3 ms·

You don't think businesses should fire under-performers? That's nuts.

mcpherrinm 12y ago
Targetting a percentage to fire for underperformance is nuts. I hear stories from companies that have incredibly broken incentives as a result: Managers try to hoard bad employees so they have people to fire when word from the top comes down to drop the bottom 5%, you've got people to let go.
- nyrulez 12y ago
  What is a good solution to deal with under performers from your perspective ? - Keep them ? Let them suck and just be compassionate. They have stomachs to feed. - Let them go over time, one by one. Can create a very fearful atmosphere where there is a sword hanging over anyone who can be let go for any definition of "under performance". - Let them go at once, within a x% range, which probably gets decided based on a ton of things. But at least it is not slowly degrading the morale day by day. The downside is that if this a regular periodic thing, it can create a fiercely competitive and insecure environment in the company.
kryptiskt 12y ago
What is the cost of a system where a third of the employees or so live in fear of being stack ranked out of their jobs? I can't see that leading to a good environment, rather I would predict blame games and general bullshit to proliferate. The derision against Microsoft's stack ranking was pretty universal here.
potatolicious 12y ago
Firing under-performers is one thing, doing it decimation-style en masse is another. Employees who don't measure up need to be judged on a case by case basis and removed from the company in a timely, individual manner. Mass firings, however justified, represent broken management. It means some poor performers were allowed to remain much longer than they should have, and that some poor performers have not been given sufficient opportunity to work with management to resolve issues. It also means morale is going to suffer - even if every single firing here is well justified, mass firings make everyone nervous. I fully expect a healthy organization to trickle away bad hires one at a time as their unsuitability becomes evident. I don't expect healthy organizations to disgorge unsuitable employees in large globs.
- kraig 12y ago
  you got all of that from some crappy forum thread?
- throwaway0010 12y ago
  "Mass firings, however justified, represent broken management" I don't think you've supported this opinion very well. Here's a counterpoint: Hiring and firing are a completely normal part of a business cycle. Every company should expect to have some ratio of hiring to firing. And yes, a firing typically means imperfect hiring practice (which is not the same as imperfect management) -- but here's the key I believe you may not understand: The world is imperfect. We can bank on the fact that we make mistakes; we will always make mistakes. Your other assertion that morale will suffer is empirically false. I know many folks at companies with this sort of practice in place and it boosts their morale because they don't feel like they're dragged down by under-performers. Maybe it lowers the morale of those who are under-performing, but that's not exactly a problem, is it?
  - potatolicious 12y ago
    I think you failed to read the entirety of my post. Of course firing is a normal part of company operations - I stated that explicitly, multiple times in my post. Mass firing however, is not. Hiring will be imperfect, no matter how hard we try. Once in a while someone bad will make it into the company, and it's of great importance that the company identify and fire these people in a timely manner. Note the last part: timely manner. Unless a company has been completely asleep at the wheel, there is no scenario under which people will suddenly go "woah woah woah! these 200 people must go!". To let go of so many all at once suggests you either weren't policing bad hires actively and let too many under-performers stick around for too long (and are just now getting around to cleaning house), and/or suggests a knee-jerk overreaction to some stimulus, and now you're about to throw some baby out with the bathwater. Firing is normal. Mass firings are not. And your "empiricism" is backed by your own personal anecdotes. Funny. In any case, I agree that individual firings can be morale-neutral (never morale-positive, despite your claim). When you fire Bob, who's been underperforming, only the people who work with Bob hear about it. Everyone knows Bob is hard to work with and not very good at his job, and people don't feel threatened by Bob's firing. This isn't true when you're firing 200 people. People in the company hear about it, but they don't know everyone on the list - in fact, they may not know anyone on the list. So now the "obviousness" of the firings isn't so obvious, and people start wondering just how bad these people were to get fired, and they start wondering about their own performance. This is the start of a bad cycle, and morale is going to drop no matter which way you play it. Firing 1 person has a tremendously different dynamic than firing 200 people. So, we agree that firing people who can be saved is a good idea. We disagree fundamentally on whether or not mass firings are a good idea.

Targetting a percentage to fire for underperformance is nuts. I hear stories from companies that have incredibly broken incentives as a result: Managers try to hoard bad employees so they have people to fire when word from the top comes down to drop the bottom 5%, you've got people to let go.

nyrulez 12y ago
What is a good solution to deal with under performers from your perspective ? - Keep them ? Let them suck and just be compassionate. They have stomachs to feed. - Let them go over time, one by one. Can create a very fearful atmosphere where there is a sword hanging over anyone who can be let go for any definition of "under performance". - Let them go at once, within a x% range, which probably gets decided based on a ton of things. But at least it is not slowly degrading the morale day by day. The downside is that if this a regular periodic thing, it can create a fiercely competitive and insecure environment in the company.

kryptiskt 12y ago

What is the cost of a system where a third of the employees or so live in fear of being stack ranked out of their jobs? I can't see that leading to a good environment, rather I would predict blame games and general bullshit to proliferate. The derision against Microsoft's stack ranking was pretty universal here.

potatolicious 12y ago

Firing under-performers is one thing, doing it decimation-style en masse is another. Employees who don't measure up need to be judged on a case by case basis and removed from the company in a timely, individual manner. Mass firings, however justified, represent broken management. It means some poor performers were allowed to remain much longer than they should have, and that some poor performers have not been given sufficient opportunity to work with management to resolve issues. It also means morale is going to suffer - even if every single firing here is well justified, mass firings make everyone nervous. I fully expect a healthy organization to trickle away bad hires one at a time as their unsuitability becomes evident. I don't expect healthy organizations to disgorge unsuitable employees in large globs.

kraig 12y ago
you got all of that from some crappy forum thread?
throwaway0010 12y ago
"Mass firings, however justified, represent broken management" I don't think you've supported this opinion very well. Here's a counterpoint: Hiring and firing are a completely normal part of a business cycle. Every company should expect to have some ratio of hiring to firing. And yes, a firing typically means imperfect hiring practice (which is not the same as imperfect management) -- but here's the key I believe you may not understand: The world is imperfect. We can bank on the fact that we make mistakes; we will always make mistakes. Your other assertion that morale will suffer is empirically false. I know many folks at companies with this sort of practice in place and it boosts their morale because they don't feel like they're dragged down by under-performers. Maybe it lowers the morale of those who are under-performing, but that's not exactly a problem, is it?
- potatolicious 12y ago
  I think you failed to read the entirety of my post. Of course firing is a normal part of company operations - I stated that explicitly, multiple times in my post. Mass firing however, is not. Hiring will be imperfect, no matter how hard we try. Once in a while someone bad will make it into the company, and it's of great importance that the company identify and fire these people in a timely manner. Note the last part: timely manner. Unless a company has been completely asleep at the wheel, there is no scenario under which people will suddenly go "woah woah woah! these 200 people must go!". To let go of so many all at once suggests you either weren't policing bad hires actively and let too many under-performers stick around for too long (and are just now getting around to cleaning house), and/or suggests a knee-jerk overreaction to some stimulus, and now you're about to throw some baby out with the bathwater. Firing is normal. Mass firings are not. And your "empiricism" is backed by your own personal anecdotes. Funny. In any case, I agree that individual firings can be morale-neutral (never morale-positive, despite your claim). When you fire Bob, who's been underperforming, only the people who work with Bob hear about it. Everyone knows Bob is hard to work with and not very good at his job, and people don't feel threatened by Bob's firing. This isn't true when you're firing 200 people. People in the company hear about it, but they don't know everyone on the list - in fact, they may not know anyone on the list. So now the "obviousness" of the firings isn't so obvious, and people start wondering just how bad these people were to get fired, and they start wondering about their own performance. This is the start of a bad cycle, and morale is going to drop no matter which way you play it. Firing 1 person has a tremendously different dynamic than firing 200 people. So, we agree that firing people who can be saved is a good idea. We disagree fundamentally on whether or not mass firings are a good idea.