3 ms·

There's no reason to quiet fire, just raise the expectations. If you set clear expectations and your employee isn't meeting them, that's that. It's quite simple

There's no reason to quiet fire, just raise the expectations. If you set clear expectations and your employee isn't meeting them, that's that. It's quite simple idk why any of this is "quiet".

As_You_Wish 4y ago
Raising expectations? What does that even mean? That I was hired to work from 9-5, but now you expect me to work from 6 am to 9 pm? Have fun replacing me because color me gone.
pixl97 4y ago
I've seen that employers don't want to have written expectations beyond the bare minimum. They want to list an 'industry standard' job for $X per hour, but have verbal expectations of far more than that along with verbal and implied failures on the employees part that the employee is not meeting expectations. If they wrote down the raised expectations in the first place most prospective employees would give them the middle finger and seek more fair compensation. Instead they love to feast on the type of employee that goes above and beyond at a standard level of compensation. My wife recently left a job like this as a manager. She got a year end review that her performance was 'beyond expectations" and that her output and quality of work was the highest in the company. Not a month later they attempted to write her up on a PIP for not meeting expectations (which was interestingly right before they were assigning bonuses). She fought it, won, got the bonus and immediately left. The company then attempted to put my wife's workload on one of her subordinates with no title change or pay increase. Needless to say that employee quickly left too.
RalfWausE 4y ago
And if you are living in a country with reasonable workers rights like germany then "raising expectations" as a reason to firing employees will only lead to a costly appearens before the Arbeitsgericht for the employer
- djohnston 4y ago
  I would imagine you don't raise expectations with the inten to fire, you raise them because you hadn't set them appropriately before. If there was some assumption that workers would give 110% for whatever, but now you know they'll give 100%, you're certainly free to raise the expectations next performance cycle. Are you saying that's a violation of workers rights?
  - As_You_Wish 4y ago
    It is a violation of workers rights, and personally, I'm going to expect my salary to go from $100,000 per year to $110,000 per year. Give me the solution you seek to solve, we agree on a price, I do the solution, I get paid what we agreed. But, I'm not going to start cleaning the toilets every night because the manager wants me to "give 110%." I mean, if for some reason the manager or owner asked me to fix the toilets because they are backing up, and I have the expertise, and there's a big client coming in tomorrow that will quadruple revenue, yeah, I'd do it. But that is not putting in 110%. That's just...common sense? But if they wanted me to do it every week, for 110%, no. Not hired to do that. I'm not working 110% for anyone. Unless we renegotiate my contract and I get paid more.
  - RalfWausE 4y ago
    If you pay for 100% and expect 110%... now... i wouldnt say this violates workers rights but common sense
rdtwo 4y ago
Quiet firing is also better know as organizational failure. Your employer has decided to pay below market wage so cannot hire or retain staff. Those willing to stay work at market equilibrium effectiveness
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

There's no reason to quiet fire, just raise the expectations. If you set clear expectations and your employee isn't meeting them, that's that. It's quite simple idk why any of this is "quiet".

As_You_Wish 4y ago

Raising expectations? What does that even mean? That I was hired to work from 9-5, but now you expect me to work from 6 am to 9 pm? Have fun replacing me because color me gone.

pixl97 4y ago

I've seen that employers don't want to have written expectations beyond the bare minimum. They want to list an 'industry standard' job for $X per hour, but have verbal expectations of far more than that along with verbal and implied failures on the employees part that the employee is not meeting expectations. If they wrote down the raised expectations in the first place most prospective employees would give them the middle finger and seek more fair compensation. Instead they love to feast on the type of employee that goes above and beyond at a standard level of compensation. My wife recently left a job like this as a manager. She got a year end review that her performance was 'beyond expectations" and that her output and quality of work was the highest in the company. Not a month later they attempted to write her up on a PIP for not meeting expectations (which was interestingly right before they were assigning bonuses). She fought it, won, got the bonus and immediately left. The company then attempted to put my wife's workload on one of her subordinates with no title change or pay increase. Needless to say that employee quickly left too.

RalfWausE 4y ago

And if you are living in a country with reasonable workers rights like germany then "raising expectations" as a reason to firing employees will only lead to a costly appearens before the Arbeitsgericht for the employer

djohnston 4y ago
I would imagine you don't raise expectations with the inten to fire, you raise them because you hadn't set them appropriately before. If there was some assumption that workers would give 110% for whatever, but now you know they'll give 100%, you're certainly free to raise the expectations next performance cycle. Are you saying that's a violation of workers rights?
- As_You_Wish 4y ago
  It is a violation of workers rights, and personally, I'm going to expect my salary to go from $100,000 per year to $110,000 per year. Give me the solution you seek to solve, we agree on a price, I do the solution, I get paid what we agreed. But, I'm not going to start cleaning the toilets every night because the manager wants me to "give 110%." I mean, if for some reason the manager or owner asked me to fix the toilets because they are backing up, and I have the expertise, and there's a big client coming in tomorrow that will quadruple revenue, yeah, I'd do it. But that is not putting in 110%. That's just...common sense? But if they wanted me to do it every week, for 110%, no. Not hired to do that. I'm not working 110% for anyone. Unless we renegotiate my contract and I get paid more.
- RalfWausE 4y ago
  If you pay for 100% and expect 110%... now... i wouldnt say this violates workers rights but common sense

rdtwo 4y ago

Quiet firing is also better know as organizational failure. Your employer has decided to pay below market wage so cannot hire or retain staff. Those willing to stay work at market equilibrium effectiveness

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]