
The Best Approach to the Worst Conversation: "You're Fired" - ca98am79
http://firstround.com/article/The-Best-Approach-to-the-Worst-Conversation
======
001sky
I only made it 3/4 through this, but this seems like paint-by-numbers advice,
and lacks the real-world flavour that make "following a textbook" in these
cases <actually hard>.

 _Feedback needs to be immediate. As soon as someone steps off the path or
veers into dangerous territory, let them know. Ideally during the first 90
days, give people “an exorbitant amount of feedback,” Lopp says. “Just think,
you could have fixed it six or nine months earlier by pulling Jeff aside and
saying, hey you really frustrated people in that last meeting because you
weren’t listening.”_

People that are being "jerks" are typically not leaving obvious footprints
when they "step off the path" nor do they tend to make obvious and transparent
mistakes or mis-steps in pubic. You are typically dealting with people well
versed in passive agression. Plausibly deniability, and adding unwanted
"drama" by abusing their authority, or bullying their staff or doing a whole
range of things which if the junior staff report to (skip-level) management,
they (not the mid-level-manager) will be on the hook for "insubordination" to
the business discretion of the middle boss. This is the type of opaque,
catch-22 that many people face in reality and dealing with it is a PITA, time
consuming and risky (for senior and junior staff). Its not a paint-by-numbers
situation at all, those are ovbious and people with blatant incompetence tend
to not make past interviews. The types of problems that tend to result _after_
effective interviewing are rightly seens as variations of incompetence, and
bad leadership though... because they impair the ability to "get shit done".
But dealing with them requires more than a nudge on the tiller when something
is headed off course. It requires (1) a system and approach to make
performance transparent; (2) a system to compartmentalize risk; and (3) a
system that generates enough observations to for reliable systemic data on
performance and accountability. Without such a struture in place in these
fronts, "bad apples" will underperform without consequence for long periods of
time, because they will cover their tracks, blend in, and otherwise obfuscate
situations to manipulative effect.

If all this seems "overly complicated" and not anything like following an HR
handbook, that's probably about par for the course !!

~~~
leokun
Eh, if someone is being a problem and is creating negativity, as manager you
should be able to pick up on it. It shouldn't be that hard, that's most of
your job as a manager is to be able to read the people that work for you and
evaluate them. You don't need proof of passive aggressive behavior to fire
anyone. Just fire them and wish them the best on their next venture.

~~~
001sky
Right, but your trivializing the problem. Only a clown "inserts negativity",
because inserting <ambiguity> equally if nor moreso effective at undermining
your authority as a manager.

Firing someone for <creating> "an ambiguous situation" might in fact be the
simple, correct action.

But if you fired someone evertime you were just <in> an ambiguous situation?
Not so much. Good luck with that, because your boss might probably fire you
next=D.

Its also why you'll find a "good leader" is never surrounded by this crap. If
you think about the "broken windows" theory of policing, where low-level crime
creates an atmoshere conducive to "real crime", there is probably a decent
analogy. Good leaders are adept at working through <uncertainty>, but
distinguish this from <ambiguity> for this reason. IMHO.

------
auggierose
What a load of bull. The best part: "Take the threat out of it".

Yeah. If the employee does not realise the threat imposed by a PIP then he/she
is an idiot and should be fired immediately.

~~~
ash
I think the speaker said it's better to try to fix things for 3 months
_without_ signing any formal agreement at first (== threat).

~~~
invalidOrTaken
> ...formal agreement (== threat).

Sorry, it just ain't so. Like the grandparent said, the employee's probably
not an idiot, and threat is present from the very beginning, even if
unintentionally.

------
serverascode
I think it's interesting that he says if it gets to this point then it's your
fault, but then doesn't say fire yourself. ;)

------
japaget
Site appears to be down, Google cache:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://firstround.com/article/The-
Best-Approach-to-the-Worst-Conversation)

------
auctiontheory
What percentage of employees improve to acceptability (from the employer's
perspective) after being put on a PIP or a pre-PIP? 10%? 50% 90%?

If it's on the low end of the range, then a generous severance would seem to
be the better choice for all concerned.

------
rfnslyr
_" But there’s something off. He’s not productive. He’s not a culture fit."_

I've interviewed at a company before for about a week. 4 interviews later they
tell me they won't go through with me for undisclosed reasons. This was before
I had seen the company or anyone besides the immediate people interviewing. I
then asked just to see what the company layout was like and they gave me a
tour of the offices.

Jesus fucking H christ, everyone was _the same_. It was all 20-25 year olds,
glasses, beards, tshirts, jeans, all white males. If that's ever a reason to
not hire someone or even fire someone it's not a company you want to work at
in the first place.

If the word "culture" is in any sentence when you're hiring/firing me, I'm
punching you right in the fucking face (not actually though) and leaving. It's
basically saying "for some arbitrary reason we're going to fire you, but we
don't really know why and neither do you, bye!" Sorry for not having a beard,
thick rim glasses, and not liking the same N64 video games as you.

I'm probably just bitter though.

~~~
leothekim
In the U.S., we have 'at-will employment' laws. So, unless you're caught
stealing, engaging in racial or sexual discrimination or harassment, doing
drugs, or committing some felonious criminal offense (though even then those
last two cases it is still arguable), you can be fired without just cause and
without warning, and any court will dismiss any standing claims against the
employer. Thus, if you're told you're not a 'culture fit', that's actually
more than most companies need to tell you when they boot you out the door.

~~~
rayiner
(Obligatory disclaimer: this isn't legal advice, I'm not your lawyer, etc):

It doesn't quite work like that. You can fire someone for any reason at all,
as long as it isn't one of the disallowed reasons (discrimination on the basis
race, gender, religion, age, etc). However, the reason you give need not be
taken at face value. A jury is entitled to conclude that your stated reason is
pretextual, and a discriminatory reason is the real one. There's an
evidentiary showing the plaintiff must meet first, but it can be purely
circumstantial and pretext is often what the claim really boils down to.

That's where shit like "he's not a cultural fit" can get you into trouble.
It's basically begging the jury (or a judge at summary judgment) to disbelieve
you and conclude that you really fired someone for a discriminatory reason.
I.e. "he's not a cultural fit... because he's black and we're all white" or
"she's not a cultural fit... because she's a woman and we're all men."

A sibling comment to yours recasts "culture" to "process and management
structure." That's much more firm ground. "He's ineffective at his job because
he can't work well with our internal processes" or "she's ineffective at her
job because she doesn't take direction from our management."

Also, this isn't just a legal issue. Talking about "process and management
structure," which is specific and grounded in the ultimate question of whether
someone is doing a good job, instead of culture, which is amorphous and can
encompass things that have nothing to do with the work, focuses your thinking
on factors that you should actually care about.

------
michaelochurch
Formal PIP is a bad idea. Once things are at that point, fire _immediately_
but with severance. A 3-month severance is much cheaper than a 1-month PIP,
while this "walking dead" employee pisses all over morale and has divider
effects all around him.

From the OP: _50% of people who are put on performance improvement plans
become repeat offenders._

Even when someone recovers from a PIP, they can't transfer internally in most
companies-- they're not blocked, but no one wants them-- and the stink never
goes away. Promotion is out of the question, too, even 2-3 years later. Good
people (wrongly PIP'd, it happens) leave and bad people stay.

Most "repeat offenders" on PIPs are people the manager still wanted to fire.
HR said "no, we're not willing to take the legal risk of firing this person."
PIPs are rarely passed. Either they fail (leading to termination) or are ruled
"inconclusive"\-- which makes the manager look bad (HR declined his firing
request) and more pissed off. The only time PIPs seem to be "successful" is
when there's a change of manager (or, if possible, the team).

Why do PIPs persist? Two words: _externalized costs_. An HR department can
claim it saved money on severance payments, while the cost is externalized
(and multiplied) to that employee's team and manager.

It may be counterintuitive that "rewarding failure" is the best strategy, but
it's just another cost of doing business.

~~~
buckbova
> Once things are at that point, fire immediately but with severance. A
> 3-month severance is much cheaper than a 1-month PIP,

Just fire on the spot with no severance. I've never known anyone to go on a
PIP and remain at a company. They are either fired "eventually" or they find
another job.

~~~
michaelochurch
_Just fire on the spot with no severance._

Bad play, risk-wise. Severance requires them to sign a non-litigation
agreement and usually non-disparagement as well. PIP provides a paper trail
and insures you somewhat against lawsuit (but not disparagement)-- they could
argue for a "wrongful PIP", but you have paper. I don't recommend going that
way, but it is better (risk-wise) than just cold-firing.

If you cold-fire, you're taking a major risk. With no severance and no
warning, he _will_ be pissed off-- and it's not hard to damage a company's
reputation.

It's also not as hard as you think to build a termination case, although I'm
not getting into the details here. Let's just say that some people (esp.
termination lawyers) are as good at playing that game as we are at
programming. Even if you win, he can make it a pyrrhic victory.

 _I 've never known anyone to go on a PIP and remain at a company. They are
either fired "eventually" or they find another job._

Agree. I covered that. You're 100% right.

~~~
nairteashop
This is great advice. Paying severance also helps assuage the guilt many
managers have about firing an employee within a few weeks/months after they
were hired. ("But he just relocated here", "It will look bad on his resume",
etc).

By the way, do you know if it is possible for the employee to refuse
severance, and therefore retain the rights to litigate? What happens in that
case?

~~~
michaelochurch
_By the way, do you know if it is possible for the employee to refuse
severance, and therefore retain the rights to litigate? What happens in that
case?_

Of course, it is possible. It's unlikely that he will. Most people want to
move on with their careers, not sue an ex-employer.

A properly calibrated severance is 1.5-2x the expected length of the job
search. Since people on severance are generally able to represent themselves
as employed during that time, the job search won't take terribly long.

