10 ms·

Alternatives to Firing

121 points by striking 11y ago

femto 11y ago
Choose your jurisdiction carefully, especially if "the transition out" mechanism is a resignation rather than an extended notice to an amicable firing, and the resignation means the employee misses out on a severance payout. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal
- sambeau 11y ago
  Exactly. Here in the UK you would have to be very careful not to find yourself in an Industrial Tribunal. That said, I personally think anyone should be able to be bought out of a contract with, say, 3-6 months pay.
  - spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
    The average payout for unfair dismissal is 6 months pay and constructive dismissal is hard to prove unless the company is particularly dumb - e.g. having recordings of discussing firing some one for being gay.
    - sambeau 11y ago
      From my experience companies likely to be found guilty are advised to make an out-of-court settlement and often take that route.
JacksonGariety 11y ago
> bad hires often aren’t bad employees because they’re stupid, obstinate, or insubordinate but rather because they are “miscast.” I dare you to find a product manager who can actually put this into practice without losing his/her job. The entire means of production and bureaucracy are founded on excluding the "mad" and "unreasonable." If you want to treat people fairly, we'll have to go through our prisons with a fine-toothed comb.
quanticle 11y ago
I told him that I knew he was frustrated by these particular things but that they simply weren’t going to change, that they were inherent parts of the job, and that I didn’t want us to be constantly battling over them … and that rather than trying to force himself into a job that obviously was making him frustrated and stressed, I wanted to see him figure out if he could really be happy in the position, knowing that the things he was complaining about weren’t going to change. A couple of days later, he told me that he had thought about it and realized he should move on. So, in other words, you fired him. You made it clear that the job wasn't going to change, and that he didn't have a place in your organization. The fact that he submitted the resignation, rather than you submitting the paperwork is immaterial to the fact that you fired him. This is as much of a firing as a government minister "submitting his resignation" in order to "spend more time with his family" after a particularly embarrassing political scandal or gaffe. Now, granted, I agree that the firing was handled well, and was done with a minimum of pain to both parties. But you still fired him. I'm worried that OP is trying to sidestep that fact and make it seem like this was some kind of voluntary meeting of the minds when, in my reading of the situation, it clearly wasn't.
- jlg23 11y ago
  No, the OP did not make clear that the employee "didn't have a place in [his] organization". He made clear it cannot continue like that - but that leaves the employee a chance to reflect on and change his attitude towards the job.
  - lsc 11y ago
    Yeah, the difference is subtle. I know I was fired like this once, and I still say I was fired, but from the boss' actions at the time? I think he was super surprised that I made that choice; he fully expected me to do the "do this thing" part of the "do this thing or quit" ultimatum. I mean, it was an ultimatum, but as far as I can tell, I could very well have simply done what the boss asked of me and kept the job.
    - phamilton 11y ago
xxxxxxxx 11y ago
I had a young dev in my team many years ago. We agreed it wasn't working out, so I helped find him a totally different type of role in another part of the same company. It worked out great. I have no idea why this doesn't happen more often, it's not difficult to do in any reasonably sized company.
- paulojreis 11y ago
  Just my two cents, as someone completely oblivious about management: maybe because previous performance, while not great a indicator, is the best predictor of future performance? To put it more obviously, as a manager of "another part" of the same company, wouldn't you rather have the opportunity to recruit and hire, instead of being handed someone (which you know already failed)?
  - tikhonj 11y ago
    I don't think it's actually a good indicator because performance is affected by so many important factors—including things like the direct manager and the rest of the team. What it is, rather, is the IBM effect in reverse. Regardless of how good a predictor it really is, common knowledge is that it really matters. If you add a random new worker to the team and it doesn't work out, well, these things happen. If you have someone with a classic "red flag" (most of which are either highly exaggerated or complete bullshit) and it doesn't work out, it's all your fault. Of course, in reality, the same factors dominate in both cases—things don't always work out, but that's only to be expected. But woe if you can be blamed for it!
    - paulojreis 11y ago
      I agree with you. But the "question" of the parent post was "I have no idea why this doesn't happen more often, it's not difficult to do in any reasonably sized company", and I was just trying to give a possible answer. While it's really not a good indicator, there'll eventually be some correlation. Bottom line is: I'd totally understand a manager not accepting a guy that failed elsewhere in the same company; he would possibly be wrong in doing so, but - really - what would you do? I'd eventually try to interview the guy but, in the end, if I got two "final" candidates and one of them already failed in the company, I'd go for the other.
ihsw 11y ago
Some people look at career advancement like it's a race along the highway -- you pull over and put your career on hold, I keep going faster and staying ahead of you. That kind of thing. I think it would be prudent to look at it like trying to build your own sandcastle, and everybody does it in different ways and at different speeds. There is no reason my progress should impede yours. That said, I think the article is spot on. Firing can be a positive experience and it need not imply a negative progression, but simply a lateral adjustment.
lambdafunc 11y ago
well, this is firing too, but in a polite way.
beenfired 11y ago
If someone talks to you like this hold out for the day that actually fire you and offer you a significant severance package. Accept it (in writing) before telling them about the great new job you are starting soon.
- tensor 11y ago
  Great idea, you get some money, and no good will and no reference. If money is more important to you than ethics and connections, this a great way to go. But know that connections will get you way farther than being an arrogant but skilled individual.
  - oarsinsync 11y ago
    Depending on your industry, you may not get any reference anyway. My references for the last 3 jobs over 6 years has been "Yes, he was employed here from $startdate to $enddate as $jobtitle" And that's it, to avoid any risk of there being any liability issue. It's gone from "you're not allowed to give a negative reference" to "why bother doing anything more than the bare minimum" in a number of industries I've been in.
    - sokoloff 11y ago
      That's the official policy at a lot of places. IMO, as a manager, you're an AH if you aren't willing to give more information than that in a reference check, regardless of company policy.
      - 15155 11y ago
        The negative PR for you and your company when it's found out and publicly exposed that you're out making disparaging remarks about former employees? No matter how true, good luck.
        sokoloff 11y ago
        No one says I make disparaging remarks about former employees. Ask me for a reference on a good former employee: you get a lot more than dates and titles. This is where I'd be an ass to not talk about them more. I don't walk around afraid of my own shadow. Ask me for a reference on a poor former employee: you get dates and titles.
UweSchmidt 11y ago
German here; whenever I read workplace stories from the US I can usually follow along just fine, just at the end, it seems like someone HAS to be fired, always leaving me a little confused. Why no reconciliation? Why immediately resort to such a drastic measure? In my professional life I've come across a handful of colleagues who were demoted when they couldn't handle a certain role, or who have committed various kinds of misconduct, yet remained at their companies just fine.
- paulojreis 11y ago
  I work at a German company, currently, and have been dealing with someone which - IMO - should be fired. I can understand what you say about not resorting immediately to drastic measures, and my company is actually trying (too hard, again IMO) to do that. However, you have to consider the downsides of this: is it fair that my workload is increased, because someone is underperforming? I'm not talking about occasional spikes, this is systematic. What does the company communicate to its associates, when "accepting" someone like this? What about quality, how am I supposed to champion quality if the company accepts the low quality output (let's forget "low quantity" for a moment) from someone else? There's always a downside, and the workplace is an open system. You can't just "target" the low-performer, everything you do will target everyone on the team. If you try to "reconciliation" measures (other roles, extra training, coaching, easing of tasks), you're implicitly communicating something to the other team members. If you do it repeatedly and long enough, you'll eventually get: a) frustration, resentment and feelings of unfairness in other associates; and b) diminishing commitment and quality standards (i.e. "why should I care for quality if it is not demanded from others?"). P.S. I also feel a kind of shock every time I hear/read someone talking "lightheartedly" about firing someone. I'm just trying to highlight the potential downside of "not firing".
  - woodcut 11y ago
    I think this has more to do with European employment regulations then what is 'fair', and your company doesn't have much choice in the matter. Think of it from another perspective, if someone isn't culpable of flagrant misconduct then whatever issue management have with them could be for a number of reasons including sexual or racial bias, I think forcing the company to enact due process is needed to help eliminate some of the ugly politics in firing someone.
donatj 11y ago
I'm curious about the actual job at hand and the piece which was so tangential and awful for the person. I've seen many jobs with pieces that simply don't make sense / may have made sense when the company was smaller. I've also seen people become very defensive when you try to break that job up to make more sense.
nraynaud 11y ago
Interesting, I'm in a similar situation, where I don't really fit, but I really can't envision a company that would be better. I'm just feeling that I'm not made for this business world.
bitwize 11y ago
Being encouraged to resign is the same as being fired by a passive-aggressive manager. Typically if you resign of your own volition you are ineligible for unemployment, so this is a card managers should play carefully if at all.
- jaegerpicker 11y ago
  They didn't encourage them to resign. They encouraged them to decide if they wanted to be there enough to change. It's a very different thing. In this case the employee has choice and control. It's possible for someone to put in the required work to change, it's not easy and it may well not be worth it to the employee but that's up to them.
askyourmother 11y ago
Some firms use the principal of making life at work downright unpleasant, in the hope the member(s) of staff will take the hint and jump before being pushed. A classic example is the usage of 'PIP's - most of the time unrelated to actual performance, just an HR approved tool to effect removal of staff. A lot of the time conflicts arise due personality clashes rather than technical differences, basically your face no longer fits/the manager wants someone else in your place. Best advice on those circumstances is to be polite, absolutely do the work asked, keep records of everything, look for a new job, but also retain an employment lawyer, so if they move onto stage two - aka "really fucking over the staff", you have options. I have a colleague who followed this process in the UK, took them to tribunal, they bottled it, and settled when it became apparent how much evidence the staff had collected to support their position.
TomMasz 11y ago
I believe this is called "Making them someone else's problem". Difficult employees get bounced around from manager to manager because that's easier than actually firing them. It's probably most common in very large companies, of course, since they offer the most opportunities to work for other managers.
URSpider94 11y ago
I'm sad that this seems like such a novel idea. The only time a "firing" should come as a surprise to an employee is when they are being laid off as part of a restructuring (this is unfortunately the only practical way to do it). Any time an employee is not meeting performance expectations, their manager should be communicating the gap to them early and often. At some point, these discussions should be getting more and more explicit to make it clear that their continued employment is at risk. Some people will change their behavior and make a turn-around. Some will see the writing on the wall and leave of their own accord (usually those with more maturity/perspective, and those who have other options). Some people will hang on to the last and leave fingernail marks on the door frame -- but they should never be able to say that it was a surprise.
chipotle2 11y ago
Good god I would never want to work for a manager like the one who wrote the article. What a lack of self-awareness.
bm1362 11y ago
IMO He got the hint and left willingly -- I might be cynical but that's probably what the manager wanted. If I get the vibe or direct message I'm at risk of getting fired, I'd be prompted to immediately find a new position.

121 points by striking 11y ago

femto 11y ago

Choose your jurisdiction carefully, especially if "the transition out" mechanism is a resignation rather than an extended notice to an amicable firing, and the resignation means the employee misses out on a severance payout. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal

sambeau 11y ago
Exactly. Here in the UK you would have to be very careful not to find yourself in an Industrial Tribunal. That said, I personally think anyone should be able to be bought out of a contract with, say, 3-6 months pay.
- spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
  The average payout for unfair dismissal is 6 months pay and constructive dismissal is hard to prove unless the company is particularly dumb - e.g. having recordings of discussing firing some one for being gay.
  - sambeau 11y ago
    From my experience companies likely to be found guilty are advised to make an out-of-court settlement and often take that route.

JacksonGariety 11y ago

> bad hires often aren’t bad employees because they’re stupid, obstinate, or insubordinate but rather because they are “miscast.” I dare you to find a product manager who can actually put this into practice without losing his/her job. The entire means of production and bureaucracy are founded on excluding the "mad" and "unreasonable." If you want to treat people fairly, we'll have to go through our prisons with a fine-toothed comb.

quanticle 11y ago

I told him that I knew he was frustrated by these particular things but that they simply weren’t going to change, that they were inherent parts of the job, and that I didn’t want us to be constantly battling over them … and that rather than trying to force himself into a job that obviously was making him frustrated and stressed, I wanted to see him figure out if he could really be happy in the position, knowing that the things he was complaining about weren’t going to change. A couple of days later, he told me that he had thought about it and realized he should move on. So, in other words, you fired him. You made it clear that the job wasn't going to change, and that he didn't have a place in your organization. The fact that he submitted the resignation, rather than you submitting the paperwork is immaterial to the fact that you fired him. This is as much of a firing as a government minister "submitting his resignation" in order to "spend more time with his family" after a particularly embarrassing political scandal or gaffe. Now, granted, I agree that the firing was handled well, and was done with a minimum of pain to both parties. But you still fired him. I'm worried that OP is trying to sidestep that fact and make it seem like this was some kind of voluntary meeting of the minds when, in my reading of the situation, it clearly wasn't.

jlg23 11y ago
No, the OP did not make clear that the employee "didn't have a place in [his] organization". He made clear it cannot continue like that - but that leaves the employee a chance to reflect on and change his attitude towards the job.
- lsc 11y ago
  Yeah, the difference is subtle. I know I was fired like this once, and I still say I was fired, but from the boss' actions at the time? I think he was super surprised that I made that choice; he fully expected me to do the "do this thing" part of the "do this thing or quit" ultimatum. I mean, it was an ultimatum, but as far as I can tell, I could very well have simply done what the boss asked of me and kept the job.
  - phamilton 11y ago

xxxxxxxx 11y ago

I had a young dev in my team many years ago. We agreed it wasn't working out, so I helped find him a totally different type of role in another part of the same company. It worked out great. I have no idea why this doesn't happen more often, it's not difficult to do in any reasonably sized company.

paulojreis 11y ago
Just my two cents, as someone completely oblivious about management: maybe because previous performance, while not great a indicator, is the best predictor of future performance? To put it more obviously, as a manager of "another part" of the same company, wouldn't you rather have the opportunity to recruit and hire, instead of being handed someone (which you know already failed)?
- tikhonj 11y ago
  I don't think it's actually a good indicator because performance is affected by so many important factors—including things like the direct manager and the rest of the team. What it is, rather, is the IBM effect in reverse. Regardless of how good a predictor it really is, common knowledge is that it really matters. If you add a random new worker to the team and it doesn't work out, well, these things happen. If you have someone with a classic "red flag" (most of which are either highly exaggerated or complete bullshit) and it doesn't work out, it's all your fault. Of course, in reality, the same factors dominate in both cases—things don't always work out, but that's only to be expected. But woe if you can be blamed for it!
  - paulojreis 11y ago
    I agree with you. But the "question" of the parent post was "I have no idea why this doesn't happen more often, it's not difficult to do in any reasonably sized company", and I was just trying to give a possible answer. While it's really not a good indicator, there'll eventually be some correlation. Bottom line is: I'd totally understand a manager not accepting a guy that failed elsewhere in the same company; he would possibly be wrong in doing so, but - really - what would you do? I'd eventually try to interview the guy but, in the end, if I got two "final" candidates and one of them already failed in the company, I'd go for the other.

ihsw 11y ago

Some people look at career advancement like it's a race along the highway -- you pull over and put your career on hold, I keep going faster and staying ahead of you. That kind of thing. I think it would be prudent to look at it like trying to build your own sandcastle, and everybody does it in different ways and at different speeds. There is no reason my progress should impede yours. That said, I think the article is spot on. Firing can be a positive experience and it need not imply a negative progression, but simply a lateral adjustment.

lambdafunc 11y ago

well, this is firing too, but in a polite way.

beenfired 11y ago

If someone talks to you like this hold out for the day that actually fire you and offer you a significant severance package. Accept it (in writing) before telling them about the great new job you are starting soon.

tensor 11y ago
Great idea, you get some money, and no good will and no reference. If money is more important to you than ethics and connections, this a great way to go. But know that connections will get you way farther than being an arrogant but skilled individual.
- oarsinsync 11y ago
  Depending on your industry, you may not get any reference anyway. My references for the last 3 jobs over 6 years has been "Yes, he was employed here from $startdate to $enddate as $jobtitle" And that's it, to avoid any risk of there being any liability issue. It's gone from "you're not allowed to give a negative reference" to "why bother doing anything more than the bare minimum" in a number of industries I've been in.
  - sokoloff 11y ago
    That's the official policy at a lot of places. IMO, as a manager, you're an AH if you aren't willing to give more information than that in a reference check, regardless of company policy.
    - 15155 11y ago
      The negative PR for you and your company when it's found out and publicly exposed that you're out making disparaging remarks about former employees? No matter how true, good luck.
      - sokoloff 11y ago
        No one says I make disparaging remarks about former employees. Ask me for a reference on a good former employee: you get a lot more than dates and titles. This is where I'd be an ass to not talk about them more. I don't walk around afraid of my own shadow. Ask me for a reference on a poor former employee: you get dates and titles.

UweSchmidt 11y ago

German here; whenever I read workplace stories from the US I can usually follow along just fine, just at the end, it seems like someone HAS to be fired, always leaving me a little confused. Why no reconciliation? Why immediately resort to such a drastic measure? In my professional life I've come across a handful of colleagues who were demoted when they couldn't handle a certain role, or who have committed various kinds of misconduct, yet remained at their companies just fine.

paulojreis 11y ago
I work at a German company, currently, and have been dealing with someone which - IMO - should be fired. I can understand what you say about not resorting immediately to drastic measures, and my company is actually trying (too hard, again IMO) to do that. However, you have to consider the downsides of this: is it fair that my workload is increased, because someone is underperforming? I'm not talking about occasional spikes, this is systematic. What does the company communicate to its associates, when "accepting" someone like this? What about quality, how am I supposed to champion quality if the company accepts the low quality output (let's forget "low quantity" for a moment) from someone else? There's always a downside, and the workplace is an open system. You can't just "target" the low-performer, everything you do will target everyone on the team. If you try to "reconciliation" measures (other roles, extra training, coaching, easing of tasks), you're implicitly communicating something to the other team members. If you do it repeatedly and long enough, you'll eventually get: a) frustration, resentment and feelings of unfairness in other associates; and b) diminishing commitment and quality standards (i.e. "why should I care for quality if it is not demanded from others?"). P.S. I also feel a kind of shock every time I hear/read someone talking "lightheartedly" about firing someone. I'm just trying to highlight the potential downside of "not firing".
- woodcut 11y ago
  I think this has more to do with European employment regulations then what is 'fair', and your company doesn't have much choice in the matter. Think of it from another perspective, if someone isn't culpable of flagrant misconduct then whatever issue management have with them could be for a number of reasons including sexual or racial bias, I think forcing the company to enact due process is needed to help eliminate some of the ugly politics in firing someone.

donatj 11y ago

I'm curious about the actual job at hand and the piece which was so tangential and awful for the person. I've seen many jobs with pieces that simply don't make sense / may have made sense when the company was smaller. I've also seen people become very defensive when you try to break that job up to make more sense.

nraynaud 11y ago

Interesting, I'm in a similar situation, where I don't really fit, but I really can't envision a company that would be better. I'm just feeling that I'm not made for this business world.

bitwize 11y ago

Being encouraged to resign is the same as being fired by a passive-aggressive manager. Typically if you resign of your own volition you are ineligible for unemployment, so this is a card managers should play carefully if at all.

jaegerpicker 11y ago
They didn't encourage them to resign. They encouraged them to decide if they wanted to be there enough to change. It's a very different thing. In this case the employee has choice and control. It's possible for someone to put in the required work to change, it's not easy and it may well not be worth it to the employee but that's up to them.

askyourmother 11y ago

Some firms use the principal of making life at work downright unpleasant, in the hope the member(s) of staff will take the hint and jump before being pushed. A classic example is the usage of 'PIP's - most of the time unrelated to actual performance, just an HR approved tool to effect removal of staff. A lot of the time conflicts arise due personality clashes rather than technical differences, basically your face no longer fits/the manager wants someone else in your place. Best advice on those circumstances is to be polite, absolutely do the work asked, keep records of everything, look for a new job, but also retain an employment lawyer, so if they move onto stage two - aka "really fucking over the staff", you have options. I have a colleague who followed this process in the UK, took them to tribunal, they bottled it, and settled when it became apparent how much evidence the staff had collected to support their position.

TomMasz 11y ago

I believe this is called "Making them someone else's problem". Difficult employees get bounced around from manager to manager because that's easier than actually firing them. It's probably most common in very large companies, of course, since they offer the most opportunities to work for other managers.

URSpider94 11y ago

I'm sad that this seems like such a novel idea. The only time a "firing" should come as a surprise to an employee is when they are being laid off as part of a restructuring (this is unfortunately the only practical way to do it). Any time an employee is not meeting performance expectations, their manager should be communicating the gap to them early and often. At some point, these discussions should be getting more and more explicit to make it clear that their continued employment is at risk. Some people will change their behavior and make a turn-around. Some will see the writing on the wall and leave of their own accord (usually those with more maturity/perspective, and those who have other options). Some people will hang on to the last and leave fingernail marks on the door frame -- but they should never be able to say that it was a surprise.

chipotle2 11y ago

Good god I would never want to work for a manager like the one who wrote the article. What a lack of self-awareness.

bm1362 11y ago

IMO He got the hint and left willingly -- I might be cynical but that's probably what the manager wanted. If I get the vibe or direct message I'm at risk of getting fired, I'd be prompted to immediately find a new position.