Different Perspective on Being Fired

[Raeph]

I was reading around some business websites and found an interesting article in the Entrepreneurial section. It was referencing a blog posted by a Female Business owner called "Shoot the Dogs Early".

https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/...t-list-large_0

Two paragraphs really stuck out to me:

To start off, I established a firm policy at the Corcoran Group to clean out the bottom 25 percent of our commissioned sales force each year. Firing people is the worst part of running any business, and the people best at hiring are never good at firing and tend to put it off too long. But I knew if the bottom quarter of the sales force wasn’t earning its keep, I wouldn’t be able to support the top salespeople who were making all the money. Moving our least productive people out and on their way to new careers was as important a part of my job as recruiting new talent, and I knew the faster I did it the better it was for everyone.

and

Contrary to firing someone who’s trying their best, I just relish firing chronic complainers. I’ve learned that one complainer quickly recruits another to join their pity party as “Oh, poor me,” always needs an, “Oh, poor you!” Nothing rots a business faster than a cluster of negative people, so I get them out fast – usually the minute I spot them. My best line for firing a complainer is simply, “You’re not a good fit here, I’m sorry.” The moment I show one of these chronic complainers the door, I feel a collective sigh of relief in the office!

Now I'm not a business owner or entrepreneur, however in my, now 14 year, work history I've seen both types of people, the under performers and the complainers, while working in a production environment for 9 years. What I have experienced does seem to correlate with her statements: moving the under performers along on their career path, by closing a door on their current position gives them a chance to redirect or retrain so they can try something new that may better fit their personality and skill set. I don't think that I need to explain the enjoyment of working in a team environment and seeing the sour ones leave.

What are your thoughts, and do you think that such a practice would work well in your current position, or company if you are an owner?

I don't think it will work well in the company I work for because the position that I am in now, and the department I'm in, isn't production focused, but involves quite a bit of "on-call" time, though there are busy periods in the year. Its still an interesting concept to consider though.

[belfpala]

What are your thoughts, and do you think that such a practice would work well in your current position, or company if you are an owner?

I don't think it will work well in the company I work for because the position that I am in now, and the department I'm in, isn't production focused, but involves quite a bit of "on-call" time, though there are busy periods in the year. Its still an interesting concept to consider though.

The first won't work in my business because there's no quantitative way to evaluate performance of an individual (distinct from "did you make x dollars in commission this quarter?"). I have to use more subjective things, which is unfortunate.

The second part, absolutely. I listen to complaints and decide if I need to change things based on that. But when I meet a chronic complainer, I'm very direct in suggesting they might want to move on.

[Kardiac]

So she indiscriminately fires 25% of her staff every year? I mean, someone always has to be in the "bottom 25%". Seems a little counter-intuitive.

[Sunseeker]

While I question the logic of always cleaning out your bottom 25%, as logically no matter how well you are selling you will always have a "bottom 25%" even when their numbers are only a few percentage points below the top sellers. IE: In a workplace with 4 sales people, Bob selling at a rate of 96 is still the "bottom 25%" even if Joe, the top seller is selling at 99. Now, if her "bottom 25%" is more of a category and less of a fixed distribution, then that's entirely different. But there will always be sellers on the bottom and there will always be sellers on the top, no matter how good the "bottom" is, and you need them as much as you need the top sellers. It's like your 3rd raid healer, even if your top two are pulling a combined 80% of the heals, that doesn't mean you dont need that third guy doing 20%.

However, I have no issue with eliminating people who are an outright negative influence on the workplace.

As someone who was recently fired I very much support the idea of getting rid of people who don't fit ASAP. Be it for negativity, production issues, you name it. It's better for everyone to move on to a better fit for both the employee and employer. It is however, important to part ways on good terms. If a worker simply wasn't the right guy for the job, that's what you fire them for. Don't make shit up, don't try to blackball them to other employers or unemployment. I mean shit, the workplace I was fired from claimed I "made too many mistakes" in my termination interview, then they claimed to unemployment that I committed "workplace misconduct" and even went so far as to blame my termination on a really bad bloody nose I suffered from once.

Short story: cut the crap, and do the right thing for everyone.

[Nyanmaru]

My whole department is made up of our team leader who is a permanent and everyone else is contracted by 12-24 months. Whenever someone doesn't fit the team there's simply a replacement requested. The contracts are not based on persons, they are based on work force. Doesn't matter what label is written on the desk. As long as someone's there that fits the team and works for the 9-5 it's all good.

We have a chronic complainer, but he gets belittled whenever he starts complaining (and most of his complaints are also valid and he pulls his weight even while complaining), so actually it is not really bad for the teams morale.

[Reeve]

So she indiscriminately fires 25% of her staff every year? I mean, someone always has to be in the "bottom 25%". Seems a little counter-intuitive.

It works for a lot of organizations. Many of the top consultancy firms have an up or out approach, where if you don't get promoted within 2 years, you lose your job to make way for someone who will be performing well enough to get that promotion. It also means there's enough turnover that you aren't waiting for retirees for that promotion you want, which is good for morale, at least amongst the high performers.

That probably wouldn't work as well in an organization without a clear advancement path that doesn't have employees numbering in the thousands.

[Nyanmaru]

While I question the logic of always cleaning out your bottom 25%, as logically no matter how well you are selling you will always have a "bottom 25%" even when their numbers are only a few percentage points below the top sellers. IE: In a workplace with 4 sales people, Bob selling at a rate of 96 is still the "bottom 25%" even if Joe, the top seller is selling at 99. Now, if her "bottom 25%" is more of a category and less of a fixed distribution, then that's entirely different. But there will always be sellers on the bottom and there will always be sellers on the top, no matter how good the "bottom" is, and you need them as much as you need the top sellers. It's like your 3rd raid healer, even if your top two are pulling a combined 80% of the heals, that doesn't mean you dont need that third guy doing 20%.

So she indiscriminately fires 25% of her staff every year? I mean, someone always has to be in the "bottom 25%". Seems a little counter-intuitive.

Wrong interpretation, she drops the bottom players if they threaten the other 75%.

[Tedbuckland]

I think the idea is ok but there needs to be a standard as well. Like if you're in the bottom 25% but above this mark, you're fine, what if 100% of your work force are allstars? example: 25 workers, 1 person sells 20 widgets, 24 people sell 19 widgets. Who do you fire? In her standards she would be firing 24 people even though they're all pretty equal. Seems more like a guideline than a rule.

[Afrospinach]

Cleaning out the bottom 25% ritualistically seems pretty shitty to me. A great way to make sure your sales team are absolute cunts and pushy pushy to get as many sales as they can. I bet it is a great work environment.

Chronic complainers I can see, and it is truth that that do look for sympathizers and spread that negativity around. It is called social contagion and it goes both ways. If you have a problem you can probably blame the people responsible for the office culture, see above.

Reading the whole of this paragraph I actually find this person rather meek and trying to act out, but hey, she runs a billion dollar business she must be right. I suspect that this article is just tough talk though. If you need to lean on everyone around you to enforce your own policies then what does that say about your self belief?

[Reeve]

Reading the whole of this paragraph I actually find this person rather meek and trying to act out, but hey, she runs a billion dollar business she must be right. I suspect that this article is just tough talk though. If you need to lean on everyone around you to enforce your own policies then what does that say about your self belief?

Large businesses are always reliant on having people other than the CEO enforce policies.

[Kardiac]

It works for a lot of organizations. Many of the top consultancy firms have an up or out approach, where if you don't get promoted within 2 years, you lose your job to make way for someone who will be performing well enough to get that promotion. It also means there's enough turnover that you aren't waiting for retirees for that promotion you want, which is good for morale, at least amongst the high performers.

That probably wouldn't work as well in an organization without a clear advancement path that doesn't have employees numbering in the thousands.

But wouldn't that mean more re-training and wasted money in that department? Also, why wouldn't they look into *why* they are in the bottom 25%? Is the "business world" really that disconnected from being decent human beings?

[Ugum]

Cleaning out the bottom 25% ritualistically seems pretty shitty to me. A great way to make sure your sales team are absolute cunts and pushy pushy to get as many sales as they can. I bet it is a great work environment.

If it was my company and all we did was sales, I'd let go of more like 40% at the end of the year. No sales, no profits. What's the point of keeping people that aren't making me a profit in my company? I didn't start the company as a charity case. If people want to feel good about themselves for doing a shitty job there's always fast food.

Yes, I would like some fries with that.

[Reeve]

But wouldn't that mean more re-training and wasted money in that department? Also, why wouldn't they look into *why* they are in the bottom 25%? Is the "business world" really that disconnected from being decent human beings?

Part of the evaluation system in those organizations is how well you've been involved in mentoring your subordinates. It's not a huge degree of loss in terms of re-training, and the productivity gains you get from having highly motivated ambitious employees makes up for it.

Of course, it's a really high pressure environment that burns a lot of people out, too, so they lose some good people to attrition who simply don't want to live that lifestyle as well.

[Raeph]

So she indiscriminately fires 25% of her staff every year? I mean, someone always has to be in the "bottom 25%". Seems a little counter-intuitive.

Not indiscriminate. I believe the article states it is a Real Estate business so its sales focused. In a sales environment you can gauge performance based on raw sales figures. If you have one person closing 10 homes in a quarter and you have another guy closing zero or 1, then you either have an under-performer or someone who doesn't have the skill set necessary to succeed in a sales environment.

Environment does play into it some, but if your goal as a business owner is to make money then being nice can be seen as rewarding those who help you make money and moving people out of your business who don't, because they won't thrive in the culture or are dragging down everyone else.

[Afrospinach]

Large businesses are always reliant on having people other than the CEO enforce policies.

She is talking about having someone else from management in the room with her when she fires someone so she does not chicken out. Sorry, I just struggle to take people like that seriously.

If it was my company and all we did was sales, I'd let go of more like 40% at the end of the year. No sales, no profits. What's the point of keeping people that aren't making me a profit in my company? I didn't start the company as a charity case. If people want to feel good about themselves for doing a shitty job there's always fast food.

Yes, I would like some fries with that.

What about having sales targets? Seems a much more reasonable approach than comparing everyone to your superstars.

[belfpala]

What about having sales targets? Seems a much more reasonable approach than comparing everyone to your superstars.

Companies do this in various ways. My first job was at a movie theater. We were judged on our sales of large popcorn/sodas versus other sizes.

Then I worked sales, and I had a specific target I had to hit or I'd get washed out if I didn't make it.

Other jobs, I had to put in 1800 billable hours/year or else fired. Bonus at 2100 and 2250.

But, as an employer, if you have someone hanging out around your minimums, and there's a vast pool of potential employees, why wouldn't you try to find someone who can do better?

[Deleted]

My thoughts are that people should run their business however the hell they want, provided that all is legal. If you are going to pussyfoot around issues as an entrepreneur or CEO you won't be as productive as you could be. Being considered an ass isn't an issue if measures taken increase profits.

[belfpala]

Being considered an ass isn't an issue if measures taken increase profits.

Counterargument: Many industries are very insular. If you become known as the ass employer in one of those industries, it becomes very difficult to attract talent.

[Masark]

It works for a lot of organizations. Many of the top consultancy firms have an up or out approach, where if you don't get promoted within 2 years, you lose your job to make way for someone who will be performing well enough to get that promotion.

In other words, it takes the Peter Principle, enforces it, and then fires people for it.

[Deleted]

So she indiscriminately fires 25% of her staff every year? I mean, someone always has to be in the "bottom 25%". Seems a little counter-intuitive.

It isn't if you can easily fill in those 25% with potential better work forces. It depends from industry to industry, but I can see it working in some...just as I can see that fail in some as well.