September 26, 2008 at 7:57 am
Sounds like it is time for a performance review for Eric. Begin by emphasizing the (if any) positives and then move to the areas where he needs to improve. Document specific goals that Eric must achieve and put a date to them, say six months from now.
In six months, come back and review his performance to date. If things have not improved, put it in writing again but with a termination notice for failure to meet the goals. Review again in six months and then make the decision.
This has been pretty much standard operating procedures at the places I have worked at for the last 20 years.
September 26, 2008 at 7:58 am
Wow, 29 posts and very little mention of training. I'm glad there are couple managers out there who realize that you can't just hire and hope everybody works out to be a stellar performer. Firing has a cost, so you can't just keep trying new people until you get it right. Where I am, it's still as hard to find good people as it was in 1999. My managers at least have put training in the budget, and those of us who are self-motivated use it. Unfortunately, management doesn't follow-up, like making sure we not only learn a new technology, but then get a real live project going that uses it, gives us a chance to talk with each other about what we learned.
If by management, you mean, collect requests from customers (internal and/or external), make wild guesses about their scope and pass them on, then you can't deal with an employee like this. If management means understand the needs of your business and build a team that meets those needs, then "Eric" can have those needs explained to him and any gap between the needs and his abilities can be described. He will get it that he doesn't belong there, or he will find a way to make it work. That's the rosey picture, you might still end up firing him, but the documenting part will not be some special effort, it will the normal management of comparing needs to resources, and discussing that with him.
September 26, 2008 at 8:02 am
You have to be careful in cases like this one. I don't think a penalty flag should go up if someone is asking questions. I think Evelyn may be annoyed at Eric's behavior, and this allows things to get on her nerves when it wouldn't normally do so.
I think management should have had a sit down with Eric a long time ago. Communication is key when it comes to management, maybe Evelyn needs a sit down too.
September 26, 2008 at 8:03 am
I'd choose option 4 - have a heart to heart talk and possibly set up a personal improvement plan. Atfer working there for years - he doesn't desreve to be summarily fired.
September 26, 2008 at 8:04 am
Shaun McGuile (9/26/2008)
Phil you old rogue I just knew you would say that - promote him to his level of incompetence! 😀
For what it's worth - this has been previously coined as the Dilbert principle.
As for me - I probably would have been sued for medical costs based on the door hitting his A$$$ so very hard. Why people don't actually use probationary periods for what they're designed for (i.e. figure out if someone is a slug, and if they are - they're history) just escapes me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
September 26, 2008 at 8:07 am
I would probably try and save Eric and if after trying all I could then let him go. I would accept my responsibility as a manager to do my job first and foremost. I do like the idea of flattering Eric and let him leave on his own. That is humorous option.
I have been a manager and had the experience of documenting with a drawer dedicated to this employee and still could not fire because the company was afraid of a lawsuit. Eventually, I eliminated the position through technology and offered the employee a job I knew they would refuse and quit. They did and my life was much better and my other employees motivation increased.
Management should talk with Eric and define expectations and warn him they may have to cut back. This may spark Eric to begin to look else where.
September 26, 2008 at 8:07 am
Matt Miller (9/26/2008)
Why people don't actually use probationary periods for what they're designed for (i.e. figure out if someone is a slug, and if they are - they're history) just escapes me.
Because they have to actually pay attention and then follow up.
---------------------------------------------------------
How best to post your question[/url]
How to post performance problems[/url]
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop[/url]
"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."
September 26, 2008 at 8:11 am
jcrawf02 (9/26/2008)
Matt Miller (9/26/2008)
Why people don't actually use probationary periods for what they're designed for (i.e. figure out if someone is a slug, and if they are - they're history) just escapes me.Because they have to actually pay attention and then follow up.
So - it sounds like the SOP in this company is for people not to do their actual jobs....:P
(And - that was more of a rant than an actual question. I agree with a lot of previous posts that there's been a serious lack of management throughout that sad description of events).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
September 26, 2008 at 8:17 am
I would let Eric stay. By Evelyn's report, he is doing a job that no one else can or wants to do. He may not be a leader or manager, but not all people are, and many good, valuable people are not. He may be overpaid, but it is not a waste of money. It comes down to, what is the incremental difference between what Eric is paid and what he is worth, and is that difference enough to warrant the time and expense of firing him and finding someone else, or even the time and expense of helping him. Probably not, on both counts. So it is probably best to just lower your expectations of Eric, keep him out of the way, and let him do the job you need him to do and that he does well at.
Mark
September 26, 2008 at 8:37 am
Interesting article ... I will take a different approach and convey actual decisions that I have seen, participated in or actually directed ... I am basing this on Eric's description only, my career and various industry experience. Here is a smattering of what I have seen over the last 25 years:
Internet Stock Trading - Summarily Fired
Mutual Fund Investment House - Promoted
Managment Consulting Firm - Counseled out in 6-8 weeks (slow firing)
Industrial Sector - Promoted
Telecom - Personal Improvement program, based on results, termination or promotion
Banking - Personal Improvement program, based on results, termination the status quo
Pharmaceutical - Summarily Fired, escorted off by security
Healthcare - Personal Improvement program
Investment House - Promoted
In the words of Walter Cronkite - "And that's the way it is (or was)"
RegardsRudy KomacsarSenior Database Administrator"Ave Caesar! - Morituri te salutamus."
September 26, 2008 at 8:39 am
Very interesting responses, and a lot of what I expected, though Phil's "promote him" caught me a little off guard. Phil, too much civil service work, perhaps?
Firing Evelyn isn't something I thought of, though she definitely shares some blame here.Without a doubt, if she's complaining, her manager should be on her as well.
It's interesting that everyone thinks it's hard to fire someone. I don't think it's hard, though you might have legal ramifications. Most of the US is at-will employment, so you can let someone go for not doing their job. I guess you have to weigh the potential legal costs against the cost of the person not doing their job. That's one I'm not sure people do.
Mark Harr has some good points. Perhaps you're not wasting too much money. If you pay Eric $100,000, and could potentially get someone to do this for $80,000, it sounds like a lot. But it can cost a lot to find someone new, and it's a distraction. Perhaps Phil isn't wrong, maybe you can shuffle him to the side more and let him to the work that he can do.
September 26, 2008 at 9:25 am
I vote for option 2: document, then fire.
Sure, his managers have been a bit weasly by not more directly addressing the issue (and should rightly be faulted for that), but the root of the problem is Eric and his attitude. His particular brand of cluelessness strikes me as willful ingnorance; if everyone else comes to work at 8:00, you shouldn't have to be told that coming in at 11:00 is not a good idea.
I've worked with Eric, and I've had both good and not-so-good managers. The best managers, imo, find out what you need to succeed, give it to you, and then get out of your way. Employees that need constant hand-holding over time just suck the life out of everyone around them, especially with all the resources available [/url]to the modern knowledge worker. I'm sure somewhere there's a micro-manager who would just love to have Eric on his team. 😉
I don't mean to be so harsh, and he should probably be given a chance to live up to explicit expectations, but he'd probably blow that chance anyway. For example, a meeting invitation seems pretty explicit, yet Eric still asks "Should I be going to this meeting?"
September 26, 2008 at 9:39 am
I think one thing that needs to be considered is that Eric is competent. He's not outstanding, but he grinds along and does the job they hired him for. Evelyn's complaints are of two categories:
1) He's annoying: He asks too many "basic" questions, he complains about 7 A.M. conference calls. He probably complains about other things as well.
2) He plods: He does his job, he doesn't go above and beyond, he is never moving up.
Most of the actual performance complaints appear to be about performance that is actually beyond his formal duties. He is "expected to take a leadership role" but "no manager will give him one", is that expectation spelled out in the job description? Probably not (It isn't in mine but I know that I need to participate in and lead teams to get better evaluations). He is allowed to come in for a late shift job 11 - 7 (Are those assigned hours, or flex time?) But is then asked to start work at 7 A.M., is he going to be working a 12 hour day that day?
And there is one other telling point: Eric's coworkers do not respect "his position". It isn't just that they don't like Eric, they don't respect what he knows and does. (Imagine being an MS-Access guy in an MS-SQL Shop)
Eric has plodded along getting "meets expectations" on his performance reviews for years now. Everyone acknowledges that he does his job, but no one respects him for doing it. When he (perhaps) tries to learn and asks questions about industry topics he gets blown off with "look it up in Google" instead of getting a quick run down on how it relates to your particular business. Now, all of a sudden you're going to fire him?
So, I think management has to go to Eric and say specifically: We need more, we will be meeting with you to adjust your job description and the expectations that go with it. We will work with you in this process and expect that you will be able to meet these new expectations. If there are any areas of the new duties that Eric or the manager is concerned about, e.g. leadership, time management, technology, etc then get him some training.
Also, address the question asking thus: Eric, when you have a question, please spend a little time on your own looking for an answer and thinking about it. Then, if you still have a question try to come up with a specific question. For example: Don't ask "What is HIPAA?" Look it up and find out that it is the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. If you still have questions maybe ask "How are we dealing with the encryption aspect of the HIPAA Security Rule with respect to X product?"
* After reading the rest *
Eric is doing the job he hired on for, he has been doing it competently enough to be in it for 8 years and is probably bored out of his mind with it. Assuming that he's been getting the barely competent raise for that long he is probably pretty close to where he should be in terms of wages. If Eric is still asking "What do I need to do to get a promotion in 6 months?" Then that question needs to be addressed with: What position do you want to have? These are the requirements for that position. You need to show your manager and his peers and his boss that you are qualified to do that job as well as or better than the person currently doing it, and then the position has to be open.
It should be pretty clear by now to Eric that he isn't moving up in this company. But it is also possible that he doesn't really want to move up. Having a reliable drone is not always a bad thing.
--
JimFive
September 26, 2008 at 10:03 am
I think Eric's attitude plays a big role of people not respect his 'position' or his 'work'.
One mentioned about training. I agree company should provide training but the employees should have motivation to learn on their own too. If I am waiting for my company provide me training, I probably still work on main frame COBOL program (not that COBOL is not good)!!!!!!!
September 26, 2008 at 10:15 am
I decided to skip to the end and put my answer in before reading any more posts, so forgive me if I repeat someone else's response.
First comes a heart to heart with standards set. Then comes documentation of any problems, coordinated with HR. If performance meets the requirements of the position, then he stays, with minimal annual raises. Close supervision during a probation period is probably advised, to make sure he doesn't slack off. Positive comments (call it flattery if you want) are also advised whenever you see him performing what you expect. Set goals and tell him others have told you he has some shortcomings and this is his chance to really show how he can shine.
I have recommended hiring an Eric-type and been disappointed. However, I didn't have hire-fire authority so it was not my choice whether to keep him. He eventually was shifted to a position of much less responsibility than I had expected him to take (that was when I worked for a huge conglomerate).
I have hired an Erica who was competent, but who didn't play politics and ended up displeasing the head cheese (my superior), and I was forced to reassign Erica to a position she was not happy with. She blamed me and could not understand that I had softened the blow as much as I could. I would guess that she still curses me to this day.
I inherited an Eric who thought he was a much better engineer than he was, and who was occasionally rude right to my face. (I recommended firing him, but my boss told me it was my job to make him a productive member of the team.)
I ended up hiring someone better than him that I put in charge of the technical team, over Eric. That made sure the right engineering decisions were made. I also had a heart to heart, and we had some mutual sessions with my boss and HR (Eric tried to go over my head, claiming I had it in for him). I also had to enforce some rules: he claimed he had been hired under my predecessor with the understanding he could work from home four days a week. There was nothing of this in writing, and I told him that the team needed him in every day so the face-to-face input of casual conversation would allow all members to learn from his experience. If he couldn't deal with that, then he was welcome to leave and we would find a replacement for him. He stayed, and the Chief Engineer of the company repeatedly commended me in front of my boss and others for making this Eric a productive member of the team.
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 90 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply