There are certain types of workplace problems that few managers wish to confront.  For example:

• A personal hygiene issue;
• The frequent use of inappropriate language around co-workers;
• A suspected alcohol or drug abuse issue;
• A suspected violation of workplace time and attendance requirements;
• Anger management difficulties;
• Excessive displays of negativity or an argumentative disposition;
• Potential sexual harassment behavior;
• The proselytizing of co-workers involving political or religious beliefs.

Confronting these and similar matters is likely to elicit emotional and defensive responses and perhaps hurt feelings that impact working relationships moving forward.  But avoiding or skating gingerly around  such issues, puts teamwork, workplace morale and productivity at risk.

The hard truth is this: ignoring the problem is enabling, authorizing and encouraging its perpetuation. Why should anyone stop doing any of the above if their bosses aren’t  prepared to confront the behavior involved?

An accessory after the fact — in criminal law — is a person who, having knowledge that a crime has been committed, aids, or attempts to aid, the criminal to escape apprehension.  These accessories are frequently prosecuted for their enabling collusion.  An accessory after the fact — in management terms — is a manager who ignores potentially damaging workplace problems, thereby rendering themselves as responsible and accountable for the problem as is the guilty employee.

There are three compelling reasons for a manager to avoid damaging enabling behavior.

First, assuming the manager is a member of a larger management hierarchy, they are responsible for resolving problems within their scope of responsibility. “Passing the buck” is an abdication of a manager’s responsibility and a detrimental part of any working culture even if others around them are artful dodgers.

Second,  ignoring a clear problem almost always has some deleterious impact on a manager’s direct working unit or team. Though often hard to see at first if other folks aren’t complaining, it is a safe bet that the negative impact is there. You can also bet that those most affected by the problem individual’s behavior will expect their manager to do something about it. They will be angry and frustrated if their manager does not.

Third, it is simply unfair, callous and disrespectful for a manager to passively enable a subordinate to perseverate in behavior likely to eventually result in career damage, negative personnel action, and perhaps termination of employment. While no manager can personally fix the subordinate’s problem, they certainly can humanely, objectively and forcefully make clear that the subordinate must attend to the fix themselves.

UPDATED April 2026

Categories: Exercising Responsibility, Managing People

Tags: accountability, advice for managers, advice for managers from managers, bad management practices, best managers, decision making, effective management and leadership, effective managers and leaders, empowering managers and leaders, exercising authority, line management, management accountability, management advice, Managing & Leading, Self-Management