September 25, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Should He Stay or Should He Go?
September 26, 2008 at 1:37 am
Firing? how crude.
In any large company, the effort and expense involved, to say nothing of the negative visibility to oneself, precludes any possibility of sacking (firing) this guy. It isn't an option. Whenever someone like this gets in your hair, you promote him in order to be rid of him. It is obvious from reading Eric's case history that this has been happening to him already. I write about this effect in The Sceptic Tank
In some corporates, this happens so much that it is very hard to detect who is really running a department and making the real decisions. I've often been surprised to find the management offices in companies full of people like Eric, and almost by accident I've found the real powerhouse of a department in an out-of-the-way spot bereft of any symbols of status. The real managers often occupy low-status jobs in the organisation, but at least they are left in peace and don't have to worry about the 'Eric's of this world.
In the past, I have used an alternative, but infallible technique which I here pass on for posterity. You flatter the guy to death. Not literally, I admit. In Eric's case, he was always thinking he was underpaid and undervalued. Exploit this by saying that we all could see his huge potential, but sadly, there were few opportunities in this company on the titanic scale his talents deserved. Keep the hints going. Pander to his ego. He will become bolder and more confident in his self esteem. Everybody believes they are immune to flattery. It sometimes helps to soften these guys up by saying 'I can see that you're too shrewd to be taken in by flattery'. Infallible. Eventually, frustrated by our inability to find a role that matches his potential, he will look elsewhere. I have managed the bullseye in the past of persuading an 'Eric' to resign and flounce out before he has another job to go to.
Best wishes,
Phil Factor
September 26, 2008 at 3:20 am
Phil you old rogue I just knew you would say that - promote him to his level of incompetence! 😀
Now I would go down the path of personal improvement plan with periodic review for Eric and lay it out plainly either things improve or redundancy maybe an option......
The guy obviously needs some discipline instilling into him. 😀
I'm immune to flaterry - unless of course there is something in it for me....;)
Hiding under a desk from SSIS Implemenation Work :crazy:
September 26, 2008 at 3:40 am
I think there's little doubt "Eric" should not be allowed to continue as is. However, I'd be wary of firing him, since it seems to me that much of this problem is not of his own making. It's easy to say his expectations are unrealistic, but there are hints in the profile to suggest the hiring manager shied away from being explicit, so allowing a certain amount of misinterpretation to creep in.
I've seen several similar situations before, where the summary of events has been collated to a fair degree by the very people who did the hiring and subsequent managing. The summary carefully points out certain key pieces of information that have been imparted to the employee, whilst carefully skirting around the fact that that information was imparted in short, ambiguous asides at points in conversations where they could be slipped in without their true importance being spotted. I'm not suggesting this is definitely the case here; just that it's as likely as not.
As I see it, a manager has responsibility in three main areas; selection, training and supervision. Eric was poorly selected, insufficiently trained (for the wider responsibilities of his job and/or career path) and inadequately supervised (particularly in management of expectations). Personally, I'd say "Evelyn" is a more immediate candidate for firing than Eric.
So my preference would be for a "cards on the table" interview with Eric. Once he knows the true situation, he's as well equipped as the company to re-evaluate the professional relationship. It starts the justification for subsequent job termination if it should become necessary, but also establishes a new starting point with measurables - everyone knows where they stand, and by what criteria the whole situation will be judged. And, it should be added, I've seen a few people treated like this who've gone on to become hugely valuable colleagues.
Semper in excretia, suus solum profundum variat
September 26, 2008 at 3:42 am
I think we've all encountered an Eric. I worked with one a few years ago (not the first, and I'm sure it won't be the last) who was in the end fired. Very similar to this story he was an individual who considered himself to be much more talented than was the case; but for this Eric, it didn't lead to arrogance, instead he would attempt tasks beyond his competency, leave an almighty mess in his wake, and the rest of his team had to spend time cleaning up after him. Eric worked on a test team, so his messes were seldom critical; but eventually his team mates convinced their manager that he wasted so much of their time that he was a liability. He had laready been moved round a number of different teams, no other manager was willing to take him on, improvement plans were tried (and failed), and eventually it fell to a colleague of Eric's (and a personal friend of mine) to come up with an "assessment plan" - to show how effective he was in his role - and other team members were instructed to report weekly on how much time they spent fixing or re-doing tasks Eric had already attempted. The two reports were completed over an eight week period and sent to HR and a senior management team for evaluation - the decision was that he cost the company more than he earned, and that he was barely competent to do his job - he was fired, and went with relatively little fuss (my friend reckons that he was well aware of his fate long before the axe fell).
As a post-script: Eric's father was a very successful local businessman, owned a string of car dealer ships and workshops, and eventually employed Eric in his own business; not before he turned up at our offices a day or two after Eric's sacking, and demanded a meeting with the company's Managing Director to explain why his son had been fired. (From this you might guess our Eric's age, in fact he was in his mid-forties).
Dave Leathem.
It's just what we asked for but not what we want! (The Customer's Creed)
September 26, 2008 at 4:19 am
Phil gave a good answer on this Q.
But I wonder why Evelyn let Eric to get to work so late, 11 AM.?
What was Eric job description that is he so irreplaceable?
There is no job like that, everybody is replaceable.
-------------------------------------------------------------
"It takes 15 minutes to learn the game and a lifetime to master"
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality."
September 26, 2008 at 4:29 am
A common complaint I heard in an earlier life, in the (UK) civil service, was that it was impossible to sack incompetent people because the terms and conditions guaranteed job security. This was just a lack of management will. The process for documenting, counselling, warning and eventually terminating (if necessary) was certainly bureaucratic, heavy and took months, but you simply had to do it by the book (oh yes, there was quite a book!). And it made the manager examine their own role, and their responsibilities - to set and manage standards and expectations, train, counsel and offer support, to be honest and clear to the under-performer, and to see whether there was a different post where skillset and work would be a better match. It was a method for ensuring, documenting and proving fairness and even-handedness.
It could lead to a lot of personal soul-searching and required a lot of laborious work monitoring an individual, and it was no fun at all to be instrumental in someone's departure (termination or resignation). But the manager and workgroup benefitted from having a clear and fair approach to standards of work and under-performance, and from the removal of a major source of error and resentment.
September 26, 2008 at 5:31 am
My personal preference is document & fire, but I know that my company will go through counseling, remediation, more counseling, documentation, extra training, heart felt discusions, yet more counseling, more documentation... eventually you can fire someone but you have to walk on hot coals while juggling running chainsaws and singing Ethyl Merman tunes in order to do it. Most managers just suffer with the Erics or try to get them transferred into various backwaters in the organization. That's the biggest drawback to working with a large organization.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore Roosevelt
Author of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning
September 26, 2008 at 5:40 am
I think Phil has the right idea... that will work over time....
September 26, 2008 at 5:42 am
Mark, I know your not one for flattery, but you are looking good these days.....
:D:D:D
Sorry couldn't stop myself
😉
Hiding under a desk from SSIS Implemenation Work :crazy:
September 26, 2008 at 5:54 am
while juggling running chainsaws and singing Ethyl Merman tunes
Hey Grant, acquiring a skill like that that can really make a CV stand out...
September 26, 2008 at 6:13 am
I guess I've been fortunate to have not had an "Eric" in any departments I've worked in, unless I was the "Eric" and didn't know it. I have had to deal with "Eric's" in other departments though and I don't recall any of them being fired. In this case I agree with most that "Eric's" deficiencies need to be documented, confronted, and a plan for change developed before firing takes place. While I am big fan of flex schedules, I really have a problem with an 11 am start time and then complaining when you have to be available for conference calls before that time, especially when you can do them from home. I'd let him know that he is required to be IN THE OFFICE for the calls and when he misses one he's done.
Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question
September 26, 2008 at 6:16 am
(Apologies to the Captain Morgan Ad staff.)
Don't we all have a little Eric in us? 😛
It's probably just me, but I can see some similarities. I believe I get along well with my coworkers. I would like to believe that I add something of benefit to the organization.
However, during my most recent review I was told that higher management is concerned with my work days. Per their request, at the beginning of this year I started overlapping with our night shift, starting at 6am. I stay until 3pm. I guess the 9 hour (minus a little for lunch) days, and the two months on, two months off of 24x7 coverage are not enough hours. Couple that with the new manager... (http://www.cio.com/article/27099/_Signs_You_re_About_to_Get_Fired)
Perhaps it is time to update my resume.
Honor Super Omnia-
Jason Miller
September 26, 2008 at 6:17 am
Shame, Shame, Evelyn! Eric's boss, Evelyn has been putting up with substandard performance for a very long time:
"(By then he'd been at the company for years.)"
according to the article.
Why? Where was the written and signed three- or six-month review of performance, with explicit assessments of areas needing improvement, the possible consequences of not achieving them (including termination), and -- this is the one too many managers don't get -- a list of measures that she would take to work with Eric to guide his improvement, along with his commitments?
A manager's job description is to manage. If she'd done this at three or six months, followed through with her commitments, and documented his failure to execute his commitments, this problem would never have gotten this far. Alternatively, if she'd held his - and her - feet to the fire early, maybe she'd now have a better employee.
The real cost here isn't Eric's poor performance. The cost to the company comes from the demoralized attitudes and lowered productivity that always attend a personnel problem like this, a problem that everyone sees but that management allows to persist. "Why should I care?" is the inevitable question, spoken or not, that co-workers start asking. And that is not an attitude that grows a business.
This is not to say Eric isn't a problem. He is. But handling problems is why we hire managers.
Rich Mechaber
September 26, 2008 at 6:38 am
I'm voting for #4, I've seen a lot of good people lost/ruined because no one would endure a little discomfort and just say what need to be said.
Now to read page 2!
That he remains working without much change is no surprise. In my experience one of the top 10 mistakes managers make (and avoiding any type of confrontation is high on the list) is not getting rid of people that don't fit...after you've tried to coach them to success. We're all grownups, once we know where we stand, whether we think it's fair or not, we can adapt, go, get forced to go, or as in Erics case, just keep working!
As a manager you're almost always looking after the health of your team. Better to move/remove someone who has a negative impact before you begin to look powerless, clueless, and worse, and before they corrupt the rest of the team.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 90 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply