The individual stated they would rather have been fired instead of having to undergo that process.
"Eliza had effectively been frozen out by her employer. Barely a month later, she quit. “It was humiliating – I was made to feel worthless,” she says. “It was the worst experience of my career: I’d rather have been just fired on the spot and paid off than have to go through that.”"
If the manager had simply said “hey this isn’t working for xyz, we are going to put you in a minimal role for 3 months to give you time to look for something else”, that would be generous.
By not telling her, it’s a waste of everyone’s time and money. She figures it out at some point on her own, and feels disrespected (rightfully), that the manager didn’t have the balls to tell her. Additionally the manager hurts the company by having this employee just there for who knows how long.
I think what you propose is pretty similar to the system in place at Amazon (at least ~2019, when I left AWS). It was common knowledge (or at least was widely assumed) that the most likely outcome of a PIP was dismissal, so being put on a PIP was treated as notice that you should look for a new job.
The problem with the person in this article is that there was no communication at all. It was extremely wishy washy.
Btw if you are confrontation averse, you should not be managing anyone ever.
100%, but that requires that their manager be willing to have a difficult conversation with them. It’s not impossible that your whole reporting chain can be staffed with spineless, chickenshit managers.
. . . side with the employer? Employers are not amorphous blobs of cold logic. They are big lumpy sacks full of humans with all that entails.
So it's better for the company if they can convince you to quit.
it is rather generous of you to completely invalidate her opinion/views because they don't match yours.
I guess in her opinion, given a choice of being dehumanized and forced to quit, or being fired upfront she would rather "rip the bandaid off quickly" and be fired instead.
The end result was the same, she left but didn't need to be forced to quit first simply to avoid paying her severance.
People have different experiences, her's was she would rather be fired, perhaps you would rather be shuffled around and forced to quit instead and that is just fine.
I'm not trying to be generous -- I don't want to live in a world where it's the norm for employers to rip the floor up from under people. I don't care if some people are so secure in their finances they prefer that world.
Did you read what I wrote at all? SHE had the opinion that she would rather be fired...
In my opinion, she was given a gift. The opportunity to find another job while working with a safety net that would likely last much longer than a severance if it took a while to find the next “right” opportunity.
I read it much differently:
"In the weeks that followed, Eliza’s professional life became much quieter. Instead of formulating the London-based events agency’s marketing strategy from the office or attending live shows as part of her remit, her main duties now consisted of simply being available between 0900 and 1800, sending the occasional email and completing the odd routine task from home. "
Seems she was doing important work, then made to do degrading work in an attempt to get her to quit.
When she joined, did she apply for a position doing this work? Did she apply for an internal transfer from her current position to this one?
It is astonishing that people such as yourself cant see what is clearly taking place here. She wasn't given an easy remote job.. she was transferred so she would quit and avoid a severance payout.
Several months fully paid for your job search, and no firing on your resume? Sounds very generous to me. I appreciate there would be stress from poor communication about what was going on - but telling someone they should look for another job would be constructive dismissal.
Severance packages go a long way. Last week I randomly met someone who was recently laid of from Peloton. They seemed pretty happy to move back to their home state with a lower cost of living where 6 months severance could last two years.
As I typed that out I just figured out how to sell this idea to upper-management. As a manager it must be hard to fire someone, especially when you know they support a family or just bought a house or whatever. If low level managers knew the people they fired were going to be given generous severance packages, they might be more likely to let go people that are under performing. Which could help the company overall. Though I suppose you would have to watch out for people slacking off on purpose when they are getting head-hunted for a new job.
As a manager by the time I get to the point of termination for job performance or other “issues”, it’s actually a relief. Managing to that point is what is hard.
However, lay offs are difficult, generally because in my experience you know for a long period of time they are coming (as a manager) and who will be affected, and you need to avoid treating those employees you are going to RIF as dead men walking.
If she was that humiliated, she could've quit.
In any case, it should not be "a privilege" to be treated humanely by employers, it should be a right.
I don't see the point you are attempting to make?
They should be fired, but not get what they are legally entitled?
Did you contact the author and ask?