Signals?

[susandennis]

For many years I worked for IBM and then I worked for Microsoft and then I worked for startup #1. All three of these shared one process... IF employee performance = sub par, THEN promote employee. In all three places, HR rules and processes made it far easier to promote someone to another job in another area than to fire that someone's ass.

I think it has changed a lot now but when I was at IBM, I used to swear that you would have to be doing it with a duck in the lobby while selling dope to get fired and then I think it was fairly dependant on the duck's attitude and the quality of the dope.

And then I came here. I started on the same day as a new sales guy. The next month, the ubiquitous email 'xxx has left to pursue other opportunities' was circulated. I asked one of the managers what the inside skippy was and he told me that xxx wasn't doing squat so he got fired. Since then, I've seen others - a fair number considering we've yet to top 50 employees - relieved of their paycheck because they weren't cutting it.

Personally, I love it. If I have doubts about my own performance I stop and think, well, I'm still working here so I can't be screwing up that badly!

Lately, however, things are changing at bit. We have a couple of executives are definitely floundering unchecked. And it's beginning to show with people leaving. You gotta think you have a problem when the popular perception is that no one is hiring in this town and yet things are so bad here that key people are quitting.

It makes for some disconcerting days.

Comments

[suifu.livejournal.com]

I certainly like the idea of actually firing people who aren't cutting the mustard. My former employer (who shall remain nameless) had a big problem with letting people who clearly needed to be shown the door hang around. It's bad for morale when the majority of folks who are doing their job to the best of their abilities see one shithead who is allowed to stay on because the company is fearful of wrongful termination litigation (or whatever).

i think ... mostly ...

[henare.livejournal.com]

the managers who do this think it's *hard* to fire someone.

in fact, it's pretty easy--if you remember to collect the evidence. this is part of why HR departments exist.

it can also be done in a compassionate way, if that's called for ...

there really is no excuse.

Re: i think ... mostly ...

[susandennis]

You may well have cracked the code... all of the places that never fired people had an HR department - we don't even have an HR person! We have one guy who handles, benefits, facilities and some of the accounting stuff. NO HR at all.

Re: i think ... mostly ...

[henare.livejournal.com]

i think HR departments think it's their job to scare managers away from firing people, lest they actually have to do some work.

[mindme.livejournal.com]

Once I got my friend a job at my tax software company. He made some kind of boo boo. Who doesn't, right? Especially when you're new. He was worried he might be fired. I'm like "Terry, don't worry. No one at this company has EVER been fired for cause. The only reason you get fired here is because you don't sleep with the president."

I think we're living in a world where when a coworker merely does the assigned duties with the expected level of competence, that coworker ends up looking like the employee of the month. When I think of all the coworkers I've enjoyed working with, I enjoyed working with them not because they did err 110% of the job but because they merely did 100% of the job. They didn't leave crap for me to pick up.

[susandennis]

The ones who don't leave crap are the keepers for sure.

They have rack and stack

[(Anonymous)]

here at Sun. There are 3 performance categories 1, 2 and 3. Top 20% performers are the 1s, the middle 70% are the 2s
and the bottom 10% are the 3s. The 1's get bigger raises than the 2s. And the 3s get no raises,and no stock options.
But they do get put on probation and get an action plan and can get fired if they don't complete the action plan
sucessfully.

Now I don't have a problem with the higher performers getting more goodies. Nor do I have a problem with the lowest
performers being told to shape up or ship out. But somehow, I still don't like it. The ranking process is
subjective. Exactly 10% of people need an action plan? Not 8, not 11? It takes up too much management time.
It is humiliating and discouraging for the 3s and I haven't seen much improvement in performance for the
ones I know about. And if this year's 3s were gone (and no new hiring) suddenly people that were considered
ok are now under-performers.

-Vicky

[katbyte.livejournal.com]

Sounds like the military. If they screw up, promote em.

I love the duck/dope thing. LOL!!

Hope it gets better. Why weren't we born rich instead of beautiful?????

[susandennis]

Being just another pretty face is a burden we just have to live with. Sigh.

Re:

[katbyte.livejournal.com]

LOL, you are on a tear today!!

[estis.livejournal.com]

Is something going on you don't know about? Are you out of the loop? Best invite the twinkies out to lunch to get all the hot poop!!!

Look up! Look up!!

[susandennis]

Do you see pigs flying??? If yes, then you'll know I'm having lunch with the Twinkies.