Firing People in Large Organizations

[FLMountainMan]

MrG and I were discussing last night. The further and further we get from paying someone ourselves, the more reluctant we seem to be to fire people. Recently took a new position and, on day two, had an unusual convo with the CIO

CIO: We'd like to transition Rob out of the organization.
FLMM: "Transition"? You want to get rid of him?
CIO: That's a little direct, but yes.
FLMM: When?
CIO: Well, I don't want to do it in December, with the holidays, but maybe January?
FLMM: Why do you want to get rid of him?
CIO: (to paraphrase) Insubordination, coming in late, cursing at me and coworkers, not coding at all, etc...
FLMM: CIO, if your toilet broke and tomorrow you hired a plumber and he came to your house, called you or your daughter a "*****", and didn't fix the toilet, would you still pay him? Even if it was two weeks before Christmas?
CIO: No, of course not.
FLMM: So why are we different?
CIO: Okay, we'll do it today.

Of course, this was right after I'd been chewed out by a VIP's attorney and had my own job threatened, so I guess I just wasn't in the mood.

Anyway, the theme is pretty universal - the larger an organization, the less real investment the hirers and firers have in the money that pays the underperforming employee, so the more they avoid the nastiness that comes with termination. Which is why governmental agencies are full of dead-weight employees.

Organizations like GE or the military have had to introduce the mandatory performance-based (at least in theory) terminations to get around our human desire to avoid conflict if we can. Just some ramblings.

Anyway, anyone else have some termination insight?

 

[Joffrey]

Was the victim of your bad day ever put on notice for his obnoxious behavior? Also, I think companies are very wary of wrongful termination.

 

[FLMountainMan]



Was the victim of your bad day ever put on notice for his obnoxious behavior? Also, I think companies are very wary of wrongful termination.

Yes. The wrongful termination is a good point. Quite the obstacle.

 

[Lord-Barrington]

It makes sense that the further you are from directly employing an individual the more difficult/lengthy it will be to fire them, mostly because you probably don't have the power to even fire them yourself. My own boss can't just show up one day and fire one of his direct reports even if he or she was doing a terrible job. HR, upper management, etc, would need to be alerted and everyone would need to make sure they were covered legally, etc. That just isn't how it works in large organizations, and rightfully so.

I also think it is wise to have serious checks and balances and how and why management can terminate employment. The places I have worked where there was less oversight there was also the most indiscriminate terminations for reasons ranging from personal dislike to feeling threatened/not sufficiently respected by underlings, etc. It's not always pretty.

Large organizations work best when everyone is accountable, including staff, managers, and executives. Business where staff has too much leeway (e.g. some governmental organizations) are often sclerotic but those were management is given too many rights, especially when it comes to termination, are maybe worse because the culture can be pulverized by a few megalomaniacs.

Termination should be governed by strict policies and procedures that everyone should adhere to, period. If someone wants to indiscriminately hire/fire people, they should open up a sole proprietorship, hire contract workers, and go crazy.

 

[FLMountainMan]

...

 

[kipaenbe]

well,That just isn't how it works in large organizations, and rightfully so.