3 ms·

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

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.
  - paulojreis 11y ago
    You're right, generally. In this case, though, I'm talking about someone hired with a temporary (1 year) but automatically renewable contract. Where I live, it's just a matter of not renewing it (giving notice one month before the deadline).
namelezz 11y ago
You said it's misconduct which misleads others that they are good.

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.
- paulojreis 11y ago
  You're right, generally. In this case, though, I'm talking about someone hired with a temporary (1 year) but automatically renewable contract. Where I live, it's just a matter of not renewing it (giving notice one month before the deadline).

namelezz 11y ago

You said it's misconduct which misleads others that they are good.