Alternatives to Firing
askamanager.org
askamanager.org
I told him that I knew he was frustrated by these particular things but that
they simply weren’t going to change, that they were inherent parts of the
job, and that I didn’t want us to be constantly battling over them … and
that rather than trying to force himself into a job that obviously was
making him frustrated and stressed, I wanted to see him figure out if he
could really be happy in the position, knowing that the things he was
complaining about weren’t going to change.
A couple of days later, he told me that he had thought about it and realized
he should move on.
Now, granted, I agree that the firing was handled well, and was done with a minimum of pain to both parties. But you still fired him. I'm worried that OP is trying to sidestep that fact and make it seem like this was some kind of voluntary meeting of the minds when, in my reading of the situation, it clearly wasn't.
I mean, it was an ultimatum, but as far as I can tell, I could very well have simply done what the boss asked of me and kept the job.
I wonder how different that is from just saying "No" when asked to fix things for the employee. I'd view that as being a terrible manager, but not as a firing.
And, if both parties parted as amicably as claimed by the OP, how bad can the management have been?
why? because there was an ultimatum? I don't really see it as bad management. Sometimes it doesn't work out, and that's fine. Sometimes a relationship that worked last year or last month doesn't work anymore... and while that's sad, it's also natural and should be okay. And sometimes, it's clear that the employee and the employer are moving in different directions. This is okay.
I think that employees need to stop thinking that getting fired is the end of the world, because it puts them at a serious disadvantage.
That's the thing; the negotiation doesn't end when you are done negotiating salary; and work is almost a constant negotiation. If you aren't willing to walk, or if you aren't willing to let the other guy walk, you are going to get screwed. Relationships end; it happens, be prepared for that eventuality financially and emotionally, and learn to move on.
Parent comment was suggesting that we would call a boss simply saying "no" to an employee asking for some change to be bad management. And that's a pretty reasonable assertion, unlike the straw man I constructed through poor reading comprehension.
So the question then is "why is an ultimatum okay when just saying "no" isn't?"
and that's a good question. I mean, I guess it's explaining that, you know, this is something the boss isn't going to change, that the boss would rather change the employee than change the thing the employee is asking to change.
so... I guess that is better than "no" because it conveys a lot more information. I mean, you could get a similar effect, I think, without the ultimatum with a sufficient "no, and here is why:" but the ultimatum conveys more information about the employers priorities.
Management sometimes has to make crappy decisions. Good management is being transparent even through crappy decisions. Bad management is being opaque through the same crappy decisions.
I tread very carefully around the comparison and fully admit the different scale, but this kind of power-imbalance is exactly the reason why kidnapping and rape are considered so serious. The psychological damage the forced actions have on a person are painful. Being fired sucks because there was no choice involved, your life is changing right now and there's nothing you can do about it because you have no power.
The article is talking about a method by which that equation of power imbalance is shifted to something more equal in nature. It's about getting the other person to agree to the statement "I should not be working here, in this role".
When both sides agree, it stops being a power-imbalanced forced action and becomes working together to find a better place to be in the future. That's the core difference here.
I've seen it done right, and I've seen it done wrong, and I am in awe of the managers I've had who can do it right.
We do not know what the job is, we do not know what it was that upset them, we do not know how easy to avoid it could be.
An example I am aware of is an artist who was problematic about the limited scope of their employment. They always wanted to make the project into an animation with music etc. but this isn't what the clients or other members of the team wanted.
Long story short his sister got a boyfriend who showed him that the job would never change, so he made animation projects in his spare time as a portfolio for other jobs.
Turns out when he wasn't being arsey and problematic he could do his existing job faster, so managed to reduce work to 3 days a week. Its a good stable income whilst he fails at incorporating music into personal projects.
She's rationalizing away her avoidance of her discomfort and making it sound like a favor to the people she's letting go.
Resigning a position also allows an employee to save face and will be documented in their employment file and provided for reference checks from future employers.
The employee is effectively being asked to leave and they're doing a controlled transition. In many cases, this is the best way to go.
This is _similar_ to firing people by putting them on a "performance plan"-- which as almost everyone knows is the "nice way" to fire someone in a corporate environment. Anyone who is put on a "performance plan" had better start searching for a new job immediately. It is definitely better than being fired outright, but there's a phony aspect to calling it a "performance plan".
The approach in the article, I think, is more honest and instead of beating around the bush, gives an opportunity for the employer and employee to transition. For example, the employee would then be free to get out of work and go to interviews and the employer could have the employee train their replacement, all with minimal hard-feelings.
Except, without severance and ineligible for unemployment benefits.
This is the manager explaining that unless that changes, it will be time to go, and giving the employee the choice between changing it, or a gradual way to leave that benefits both parties.
It's not rationalizing anything. It's being responsible to her position (keep the best people working in the best environment possible) and to her employee (treat employees with respect even if they don't fit)
But how would it be interpreted legally? Would I be eligible for unemployment benefits? Severance?
Those questions might lead me to "stick it out" to get fired in a traditional manner. Of course, if my boss were sincere about this polite manner of firing me, I would hope he/she would do it in a way that would allow me to have those benefits.
No.
People who choose to terminate their own employment are general not eligible (in the U.S. at least) for unemployment benefits and most employment contracts will not provide severance unless the employee is laid off.
The issue here was that the entire workplace isn't going to be reformed for a single employee. It's clearly a mismatch. The employee can then choose to adapt to the way things are done, or they can choose to move on -- which is what happened. In a firing, the employee has no choice, the decision has been made for them.
This is pretty clearly not firing. Firing comes with an entire bag of other things that resigning does not. For example, a person who was fired might be able to collect unemployment while looking for a new job. A person who resigns is not. A person who is laid-off is automatically able to collect unemployment.
Companies also are called by future employers to find out the nature of the split, and the way the separation happened will be in the employee's file. Many companies will also keep a record of why the separation happened.
In the first case, convincing somebody to resign is a favor to the company, because companies must pay into the unemployment pool. In the second, it's a favor to the employee because being fired can have long-term career consequences to them.
1. Something I did was bad enough that I don't work there anymore
2. I didn't have time or space to plan for this
3. I feel injured and sad that this occurred
Anytime you don't satisfy those criteria, the situation isn't really what people think of as a 'firing,' - even a well-handled 'firing' implies extreme discomfort and bad feelings between the associated parties- it doesn't make sense to use the word if the situation doesn't correspond to the primary differentiating characteristics of that word vs. other similar words!
For example, 'laid-off' strongly implies that it wasn't really anything you did, though it does imply that you weren't the precious, necessary performer on the team. "Laid-off" is fairly neutral- you might return to work for that company again, etc. "Fired" strongly implies a much different situation. I mean, if we want to work on redefining the words, so that a situation like this can be called a "well-handled firing," that's all fine (though I might assert that it's wasted effort), but as it stands, I think that you'd have to spend so much time and so many words explaining how this firing was different from all the other firings people are used to seeing, that not calling it a "firing" at all makes the most sense.
Have a splendid day, quanticle! :)
To put it more obviously, as a manager of "another part" of the same company, wouldn't you rather have the opportunity to recruit and hire, instead of being handed someone (which you know already failed)?
What it is, rather, is the IBM effect in reverse. Regardless of how good a predictor it really is, common knowledge is that it really matters. If you add a random new worker to the team and it doesn't work out, well, these things happen. If you have someone with a classic "red flag" (most of which are either highly exaggerated or complete bullshit) and it doesn't work out, it's all your fault.
Of course, in reality, the same factors dominate in both cases—things don't always work out, but that's only to be expected. But woe if you can be blamed for it!
Bottom line is: I'd totally understand a manager not accepting a guy that failed elsewhere in the same company; he would possibly be wrong in doing so, but - really - what would you do? I'd eventually try to interview the guy but, in the end, if I got two "final" candidates and one of them already failed in the company, I'd go for the other.
Both Lebron James and Cristiano Ronaldo are top players at their sports, and known for their high athleticism. You wouldn't expect them to switch and still be performing at the level they do.
Heck, you wouldn't even expect them to be performing at a high capacity if you just switched positions inside their own team!.
As I said in other comments, I agree with the general premise of what you say. I also do, on the other hand, have some experience of the common workplace to know that sometimes, low performance is low commitment or carelessness. And both will very possibly transfer to other position. Again, previous performance is not a great indicator; I understand, however, that people might have to resort to it sometimes.
Irrelevant to the analogy. A striker cannot play in central defence, or vice versa. That's the point.
Sure they can. Perhaps not as well, but I bet a premier division striker will easily be able to play defense for a lower division team, and with a bit of experience could probably become really good. Hell I'm sure LeBron James could make a pretty decent soccer player if someone gave him some coaching and the right incentives.
Don't even need to get out of football to think of an example where this experiment has failed. Falcão is to this day considered one of the greatest players of indoor football. He tried to get into football by playing for São Paulo FC and stayed in the bench for most of the season, then went back to futsal.
Or if you want to go back to Basketball: Michael Jordan and his baseball career.
In any case, what I am trying to say is that you seem too quick to pin the lack of performance in the "common workplace" on the individual, when there are so many other parts on the system that can and should be analyzed. What the others and I are saying is "no, we can't say that poor performance 'will very possible transfer to the other position". Especially if you have access to the people that worked with them and can have a deeper look at the context, it makes no sense to be looking at past performance to judge potential.
Sorry, but no, not at all. I explicitly said "sometimes": "sometimes, low performance is low commitment or carelessness". My message since the beginning has been that, while not a great indicator, previous performance will at least have some correlation with future performance. Again, it's not great, but it's also not a random relationship.
I hope it goest without saying, you can and should try to have a deeper look at the context.
But, having said that, it takes some rare managerial skills to pull it off. I've worked with someone who had those skills and it was fascinating to watch it happen. It took an ability to be bluntly honest to the "problem" employee without tearing them down, an ability to figure out their strengths, and then knowledge of where those strengths could be applied elsewhere in the company.
Often, especially with early career employees, what they're good at doing, and what they went to school for are wildly different. And they don't yet know their own competencies and aptitudes until they hit a job. I've had a few employees who were spectacularly unable to do the job we hired them for, but blossomed in other positions.
You retain a knowledgable employee (there are real costs, both financially and production-wise, to firing and hiring).
There is now some built-in loyalty and trust. Not only have they kept their job, but their situation may be improved. That will likely be remembered and respected.
There's times when firing is the only course of action, but investing in people also pays off. If a manager is just another cog in the machinery who is only concerned about their tail, then they may care less about the long-term benefits to the company and the individual. But it could also work to their advantage to resolve matters this way.
That said, I personally think anyone should be able to be bought out of a contract with, say, 3-6 months pay.
In my professional life I've come across a handful of colleagues who were demoted when they couldn't handle a certain role, or who have committed various kinds of misconduct, yet remained at their companies just fine.
However, you have to consider the downsides of this: is it fair that my workload is increased, because someone is underperforming? I'm not talking about occasional spikes, this is systematic. What does the company communicate to its associates, when "accepting" someone like this? What about quality, how am I supposed to champion quality if the company accepts the low quality output (let's forget "low quantity" for a moment) from someone else?
There's always a downside, and the workplace is an open system. You can't just "target" the low-performer, everything you do will target everyone on the team. If you try to "reconciliation" measures (other roles, extra training, coaching, easing of tasks), you're implicitly communicating something to the other team members. If you do it repeatedly and long enough, you'll eventually get: a) frustration, resentment and feelings of unfairness in other associates; and b) diminishing commitment and quality standards (i.e. "why should I care for quality if it is not demanded from others?").
P.S. I also feel a kind of shock every time I hear/read someone talking "lightheartedly" about firing someone. I'm just trying to highlight the potential downside of "not firing".
A lot of the time conflicts arise due personality clashes rather than technical differences, basically your face no longer fits/the manager wants someone else in your place.
Best advice on those circumstances is to be polite, absolutely do the work asked, keep records of everything, look for a new job, but also retain an employment lawyer, so if they move onto stage two - aka "really fucking over the staff", you have options.
I have a colleague who followed this process in the UK, took them to tribunal, they bottled it, and settled when it became apparent how much evidence the staff had collected to support their position.
The only time a "firing" should come as a surprise to an employee is when they are being laid off as part of a restructuring (this is unfortunately the only practical way to do it).
Any time an employee is not meeting performance expectations, their manager should be communicating the gap to them early and often. At some point, these discussions should be getting more and more explicit to make it clear that their continued employment is at risk. Some people will change their behavior and make a turn-around. Some will see the writing on the wall and leave of their own accord (usually those with more maturity/perspective, and those who have other options). Some people will hang on to the last and leave fingernail marks on the door frame -- but they should never be able to say that it was a surprise.
I think it would be prudent to look at it like trying to build your own sandcastle, and everybody does it in different ways and at different speeds. There is no reason my progress should impede yours.
That said, I think the article is spot on. Firing can be a positive experience and it need not imply a negative progression, but simply a lateral adjustment.
My references for the last 3 jobs over 6 years has been "Yes, he was employed here from $startdate to $enddate as $jobtitle"
And that's it, to avoid any risk of there being any liability issue.
It's gone from "you're not allowed to give a negative reference" to "why bother doing anything more than the bare minimum" in a number of industries I've been in.
IMO, as a manager, you're an AH if you aren't willing to give more information than that in a reference check, regardless of company policy.
Ask me for a reference on a good former employee: you get a lot more than dates and titles. This is where I'd be an ass to not talk about them more. I don't walk around afraid of my own shadow.
Ask me for a reference on a poor former employee: you get dates and titles.
EDIT: just noticed that you expect former managers to risk their job to provide a positive reference for you, despite the fact that you left them. I'd gladly write recommendations on former employees linkedin profiles if requested, but when my former employee's new employer is contacting my employer (via me) for a reference, I'm not risking my job for theirs, and I don't think that makes me an AH. If they do, I've sorely misjudged them.
The backchannel reference check is already blown, make no mistake.
It's a firing. You're now, instead of being entitled to benefits (in most areas) or being able to negotiate for them, being given absolutely nothing.
Also, a mutual non-disparagement agreement and severance is extremely easy to negotiate for.
And then guess what? Instead of being fucked in that backchannel reference check, _everyone_ takes pause due to the potential consequences.
Sure, a backchannel reference check might still happen, but if and when you find out about it: good night.
Pardon me for being dense, but can you unpack that figure of speech at the end?
What a lack of self-awareness.
I dare you to find a product manager who can actually put this into practice without losing his/her job. The entire means of production and bureaucracy are founded on excluding the "mad" and "unreasonable."
If you want to treat people fairly, we'll have to go through our prisons with a fine-toothed comb.