Have you ever been in a position where terminating an employee is not so black and white? Emotions aside, just how easy is it to decide to cut someone loose?
We know that some things are non-negotiable:
1. Theft, or anything that may be considered criminal behavior.
2. Willful misconduct.
3. Actions that cause reputational harm.
However, some actions are right at the borderline so that HR, which usually makes the recommendation to terminate, faces a dilemma. After all, our decision will not only cost the employee the source of his livelihood, but will have an impact on his future and that of his family.
The most difficult fireable offense to substantiate is poor performance. In the past, nearly every time I had a manager seek my advice to terminate an employee for poor performance, the manager did not have any record of the employee's failures, and on several instances I even found that the issues were not performance driven. In a situation like this, how should HR proceed?
1. Review the employee track record. Having a strong and transparent performance review process will make it easy to determine whether termination will be justified. Proof of consistent non-performance is required if a person will be fired.
2. Determine what the leader has done to correct performance. While continuous development is the accountability of each employee, it is supported primarily by the team leader. A performance concern left unattended will lead to a more serious concern. This makes it hard to terminate. In these instances, it is typically more helpful to have both the employee and their manager undergo a development program and be given time to improve. Often, the result will be an engaged, high performer and a better leader.
3. Investigate thoroughly and ask for proof. Employees may be described as one of the following workplace archetypes:
• Troublemaker: This employee usually either "challenges the decisions too much" or "asks too many questions" — as if it is a sin that an employee would try to understand better. HR might find out that there are still managers who are threatened by employees who are smarter than them. Rather than revel that the search for their successor is over, a manager who feels this way might prefer to take the person out of their team — or worse, the company.
• Incompetent: A communication failure is often boiled down to, "she just doesn't get it" or "he cannot understand the instructions given." But whose fault is it if the employee does not understand instructions, the giver or the taker? Again, if the employee consistently fails to understand despite clear, written, structured instructions, then yes, it is on the employee. However, it is often the failure of the team leader to provide clear instructions, or to be sure an employee understands how to do a certain task.
• The Odd Duck: Instead of embracing diversity, some prefer to have a team with one personality. This manager is not inviting growth, innovation or exciting dynamics.
• The Fall Guy: If HR does not dig deep enough, the poor employee may just be the fall guy who was selected to be blamed for a failure of a big project.
Once a decision is reached about whether to terminate the employee or not, the most important part of the outcome is the journey. To ensure that the action — whatever it is — is justified, the organization must maintain its values and uphold its culture. Ideally, that would mean having a culture of excellence and respect for all employees. The manager should emerge with strengthened leadership capabilities. And the employee should maintain his dignity and learn from the experience — either learn from his mistakes and strive to be better, or learn that his organization has integrity.
