ABOUT YOUR BIZ

Small business owners are busier than most people on earth, and that's why Your Biz is here. For seasoned business owners and budding entrepreneurs alike, we'll tackle it all - health care, franchising, taxes, the latest gadgets and even how to balance work and life. Yes, it's possible, even when you're your own boss.

JJ Ramberg

JJ Ramberg is the anchor of “Your Business,” MSNBC’s weekly show on small business. In addition to her extensive television reporting experience, Ramberg has a background as an entrepreneur and co-founded GoodSearch.com. She has an MBA from Stanford Business School.



‘Hire slowly, fire quickly’

Posted: Monday, April 20, 2009 4:04 PM by JJ Ramberg
Filed Under: , ,

One of my regular guests, Phil Town, author of the book "Rule #1," has offered us the following advice many times on the show:

"Hire slowly, fire quickly."

Training employees is expensive, so if you're going to go through the effort make sure you're doing it with the right person (hence, "hire slowly"). And paying for an employee who is not doing his job well is costly too, so get rid of them as soon as possible (hence, "fire quickly").

Phil is very clear that he does not believe in giving workers many chances (if any at all).

If you've been in this situation yourself, you know it's easier said than done.

In a small business, people often work so closely that they become like family. So when it's time to lay people off, the employer may have very intimate knowledge of how this will change that individual's life -- how they may have trouble paying their mortgage, or their child's school tuition expenses.

Or it could be even simpler than that -- the employer may just like the employee personally, or perhaps the employer is worried about how firing someone will change the dynamic of the workplace.

Because of the state of the economy, there are a lot of qualified people out there looking for jobs. Multiple guests have said on "Your Business" that this is the time to swap out people. If you have someone on your team who is not performing as well as you think he should, replace that person. People are available right now, and they're going cheap.

I recently had a long conversation with someone who was struggling with this issue. On the one hand, he knows that he could probably find someone better than the person he has to fill one particular position. On the other hand, he feels terrible about the idea of laying someone off in this economy.

He said that, as a business person, he knows that he should focus on his company, not his employee's personal situation, but that as a person with a heart, he cannot help but care about someone who has worked for him for the past year.

For the time being, he's decided not to replace that employee. He's going to give that individual a chance and hopes that with some more training and managing, she will do a better job.

I know that Phil Town would say that he's making a mistake. I'd love to hear what you think about this topic. Are you struggling with the same issue? Send me your thoughts.

 

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

As a past manager with Keller Williams Realty, and someone who likes KW enough to stay with them as an agent after deciding to leave management, a company that teaches this exact practice, in most cases I disagree with this callous philosophy.  As an employer, when I do the right things and hire slowly, after a 3 interview process and digging 3 deep on references, and I make a hiring decision, I am asking someone to become my "partner" in my business.  I am asking them to change their life and put their trust in me.  I am also asking that they give me their very best.

When someone is not performing, rather than just "pull the trigger", I owe my "partner" a frank discussion on how things are going, what I see are the problems, and listening to my "partners" point of view as well.  In advance of this discussion, I will have had a heart to heart discussing with myself and asked the tough questions.  Such as, has training been adequate?  Have a created an environment where my "partner" has the real opportunity to succeed.  What haven't I done that I should have done?

While time and space limit the three step process that I would use to terminate, I believe that if I put someone through a rigorous hiring process, I owe them a rigorous firing process.  Can this be costly?  Yes.  The question is, if I don't do this, am I being fair?  Am I being a Partner?  The answer is of course, NO.  And if I am not worthy of the partnership, then maybe someone ought to analyze who should be fired.

LHuston (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:13 PM)

I don't think these decisions have a thing to do with the economy but with how we treat people. I have never met an employee who woke up in the morning and said to his/her face in the mirror, "Today is the day I'm going to do a lousy job." Management MUST make sure employees have the resources and training they need to do the job well, and they must make sure employees know what's expected of them, and they must make sure that the employee knows whether he/she is meeting those expectations. Employees should be given the opportunity to improve. After that, if they still don't meet your expectations, there are only two reasons: they can't or they won't. If they won't, let them go. If they can't, provide reasonable assistance if needed or move them to a position in which they will be successful. Letting them go should be the last alternative - not a knee jerk reaction.

Michelle Eichorn, Williamsburg, VA (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:14 PM)

I absolutely agree with these points.  I work for a Fortune 100 company and can tell you that the process of firing a "bad" employee is slow and frustrating.  It kills morale for those who are working hard and puts stress on other members of the team who have no choice but to "pick up the slack" for the person who simply won't pull their weight.

Rachel, Atlanta, Georgia (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:15 PM)

Phil had better have a great salary and compensation package to bring them in if he doesn't allow any mistakes. He obviously forgot about all of them that he did throughout the years (and his bosses left him get away with). Mistakes are how people learn Phil; denying them that opportunity leads to a workplace that runs on fear and mistrust. The eventual result is that workers in Phil's company run for the exits when the first decent (or not so decent) competing job offer comes along. Phil can get away with this in this economic climate because he holds all the cards. I'll bet Phil has trouble holding employees in good economic times.

Dave (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:18 PM)

Hire slowly, fire quickly." This enables the business owner make one person do the work of two for as long as possible.

Don Stephens (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:22 PM)

As a security consultant for over thrity years, I feel the need to add one clarifying, but important point.  I agree with releasing those employees who are not performing to company standards, but it is critical to do so carefully. A failing economy can cause people to do things they might not necessarily consider doing in better times.  Taking the time to review every aspect of the employees work history, and taking the time to plan a professional and compassionate separation from the company can avoid disasterous consequences down the road.  In the security business, we live by the mantra: "take as much time firing as you do hiring."  This does not mean that a company should retain employees who exhibit sub-standard performance, it simply means that it is best not to ruch into a termination and act from an emotional position.  While this is similar to what you have stated in this article, the difference can be significant in terms of safety.  Thanks for raising this important topic!

Michael g. McCourt, Plymouth, Massachusetts (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:34 PM)

Hiring slowly and firing quickly is a nice theory, but giving an underperforming employee a "galvanizing" conversation can do wonders for a worker's overall quality.

Alexander (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:36 PM)

Having been in this situation dozens of times, I can unequivocally state that this manager is making a mistake.  By attempting to be sympathetic, he is actually creating a number of negative consequences, including:

-lowering the morale of every hard working employee in his organization.  EVERYONE knows who the underperformer is, likely because they are picking up the slack.  

-jeopardizing the jobs of all other employees, including his own.  By tolerating mediocrity, he causes the organization to suffer.  If this ultimately affects profitability, everyone's job is at risk.  

-stunting the professional growth of the underperforming employee.  This employee likely knows that he is not in the right position.  The manager is actually preventing this person from reevaluating his career direction.  I have had employees that I have had to force out of a position come back at a later date and thank me for doing it.  This certainly doesn't happen every time, but ultimately no one is benfitting from having a round peg in a square hole.

It has been my experience that nudging ineffective employees out the door is the most compassionate thing I can do.

Mike, Toledo, Ohio (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:41 PM)

The business person is assuming that the employee will not find another job or that she will be worse off. If she is bad, then keeping her maybe a disservice to the company and perhaps she is not best suited for his particular job!

Anonymous (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:44 PM)

Phil Town is absolutely wrong to place economics or "business" above personal issues.  Loyalty of employees is something which must be earned and provides value even to the company.  I worked for IBM for 17 years and ran my own business.  In both cases, I saw the value of loyalty and commitment.  It is not easy to decide where to draw the line but placing morality above easy answers will bring rewards in the long run, some of those are financial.

Ray Hooker, Durham, NC (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:46 PM)

Phil Town is obviously heartless and cruel.  Employers who have no heart wind up with employees that have no heart - then they wonder why employees are not loyal to them!  The work world would be much better served by employers who care about people first and profits second.  In the long run, both the employer and the employee win.

Michael Gilbert, Frankfort KY (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:46 PM)

Phil Town is absolutely wrong to place economics or "business" above personal issues.  Loyalty of employees is something which must be earned and provides value even to the company.  I worked for IBM for 17 years and ran my own business.  In both cases, I saw the value of loyalty and commitment.  It is not easy to decide where to draw the line but placing morality above easy answers will bring rewards in the long run, some of those are financial.

Ray Hooker, Durham, NC (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:47 PM)

I basically agree with his advice, but I find it interesting that in the macro sense, companies tend to fire slowly - thereby making unemployment a lagging indicator for recession.  It seems to me that if it makes sense to fire quickly for performance reasons, it probably also makes sense to fire quickly when the economy turns down.  In all cases, I agree with the hire slowly mantra as it is extremely costly to hire the wrong people and then have to replace them later.

Doug May, Annapolis, Maryland (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:49 PM)

This is always a tough choice. But be fair to the employee let them know how they are doing. Use write ups and meetings to correct their problems, so when it becomes time to fire, the employee doesn't feel like they have been bushwacked. It lessens the hard feelings all around. They have been warned and had an chance to fix their shortcomings. The paper trail also will help you when you contest their unemployment benefits.

M Mcelderry Mobile AL. (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:57 PM)

I am a General Manager of a small hotel. I understand the family attitude of running a small staff, but bottom line is operations.  If they are not performing let them go, do not get tied up with whats going on with their lives.  Harsh, yes, but no one said running a business was easy.  Not to mention think about the employees giving you all they have only to watch someone one just hanging on.

Rene Moreno , San Antonio, TX (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 3:04 PM)

Generally speaking employees do not improve unless they're still learning the job. In our company we hve a guy who was slow to learn, avoided doing chores he didn't like and made mistakes. He's still here, still doing the same sloppy work so they've hired someone else to help. He wasn't fired because he did just enough to get by. That's the real mistake companies make, they keep dead weight because they do just enough to avoid getting fired but not quite enough to be valuable employees. And that doesn't change. It's been five years for this person and now they're paying for two people instead of one.

Of course if you do a really good job then you tend to just get more work and criticized when it's not all finished. The good workers have to cover for the bad workers and that's when you lose the good ones, so it's a double slam. So I do agree with Phil Town.

KH, HI (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 3:18 PM)

Small business or large business, keeping employees who cannot get the job done is bad business.  You may not feel good doing it (you probably shouldn't feel good), but remember--you're getting paid to enhance the value of your organization, including upgrading talent.  If you fail to do this when the circumstances warrant, perhaps your successor will.

Ray, Simsbury, CT (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 3:25 PM)

No matter what the "talking heads" may claim, employees are a companies #1 asset. Sometimes you need to invest in that employee, just like anything else. If you are not willing to invest time, money, and effort into a potentially good employee who may be struggling at that particular moment, you best not be in business in the first place. Much like a struggling product line, project, or initiative, to immediately jettison it if and when begins to struggle is foolish, and in the end may very well benefit your competitor more than getting rid of it would benefit you.

Tony, Chicago Illinois (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 4:03 PM)

Due to people like Phil Town, I have changed the way I think of employers - They are enemies of universal kind and must treated poorly. Because this person is heartless and abusive, I must DECLARE WAR on all businesses (big or small) and use ANY and ALL advantages for the sake of my financial survival; this is because corporations are faceless, nameless and robotic designed to make profits at any cost...if they could they would replace ALL LABOR with what I call "Hondabots" (Honda for being a long lasting vehicle and BOTs as in robots) that are cheap, long lasting and efficient. So, as humans, WE MUST RETALIATE USING ANY AND ALL METHODS! Treat them minimally, find any advantage and legally make them suffer! BU HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Gregor Mendellica (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 4:08 PM)

this is the most callous thing i have ever read, no one has any sense of decency anymore.  great way to exploit the labor force...

jo brown baltimore md (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 4:11 PM)

I completely disagree with this philosophy.  I also disagree with the idea that employees do not improve when confronted properly.  There are people who become bored, or feel unappreciated, and when that happens, their performances can lag.  A good conversation can change that.  

People seem to forget that there are more of the working class than there are in upper levels.  The economy requires the working class to function; if everyone in that class is treated so callously and fired so quickly, soon the cogs will cease to turn.

Harry, Columbus, Ohio (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 4:17 PM)

If you were slow to hire, why didn’t you identify that it would be a problem for this employee in the first place.  Sounds as if this single planner approach is fraught with danger, for both the employer as well as the employee, and needs some depth as well as breath to become a viable theory.  Too stay in the single plane mode maybe the approach is to hire contractors which you can let go without guilt if you are in an economic down turn, and concentrate on the business instead of the human side of life.

Bob, Zionsville, PA (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 4:27 PM)

This is always a tough choice. But most companies have a probationary period where the employer should be providing training and workforce rules, and building loyality on both sides of the fence. Be fair to the employee let them know how they are doing. Use write ups and meetings to correct their problems during this time frame, so when it becomes time to fire, the employee doesn't feel like or say they have been bushwacked. It lessens the hard feelings all around. They have been warned and had an chance to fix their shortcomings. The paper trail also will help you when you contest their unemployment benefits

gallo, ventura, CA (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 4:57 PM)

Some involved in the child development field are familiar with the concept of "justice vs. mercy". This is a common theme that pervades much of our life. Often, it is easy to determine which is more appropriate in a situation. However, as we have read, there are occasions when it is difficult to choose the more viable option. Even though some may be concerned with an immediate "bottom line", there frequently are long-term consequences of decisions. Thorough examination allows one to better determine an optimum choice.

Mr. Reader, Fullerton, CA (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 5:00 PM)

It doesn't get better.  It gets worse. The employee never improves, or only minimally so, and the attachment between employee, employer, and other employees grows - do that when the eventual firing does take place, it's even worse.  Do it and get it over with.

romy smalton, fairfiels, ct (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 5:15 PM)

This is good advice as long as it's applied carefully.  Don't fire someone for a single, manageable mistake (a whopper is a different matter).  Don't undervalue an employee's experience and familiarity with the job, the work, the clients, etc., as many employers do by viewing employees as fungible, interchangeable commodities.  Once it becomes clear that an employee really is underperforming, give a warning.  Maybe just one, but give the employee a chance to improve.  If that doesn't work, then yes - there are people who will value the job more, especially in this economy.  If that point comes, wait for 4:30 on Friday, and put building security on alert.

Dave in NM (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 6:31 PM)

Yes, in some business personal friends are made and it is had to fire people we are fond of. But let me make a special note here. If you are just looking to fire people because you are the new boss and there were people that use to work for you that you would like to bring along to your new employment, consider these some employees have worked long and hard and I have seen them battered into becoming disgruntled monsters because the new manager wants them gone to bring their friends in. I have seen this happen and now am part of the play game because the manager wants to bring in their old friends. It has been my experience that these people don't work out so well and I have seen companies go into a tail spin because of these unfair practices. So hire slowly but be careful how and why you fire because some where down the road it might be you.

toni n.c. walnut creek, ca (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 6:34 PM)

When an employer hires slowly and fire’s quickly indicates several issues:  1) If it took so long to hire the individual, what does that say about managers who were part of the process?  Fire quickly is a knee jerk reaction that justifies not performing due diligence—and is actually bad thing for companies to have as it indicates the person does not understand the problem domain nor critically thinks.  But l suggest digging deeper.  Two aspects of all jobs are interpersonal and task.  If a person is doing their tasks above standard but has difficult relating with people, is that enough to fire?  If a person is a stellar performer interpersonally but fails at the tasks is that enough?  Companies appear to want all things in a person. Excellent leadership, management, people skills, and highly competent and focused on the tasks.  Employees cannot be everything all at once and it’s a misnomer to expect it.   Some people make excellent leaders because they have the skills to resolve conflict and bring people together and create vision.  Others are critical thinkers, problem solvers, and troubleshooters, but are not leaders or managers. These are the people that will reduce costs through process improvement, better products, etc.
I’ve worked with a lot scientists that are better often left to their own lab.  I’ve worked with scientists that great human communicators.  I’ve worked with business people that can sell desert to camel, but can’t critically think to save their life.  The key to management and leadership is to find those individuals that can come together to make the team.  Everyone is not going to posses all the skills. The world is too complicated for that.  The cost of hiring slowly and firing quickly indicates an individual who is wasteful in corporate resources.  Recruitment is expensive.  Cultural indoctrination is expensive.  Task knowledge acquisition is expensive.  If it takes $25,000 to hire and train and individual who is making $75,000 (fully burdened), what does that say about the manager who adopt this philosophy?  Do you want your management making these type of financial decisions?  What does it say about the manger who has a high turnover of people in his/her department?  Who should go, the manager or the employee?  

Kevin Cabral, Salinas CA (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 6:41 PM)

The "time to swap out people" doesn't make any sense when you think of it.  What's to stop these same new-hires from leaving as soon as the economy turns around.  If I was hired, knowing that I replaced an underperforming worker, how would that make me feel.  And finally is "underperform" only a code word for too much seniority, too much pay, too close to retiremnet, let['s get rid of him anywyays?

Betsy, richmond, VA (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 7:25 PM)

Highly recommend reading the "Ten Greatest Gifts I give my Children" and "Stomp the Elephant in the Office" as it relates to how to energize the work place, your home and yourself.  People do not show up at the work place to be average or to fail.  What happens?  There is a time and place to fire but more importantly there is a time and place to create a work environment where success is built on peoples strength.  I am an no way affiliated with these authors but have attended training by these authors and must say after 30 years of managing these guys get it.  

Dan Kelley, Battle Creek, MI (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 7:37 PM)

I came from a large well known software company in which politics and backstabbing are the name of the game. I've witnessed a person in power, with sociopathic tendencies, no remorse or empathy, just blind ambition push those that she doesn't like out. She manufactures performance evaluations to come to the conclusions that she wants, and leaves out anything positive (even if the positive is 98% of the employees performance). She has done this over and over again, and it affects employee morale to see good people get pushed out for no reason. Its also a cost to the company in losing good people, and having to hire others and train them, and this particular company has a longer than average learning curve. She is allowed to get away with it, despite the pain and suffering she causes, because there is the perception that she "performs". My advice to senior level management: don't just trust your direct report, get the side of the story from others, or your business could suffer the consequences.

Emily, Seattle, WA (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 7:49 PM)

For the most part I agree with the "hire slowly" as long as it's not at a snail's pace. Give them a trial period and see how they work out. If that person is versatile, teachable, ambitious, keeper. If someone is consistently performing poorly then yes, you have evidence that they are not a fit. But that's why you need the 90-day, 180-day trial period
The "fire quickly" part is where I have a problem because it seems very callous and implies ambushing without feedback. I am reluctant to believe that Phil did what he does perfectly right out of the gate but I guess when you're making his money, things on that side of the fence look differently.  If there is blatant incompetence then it should have been evident during the 90-day trial period. That kind of behavior doesn't just spring up all of a sudden on day 91. It's up to the manager to keep an eye and follow up. It's also up to the employee to solicit feedback because in some cases they could be speaking a different language and not even realize it. If you have an employee who's having a tough time, work with them to figure it out. But if a separation occurs, there has to be an understanding as to why...no blindsiding or ambushing

Dianne, Miami, FL (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 9:33 PM)

As an owner of several small businesses, I understand the issue.  I create jobs and in doing so, I take a lot of risk.  

Those who think we are heartless when we let someone go do not understand that all of us are at risk when an employee underperforms.  Many businesses do not have the ability to "pick up the slack" and the end result is more than just the bad apple losing their job.  In my case, my partner and I have had to make some very hard decisions to let people we respect, like, and admire go.  

It is usually not just one thing but a combination of many small things that lead to the decision.  The end result is the same, a change is made, our decision is second guessed many times, a new direction is taken and life goes on.

Jay, Indianapolis, IN (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:22 PM)

My experience has been that "management by cliche" is a guaranteed sign of a horrid manager.  Every performance situation is unique, and applying a one-slogan-fits-all management philosophy means you'll make good decisions by accident, if at all.

Sometimes I've fired quickly, sometimes I've worked with the person and, in some cases, she/he's gone on to become a stellar performer. You owe it to the company, the person in question, and the person's coworkers to make an informed decision every time.

If the manager can't be bothered to invest the time to understand each unique performance problem and craft an appropriate response, then the wrong person is being fired.

Dave, Seattle, WA (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:28 PM)

An employee should never be surprised they are being let go.  You as a manager have a duty to address the problems an employee is having.  Firing is as much a failure on the manager's part as on the employee.  There should be plenty of warning.  This philopophy is wrong at its very core.  I have been a manager for 25 years, and no one I let go failed to see it coming.  You, the manager have failed if you have not taken the time to correct issues that undermine a productive culture in the workplace.  I hope that Mr. Town gets a taste of his own medicine when his turnover rate is examined and what steps were taken to prevent it.

What????? (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:40 PM)

Speaking as someone who has been on the "fire quickly" side of this...I urge people to think about this before they willy-nilly follow this advice. As a new employee, there are many things that are overwhelming. You can be the best fit for a possition, but keep in mind. These people are joining a team dynamic that has been through a lot together. It will not happen over night, or even in a month that the new employee will be a full part of the team. I could go on and on as to particular topics, but There would not be sufficient space. Needless to say, this idea "Hire slowly, fire quickly" is a good business sense, but in practice a couple of chances will not hurt the situation. And by all means, take the time to tell the new employee when they mess up, and when they perform as needed.

N. A. Aguascalientes, MX (Sent Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:52 PM)

"the paper trail will help when you contest their unemployment benefits" ???? What the hell has this country and US management become? A bunch of greedy, arrogant, heartless SOB's. It is human nature to want to do a good job. It seems management's purpose is to rank, spindle, and mutilate whatever spirit the employee brings to the table. Try a little encouragement and recognition -- you might be surprised at the results.

Ed, Phoenix, AZ (Sent Wednesday, April 22, 2009 12:18 AM)

Wow that's incredibly harsh. If your theory is true, you have obviously managed to slide through the hiring process. You may want to keep your options open.

Michael, Newport News, VA (Sent Wednesday, April 22, 2009 7:05 AM)

An employer must do all they can do in order to keep the team together, just because an economy offers qualified workers out of a job does not mean its time to shop. A business needs the continuity of its workers to survive, this allows the employee to feel a sense of security in their life and in turn keeps production rolling. If the employee does not respond to communication and training then of course its time to shop, but the employer must give their best to keep an employee before termination.

Robert, Henderson, Nevada (Sent Wednesday, April 22, 2009 7:25 AM)

Hi JJ, Phil and I, as usual are on agreement. Many of these comments seem to manage in the "bless her heart she's trying" mode. You can't afford to avoid the hard job of managment. Train, certainly. Warn, absolutely. But if you keep thinking they will magically get better, you're wrong. The mind usually leaves a month or two before the body. I wrote more about this at http://bobphibbs.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/now-is-the-time-to-fire-them-all/ . I also wrote about getting rid of them within 30 days at http://bobphibbs.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/get-rid-of-bad-new-hires-within-30-days/

Bob Phibbs, the Retail Doctor, West Coxsackie, NY (Sent Wednesday, April 22, 2009 7:39 AM)

Wow, I am glad I read this. In no way would I ever buy or pay attention to "Rule #1", or this blog.

To me, its simple. If you think business is more important than people, then you are unimportant to me.

Rod, Houston (Sent Wednesday, April 22, 2009 8:32 AM)

Kind of amazing how this breaks out between the Fortune 500 and small-mid size business views.  The stark contrast between employee is a number/commodity to be traded upon whim vs employee as human being.  Granted the proper answer is really inbetween the two points of the spectrum, and really depends on the individual employer as to what constitutes "giving the appropriate time" to learn a job versus "time for him/her to go".  Kind of refreshing to see some view employees as humans as opposed to bar coded payslips.

CC, Alberta (Sent Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:09 AM)

A good employer should fire up his employees and be slow to fire them.  If an employee is recalcitrant and refuses to listen to direction and motivation he gets three strikes before heading to the showers. That will take resentment away from the good employees.   Everyone makes mistakes, but an employee who refuses to cooperate after two warnings is a detriment to moral and growth.

Ken Bossone (Sent Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:18 AM)

I'm in a situation where my manager recently hired someone under me who is completely incapable of performing. The new hire is meant to be an outward facing member of the organization interacting directly with our stakeholders, but he has terrible communication skills and numerous people have already complained about him. My manager hired this person after myself and my coworker recommended against it, and didn't even interview anyone else. Now he sees that the employee is a problem, but won't fire him becuase we "haven't given him enough of a chance to prove himself."

In the meantime, my coworker and I continue to do extra work to pick up the slack, and morale is at an all time low.

Whatever your thoughts about how long firing should take- definitely don't follow the mantra "Hire quickly, fire slowly."

Nola (Sent Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:54 AM)

Profits over people. Remind me never to work for Phil Town. He's sounds like he's trying to verbalize the soul of the business management class. Problem is, a lot of companies don't give their employees the tools necessary to do their jobs correctly and then blame the employee when they don't perform heroically. Makes for a really toxic environment.

Stinky 'Mo Bub (Sent Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:58 AM)

We need to remember that the same person who hires and fires, can also be hired and fired (if not by a manager, then by customers). The hire/fire decision is always about economics, and it's simultaneously always personal--there's no getting around that. But let's keep in mind that it's never just about the person being hired and fired that day: it's about the people that could be hired and fired the next. Scenario 1: A small business (10 employees) is failing with maybe 6 months to collapse. A sales person isn't performing. Keep her or fire her? Answer: If you could save the business or give it a bit more time to recover by replacing that person, however small that chance may be, then yes, you do it. Why? The person you fire today = the 10 people you can afford to pay tomorrow.

mcr norwalk, ct (Sent Wednesday, April 22, 2009 10:14 AM)

I remember making a mistake once years ago and I was convinced I was going to be let go.  When I spoke to my manager about she told em a story. The condensed version: a man at a very large company made a million dollar mistake. He did all he could to fix it and apologized for it as much as he could. He packed up his office and was called to the CEO's office. Of course he "knew" he was bring fired. When he apologized again to the CEO and said that he was ready to leave the CEO said Leave? Why would you leave? The man of course replied b/c he made a million dollar mistake.  The CEO said that may be true, but I just paid a million dollars for your training, and I am getting making sure to get my money's worth and I am convinced you won't do that again.  Point being, we all make mistakes, it is what you learn from them that is the true measure.  That was my first 6 months with that company.  I went on for over 7 years to make them thousands of dollars, being a top agent and eventually a manager. And I never made that particular mistake again!

Anonymous, Rochester, NY (Sent Wednesday, April 22, 2009 10:28 AM)

Every business I have seen run Phil's way is now out of business. Yes, there are bad employees, and they do need to be dealt with.

That said...

I have seen management itself contribute more to poor performance than any employee problem, and Phil's attitude can be very damaging to an enterprise. An adequate answer would take more than this space allows, but short-term thinking and inadequate understanding of the worker's tasks (I work in high tech) are far more devastating to morale and productivity.

George, TX (Sent Wednesday, April 22, 2009 10:38 AM)

Thirty years of having been on both sides of the table and both sides of the quick and slow hire fire process, I can tell you this:  The quick fire artists usually suffer from customer service issues, loyalty, quality of work and public image issues.  Sure, they save the bottom line, but it comes back around eventually.  That employee knows a lot of people and will influence others for years.  A compassionate discharge mitigates a lot of these issues.  So fire away, but be forewarned!  

RRR in Mpls (Sent Wednesday, April 22, 2009 10:45 AM)

Its been my experience that if you do a thorough job of "hiring" a new employee, your odds of having to release them drop exponentially. If after 6 months, the employee has shown they can't handle the job or their motivation isn't what it should be, then perhaps cut the cord and move on. Talk to the person and see if there are problems they don't know how to handle. Unfortunatley, some businesses are hampered by established employees who "eat their young" so to speak and the new person is off to a bad start right away. I see this nearly everyday in the medical field. Large hospitals are flush with this problem. Most of the time things are not what they seem to be so having a level head and doing your homework more often than not, will give a manager or owner a clear view of what is taking place. I hope that Mr. Town is wise enough to know this. If not, then he is in fact the one who needs to go.

Michael (Sent Wednesday, April 22, 2009 11:01 AM)



SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.): 

 Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private)