
Alternatives to Firing - striking
http://www.askamanager.org/2007/09/alternatives-to-firing.html
======
quanticle

        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.
    

So, in other words, you fired him. You made it clear that the job wasn't going
to change, and that he didn't have a place in your organization. The fact that
he submitted the resignation, rather than you submitting the paperwork is
immaterial to the fact that you fired him. This is as much of a firing as a
government minister "submitting his resignation" in order to "spend more time
with his family" after a particularly embarrassing political scandal or gaffe.

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.

~~~
golemotron
Yep, it's passive-aggressive firing.

She's rationalizing away her avoidance of her discomfort and making it sound
like a favor to the people she's letting go.

~~~
crispyambulance
Actually, it is a favor.

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.

~~~
chimeracoder
> In many cases, this is the best way to go.

Except, without severance and ineligible for unemployment benefits.

~~~
justinlardinois
If the employer even offers severance.

------
xxxxxxxx
I had a young dev in my team many years ago. We agreed it wasn't working out,
so I helped find him a totally different type of role in another part of the
same company. It worked out great. I have no idea why this doesn't happen more
often, it's not difficult to do in any reasonably sized company.

~~~
paulojreis
Just my two cents, as someone completely oblivious about management: maybe
because previous performance, while not great a indicator, is the best
predictor of future performance?

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_ )?

~~~
rglullis
Failed _at that job_ , and _within that particular combination of people, job
requirements and roles to be fulfilled_.

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!_.

~~~
paulojreis
I'm not really a fan of such comparisons, and I don't think yours fares well,
mostly because you are talking "top of the top" performance when you talk
about those two. :) That's not the reality in most jobs and positions. We're
certainly not talking about the Cristiano Ronaldo of software development most
of the times.

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.

~~~
rglullis
It doesn't even have to be at the top. I just used names that are
recognizable. We could be talking about high-school track & field and the
point would still stand.

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.

~~~
paulojreis
> 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,

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.

------
femto
Choose your jurisdiction carefully, especially if "the transition out"
mechanism is a resignation rather than an extended notice to an amicable
firing, and the resignation means the employee misses out on a severance
payout.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal)

~~~
sambeau
Exactly. Here in the UK you would have to be very careful not to find yourself
in an Industrial Tribunal.

That said, I personally think anyone should be able to be bought out of a
contract with, say, 3-6 months pay.

~~~
spacecowboy_lon
The average payout for unfair dismissal is 6 months pay and constructive
dismissal is hard to prove unless the company is particularly dumb - e.g.
having recordings of discussing firing some one for being gay.

~~~
sambeau
From my experience companies likely to be found guilty are advised to make an
out-of-court settlement and often take that route.

------
UweSchmidt
German here; whenever I read workplace stories from the US I can usually
follow along just fine, just at the end, it seems like someone HAS to be
fired, always leaving me a little confused. Why no reconciliation? Why
immediately resort to such a drastic measure?

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.

~~~
paulojreis
I work at a German company, currently, and have been dealing with someone
which - IMO - should be fired. I can understand what you say about not
resorting immediately to drastic measures, and my company is actually trying
(too hard, again IMO) to do that.

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".

~~~
woodcut
I think this has more to do with European employment regulations then what is
'fair', and your company doesn't have much choice in the matter. Think of it
from another perspective, if someone isn't culpable of flagrant misconduct
then whatever issue management have with them could be for a number of reasons
including sexual or racial bias, I think forcing the company to enact due
process is needed to help eliminate some of the ugly politics in firing
someone.

~~~
paulojreis
You're right, generally. In this case, though, I'm talking about someone hired
with a temporary (1 year) but automatically renewable contract. Where I live,
it's just a matter of not renewing it (giving notice one month before the
deadline).

------
askyourmother
Some firms use the principal of making life at work downright unpleasant, in
the hope the member(s) of staff will take the hint and jump before being
pushed. A classic example is the usage of 'PIP's - most of the time unrelated
to actual performance, just an HR approved tool to effect removal of staff.

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.

------
URSpider94
I'm sad that this seems like such a novel idea.

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.

------
ihsw
Some people look at career advancement like it's a race along the highway --
you pull over and put your career on hold, I keep going faster and staying
ahead of you. That kind of thing.

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.

------
bitwize
Being encouraged to resign is the same as being fired by a passive-aggressive
manager. Typically if you resign of your own volition you are ineligible for
unemployment, so this is a card managers should play carefully if at all.

~~~
jaegerpicker
They didn't encourage them to resign. They encouraged them to decide if they
wanted to be there enough to change. It's a very different thing. In this case
the employee has choice and control. It's possible for someone to put in the
required work to change, it's not easy and it may well not be worth it to the
employee but that's up to them.

------
beenfired
If someone talks to you like this hold out for the day that actually fire you
and offer you a significant severance package. Accept it (in writing) before
telling them about the great new job you are starting soon.

~~~
tensor
Great idea, you get some money, and no good will and no reference. If money is
more important to you than ethics and connections, this a great way to go. But
know that connections will get you way farther than being an arrogant but
skilled individual.

~~~
oarsinsync
Depending on your industry, you may not get any reference anyway.

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.

~~~
sokoloff
That's the official policy at a lot of places.

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.

~~~
15155
The negative PR for you and your company when it's found out and publicly
exposed that you're out making disparaging remarks about former employees? No
matter how true, good luck.

~~~
sokoloff
No one says I make disparaging remarks about former employees.

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.

------
donatj
I'm curious about the actual job at hand and the piece which was so tangential
and awful for the person. I've seen many jobs with pieces that simply don't
make sense / may have made sense when the company was smaller. I've also seen
people become very defensive when you try to break that job up to make more
sense.

------
nraynaud
Interesting, I'm in a similar situation, where I don't really fit, but I
really can't envision a company that would be better. I'm just feeling that
I'm not made for this business world.

------
TomMasz
I believe this is called "Making them someone else's problem". Difficult
employees get bounced around from manager to manager because that's easier
than actually firing them. It's probably most common in very large companies,
of course, since they offer the most opportunities to work for other managers.

------
lambdafunc
well, this is firing too, but in a polite way.

------
chipotle2
Good god I would never want to work for a manager like the one who wrote the
article.

What a lack of self-awareness.

------
bm1362
IMO He got the hint and left willingly -- I might be cynical but that's
probably what the manager wanted. If I get the vibe or direct message I'm at
risk of getting fired, I'd be prompted to immediately find a new position.

------
JacksonGariety
> bad hires often aren’t bad employees because they’re stupid, obstinate, or
> insubordinate but rather because they are “miscast.”

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.

