perform or improper performance by an employee due to his fault of the labor duties assigned to him. A disciplinary offense has a set of features, has a subject, a subjective side, an objective side, an object. The subject of a disciplinary offense can only be a citizen who is a member of the labor relations with a specific employer and violating labor discipline. The subjective side is the fault of the employee (in the form of intent or negligence). The objective side of a disciplinary offense is harmful consequences and a causal relationship between them and the action (inaction) of the offender. The object of a disciplinary offense is the internal labor schedule of the organization.

Compared with a disciplinary offense, a labor offense is a broader concept. It includes, in addition to disciplinary offenses, also offenses that may lead to prosecution. liability tortfeasor, i.e. liability under labor law.

Bearing in mind a labor offense, it is more correct to speak not about a violation of labor obligations, but about a violation of obligations under an employment relationship. In accordance with Art. 21 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, an employee is obliged: to conscientiously fulfill his labor duties assigned to him by an employment contract; follow the rules of the internal work schedule organizations; observe labor discipline; comply with established labor standards; comply with the requirements for labor protection and ensuring labor safety; take care of the property of the employer and other employees; immediately inform the employer or immediate supervisor about the occurrence of a situation that poses a threat to the life and health of people, the safety of the property of the employer. The legislator believes that the employee, being the subject of an employment relationship, is obliged not only to conscientiously perform labor duties, but also to fulfill a number of other duties in the employment relationship. Therefore, the wording of the disciplinary offense given in Art. 192 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, unreasonably narrows the circle of grounds for bringing to disciplinary responsibility.

This or that action (inaction) of an employee may entail disciplinary liability if the following conditions are simultaneously present: a) if this action (inaction) is unlawful; b) if the illegal action (inaction) is guilty; c) if the obligation arising from the employment relationship is not performed or performed improperly. Guilty unlawful actions of an employee do not constitute a violation of labor discipline if they are not related to his labor duties.

Violations of labor discipline include: absenteeism, appearing at work in a state of intoxication, refusing to undergo a mandatory medical examination (examination), refusing to pass safety exams, if this is a prerequisite for admission to work. An employee’s refusal to comply with the employer’s order to recall him from vacation cannot be considered a violation of labor duties (Article 125 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). Refusal of an employee to perform work in the event of a danger to his life and health due to violation of labor protection requirements or from performing heavy work and work with harmful conditions labor not provided for by the employment contract does not entail bringing him to disciplinary responsibility (Article 220 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). With the exception of individual cases, the participation of an employee in a strike is not a violation of labor discipline (Article 414 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

There are two types of discipline: general and special.

General disciplinary responsibility- this is responsibility within the framework of the internal labor regulations. It can be imposed on all employees, with the exception of those in respect of which special disciplinary liability has been established. General disciplinary liability is established by Art. 192-194 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation and the internal labor regulations of a particular organization.

Special disciplinary responsibility there is a responsibility provided for certain categories of workers by special legislation, charters and regulations on discipline. Special disciplinary liability has the following features:

The circle of persons subject to the relevant norms is strictly defined;

There are special disciplinary measures;

The circle of persons and bodies endowed with the power to apply disciplinary sanctions is outlined;

There is a special procedure for appealing penalties.

Special disciplinary responsibility is established, for example, by the Regulations on the discipline of railway workers Russian Federation- for committing a disciplinary offense, in addition to those provided for by the legislation of the Russian Federation on labor, the following disciplinary sanctions may be applied to the employee: deprivation of the driver's certificate for the right to drive a locomotive, dismissal from his position related to the operational work of railways, dismissal. Despite the fact that, in accordance with Art. 330 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, issues of discipline for employees whose work is directly related to the movement of vehicles are regulated by the Labor Code of the Russian Federation and regulations (charters) on discipline approved by federal laws there are no such laws yet.

In practice, statutes and regulations, as a rule, were approved by the federal executive authorities. So, for example, the Charter on the discipline of maritime transport workers was approved by a decree of the Government of the Russian Federation. In this regard, such normative acts can be considered as controversial, based on Part 3 of Art. 55 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which provides for cases of restriction of human and civil rights only on the grounds provided for by federal law. Thus, other disciplinary sanctions, except for reprimand, reprimand and dismissal on appropriate grounds, can only be provided for by federal laws.

Measures of disciplinary action and the procedure for their application. Labor legislation provides for the following disciplinary sanctions:

Comment,

Rebuke,

Dismissal on appropriate grounds (Article 192 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

The list of disciplinary sanctions is exhaustive, therefore, other measures of disciplinary sanctions cannot be prescribed in the internal labor regulations. Legislation on special disciplinary liability, as well as charters and regulations on discipline, may provide for certain categories of employees and other disciplinary sanctions. The adoption of normative legal acts regulating the types of disciplinary sanctions and the procedure for their application is assigned to the jurisdiction of federal government bodies (Article 6 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). In this regard, it is not allowed to apply a penalty that is not provided for by federal labor legislation.

The procedure for applying disciplinary sanctions, established by Art. 193 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, mandatory for all employers.

The right to impose a disciplinary sanction on an employee belongs to the employer. The head of the organization may act on his behalf. Other persons have such an opportunity if it is provided for in the charter of the organization, or they are specially authorized by the employer. Disciplinary sanctions in the form of dismissal may be imposed only by those persons who have been granted the right to hire and dismiss.

Before applying a disciplinary sanction, the employer must request an explanation from the employee in writing. If the employee refuses to give an explanation, an appropriate act is drawn up. The employee's refusal to give an explanation does not exempt the perpetrator from disciplinary liability. When imposing a disciplinary sanction, the employer is obliged to take into account the severity of the misconduct committed, the previous work, the behavior of the employee, the circumstances under which the misconduct was committed. It is not necessary to apply penalties in the order in which they are located in Art. 192 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

The law allows for the application of such a disciplinary sanction as dismissal on appropriate grounds. The Labor Code of the Russian Federation does not list these grounds and this may cause difficulties in law enforcement practice. Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 17, 2004 “On the application by the courts of the Russian Federation Labor Code Russian Federation” explained that the dismissal of employees on the grounds provided for in paragraphs 5-10 of Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, is a measure of disciplinary action. Therefore, dismissal for repeated non-performance without good reason of labor duties; for a single gross violation of labor duties by an employee; for committing guilty acts that give rise to loss of confidence; for committing an immoral offense; for making an unreasonable decision by the head of the organization, his deputies and the chief accountant, which entailed a violation of safety, misuse or other damage to the property of the organization; for a single gross violation the head of the organization (branch, representative office), his deputies of their labor duties is possible in compliance with all the rules for the application of disciplinary sanctions.

When bringing an employee to disciplinary responsibility, the employer must comply with the terms for applying the disciplinary sanction. It is applied no later than one month from the date of discovery of the misconduct, not counting the time of illness of the employee, his stay on vacation (annual, educational), as well as the time necessary to take into account the opinion of the representative body of employees. Absences from work for other reasons, including the use of time off, are not taken into account. The day when the misconduct was discovered is the day when the person to whom the employee is subordinated became aware of the commission of the misconduct, regardless of whether this person is vested with the right to impose disciplinary sanctions. In the event that the employer applies a disciplinary sanction in the form of dismissal under sub. "d" paragraph 6 of Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the monthly period is calculated from the date of entry into force of the court verdict, which established the employee's guilt in committing the theft of other people's property at the place of work or the decision of the body authorized to apply administrative penalties.

A disciplinary sanction may not be applied later than six months from the day the misconduct was committed, and based on the results of an audit, audit of financial and economic activities or an audit, later than two years from the day it was committed. These terms do not include the time of criminal proceedings.

The employer may apply disciplinary action to the employee and in the event that, before committing a disciplinary offense, he submitted an application for dismissal of his own free will, since the employment relationship is terminated only after the expiration of the notice period for dismissal.

For each disciplinary offense, only one disciplinary sanction may be applied. This rule does not apply to cases of continuing disciplinary offenses, when, despite the imposition of a penalty, the employee continues to violate labor discipline. In this case, it is permissible to apply a new disciplinary sanction to the employee, including dismissal. Measures of legal influence on the part of the employer should be distinguished from disciplinary sanctions, such as refusal to provide a preferential voucher to a rest home, deprivation of a bonus.

A disciplinary sanction is imposed by an order (instruction), which is brought to the employee against receipt within three working days from the date of its issuance. If the employee refuses to sign the specified order (instruction), an appropriate act is drawn up.

A disciplinary sanction may be appealed by the employee to the state labor inspectorate or labor dispute resolution bodies (labor dispute commission, court).

The employer, when applying a disciplinary sanction to an employee, must comply with general principles legal, and consequently, disciplinary responsibility, such as justice, equality, proportionality, legality, guilt, humanism. Therefore, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in its resolution of March 17, 2004 “On the application by the courts of the Russian Federation of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation” made a reasonable conclusion that when considering cases of contesting a disciplinary sanction or reinstatement at work, the employer must provide evidence that testifies not only to the commission of a disciplinary offense by an employee, but also that when imposing a penalty, the severity of this misconduct, the circumstances under which it was committed, the previous behavior of the employee and his attitude to work were taken into account. If, when considering the reinstatement case, the court comes to the conclusion that the misconduct actually took place, but the dismissal was made without taking into account the above circumstances, the claim may be satisfied. However, in this case, the court is not entitled to replace the dismissal with another disciplinary measure, since, in accordance with Art. 192 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the imposition of a disciplinary sanction on an employee is the competence of the employer.

The disciplinary sanction is valid for one year. If within a year from the date of application of the disciplinary sanction, the employee is not subjected to a new disciplinary sanction, he is considered not to have a disciplinary sanction. The employer has the right to remove the disciplinary sanction from the employee before the expiration of the year on his own initiative, at the request of the employee himself or at the request of his immediate supervisor, representative body of employees.

Information about disciplinary sanctions is not entered in the work book. The exception is cases where the disciplinary sanction is dismissal.

3.2. Material liability

Liability under labor law can only occur if a combination of the following conditions is established:

a) the existence of direct actual damage;

b) unlawful behavior of the employee;

c) guilt in causing damage;

d) a causal relationship between the guilty wrongful conduct and the damage caused.

Damage, breakage, destruction, release of low-quality products, unjustified expenses made through the fault of employees are property damage. Under direct actual damage is understood as a real decrease in the employer's cash property or deterioration of its condition, as well as the need for the employer to make expenses or excessive payments for the acquisition or restoration of property (part 2 of article 238 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). Excessive cash payments, as a result of which the employer suffered material damage subject to compensation by guilty officials, include amounts paid to employees in violation of applicable law. Such payments may arise in the following cases: payment of wages in connection with illegal suspension, dismissal, transfer; the refusal of the employer to execute or untimely execution of the decision of the court or the state legal inspector on the reinstatement of the employee in his previous job; issuance delays work book(Article 234 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

Direct actual damage can be caused by a shortfall in monetary amounts (incomplete receipt of monetary amounts due to the organization), loss or partial, complete depreciation of documents (missing the limitation period and the inability to recover from the documents confirming the existence of debt, monetary amounts from the debtor organization ).

Article 239 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation names the circumstances that exclude the liability of an employee: irresistible force, normal economic risk, emergency, necessary defense. The Labor Code of the Russian Federation does not disclose the content of the concept of normal economic risk, but the conditions must be met: the set goal could not be achieved by other actions; the employee took all available measures to prevent damage. A justified normal economic risk should exclude a frivolous decision "at random".

One of the conditions for liability is illegal behavior (action or inaction). This is understood as behavior that is contrary to the prescriptions of legal acts (norms), as well as the lawful orders and instructions of the employer. In order to give a legal assessment of the actions (inaction) of an employee, it is necessary to clearly define the scope of his duties under an employment contract. As a circumstance that relieves the employee from liability due to the absence of unlawful behavior, the execution of an order from the administration to commit actions that led to material damage may be performed. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that if the order is illegal, and this illegality is obvious, the employee who followed such an order is not released from liability. Such cases can be, for example, release by financially responsible persons from a valuables warehouse at the written or oral instruction of the employer's representative without issuing an expense document; execution by the cashier of the instructions of the chief accountant on the issuance of money from the cash desk without documenting.

Under Category guilt in labor law is understood the mental attitude of a person to his unlawful behavior and its consequences (results). Distinguish guilt in the form of intent (direct or indirect) and in the form of negligence (arrogance, negligence). When bringing to material liability, the division of intent into direct or indirect practical value does not matter. At the same time, the distinction between intent and negligence plays a certain role, since in some cases, the type of liability (limited or full) depends on the form of guilt.

The employer who has suffered damage and who raises the issue of compensation must prove the guilt of the employee. An exception is made from this rule for materially responsible persons, to whom the principle of the presumption of guilt is applied, which means that in the event of a shortage or damage to the values ​​entrusted to such employees under the report, they must prove that the loss or damage occurred through no fault of theirs. In the absence of such evidence, they bear material liability in the full amount of the damage caused.

The material liability of the employee to the employer for the damage caused is of the following types:

Individual: limited or full;

Collective.

Limited Liability provides for compensation by the employee for damages within predetermined limits. As a rule, such a limit is the average monthly earnings (Article 241 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). The Labor Code does not contain a list of cases of damage for which liability is provided within the average monthly salary of an employee, but as practice shows, the most typical cases are the following:

Damage or destruction through negligence of the property of the employer, materials, products (products), as well as tools, overalls and other items issued for use by the employee;

Shortage of sums of money, loss of documents, complete or partial depreciation of documents, payment of a fine due to the fault of the employee.

Full liability so called because the employee pays the full amount of damages without any limitation, but not more than the amount of direct damage. In accordance with Art. 242 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, full liability for employees under the age of eighteen years can be only in the following cases: intentional infliction of damage; for damage caused in a state of alcoholic, narcotic or toxic intoxication; for damage caused as a result of a crime or administrative offense. Article 243 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation establishes cases of full liability. These include:

If, in accordance with the Labor Code or other federal laws, the employee is held liable in full for damage caused to the employer in the performance of labor duties by the employee (for example, cashiers, collectors, communications workers working with transfers, parcels);

Lack of valuables entrusted to the employee on the basis of a special written agreement or received by him under a one-time document (for example, the foreman, by proxy of the members of the brigade, received for them wages and lost it)

Intentional infliction of damage (including when the employee did not want, but knowingly allowed the possibility of damage * (104) ) ;

Causing damage in a state of alcoholic, narcotic or toxic intoxication;

Causing damage as a result of the criminal actions of an employee established by a court verdict (for example, theft). If the guilty employee is released from punishment due to an act of amnesty or pardon, then this is not a basis for releasing him from full liability;

Causing damage as a result of an administrative offense, if such is established by the relevant authority;

Disclosure of information constituting a legally protected secret (official, commercial, other), in cases provided for by federal laws;

Causing damage not in the performance of work duties by the employee (for example, in work time a worker broke a machine while making a part for his garage; the driver used the company car after work for personal purposes, and as a result of the accident it was damaged).

The list of cases of full liability is established by federal law. In other cases, full liability cannot be assigned to the employee, even if such a condition is included in his employment contract. Based on Art. 9 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, employment contracts cannot contain conditions that reduce the level of rights and guarantees of employees established by labor legislation, and such conditions of an employment contract cannot be applied. An employment contract may specify the material liability of the parties to the contract, but the contractual liability of the employee to the employer cannot be higher than provided for by the Labor Code or other federal laws (Article 232 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

Written agreements on full liability are concluded with employees who have reached the age of eighteen and directly serve or use monetary, commodity values ​​or other property. Lists of works and categories of employees with whom such contracts may be concluded are approved in the manner established by the Government of the Russian Federation. Liability for employees arises for failure to ensure the safety of valuables transferred to them for storage, processing, sale, transportation or use in the production process. Failure to ensure safety refers to both shortage and damage to valuables. Based on the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR of September 23, 1977, financially responsible persons are liable for other cases of damage to the employer on a general basis. For example, financially responsible persons are subject to limited liability in case of damage caused by incorrect preparation of the product acceptance document, as a result of which a claim could not be made to the supplier.

Collective (team) liability is established when employees jointly perform certain types of work. Collective liability for causing damage is introduced if it is impossible to distinguish between the responsibility of each employee for causing damage and conclude an agreement with him on compensation for damage in full (Article 245 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). A written agreement on collective liability is concluded between the employer and all members of the team (team). The list of works in the performance of which collective liability may be introduced, the conditions for its application and the standard contract were approved by the Decree of the Ministry of Labor of the Russian Federation of December 31, 2002 No. The amounts of damages are distributed among the members of the team (team) in a shared manner, depending on the hours worked (for example, one employee was on vacation or sick), on the degree of guilt of each in proportion to their tariff rates. To be released from liability, a member of the team (team) must prove the absence of his guilt. In case of voluntary compensation for damage, the degree of guilt of each member of the team is determined by agreement between all members of the team and the employer. When recovering damages in court, the degree of guilt of each member of the team is determined by the court (Article 245 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

Currently, there is a standard form of an agreement on full individual liability, approved. Decree of the Ministry of Labor of the Russian Federation of December 31, 2002 No.

The procedure for recovering damages caused by an employee. Article 247 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation establishes the obligation of the employer to establish the amount of damage caused to him and the reason for its occurrence. An inspection to determine the amount of damage is carried out by the employer independently or by a specially created commission with the participation of specialists. Without fail, the employer must demand a written explanation from the employee in order to establish the cause of the damage. If the employee does not agree with the conclusions made as a result of the audit, he has the right to apply to the bodies for the consideration of individual labor disputes.

By general rule the amount of damage caused to the employer in the event of loss or damage to property is determined by actual losses, based on market prices in force on the day the damage was caused in the given area, but cannot be lower than the book value of the property based on accounting data.

The Labor Code provides for the possibility for the employer to refuse to recover material damage from the employee in whole or in part (Article 240 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

Compensation for damages by an employee in an amount not exceeding the average monthly earnings is made by order of the employer. Order can be made no later than one month from the date of the final determination by the employer of the amount of damage caused.

An employee who is guilty of causing damage to the employer may voluntarily compensate for it in whole or in part. By agreement of the parties, payment by installments may be stipulated. In this case, the employee is obliged to submit to the employer a written obligation to compensate for the damage, indicating specific payment terms. The transfer of equivalent property for compensation of damage or the correction of damaged property is allowed only with the consent of the employer.

Judicial collection is carried out in the following cases:

If it is impossible to recover damages by order (in case of missing the deadline for issuing it or in case of dismissal of the employee);

If the employee does not agree to voluntarily compensate for the damage;

If the amount of damage to be recovered from the employee exceeds his average monthly earnings;

If the employee gave a written obligation to voluntarily compensate for damage, but refused to compensate for the specified damage;

If the employee has not reimbursed the costs incurred by the employer when sending him to study at the expense of the employer (for example, in the event of dismissal without good reason before the expiration of the period stipulated by the employment contract or training agreement);

If the employer compensated the damage caused by the employee to third parties and filed a claim in recourse against the guilty employee.

The employer has the right to apply to the court on disputes on compensation by the employee for harm caused to the organization, within one year from the date of discovery of the damage.

Compensation for damage is made regardless of bringing the employee to disciplinary, administrative or criminal liability for actions that caused damage to the employer.

If the employer fails to comply with the procedure for recovering damages established by law, the employee has the right to appeal against the actions of the employer in court. The labor dispute resolution body may, taking into account the degree and form of fault, the financial situation of the employee and other circumstances, reduce the amount of damage to be recovered from the employee. Article 250 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation prohibits the reduction of the amount of damage caused as a result of a crime committed for mercenary purposes.