5 ms·
the counter-argument is that when you fire someone, their co-workers, generally speaking, become at least a little uneasy (usually the level of unease is direct
by lsc 10y ago
the counter-argument is that when you fire someone, their co-workers, generally speaking, become at least a little uneasy (usually the level of unease is directly proportional to the level of agreement that the person getting fired wasn't good enough or otherwise had it coming, but there is still some unease even when it's obvious that it's the only way forward.)
Now, you can try to get around this by a real trial period (either contract-to-hire, or being super clear that the trial period is actually a trial period) - if you fire an employee of a obviously lower class, employees of the higher classes won't be as disturbed as if you fired one of their peers, but then you have the contract-to-hire problem, which is that people will usually choose a job perceived to be long-term with a low risk of being fired over any sort of 'trial period' - a large portion of your top applicants will turn the job down if they have to spend time as a lower-tier of employee first.
- shados 10y agoyou're right, people get uneasy about it, but they get really uneasy when you keep bad people. I've seen entire companies evaporate because a bad apple stuck around, people who had to work with them quit, then more quit, and eventually the whole company was just mediocre or bad people and they couldn't run with that anymore. Kind of the broken window problem applied to people.
- lsc 10y agoSure, but my point is that there is a high cost to firing people. I agree that there is also a high cost to not firing someone when it needs to be done, but the two of those things combined explains why employers want so badly to get it right the first time.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]