Firing someone...

I have had to do this a couple of times with my new staff.

I generally arrange a meeting and invite them to bring a witness, I also have one present for myself (my accountant). You can then explain to them your issues with their performance and then invite feedback. I also offer them a severance package (two to three weeks pay) if they feel at that point they can't meet the required standard. I have found that in more than 50% of cases they choose to leave at that point. Also make sure you follow up any agreements in writing.

If you keep them fairly sweet you limit the chance of them making trouble if you do have to let them go.
 
Get everyone together, and ask everyone with a job to step forward, then tell the ones you want to sack to stay where they are when they move... :)

On a more serious note, are they underperforming because they are unwilling to perform or are they unable to perform? That's the thing that really needs to be looked at (and from your post, it would see you are unsure about which applies). Being unable to perform is, generally speaking, a management problem. Normally assumptions about one training method being effective because it's worked for the others that started at the same time and so on. If that was the problem, I would always try to change that part of the situation, to ensure they have the tools they need to perform rather than simply push them out of the door.

With regards to the attitude, I'd sit them down and have a serious chat with them, and explain that their current performance isn't up to standard and if it does not improve, they will lose their job. Then discuss why this may be, offer help where it's appropriate, set targets that must be acheived and dismiss them if they don't achieve it.

If the employee is able but unwilling to perform (their stats have dropped for example from being good to being poor), then you've got a different problem, and one that only really the employee can fix. But before you sack them for it, I'd at least give them fair warning to improve.

A good manager isn't just a ruthless git, you have to make the right decisions for the right reasons, rather than decisions to protect yourself (if an employee doesn't have the tools to perform). If you've offered everything you can, then the employee deserves to go.
 
Rather than pinpoint this one person, get all four people together in a meeting for half an hour. Don't pinpoint this person who is under-achieving - however, ephasise strongly to the entire group that figures are not as they should be, and you'll need to get rid of people if this low level of carries on. Remind them that their performance is monitored, and they are expected to reach a certain level. Also remind them that you are there whenever they need any support or help - either with domestic or work issues.

I think that's quite fair.
 
basmic said:
Rather than pinpoint this one person, get all four people together in a meeting for half an hour. Don't pinpoint this person who is under-achieving - however, ephasise strongly to the entire group that figures are not as they should be, and you'll need to get rid of people if this low level of carries on. Remind them that their performance is monitored, and they are expected to reach a certain level. Also remind them that you are there whenever they need any support or help - either with domestic or work issues.

I think that's quite fair.
Click to expand...

this sounds like a plan tbh
 
Dolph said:
I'd disagree if the other three are performing well. Group moans when only one person is at fault are a good way to destroy your team morale.
Click to expand...

Exactly, i would focus on the problem. Dont put them in a situation that would make the team feel uncomfortable. If you have a good working ethic with the others why risk upsetting it.

By taking the person to one side, you give them the opportunity to tell the others if they so wish, or keep it to themselves. There may just be a simple problem, or perhaps just a mis-understanding of what is required of that person.

Who knows, after a brief discussion you might have an employee who will start to exceed targets. Some people can be complacent and need a bit of a kick every now and again. However, they might become your best employee if you keep providing that little kick.

Management is all about knowing how to manage individuals as well as the group as a whole. Different people require different approaches. As you get to know your staff the better you will be at handling them.

Its not always in the employers interest to boot workers out of the door without giving them a chance, re-training and downtime to recruit can cause big issues, although it does not seem like it would be a huge problem in this case.

(Just to clarify, i am not a manager of anyone, but i have seen my fair share of managers and know which ones i liked and respected, and build my experience from them)
 
Last edited:
TheBigCheese said:
Hi guys

I've employed four people three weeks ago as my business has started expanding quite a bit and things are going quite well...except for one person.

It was explained to them in interview that they have to reach a certain productivity level each day otherwise I literally can't afford to employ them, the other people seem to have reached and surpassed it quite easily but this one person is struggling...on average only achieving 75% of what they should be.

I haven't spoken to them explicity about it yet but figures are taken at the end of each day to check how everyone is doing so they know they are behind. Trouble is they don't seem to be all that keen to do anything about it to fix it...they never ask for any help or advice as to how to improve...their telephone manner leaves something to be desired and I get the feeling they are treating the job more as a time filler / hobby than a serious profession.

I'm in a bit of a pickle about it and not sure what to do...my ruthless managerial part of my brain is saying 'fire them' they can't do the job. Then I think that perhaps they need further training (though it's pretty basic what they do)...or more of a chance...or maybe they haven't settled in...then I think that it's Christmas coming up and I can't fire them before that.

I know you have to give someone a weeks notice if you are firing them after having employed them for a month so that is playing on my mind as well...I don't want to have to tell them they aren't good enough and then have them round the workplace for a week...similarly I don't want to tell them not to come in and have to pay them a week for doing nothing...

Any suggestions or advice (especially from people who have to hire / fire on a regular basis)?

Many thanks.
Click to expand...

1) Discuss this with them, be completely honest without being mean or feeling that you have to control the situation

2) Offer help - you know you want to

LOL @ 'serious profession' and 'pretty basic what they do' - seems contradictory
 
Dolph said:
I'd disagree if the other three are performing well. Group moans when only one person is at fault are a good way to destroy your team morale.
Click to expand...
My idea was to indicate to staff that you will take action on low performing individuals.

All you'd have to say in the meeting is along the lines of "I'm keeping an eye on performances, and will be warning and/or dismissing low performers. I can't afford to run this business without making profits, so will only keep on those who make me consistent profits."

You've warned them all, so they'd probably all improve - the worst performer will hopefully improve the most, to the level of the rest of their colleagues.
 
It’s a bit harsh expecting someone to reach 100% targets tbh – maybe you need to realise that they are unrealistic and that an employee can only do a certain amount each day

Maybe reduce the targets and offer incentives to hit those new targets – figures are just figures, forget about the 100% and focus on the person
 
mehuk said:
It’s a bit harsh expecting someone to reach 100% targets tbh – maybe you need to realise that they are unrealistic and that an employee can only do a certain amount each day

Maybe reduce the targets and offer incentives to hit those new targets – figures are just figures, forget about the 100% and focus on the person
Click to expand...

If 3 out of the 4 are hitting the targets then they clearly are realistic.

I think the approach of taking him aside and having a quiet word first to see what happens is the best one.
If he's still under performing then that would be the time to get rid of him.
 
firing is like clearing a wood...

once one goes down, the rest will start to wobble...

Power to the People

FIDEL
FIDEL
FIDEL
 
It's only fair to actually speak to the person and warn them that they are below the necessary target. If they pick up it saves you the time, money and hassle of having to train someone new.
 
mehuk said:
firing is like clearing a wood...

once one goes down, the rest will start to wobble...

Power to the People

FIDEL
FIDEL
FIDEL
Click to expand...
Are you insinuating that he should keep rubbish workers?

Power to good workers - loss of power to the sub-standard workers.
 
schnipps said:
Why? most people go to work everyday and have to perform to the best of their ability, why should some people need incentives to be motivated? Get rid imo.
Click to expand...


I'm pretty certain this is a lie that we from the lower classes like to tell ourselves to disguise the idea that its okay to get perpetually screwed by our employers who in turn believe that we need to be controlled rather than engaged - it follows on from the "you're a good person if you work hard" idea, most famously espoused on the sign above Auschwitz. Millions of Jews ended up in the incinerator but at least they didn't believe that work would genuinely set them free, part of them always knew they were ****ed.
 
cleanbluesky said:
I'm pretty certain this is a lie that we from the lower classes like to tell ourselves to disguise the idea that its okay to get perpetually screwed by our employers who in turn believe that we need to be controlled rather than engaged - it follows on from the "you're a good person if you work hard" idea, most famously espoused on the sign above Auschwitz. Millions of Jews ended up in the incinerator but at least they didn't believe that work would genuinely set them free, part of them always knew they were ****ed.
Click to expand...

A post about being fired and you bring in Jews, Auschwitz and Incinerators...bad taste






:p
 
I'd get rid, some people aren't natuarally cut out for hard work.

As for having a word - if they are able to work harder then why should you have to threaten to sack them in order to see an improvement? If they have that attitude then you are better off without them.
 
Have a chat with them, but be stern-ish about it. Politely remind them that they have figures to meet, and have been struggling with them. Provide them with plenty opportunity to ask for help, or let you know of problems. Give them a set time period to better their performance, where at the end if things have not improved you will be willing to accept their notice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom