4 ms·

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 "

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.
adrianhoward 14y ago
The role of a manager is not to determine the fire-worthiness of current employees Then whose job is it? 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. That's not been true in my experience. The good employees tend to appreciate the heads up, and work with you to either fix the problem (which may be as much your problem as theirs) or move out in a productive way. The bad ones tend to realise the jig is up and move themselves out ASAP, or rapidly foul up again giving you the evidence you need to shift them out without the decision being seen as arbitrary by the rest of the company.
- mbenjaminsmith 14y ago
  As I stated elsewhere in this thread, correcting employee behavior is a normal part of management but is not the same as saying "you may be fired if" or "improve or else". Putting an employee in a defensive state (where they're either looking for another job or trying desperately to keep their current one) is not sound management technique. Do you really run a business where you threaten employees with termination as a form of motivation? I've built three companies and have managed, hired or fired dozens of people. Under no circumstances can I see what the OP proposed working for me.
  - adrianhoward 14y ago
    Do you really run a business where you threaten employees with termination as a form of motivation? Absolutely not. Putting an employee in a defensive state (where they're either looking for another job or trying desperately to keep their current one) is not sound management technique. Agreed. I've built three companies and have managed, hired or fired dozens of people. Under no circumstances can I see what the OP proposed working for me. I think we're both reading different things from the OPs post. I don't see it as threatening. I see it as transparency. Making it clear to everybody - employer and employee - how issues around continual employment are resolved. This is not something that's introduced at the point of "I want to get rid of this person". This is something that's a part of how the company is run, and is made explicit right from the start. This is not something that's done with the aim of firing somebody. This is something that's done with the aim of fixing the problem. Fixing the problem doesn't always mean firing the employee. That's just one outcome of many. Perhaps it's a cultural thing. I'm in the UK and pretty much every company I've worked for, and every one I've run, has had a structure to how employees leave a company in the same way that there's a structure to how they come on board. The "fire you for any reason at any time" thing that seems to be the general rule in the US seems a far more scary and demotivating mechanism from my perspective.
rfrey 14y ago
"Any good employee would be out the door as soon as they were handed a "second chance"." If an employee truly is a good employee, is underperforming enough to have it formally noted, and would quit rather than step up the game once he was called out... he was already lost to the company.
- codeonfire 14y ago
  It's not about under-performance. You are taking the 'boss knows best' stance which anyone who has ever held a job knows is utterly incorrect. People who manage corporations are usually very immature and have child-like sensibilities. They may decide that they simply don't like someone, that a person is the wrong race or gender, or they want to try and scare other employees. There is no second chance in office politics. Any sort of "second chance" notice indicates a loss of respect and is grounds for immediate firing of my boss. Employees should keep a resignation letter at their desk and be continuously looking for their next job unless they are absolutely sure they are not working under the typical psycopathic boss or founder.
- protomyth 14y ago
  If their life situation allows them to quit. The world is not an ideal place.
kabdib 14y ago
Many companies have a policy of stack-ranking people and tossing out the bottom percentage (ten percent, five percent, whatever) every year. Sometimes it's clear who to get rid of. Sometimes managers are forced to throw perfectly decent workers under the bus in order to protect other workers. It sucks.
- K2h 14y ago
  I saw that first hand, and the moral boost for the 20% that get higher than average raises -almost- offsets the fear of being in the 10% that get put on mandatory performance plan. it can be a game where you take one for the team, get on the 10% performance plan and get off it before the next review cycle. if you get put on twice in a row you are out, so at times you can game the system by trading who goes into the 10% bucket. see GE share holder notes from 2000 http://www.ge.com/annual00/letter/page4.html http://www.ge.com/annual00/letter/page4.html

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.

adrianhoward 14y ago

The role of a manager is not to determine the fire-worthiness of current employees Then whose job is it? 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. That's not been true in my experience. The good employees tend to appreciate the heads up, and work with you to either fix the problem (which may be as much your problem as theirs) or move out in a productive way. The bad ones tend to realise the jig is up and move themselves out ASAP, or rapidly foul up again giving you the evidence you need to shift them out without the decision being seen as arbitrary by the rest of the company.

mbenjaminsmith 14y ago
As I stated elsewhere in this thread, correcting employee behavior is a normal part of management but is not the same as saying "you may be fired if" or "improve or else". Putting an employee in a defensive state (where they're either looking for another job or trying desperately to keep their current one) is not sound management technique. Do you really run a business where you threaten employees with termination as a form of motivation? I've built three companies and have managed, hired or fired dozens of people. Under no circumstances can I see what the OP proposed working for me.
- adrianhoward 14y ago
  Do you really run a business where you threaten employees with termination as a form of motivation? Absolutely not. Putting an employee in a defensive state (where they're either looking for another job or trying desperately to keep their current one) is not sound management technique. Agreed. I've built three companies and have managed, hired or fired dozens of people. Under no circumstances can I see what the OP proposed working for me. I think we're both reading different things from the OPs post. I don't see it as threatening. I see it as transparency. Making it clear to everybody - employer and employee - how issues around continual employment are resolved. This is not something that's introduced at the point of "I want to get rid of this person". This is something that's a part of how the company is run, and is made explicit right from the start. This is not something that's done with the aim of firing somebody. This is something that's done with the aim of fixing the problem. Fixing the problem doesn't always mean firing the employee. That's just one outcome of many. Perhaps it's a cultural thing. I'm in the UK and pretty much every company I've worked for, and every one I've run, has had a structure to how employees leave a company in the same way that there's a structure to how they come on board. The "fire you for any reason at any time" thing that seems to be the general rule in the US seems a far more scary and demotivating mechanism from my perspective.

rfrey 14y ago

"Any good employee would be out the door as soon as they were handed a "second chance"." If an employee truly is a good employee, is underperforming enough to have it formally noted, and would quit rather than step up the game once he was called out... he was already lost to the company.

codeonfire 14y ago
It's not about under-performance. You are taking the 'boss knows best' stance which anyone who has ever held a job knows is utterly incorrect. People who manage corporations are usually very immature and have child-like sensibilities. They may decide that they simply don't like someone, that a person is the wrong race or gender, or they want to try and scare other employees. There is no second chance in office politics. Any sort of "second chance" notice indicates a loss of respect and is grounds for immediate firing of my boss. Employees should keep a resignation letter at their desk and be continuously looking for their next job unless they are absolutely sure they are not working under the typical psycopathic boss or founder.
protomyth 14y ago
If their life situation allows them to quit. The world is not an ideal place.

kabdib 14y ago

Many companies have a policy of stack-ranking people and tossing out the bottom percentage (ten percent, five percent, whatever) every year. Sometimes it's clear who to get rid of. Sometimes managers are forced to throw perfectly decent workers under the bus in order to protect other workers. It sucks.

K2h 14y ago
I saw that first hand, and the moral boost for the 20% that get higher than average raises -almost- offsets the fear of being in the 10% that get put on mandatory performance plan. it can be a game where you take one for the team, get on the 10% performance plan and get off it before the next review cycle. if you get put on twice in a row you are out, so at times you can game the system by trading who goes into the 10% bucket. see GE share holder notes from 2000 http://www.ge.com/annual00/letter/page4.html http://www.ge.com/annual00/letter/page4.html