6 ms·

This article is half as good as it could be. The underlying assumption here is that you already know an employee is bad and that you need to fire them. But ho

by physcab 14y ago

This article is half as good as it could be. The underlying assumption here is that you already know an employee is bad and that you need to fire them. But how do you know an employee is bad? This is a question that no one seems to get right, unless its fairly obvious. If they stole something, no brainer. If they sexually harassed an employee, should be a no brainer. And if the company is in a financially distressed position, it may be unpleasant to fire someone, but atleast its understandable. What if the company is healthy and employee did nothing obviously wrong? Then I guess, you look at the quality of their work. But judging quality is subjective, and you're likely to have a sliding scale depending on employee's past experience and delta to their start date. And what about periodic reviews? What about quarterly objectives? What about what other employee's think? How long do you warn an employee before you go ahead with it? I think one of the better ways of dealing with firing is how it was handled in grad school. At my school, you had a series of qualifying examinations and you had a committee. The rules were pretty clear: 2 chances to pass and if not, goodbye. One of the tests was an oral examination in front of the committee of 5. There weren't any clear answers, but the committee would convene and in an hour they'd have a decision with lots of feedback. I failed my first attempt. But guess what? After that, I honed in on their feedback, worked my fucking ass off and passed my second attempt with flying colors. I don't see this happening at many (or any) companies. I'm not sure why, but IMHO employers use the "at will termination" too liberally. Either that, or they let the bad employees stay far too long. Sometimes I wonder if a second chance would help bubble good employees to the top when you had previously mis-classified them as bad or vice versa. Firing scares the shit out of people...why not make this process less of a surprise than it has to be.

Jare 14y ago
I've had all sorts of experiences: fired people who were good but their minds were elsewhere, fired bad people that shouldn't have been hired; I have waited too long to fire someone, and also I have kept people I intended to fire and seen them improve. Outside of the obvious cases you cite, firing should be the end of a process, not an isolated action. As soon as you start having real doubts about the performance or fitness of an employee, have at least two meetings with them to discuss the issues and create improvement plans and actions, before resorting to firing them. Those meetings are hard to approach correctly, but not as hard as actually firing the person, so please do not wait to have them, and make the most out of them. They will not just benefit the employee (clarifying your expectations of them), but often also yourself (understanding your own mistakes as a manager).
- physcab 14y ago
  I agree 100%. However, let's not overlook the fact that there are a proportion of managers who view termination as both the start and the end of the process with no conversation taking place. I think that's the "at will" part of the "at will termination" clause everyone signs. And I have a sneaking suspicion that this proportion is much larger than we might hope to think.
- Retric 14y ago
  Having been on the other side of a 'improve or leave' action, and then getting an out of cycle raise six months later. I think the most important part is simply clearly informing someone they are below expectations. Many people, myself included tend to look for the upper and lower bound of expectations. Or as a friend said, you never show up barefoot on the first day.
- mindcrime 14y ago
  As soon as you start having real doubts about the performance or fitness of an employee, have at least two meetings with them to discuss the issues and create improvement plans and actions, before resorting to firing them. Sure, as long as you understand that the need for improvement is as likely to like with management as it is with the employee. Shitty morale because of management political shenanigans, lack of engagement because nobody bothers to share the big picture or any information about what's going on, or boredom because the employee's skills aren't actually being utilized, are all management fails which can look like an employee problem. If management is going to sit with a "problem" employee, they better be prepared to look in the mirror a little as well.
  - maratd 14y ago
    While all of that is true, in my experience, quality people choose to end a relationship rather than allow others to drag them down. In the end, we all deserve each other. Those are the only relationships that last.
    - mindcrime 14y ago
mbenjaminsmith 14y ago
The role of a manager is not to determine the fire-worthiness of current employees. Putting employees in front of a firing squad on a regular basis and having "half-fired" employees working in a state of limbo would murder company morale. Any good employee would be out the door as soon as they were handed a "second chance". They would use that chance just long enough to find a better job, if they didn't quit outright. Truly "bad" employees would likely stick around (lack of motivation to move, inability to move, spite, etc) and wreak havoc on your business. Firing is sometimes a business decision, sometimes due to someone actually doing harm to your business but often the last in a series of management failures. It's a last resort but if you've reached that point just get it over with.
- physcab 14y ago
  Firings often come down to differences in expectations. Sometimes those differences arise due to communication failures by both the manager and the employee. I don't see "second chances" as "half firings". I see it as an opportunity to reset expectations appropriately, and if there are still differences, then action must be taken.
  - mbenjaminsmith 14y ago
    Talking to someone about correcting their actions or improving is completely normal -- I've never managed someone who didn't respond positively to discussing their performance constructively. Telling someone to "improve or else" is a completely different animal. If you want that employee to focus on doing their job (and improving their performance) they have to not be wasting energy looking for another job. From their perspective, moving to another job before they're fired is much better for their career (and ego) than sticking around and possibly getting fired. I've only been in the situation once where I had to "reset expectations" and that was because the employee was not hired at will and we were hoping that person would resign (they did).
    - physcab 14y ago
      Telling someone to "improve or else" is a completely different animal. If you want that employee to focus on doing their job (and improving their performance) they have to not be wasting energy looking for another job. From their perspective, moving to another job before they're fired is much better for their career (and ego) than sticking around and possibly getting fired. I'm not sure why you'd immediately jump to the conclusion that employees would be looking for another job. That's something which may be completely out of your control (whether they're bad, good, happy, or disgruntled at their job) so why worry about it? You're also making this hypothetical "improve or else" conversation more negative than I see it happening. Like I said, in grad school, when I failed my quals the first time the committee gave me constructive feedback. Sure, I could have been like "fuck this" and went to a different school, but then again, I knew the rules when I signed up and I chose to honor them. I also felt like their feedback was reasonable. It was nothing personal and when 5 people agree on something, its easy to see where you came up short. I also had a chance to rebuttal if I thought their grading was wrong. Secondly, failing my quals gave them a chance to help me. Previously I thought I knew what to do on my own, so I never bothered them with questions. Afterwards, I clearly saw the mismatch in expectations, so I pestered them until I was sure the answer they were looking for was the one I was spending my time on figuring out. If you're envisioning a one-way "improve or else" conversation taking place, then yeah, I agree with you. But this should be a dialog where both parties are willing to admit they were in the wrong.
rhizome 14y ago
Sometimes the right person to fire is one who doesn't compensate for management's shortcomings.
- hef19898 14y ago
  Nicely put!
timthorn 14y ago
>I don't see this happening at many (or any) companies It's exactly how the process works in the UK, at least below executive levels. Not least because it's the easiest way to obtain the proof of incompetence required to demonstrate that the firing was done fairly.
- arethuza 14y ago
  In the UK employees don't have any right to challenge for unfair dismissal until you have been employed for one year - up to then you can be fired with little process.
  - philjohn 14y ago
    Not quite - if you are dismissed for an automatically unfair reason (mostly to do with discrimination, but also some others in there like having to serve for Jury duty) then there is no qualification period. As of April this year the limit has also increased to 2 years.
    - arethuza 14y ago
      Thanks for that, I had missed the change for the 2 years: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/apr/06/unfair-dismissal-reform-government-unions http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/apr/06/unfair-dismissal... [NB It only applies to new employees who were hired since this was brought in, everyone else is still on one year].

by physcab 14y ago

Jare 14y ago

I've had all sorts of experiences: fired people who were good but their minds were elsewhere, fired bad people that shouldn't have been hired; I have waited too long to fire someone, and also I have kept people I intended to fire and seen them improve. Outside of the obvious cases you cite, firing should be the end of a process, not an isolated action. As soon as you start having real doubts about the performance or fitness of an employee, have at least two meetings with them to discuss the issues and create improvement plans and actions, before resorting to firing them. Those meetings are hard to approach correctly, but not as hard as actually firing the person, so please do not wait to have them, and make the most out of them. They will not just benefit the employee (clarifying your expectations of them), but often also yourself (understanding your own mistakes as a manager).

physcab 14y ago
I agree 100%. However, let's not overlook the fact that there are a proportion of managers who view termination as both the start and the end of the process with no conversation taking place. I think that's the "at will" part of the "at will termination" clause everyone signs. And I have a sneaking suspicion that this proportion is much larger than we might hope to think.
Retric 14y ago
Having been on the other side of a 'improve or leave' action, and then getting an out of cycle raise six months later. I think the most important part is simply clearly informing someone they are below expectations. Many people, myself included tend to look for the upper and lower bound of expectations. Or as a friend said, you never show up barefoot on the first day.
mindcrime 14y ago
As soon as you start having real doubts about the performance or fitness of an employee, have at least two meetings with them to discuss the issues and create improvement plans and actions, before resorting to firing them. Sure, as long as you understand that the need for improvement is as likely to like with management as it is with the employee. Shitty morale because of management political shenanigans, lack of engagement because nobody bothers to share the big picture or any information about what's going on, or boredom because the employee's skills aren't actually being utilized, are all management fails which can look like an employee problem. If management is going to sit with a "problem" employee, they better be prepared to look in the mirror a little as well.
- maratd 14y ago
  While all of that is true, in my experience, quality people choose to end a relationship rather than allow others to drag them down. In the end, we all deserve each other. Those are the only relationships that last.
  - mindcrime 14y ago

mbenjaminsmith 14y ago

The role of a manager is not to determine the fire-worthiness of current employees. Putting employees in front of a firing squad on a regular basis and having "half-fired" employees working in a state of limbo would murder company morale. Any good employee would be out the door as soon as they were handed a "second chance". They would use that chance just long enough to find a better job, if they didn't quit outright. Truly "bad" employees would likely stick around (lack of motivation to move, inability to move, spite, etc) and wreak havoc on your business. Firing is sometimes a business decision, sometimes due to someone actually doing harm to your business but often the last in a series of management failures. It's a last resort but if you've reached that point just get it over with.

physcab 14y ago
Firings often come down to differences in expectations. Sometimes those differences arise due to communication failures by both the manager and the employee. I don't see "second chances" as "half firings". I see it as an opportunity to reset expectations appropriately, and if there are still differences, then action must be taken.
- mbenjaminsmith 14y ago
  Talking to someone about correcting their actions or improving is completely normal -- I've never managed someone who didn't respond positively to discussing their performance constructively. Telling someone to "improve or else" is a completely different animal. If you want that employee to focus on doing their job (and improving their performance) they have to not be wasting energy looking for another job. From their perspective, moving to another job before they're fired is much better for their career (and ego) than sticking around and possibly getting fired. I've only been in the situation once where I had to "reset expectations" and that was because the employee was not hired at will and we were hoping that person would resign (they did).
  - physcab 14y ago
    Telling someone to "improve or else" is a completely different animal. If you want that employee to focus on doing their job (and improving their performance) they have to not be wasting energy looking for another job. From their perspective, moving to another job before they're fired is much better for their career (and ego) than sticking around and possibly getting fired. I'm not sure why you'd immediately jump to the conclusion that employees would be looking for another job. That's something which may be completely out of your control (whether they're bad, good, happy, or disgruntled at their job) so why worry about it? You're also making this hypothetical "improve or else" conversation more negative than I see it happening. Like I said, in grad school, when I failed my quals the first time the committee gave me constructive feedback. Sure, I could have been like "fuck this" and went to a different school, but then again, I knew the rules when I signed up and I chose to honor them. I also felt like their feedback was reasonable. It was nothing personal and when 5 people agree on something, its easy to see where you came up short. I also had a chance to rebuttal if I thought their grading was wrong. Secondly, failing my quals gave them a chance to help me. Previously I thought I knew what to do on my own, so I never bothered them with questions. Afterwards, I clearly saw the mismatch in expectations, so I pestered them until I was sure the answer they were looking for was the one I was spending my time on figuring out. If you're envisioning a one-way "improve or else" conversation taking place, then yeah, I agree with you. But this should be a dialog where both parties are willing to admit they were in the wrong.

rhizome 14y ago

Sometimes the right person to fire is one who doesn't compensate for management's shortcomings.

hef19898 14y ago
Nicely put!

timthorn 14y ago

>I don't see this happening at many (or any) companies It's exactly how the process works in the UK, at least below executive levels. Not least because it's the easiest way to obtain the proof of incompetence required to demonstrate that the firing was done fairly.

arethuza 14y ago
In the UK employees don't have any right to challenge for unfair dismissal until you have been employed for one year - up to then you can be fired with little process.
- philjohn 14y ago
  Not quite - if you are dismissed for an automatically unfair reason (mostly to do with discrimination, but also some others in there like having to serve for Jury duty) then there is no qualification period. As of April this year the limit has also increased to 2 years.
  - arethuza 14y ago
    Thanks for that, I had missed the change for the 2 years: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/apr/06/unfair-dismissal-reform-government-unions http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/apr/06/unfair-dismissal... [NB It only applies to new employees who were hired since this was brought in, everyone else is still on one year].