Your Company Needs a Management System, Not Just a Resume Check

We are accustomed to believing that thorough candidate vetting before hiring is the cornerstone of company security. However, reality demonstrates that even the most loyal professionals can begin to deceive and sabotage work if they find themselves in an environment devoid of clear rules and healthy oversight.

Businesses today have an extremely limited toolkit for screening employees at the entry point. We can examine resumes and references, but these offer no guarantees for the future. Instead of endlessly deepening pre-employment checks, leaders should shift their focus to the interaction process during employment. A system is required that allows for the automatic monitoring of workflows and prevents those intent on defrauding the company from slipping through.

The New Face of Theft

When we speak of theft and betrayal, it is not always about stealing cash from the register. Modern realities, particularly with the rise of remote work, have given birth to more subtle forms of deception.

An employee might formally submit reports and receive a salary while effectively remaining idle. In the US, for instance, the phenomenon of overemployment is gaining momentum—where an individual takes on full-time roles at two, three, or sometimes five companies simultaneously. They draw multiple salaries, yet none of the employers are aware of the actual volume of work being performed or the time spent.

This is direct deception. By taking a fifth job, such an employee fails to disclose they are already occupied by four others. Consequently, companies lose money and efficiency. However, this is only possible where a management system is absent. If processes are transparent, such individuals are identified instantly: it becomes immediately apparent who is failing, sabotaging, or merely simulating intense activity. Such people can be let go quickly and without drama.

Why Good People Start Underperforming

Suppose you have hired a proven professional. You have become partners and built a relationship. But this is not enough. Circumstances change: people burn out, fall into depression, or face the pressure of external problems.

It is precisely under the weight of difficult circumstances that individuals tend to compromise their principles. If an urgent need for money arises and the company leaves its assets unmonitored, it nudges the person toward misconduct.

There is also another, less obvious catalyst for trouble: artificially created conditions of idleness. Consider an example from my acquaintances. A family hired a live-in housekeeper before their baby was born. For several months, her workload was minimal; she grew accustomed to receiving a salary while doing almost nothing. When the child arrived and the workload increased to normal levels, the employee began to show resentment and make mistakes. The situation was created artificially, and the lack of requirements corrupted the worker.

There is only one solution. Even when working with good people, you must create conditions that preclude the possibility of abuse. It is necessary to have clear rules, boundaries, and mutual obligations, as well as to monitor their fulfillment.

The Snowball Effect: The Psychology of Justification

The breakdown of relationships always begins with red flags that big-hearted managers often ignore. Minor failures to meet obligations, shifting responsibility, or gossiping about colleagues—these are warning bells.

Imagine an employee who is late once. Everyone stays silent. They are late a second and third time. For them, this becomes the norm. But at some point, the manager's patience will wear thin, and he will give his subordinate a piece of his mind. To the employee, this looks like the boss is being unreasonable: "I’ve always arrived at this time, so why am I being yelled at now?"

The problem is that the human mind is cunning. When we commit a fault for the first time, we feel ashamed. If no one stops us, a justification mechanism kicks in the second time. We invent an alibi: "I overworked yesterday," "Others are late too," or "The boss doesn't even show up until eleven."

These justifications accumulate like a snowball. If a violation is not addressed immediately, the employee will eventually begin to sincerely believe the company is terrible and the conditions are unbearable.

Healthy Control vs. Micromanagement

Many leaders fear implementing oversight, confusing it with micromanagement. It is vital to understand the difference:

• Micromanagement is about controlling every single move. People hate it when you’re breathing down their necks, and rightfully so.
• Healthy control is a system that ensures signals are not missed, breaches of agreement are noticed, and reactions are provided.

To react does not mean to harass. It means identifying the problem: "You promised, but you didn't deliver. I don't like this. Next time, either don't promise or follow through." Relationships must be managed; they cannot be left to chance.

The Accountant Who Lost Their Way

A telling story occurred in a company where we were helping establish order and implement regulations. A reliable accountant worked there: reports were submitted on time, and the tax authorities had no complaints. But as soon as changes began, this employee started showing negativity, accusing management of bureaucracy, and resisting innovations.

A volatile negative reaction to positive changes is always a red flag. On a consultant's advice, the business owner invited an external auditor. Within two days, it was discovered that the "perfect" accountant had accumulated a vast list of minor discrepancies: primary documentation was missing here, figures were manually adjusted there. Nothing criminal, but it was a mess.

As soon as the hidden became visible, a miracle occurred. The accountant calmed down, quickly put affairs in order following the auditor's recommendations, and continued to work normally.

Mini-guide: "How to Reduce Team Sabotage When Implementing Changes?"

The Barings Bank Case: When Trust Replaces Control

Barings Bank was one of the UK’s oldest investment banks with an impeccable reputation. In the Singapore branch, a key employee, Nick Leeson, was entrusted with two functions simultaneously: executing trades and controlling their accounting. The decision seemed logical: the individual showed good results, reports looked tidy, and there was no reason to interfere.

The trouble began with a small error that the employee did not immediately bring to light, hoping to rectify the situation later. Because oversight was absent, the first violation went unnoticed. This triggered a chain of justifications: hiding became easier than admitting a mistake. Formally, work continued, reports balanced, and management received no signals of a problem.

Ultimately, minor distortions snowballed into losses of about 1.3 billion dollars. A bank with a two-hundred-year history went bankrupt and was sold for a symbolic sum. The cause of the collapse was not a "bad person," but a management structure lacking built-in control and separation of duties.

Summary

When we allow people to make mistakes and turn a blind eye to trifles, we do them a disservice. If a violation is not stopped immediately, an employee will eventually start to truly believe the company is awful—to the point that the office coffee isn't hot enough. A management system is not there to turn people into robots, but to help them remain honest and efficient.