Acronym

Scott - as a former HR manager, I agree. I think the big fear these days is litigation, or the cost thereof. People are afraid they will get sued for wrongful termination or discrimination. Most people fall into some sort of protected class these days, so fears are rampant. My nugget of wisdom is this: be fair, be consistent, and document everything. If you do that, then you should be fine.

Ah, the litigious society factor.

I'll start by stating pretty flatly that I think everybody harbors some prejudices, and as a result, everyone will sometimes discriminate against someone else. We all need to be sensitive to this fact and try to look for it within ourselves. And when you see it, try to correct for it.

But I'm not sure about fairness, consistency and documentation. Seems to me that this has become so rigid that it is a primary reason why firing is a last resort. While I'm proposing that releasing someone shouldn't be a last resort, I am not saying it should be on a whim either. I'm not talking about hitting somebody with a two by four.

Maybe over a period of time--a month, two?--you tell the employee that you're not sure the department is where it needs to be and you've been thinking about a change in his or her position. When it comes down to it, if your manager comes out and says I think we're better off without you than with you, why would you want to work there anymore?

Seems to me that if someone is claiming wrongful termination, either he or she has a point or not. Look at what they say, assess it, and then make what you think is the best decision. Who knows, maybe I'm crazy, but my hope is that honesty, respect, and dignity throughout the process would mitigate the litigiousness of society. Maybe that's wishful thinking. Maybe I'd run my organization into the ground through legal bills. But at least I would have tried to do things in accordance with principles I believe in.

Just because it is a last resort doesn't mean it has to take forever to get there or is impossible to do!

Amen David. Scott, I wouldn't say fairness, consistency and documentation = rigid. In fact, I would say it gives you a lot of wiggle room. Timing is up to you. Like David said, it doesn't need to take forever to get there. But, as a matter of experience, you can pile up big legal bills defending being right. It happens...a lot. I still say that fear it the #1 reason firings don't happen as much any more. And there are lots of suits where someone is just trying to get paid, hoping you will settle to make it go away. They have that one friend who says "You are over 50/black/blind/female/gay/Jewish, they can't just fire you. Fight it." And then they do.

More people should probably be fired,and the ones that are probably should have been done sooner. But, keep your ducks in a row when you do.

As an exec who has terminated four people (in a five staff organization!) in the past 10 months - I fully agree with Scott's point. My experience is that it takes a great deal of time and energy, not to mention lost productivity to work over all the time it takes from realizing an employee isn't the right one for the organization or the position to the "last resort" of firing. A lot of documentation and handwringing too - until the individual finally walks out the door. What a relief it is when the next week dawns brighter because suddenly productivity goes up, and often morale as well on the part of the staff who also know whether someone is fairly pulling their weight and contributing to the team.

That said, even when fully justified and unquestionable, such as terminating someone for a serious policy violation, it is still a gut wrenching and unpleasant task - at least for most people. So perhaps wanting to avoid that conflict and encounter keeps a lot of us in denial for longer than we should be.

I agree wholeheartedly that organizations should let go of the people who aren't right for the job and that it should be done sooner rather than later. If you accept mediocre performance in order to avoid dealing with it, you will get an mediocre organization. A mediocre performer can inspire mediocrity in others all too easily--if your people see that somebody who does a merely adequate job is still rewarded with the paycheck, then their motivation to put in the extra effort to excel is under attack. Sure, you get people who do well because they feel pride in their work or dedication to the mission, but why undermine their external motivation?

Many organizations fail to do this out of cowardice or wanting to avoid painful decisions. But as the organizational or department leadership, if you want to earn the big bucks and big title, you've got to make the painful decisions. Period.

That said, firing should still be the last resort. The first resort, once you recognize that the fit either isn't as good as you thought it would be (new hire) or isn't working out any longer is to try to make it a good fit.

It might be anything from a reclarification of expectations (especially during a time of change) to training or mentoring to finding the position that the employee does fit, but remedial action should still come before firing.

I agree entirely with Colleen's experience. It's gut-wrenching to fire somebody, but sometimes the good firing (firing the right person in the right way at the right time) is just as important for team morale and productivity as a good hiring.

It's also vital for morale and productivity that the remaining staff get ongoing feedback on their own performance and that they know exactly what the pre-termination process will be, that it's designed first and foremost to make the position and person a good fit. That way, they feel the dual security of knowing that poor performers aren't allowed to drag things down and that if for some reason, their own performance is declining, they'll get every reasonable chance to improve it.

Of course, it's vital for every reason, not just legal reasons, that the process be objective (ideally quantifiable) and thoroughly documented.

I think you should never fire a person. This is very discouraging for a person.If you dont have the resources, you shouldnt have hired him in the first place. If he is not performing good, shift him to some other area, may be he will perform better there.

MORALE. Period.

Low morale will eventually get you a lesser product and lower productivity.

I just never understood how executives dont see that. Its so important to hold people accountable for their performance, and to do so publicly. I know that is against the nuturing/HR mentality- but when someone really screws up over and over and over... and staff surrounding that person doesnt see them being held accountable in one way or another... its infuriating and demoralizing. Maybe they are being reprimanded behind closed doors, with their supervisor, or put on probation, etc... but if the rest of us dont see that- if feels like that person is getting a pass, or getting special treatment, because they are STILL THERE.

My second point is: Why slap GOOD employees in the face, almost punishing them by forcing them to remain in a toxic and unproductive environment with underperforming colleagues??

Keep the underperformers around and I guarantee that you watch the high-performing staff that are producing at exceptional levels walk right out the door.

Then you have put yourself in the worst position possible and can expect that the situation will continue to snowball..you are then left with a ton of work, low morale and beat down, angry or apathetic employees who start to lose the drive to CARE anymore. Why should they? Its not rewarded...and further, the poisonous employee is getting by not doing his/her job so why should I work so hard when I dont have to??