Your previous track record has pretty much no baring on whether you're safe in a layoff. Only the perception of what you can bring to the company in the future counts for anything.
It's hard to argue how that's wrong.
It's hard to argue how that's wrong.
Like your track record for instance.
Obviously we don't know the full story, but people make mistakes, underperform, or somehow lose their touch. If it's a pattern and the person obviously just doesn't want to work there anymore, fine.
But on balance, I think it's better to counsel, coach, and develop people over time, regardless of experience or tenure or attitude. Not only do I believe employee churn to be more expensive in the long run (brand reputation, institutional knowledge, handover premium) but I believe it to be ethically wrong.
This attitude has personally served me well. I can't prove it with data, but my heart is whole and I have no regrets about going above and beyond to retain and develop employees.
I'd rather die without guilt and have a packed funeral – than a trillionaire and alone.
I just think that there is this foolish and ultimately costly view of employees that they are interchangeable parts, when in fact there are more effective ways to improve financial performance.
But nothing lasts forever.
That it works for all those things, but somehow not employee performance is a bizarrely inconsistent assertion to make.