30 ms·
> I like the idea of breaking off a boss/employee relationship that's not working and allowing the employee to find a different position in the company rather t
by shados 8y ago
> I like the idea of breaking off a boss/employee relationship that's not working and allowing the employee to find a different position in the company rather than just terminating the employee.
Yeah, there's two sides to it though. On one hand, its very, VERY common when an employee isn't performing that the problem is incompatible team/manager (it might be incompatible with the company, but often its a localized problem).
On the other hand, I've also worked at companies that -always- assumed the problem was the employee/team relationship, and critically incompetent employees would linger around and waste the time of several teams before they were canned, which was an obvious outcome to anyone who had worked with said employee. In one case of a company being way too nice, some dude I worked with took almost 2 years before being fired, when NO ONE wanted to work with him. Imagine how many things we could have done with the 150k+ a year he was paid during that whole ordeal...
- walshemj 8y agoAbsolutely it can just be a case of being in the wrong place and having a shit for a hr manager. one particular nasty piece of work who used to work for a large uk company I worked for comes to mind. I have tried to help some one in this situation but they did not get anyone else involved until its to late - other wise it could have been fixed.
- pkaye 8y agoYes same thing happened in my last employer with one troublesome engineer who was hard to deal with. When his manager left, none of the existing managers wanted to take him into their team. He was eventually kicked out when he verbally abused one the key technical leads.
- rifung 8y ago> In one case of a company being way too nice, some dude I worked with took almost 2 years before being fired, when NO ONE wanted to work with him. Imagine how many things we could have done with the 150k+ a year he was paid during that whole ordeal... Sure but you shouldn't consider the 150k+ on its own; you should compare it against all the goood employees who would've been fired in a different system that you ended up saving. I like to think that it's better to keep one bad person than to fire good people for no reason but I admit that may be more an emotional stance than a logical one. And let me also say that by bad person I mean one who isn't technically able to do well, not one who is a jerk.
- shados 8y agoThe bad employee does do untold damage though. They don't live in a vacuum. Good people quit over them (and not everyone is comfortable with blaming it on an individual, so management may not even know they're the reason). Workspace can become toxic. Rumors can start spreading making people not accept a job. So you lose a lot of people by keeping a bad apple, too. In the example I gave above, at least 4-5 people I know for a fact quit over them before they were dealt with.
- rifung 8y ago> Workspace can become toxic Well this is why I tried to specify only keeping people who were performing poorly not because they were unpleasant to work with. Do people quit because they feel like their coworkers aren't smart or hard working enough?
- brianwawok 8y ago> Do people quit because they feel like their coworkers aren't smart or hard working enough? Yes, especially if the not smart not hard working people get paid more than you do. Very demoralizing.
- shados 8y agoAll the time. The worse is at a high level people don't even realize it, because very quickly the entire workplace becomes "mediocre", and you don't even realize its lacking in "good people" from lack of reference points.