For those of you who are new to a management position or in the Human Resources field, it is always unpleasant to end the employment of a person (unless you dislike them greatly). The thing to remember is, by accepting a position with your company, there was an implied promise to come to work on time, on a consistent basis, and to perform at a certain level without personality complications. Almost no one ever gets fired for no reason. An employee with a performance, attendance or personality problem has not lived up to their promise. They should have been given an opportunity to improve on the deficient area(s) of course.

Major S 2 Ground Control

I couldnt agree more. All under performing employees should be given a chance to improve. I also think there needs to be a strict timeline tied to the probation period--like 30-60 days, and a clearly defined set of improvements to be achieved and sustained. Any slippage and you're gone.

Gordon, as the director of agencies and institutions I have been in the position of having to choose whether or not to fire incompetent, disruptive, neurotic, psychotic, rude, drunken and even sexually abusive staff. No matter how much they needed firing, it was the most emotionally traumatic aspect of my work. I would often throw up before and after a meeting in which I had to tell another person that he or she was going to be removed from the job and have his or her financial security destroyed.

I know many otherwise competent supervisors and administrators who turn to jelly when they have to accomplish this unenviable task. I have seen it in my wife's school district where a couple of incompetent tyrants wreaked havoc with everyone from parents to teachers to administrators and no one had the courage to stand up to them until this year when there was an almost palace revolt by all the teachers in three schools caused by their abusive and incompetent behaviors. They still didn't fire them but they gave their important duties to a super staffer who is able to smooth the waters, accomplish the tasks and refuel the vigor of the demoralized staff. Of course, it was my wife who was given the Mighty Mouse role! Didn'tcha know that gunslingers always come in pairs? Butch and Sundance ... Laurel and Hardy ...

This psychological aspect of confrontation and taking away a person's livelihood often protects the least qualified among us. Because I was responsible for the welfare and safety of children and emotionally disabled adults, I overcame my own reluctance everytime I reached the point of decision and did the right and needed thing. I've fired everyone from janitors to techs to social workers to nurses to psychiatrists. Every time I was faced with the situation, I kneeled before the toilet god at least once but do it I did.

I know I prevented sexual assaults, suicides and breakdowns in patients as well as loss of focus in otherwise wonderful staff. Because I was able to do what was needed, morale was always higher than it would have been in these bleak places and going beyond the call of duty prevailed, even among the patients.

Because of my baseball background as a teen, I always saw it as hitting the groundball to second to get the runner to third. It took a little out of me but it benefited the institution, the staff and the patients.

As a fractional owner of a giant condominium association in which I own 2 rental units in a 374 unit building, I have reported staff for abusing residents and I've been there only since July. I noted one desk person intimidating a resident so he would give him a tip for services that should have been included in his expectations. First, I took the guy aside and told him that it was an unwise practice. When he repeated it, I went to the management organization that hired him and he was transferred to another building they owned and put in a job where he wouldn't ever be alone where he could pull such stunts.

I am a firm believer in "serving the charter." Every organization, public or private, profit or non-profit has a duty to perform. If a staff or board member interferes with the performance of those tasks, he or she needs to be ... taken to task and if it is serious enough, removed or transferred to a place where his or her services can be used without damaging others.

Thank you for bringing up this important issue.

This is a such a frustrating situation for all involved: the manager, the team, and the "bad" employee.

The vast majority of employees really do want to do a good job. And when someone is hired and the fit isn't right (job skills, job motivation, or company culture--any or all could be "fit" issues), one of the best things a manager can do is address the issue immediately. Gordon brought this up in a reply: the crucial (yet ignored a lot of the time) orientation period.

One of the first things I coach managers in this situation to do is to look in the mirror and ask him or herself: What goals have I set for this person? What feedback have I given? And then ask it again and ask yourself for data--for proof that you've done these things: meeting times, job description, goals documents, emails about performance, notes to self on feedback given, etc.

Many times (yep, I feel it's true), managers haven't done enough to explain what the employee needs to do and why and why the work hasn't been done to the minimum level of expectation. Regardless of the state in which you are working (or the business located), you shouldn't fire a "bad" employee without doing a lot of talking with the person about goals and feedback.

Another dynamic to consider is that most managers manage the way they are managed. Hence, if my manager isn't an experienced one who manages out poor performers, I probably won't do that with my own team. And I then support the culture of poor management with my team . . .

This is a great topic. Thanks, Gordon.

I have a horror story about weird things employees can do. One of my former colleagues now works with a State Agency as a Corporate tax auditor. He has a colleague who frequently showed up late for work, was a no show at client sites, did shoddy work, you name it this man did it. My friend thought it was just a matter of time till the wayward man would be relieved of his position but in a Government agency it takes a while. Anyway, my friend was waiting on his crazy colleague in the parking lot of a client site one day, when the man shows up in a black and white polka dot dress, fish net tights, bright red lipstick and a blond wig. Oh Yes! And he still had his mustache. So my friend tells him it will be best if they go back to the office, which is what they did. They turn around and drive to the agency's office. 2 years down the line, the man still works there. Apparently the higher ups are worried that he will scream "discrimination". What do you think of that?

What about bad boss ?

Ask me how to fire them.

Why do companies keep bad employees? I think it's often because it's hard for managers to admit they made a hiring mistake, and because it's no fun to sack somebody.

If you're the boss, why, sack the bad employee! I know from experience that preparing to fire somebody is FAR more difficult than actually doing it. And when the person is really not working out, everybody's life gets better right away.

Do your prep-work right. Follow your company's procedures diligently. Get your HR people to do the hard legwork -- that's their job. (You can go to HR and say, "look, this person is not working out because ... I need your help in turning them around or firing them.)

Sure, some of them will try to bring you up on some kind of discrimination charge. But, you've done your prep work so your company's lawyer will simply take care of that foolishness.

I know this sounds coldhearted. But letting nasty and incompetent people wreck everybody's work experience is lots worse.