'THE CONVERSATION': DOING IT RIGHT
by Don Phin
Should you let problem employees go or grow?
I can’t tell you how many times clients have posed this scenario: We’ve got a long time employee who’s either over 40, perhaps also non-white, possibly disabled, and most importantly, not performing up to their prior standards and our expectations. What should we do? And, by the way, we don’t want to get sued!
Here are my suggestions, including “The Conversation,” for you to consider:
First of all, is it really about the employee? Management should never put itself in a position where it’s responsible for the success of employees, but rather in a position where it’s responsible to those employees for their success. The ultimate responsibility of management is to people, not for them. We are responsible to people when we create a system that allows them to do what they can do well and enjoy doing well. This isn’t rocket science; it’s common sense. People work best when they’re doing what they can do well and enjoy doing well. Anything else is asking for trouble.
Given our scenario, the first question is, “Does the employee have the skill set necessary to do the job?” And if they once did have that set, has the job evolved to a place where they need additional training? Have you allowed them or encouraged them to take on that additional training — or are they turning into dinosaurs?
Second, assuming that they can do the job, why aren’t they doing it? What else could this mean? Are they burned out? If so, perhaps they need a sabbatical. Given the cost of turnover and lawsuits, it might be better to give them a month off than a pink slip. Is there something else “up”? Is there a “disability” that’s hampering their performance? If so, they might have protections under the ADA, as well as state statutes, such as California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. If a disability is affecting their performance, the question becomes whether you can accommodate this disability so that they can continue to perform. Remember, no matter your legal obligation, an employee must still be able to perform their essential job functions with or without an accommodation.
Now let’s assume that the worker has the willingness to perform but their skill set has lapsed. The reality here is that both parties have probably been irresponsible — the employer to their system and the employee to themselves. If that’s the case, The Conversation might go like this:
“I know that you’re a good person and have been with us for many years. During those years, your job responsibilities have grown and changed. I see that you’re still making the effort to perform, but unfortunately not to your previous levels or our expectations. It seems to me that you share this frustration as well. Do you think that if we put you through an extensive training program that your performance would change to the point where you once again feel good about your job, and so would we? If you don’t think this solution would work, what would you propose — because quite frankly, we’re stumped trying to come up with a better idea?”
At this point, the worker will let you know if they want to go through the effort of re-training. Sometimes old dogs refuse to learn new tricks. Perhaps they have a good idea that you overlooked. If that’s the case, even better. Perhaps there remains enough demand for the good skill sets they still have so that you can use them all of the day, not just some of it. In this case, you could restructure their job assignment and perhaps their pay as well.
Now let’s assume that they have the skill set and job restructuring is out of the question, but for whatever reason they’re not performing — and from what you can tell it has nothing to do with a possible disability. Perhaps they’re simply worn out. If that’s the case, The Conversation might go something like this:
“You’ve been with us for a long time. You have an incredible skill set. But as you’ve probably sensed, we haven’t noticed the drive to perform as in the past. Unfortunately, we’ve had to give you warnings about ________________, ________________, and __________. The fact is that we can’t continue to do business like this. We not only have a responsibility to you, but to the entire organization, including our clients and your co-workers. We’re at the point where we don’t know what else we can do. We do care about you, but we also care about having the company’s needs met.
“Can you think of anything that can be done to turn this around? Would you like some time off so you can consider this? Take a look at this Employee Correction Form and please fill it out so we can have your suggestions in writing. If what you suggest makes sense, we’ll try one last time. If what you suggest doesn’t feel right for us, then we’ll have no choice but to end our relationship, despite our wishes to the contrary. Does this approach make sense to you? Because, quite frankly, we don’t have a better idea. Do you?”
If at that time, the worker decides to adopt a victim mentality and start blaming other people for their circumstances, consider suspending them for two or three days without pay, so they can go home and rethink matters. The point is — there’s no rush. Chances are that this has been going on for some time. What you want to do is make sure you “get it right.” Check your head to make sure that it’s not your system at fault. Make sure that no disability or discrimination laws stand in the way. Finally, give the employee every opportunity to take responsibility for their performance and step up to the plate. When you’ve done all these things, and the situation still doesn’t change, it’s time to “liberate” them. The fact is that a continued relationship will do both parties harm.
There’s an easy test of when it is time to “liberate” someone: If they quit, would you be relieved or upset? If the former, why are they still there? When counseling employers I often find that there are three reasons why we have a fear of liberating people.
First, we’re afraid that the “system” will walk out the door. When I recently spoke to a group of CEOs, one of them stated that she delayed firing her CFO for that very reason. At my office, we have Standard Operating Procedures for everything that everybody does. I call it the Mack Truck Rule. If a Mack Truck hit any one of us, somebody would be able to step in and do their job. For example, I own five Web sites. There’s a ton of technology that went into them. If my IT person got hit by the Mack Truck or decided to get up and leave my company, I’d be in dire straits if I hadn’t reduced everything that she knows and does to writing. I then had a third party review this summary and asked if they could step in and do her job, if needed. Until they said, “yes,” we continued to refine the SOP. This is one way not to be handcuffed by an employee. You should be system dependent, not people dependent.
Second, the fear of being sued, perhaps because they did a poor job of documentation. Even if you’ve done everything suggested in this article, you might still face a lawsuit. The good news: I’ve never seen a company go out of business because of an employee lawsuit. The bad news: People who feel unfairly treated can file lawsuits, whether legitimate or not. Finding an attorney to support them in this effort isn’t hard.
Last comes the emotional reason. We know that as soon as we terminate someone, we’ll be cast in the “villain” role. And nobody I know enjoys being a villain. Make sure that you don’t get sucked into this employee’s drama. Realize that drama queens and kings are out there. They can be wholly irresponsible for their career and then go blaming someone else. As long as you stay “above the line” and act responsibly, you have the emotional ability to let go. Getting sucked into an employee drama is far easier when we know that we’ve been less than fully responsible.
That’s how to have The Conversation and know when it’s time to let an employee grow, or go.