5 ms·
I always had to document and explain why I thought an employee deserved a raise, or should not get a bonus, etc. Even as a director with ~20 reports I don't hav
by munchbunny 6y ago
I always had to document and explain why I thought an employee deserved a raise, or should not get a bonus, etc. Even as a director with ~20 reports I don't have unlimited firing power and I still need to regroup with HR when it comes to that.
Having that system in place isn't enough. You need that system to have teeth, and you need to have someone with as much power as you who will review your decisions and play devil's advocate.
In many teams I've seen with documentation and HR hurdles, they're not real hurdles, they're just there so that there's a paper trail at all. That's because:
1. Most people in the company including the manager's boss and possibly even most teammates of the employee don't see enough of the employee's work, so it's often the manager's word vs. employee's. A bad manager will exploit that, intentionally or unintentionally.
2. When in doubt, the management hierarchy tends to side with the manager on things, because they by default trust the manager more than the employee and their view of the facts of the situation usually comes from the manager. A bad manager will intentionally or unintentionally editorialize the facts on their way up the hierarchy.
3. HR tends to avoid making waves. The only time I've seen HR (excuse the metaphor) plant the flag on the hill they intend to die on, it's because the person being fired or managed out was a protected class of worker. I have never seen HR push back just because the manager had insufficient reasons or suspect reasoning. A bad manager will just shove decisions through HR, intentionally or unintentionally.
In all of those places, there were systems in place where managers had to document those decisions, but there wasn't real accountability, so the systems were nominal at best.
- OJFord 6y agoWhat's a 'protected class of worker'? I'm aware of 'protected characteristics', but they cut both ways, not something you can be or not be.
- munchbunny 6y ago"Characteristics" works too. I meant the categories that fall under employment description in general: https://www.eeoc.gov/youth/what-employment-discrimination https://www.eeoc.gov/youth/what-employment-discrimination Specifically, I meant that when you're firing someone who falls into those categories, HR will often require you to document extra well why it's not employment discrimination, in case there's a lawsuit.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> What's a 'protected class of worker'? > I'm aware of 'protected characteristics', but they cut both ways, not something you can be or not be. The legal term of art is “protected class” and not all of them cut both ways (age over 40, disability, and veteran status are all one-sided protected classes.)
- OJFord 6y agoOk, well I suppose it should have been obvious this varies with jurisdiction. In mine, it is indeed 'characteristics', and it is 'age', not 'over 40'.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> HR tends to avoid making waves. The only time I've seen HR (excuse the metaphor) plant the flag on the hill they intend to die on, it's because the person being fired or managed out was a protected class of worker. I have never seen HR push back just because the manager had insufficient reasons or suspect reasoning. Second guessing management hiring/firing decisions that don't expose the company to unacceptable risk of liability for labor law violations generally isn't HR’s function.
- cutemonster 6y agoDoes that mean you disagree with "the systems were nominal at best"? And sometimes / often there are real and accurate reviews of termination reasons (From your perspective)?
- munchbunny 6y agoSure, it may not be HR's function. That's my point. Even with the paperwork, HR effectively never acts as a counterbalance to a bad manager. That's why I list it as one of the reasons why the paperwork that the grandparent poster has to do is often part of a system that only keeps honest people honest. When I think back to some of the most egregious workplace culture issues in recent memory, such as Uber (Susan Fowler) or Riot Games, HR was, by the most charitable interpretation, unable to stop obviously bad things from happening. By a more literal read of the news at the time, HR was complicit.