4 ms·

Yep, it's passive-aggressive firing. She's rationalizing away her avoidance of her discomfort and making it sound like a favor to the people she's letting go.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
bane 11y ago
There's more to it than that. Firing an employee has more legal consequences to a company than having them resign. For example, the company will likely have to pay unemployment taxes to cover the unemployment benefits an employee is likely to receive. Resigning a position also allows an employee to save face and will be documented in their employment file and provided for reference checks from future employers.
crispyambulance 11y ago
Actually, it is a favor. The employee is effectively being asked to leave and they're doing a controlled transition. In many cases, this is the best way to go. This is _similar_ to firing people by putting them on a "performance plan"-- which as almost everyone knows is the "nice way" to fire someone in a corporate environment. Anyone who is put on a "performance plan" had better start searching for a new job immediately. It is definitely better than being fired outright, but there's a phony aspect to calling it a "performance plan". The approach in the article, I think, is more honest and instead of beating around the bush, gives an opportunity for the employer and employee to transition. For example, the employee would then be free to get out of work and go to interviews and the employer could have the employee train their replacement, all with minimal hard-feelings.
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > In many cases, this is the best way to go. Except, without severance and ineligible for unemployment benefits.
  - justinlardinois 11y ago
    If the employer even offers severance.
bbarn 11y ago
No, it's not firing. Firing would be telling that employee their attitude and/or output made them a bad fit and it was time to go. This is the manager explaining that unless that changes, it will be time to go, and giving the employee the choice between changing it, or a gradual way to leave that benefits both parties. It's not rationalizing anything. It's being responsible to her position (keep the best people working in the best environment possible) and to her employee (treat employees with respect even if they don't fit)

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

bane 11y ago

There's more to it than that. Firing an employee has more legal consequences to a company than having them resign. For example, the company will likely have to pay unemployment taxes to cover the unemployment benefits an employee is likely to receive. Resigning a position also allows an employee to save face and will be documented in their employment file and provided for reference checks from future employers.

crispyambulance 11y ago

Actually, it is a favor. The employee is effectively being asked to leave and they're doing a controlled transition. In many cases, this is the best way to go. This is _similar_ to firing people by putting them on a "performance plan"-- which as almost everyone knows is the "nice way" to fire someone in a corporate environment. Anyone who is put on a "performance plan" had better start searching for a new job immediately. It is definitely better than being fired outright, but there's a phony aspect to calling it a "performance plan". The approach in the article, I think, is more honest and instead of beating around the bush, gives an opportunity for the employer and employee to transition. For example, the employee would then be free to get out of work and go to interviews and the employer could have the employee train their replacement, all with minimal hard-feelings.

chimeracoder 11y ago
> In many cases, this is the best way to go. Except, without severance and ineligible for unemployment benefits.
- justinlardinois 11y ago
  If the employer even offers severance.

bbarn 11y ago

No, it's not firing. Firing would be telling that employee their attitude and/or output made them a bad fit and it was time to go. This is the manager explaining that unless that changes, it will be time to go, and giving the employee the choice between changing it, or a gradual way to leave that benefits both parties. It's not rationalizing anything. It's being responsible to her position (keep the best people working in the best environment possible) and to her employee (treat employees with respect even if they don't fit)