I don’t buy into the notion of progressive discipline at work. You can either do the job or you can’t — and if you fail to succeed at your job when most of your co-workers are succeeding, the job is not for you. It’s time to start fresh.
That being said, Corporate American and Human Resources departments fail at screening candidates and hiring employees.
- We try to use faux scientific methodologies and errant assessment tools.
- We don’t really understand the jobs and responsibilities in our companies.
- We hire for ‘fit’ and attitude, and we focus on demographics while missing the mark on technical aptitude.
When we have an employee who honestly fails, we bear some of the responsibility — and we owe this employee something for his wasted efforts. Give him severance, allow him to claim unemployment, and offer him some kind of discounted medical plan for six months to offset his COBRA expenses. Ask him to sign a release & waiver and be done with the mess. Let the employee get on with his life, and free your managers from the mess of coaching an employee who is destined to fail.
Ethics and value don’t change behaviors. Money drives change. If we had to pay our former employees real money when they walk out the door, we would learn from our mistakes and do a better job hiring them in the first place.
{ 6 trackbacks }
{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }
That sounds very much like the Zappos approach – you can either keep your job or take this thousand bucks. It helps weed out people who aren’t committed to the company but doesn’t leave them empty-handed at the end of their time.
The problem is getting managers to take responsibility for a not-so-great hire and not taking it out on the next person who walks through the door. I think when the process is broken, the focus ought to be on correcting that process, not hyper-analyzing the next people who come along through the process. (By the way, could I say process once more in that sentence?)
The other problem arises for the employee when they go to the next interview and have to explain why they only stayed at the Widget Factory three months, or six months, or whatever amount of time. The thing I’ve come across lately is either having to spend a disproportionate amount of time explaining job choices, or not even getting the opportunity to talk about what looks like a real job-hopper issue over the last couple of years.
I guess what I’m trying to say (and I’m coming from a purely seeking-employment perspective here) is that a resume presents a person. That person has a story. It’s not just a collection of keywords, statistics, and the alphabet soup of degrees that matter – it’s the whole package, and it needs to be taken into consideration when making hiring decisions. Sure you can cull through a couple hundred resumes by looking for specific things, but it’s the matter of looking for that individual person who will be the best fit, have the best technical skills, and quite possibly be the best investment in the future for your organization.
That was a way long comment. Sorry.
@Kelly I love the comment. Unlike Zappos, which allows employees to self-select out, I believe in just firing people who suck and fail; however, fire them with some money and a promise that they won’t sue you. Enough of this coaching and maximizing performance on an employee who clearly will not succeed. We made a stupid hiring decision — whether it was three months or three years ago. Our bad. Here’s some cash. Start your life over, and we’ll start our corporate lives over.
Seriously, all that coaching and progressive discipline or whatever you want to call it doesn’t normally pan out. Sometimes, yes, you get the person who thinks “wow, I’d like to keep doing this and it looks like I need to do x,y, and z to make that happen” but what I’ve seen mostly is people who were already a little frustrated getting out and out pissed off.
No matter what some people like to say, work is not like marriage. I don’t promise to stay with you until death do us part, I don’t wear a ring, and I certainly don’t have to pretend to like your mom’s bread pudding. It’s perfectly acceptable to cut losses and move on.
I prefer the term corrective action to progressive disciplinary; yeah I know we are splitting hairs
Progressive discipline is driven largely by precedents that have developed out of old collective bargaining agreements in which arbitraters have held over and over again that employers failed to give an employee enough time, coaching, warning, training et al and so they were entitled to another chance. These practices flowed from that field into non-union companies and into case alw, until now they are the operative norm.
I agree the whole thing sucks, but the likliehood of it changing any time is almost nil. Espscially given the trend toward more theorectically “employee friendly” legislation.
labor unions are policical organizations. It is difficult for them to tell a dues paying member whom they are legally obligated to fairly represent: “Sorry, our bad” on behalf of the employer.
Bla bla bla.
I think Corey makes a key point: performance shortfalls all-too-often result from managers doing a poor job of setting expectations or clarifying priorities. When that’s the case, it’s crucial not to let the mgr. cop out and dump all responsibility for a failing/failed new hire on the employee. For new or weak supervisors, progressive dicipline (or whateber you call it) is a vital learning opportunity to the manager AND for the organization.
Granted that some employees just don’t get it, and agreed that it’s best to cut bait and move on with these folks — but ONLY if the mgr. can demonstrate that he/she has held up the company’s end of the bargain (adequate guidance and support) first.
I like the idea! It gives the employee a fair out. You’d be loosing more money letting them sit around not performing, all the while subsidizing their job search anyway.
That being said, I would like to admit that I am a failure at doing laundry, and be allowed to leave the role with dignity.
I’m Jimmy and I’m full of pho (sorry don’t know how to put the triangly doohicky over the o).
Laurie, first and foremost, I have been lurker on your twitter feed and blog reading very refreshing point of view you have re. HR and best practices of the craft. I had pleasure of working with some very innovative HR pros and a huge number of those who got into HR for the wrong reasons. I lead business operations, that is my craft, so HR team members are my right hand people. You have one or two who get it and your life is much easier.
Now re. article, not sure if I completely agree with not investing in sub-performers, because (in most cases) evaluation methodologies companies use are flawed and the performance of the employee is not always their fault. However I wholeheartedly agree with forgoing the pseudo-science, the 360 reviews, the psych tests, and other “stuff” used lately just because read a book on it or saw an article. Also, paying severance and trying to help both sides move on (and take responsibility internally) is very prudent and cheaper from the liability point of view.
One last point I would like to make for HR practitioners: remember that you are as responsible for the revenues of the organization as the CEO of the company. HR people should track their performance by measuring how much revenue people they brought in produce.
HR’s job is not forms, not reviewing resumes, and other common tasks – HR is responsible for bringing the HUMAN CAPITAL for the company and making sure good ones don’t leave.
Laurie, I do touch on some of these subjects in my blog, so I would be honored to have you comment on some of the Human Capital related articles I have written ( http://LeanStartups.com ).
I my 20 + years in TV news management, I hired hundreds and fired a few. I had a lot of early-career hires when the decision was based on the candidate’s potential, rather than proven ability at that point in time. All the same, I may have had terminate someone who I hired who honestly tried hard, worked hard and listened to our coaching, but I don’t remember one. Nearly all, if not all, employees I had to fire essentially self-selected that option by…
–Flagrently flaunting the “no asshole” rule.
–Failing to do the simple stuff, like show up to work on time.
–Dealing drugs out of a news car while on assignment.
–Lying, stealing or other sins of dishonesty.
–And so on.
There were a few (very few) on-air anchors whose contracts were not renewed simply because they weren’t making an impact in the market. However, at that level, they know those are the “rules of the game” and are paid accordingly.
My experience is limited to my own shops, and not corpoations of thousands of employees. However, it seems to me that most folks could avoid a “termination for cause” by showing up, giving the job 100% and avoiding the stupid stuff (like above) that make managers crazoids.
I agree with Corey. As someone who once sucked at a sales job and worked up to a pretty successful salesperson by the end (with mentoring and encouragement from managers), I think you have to provide a reasonable amount of help to employees. Besides, if you take a “sink or swim” approach to management, your company’s going to get an ugly reputation fast.
That said, there’s also something to be said for working a job you’re passionate about. So maybe by cutting employees loose, you’re actually doing them a favor? I wasn’t passionate about sales, only in it for the money, got out after exactly 12 months. Then again, those skills benefit me now. Anyway, did management waste energy on me? Maybe, but my reason for leaving was, ironically, one particular manager who failed to communicate objectives/honor commitments and loved to use employees as a dumping ground for blame. Without that person, I would’ve chosen to stay longer. And that backs up Kentropic’s point!
I agree with other commentators re: the lack of coaching by managers of employees that aren’t performing up to expectations.
My question: why aren’t managers held to performance metrics when it comes to coaching poor performing employees? If a manager can’t coach their direct reports properly, should this manager be put on a PIP?
Obviously, if the direct report doesn’t improve their performance because of their own behavior, the manager should not be blamed for that. But if the manager can’t clearly communicate with specifics on what is expected of their direct reports, then why should the direct report be put on a PIP?
Then you have companies that use the PIP to get rid of someone they just don’t like, even though the performance is fine. They set the metrics in the PIP so high, even Superman couldn’t meet them.
Then there are the Recruitment “goals” for diversity, e.g., 50% of a candidate slate presented to the hiring manager must be female. A goal like this where the workforce is only 35 -38% female, such as the Metro Milwaukee area, doesn’t help recruitment efforts at all. But I am sure that’s a different topic for a different day.
Excellent food for thought here (says he who’s munching on Chewy Chocolate Chip cookies as he ponders).
I’m interested in hearing your opinion on the growing “try before you buy” temp-to-hire approach to staffing. I used that method almost exclusively with one of my employers, because even with internal references most of them weren’t worth waiting for the red tape to untangle.
One of the things I pushed to my managers, though, was that it was just a candidate source – not a Costco-esque sample station. I see a lot of managers taking people on with minimal selection review, though, figuring “if this one doesn’t work out I can throw him back and get another one.”
Kind of a move away from accountability for successful hiring in the first place, yes?
@KellyO Work is not like marriage. Not at all!
@Corey You can’t coach stupidity. Out of all the people I’ve fired for performance, 90% was for stupid shit that was evident in the first 90 days. When someone is fired for performance, I’m barely ever surprised — and neither is the marriage. Isn’t that sad?
@Michael I argue that it’s more employee friendly to cut them loose and give them a chance to succeed elsewhere — with a little cash in the pocket. This would be easier if we had universal healthcare benefits.
@Kentropic I wonder if it’s a generational thing. A manager is not your dad. I’ve worked in organizations where ambiguity is apparently the norm — and I’ve been okay. You can, too, if you pull your head out of your butt. If not, maybe the job isn’t for you?!
@Jimmy I’d like to pay my husband not to do laundry, but he’s already not doing it for free.
@TVGuy You’re new here. Thanks for the comment!
@Hayli Well I dunno… how much help?
@Brain If a manager can
Hmmm… left a longish comment here earlier, but it is not showing up. Oh well.
Laurie,
I agree with you … mostly / kinda / sorta.
When you know, when you really know it isn’t going to work out – cut your losses, treat the (soon-to-be-former) employee exceptionally well, pay them a very good severance package, terminate them, wish them well (and, mean it) and get them to sign-off on the Release.
Where I’m not completely onside is about the performance mgmt piece. I find that the pre-termination performance mgmt piece can be the best learning experience most managers can get. They learn that although they “hinted” at the deficiencies before, perhaps they didn’t actually communicate clearly their expectations nor their assessment of the employee’s performance. I’m constantly amazed with how often I accept a manager’s conviction that they have been coaching this employee and it isn’t working, the employee isn’t responding. Then, when you impose the structure of the PIP, you find out that well maybe I didn’t exactly tell the employee precisely what my expectations were…. but they should have known! (uh, yeah, if you would have used your out-loud-voice they would).
My view: Don’t draw it out, don’t go through the motions for nothing, but in most cases, give it a shot… the HR folks will learn lots about their managers and the managers will learn lots of valuable skills and lessons. Occaisonally, an employee will even learn what the actual expectations are. Don’t mess with people’s lives unless you know you need to. Being fired sucks.
@Apolinaras My apologies, you went into my spam folder! I found the comment and it’s good — except I don’t think HR needs to exist moving forward. In my dream world, we would create a different organization and eliminate much of the work we do. It’s stupid. Thanks for the nice comments, too, and I’ll definitely check out your site. xo/laurie
@GoodWitch Don
Laurie,
Thanks for saving my comment out of the spam folder, not sure what made it spammy… maybe too much ranting.
To answer your comment, I was head of operations in one awesome company back in Chicago (150 employees by the time I left) and we did some cool stuff.
1. Numb HR tasks were simply automated. There is no need to have a forms pusher. People know how to read good instructions.
2. “Performance review” was kicked to the curb with constant mentoring and buddy system taking its place.
3. Our two HR people were really evangelizers for the company. They made sure every new person was “indoctrinated”, knew everything they needed to feel like they are not really new.
4. Our HR people were knowledgeable in all the services company provided and knew at least enough to know when either a technical or other prospect was BSing them.
And most important thing: their success (and bonuses) was measured on employee retention (we had single digit turn over in the industry notorious for “free-agent” mentality – software development and consulting), profitability of every employee they brought in, and several other measures.
Our HR people were in a lot of the meetings, every project manager and leader was responsible for providing those two people with REAL TIME data on the needs for resources.
I think it was one of the best organizations I was part of building out. It was a blast going from 20 employees, when I got there, to 100+ by the time I moved 2 years later. I sure miss that company.
I know I have been spoiled, because as I am now interviewing with larger organizations… well lets just say I no longer have any question why so many HR folks got “Human Robot” nicknames. Not all are bad/numb, I do come across some great practitioners in that area. Problem is that they are few and far between.
BTW, Laurie, I am on Twitter (http://twitter.com/apsinkus ).
We here at BadConsultant towers prefer definitely prefer the approach we heard attributed to Cisco
[though obviously we will be repackaging it as our own work in the coming months]
in the late 90s – invest in outplacing your low performers… to your competitors. That way you get additional bang for buck.
We do, however, concur with your central thesis – pay and move on – would that anyone in corporate America (individual, manager or executive) could admit failure and learn…
btw, did we mention our new “Worstify your competitors” ((R) 24th February, 2009) outplacement tools suite?
BC
Laurie, does your husband have a blog? I need to know how to do that. I think the logic behind having me do laundry initially was that it involved machinary of some sort, which is cool. But I never knew there were all these rules and concoctions for each situation, and certian things that can’t mingle with other thing…I need to know your hubbies secret stat!
@BC I love the Worsify Your Competitors program. I think it’s brill. I believe in taking advantage of current severance agreements and market trends — and having honest conversations. You suck? You’re not happy? We’re not happy, either. How about you get 13 weeks + 3 weeks for each year of service — and you consider yourself a winner in the game of life, chump?
@Jimmy Ken doesn’t have a blog because it’s my job, as the unemployed writer, to do the blogging for the both of us. I also do dishes.
@Laurie in many ways I agree with you. If your HR department does little else but check boxes and push papers then it should go away or rather be rebuilt into something else but one of the things I think it should be built into is one of the areas you hate
I’m with HR GoodWitch on this one, and I don’t think it’s generational. Often, it’s those with the longest experience who’re most comfortable with ambiguity, and those who’re newest to the field who need the most structure and support.
I think perf. mgmt. “due process” is a matter of basic fairness and an acknowledgement that great performers get promoted into management positions all the time, with little or no guidance on how to actually lead people. The cost of their learning how shouldn’t include involuntary turn among their team until they get it right.
@Brain: in the places I’ve worked, managers are held accountable in numerous ways — most of which are ruthlessly quantitative and objective. It’s part of HR’s job to show a direct link between effective leadership practices and good results on those various spreadsheets (at least for those who don’t get it intuitively).
Hey So Im a few days late on this topic, but I just found this blog on MSN. LOVE it by the way.
Anyhow, I recently worked for Zappos (got laid off in the massive 8% layoffs (http://blogs.zappos.com/blogs/ceo-and-coo-blog)…
And I wanted to point out that while Zappos did offer people money to leave if they knew they were a bad fit, it also held a 4 week “training class” that totally focused on “coaching and maximizing performance”. It was would massag people into becoming beyond loyal Zappoians. Which I watched work for 2 years. If you noticed on twitter (if you follow the CEO) many people who where laid off still said great things about the comapny. I still shop with them.
So i have to wonder if it just not the right type of coaching that is needed.