“Let’s talk about our employee turnover numbers,” my boss requested.
We were reviewing our employee retention so I started going through the list of people who had left over the past few months.
“We’re happy that person left,” I said about one of our employees.
“Well I’m not,” my boss responded.
I stopped. I thought it was good that the person who quit was someone we didn’t want at the company.
My boss had another perspective. “How many other underperformers do we have on the team whom we’re simply hoping will quit?” he asked.
I think he had a great point. Now I think of it every time I’m in a meeting about employee turnover / retention and someone mentions that it was good that a particular person chose to leave the team.
What do you think?
There is a natural reluctance to fire someone who just isn’t working out. Every time I waited, I eventually had to fire the employee after he/she made additional mistakes that cost the company.
True. Thanks for posting.
I am a firm believer that if you are wishing that they leave then you should have fired them. There is little point of waiting. Build a team of people you want . not ones you wish they would leave.
I agree. It’s the people you wish would leave who never seem to do that on their own. Thanks for the comment.
Jack Welch, the former CEO of GE, would would force his managers to rank employees. They were to divide them accordingly: 20% as top performers, 70% middle performers, and 10% bottom performers. He then would have them fire the bottom 10%.
I’ve never experienced Jack Welch’s system, but it seems like there could be some challenges here.
Does this mean managers might not fire their poor performers during the year, so they have someone to fire when it is ranking time?
If nothing else this communicates a lack of confidence in management’s ability to manage and fire their own team members. I think most managers need some help knowing when to fire, but that training them to manage performance, have conversation with low performers and fire them at the appropriate time would work better.
Of course, that being said, Jack Welch was so successful that there are probably some great reasons behind his philosophy.
Thanks for the interesting comment.
The GE system fascinates me. It is basically an ABC system. The A’s are that top tier of talent, B’s the middle core staff and C’s the bottom. The system helped the A’s maintain their A status – to never take for granted they are an A, always remain passionate, always work for this status, etc. and they receive larger rewards. They worked w/ the B’s for continuous improvement, gave them substantial recognition and worked with them on how to get them to an A. The C’s they did not spend time on/exert energy. With the amount of employees they had they were always going to have some C’s and this system worked for them as they addressed it as a part of the culture. It forced the hard decisions.
I agree adressing it is best – but don’t know if I’d have the guts to implement this system. I prefer case by case. The person you spoke of sounds like they would have been a C, and this system might have helped you.
The system definitely would have helped me when I was first beginning to manage people. I waited way too long to fire anyone. However, I don’t think it would have helped me learn to be a manager who deals with employee performance issues when they come up and makes the appropriate decisions about termination when the time is right — not just at the end of the year.
My concerns about the system:
What if you don’t have 10% of your team performing poorly? Good employees get fired? And, do bad employees hang in there causing harm all year, because managers want to have bad employees to fire at the end of the year?
Great comments Ruth. Thanks for making me think.
“How many other underperformers do we have on the team whom we’re hoping will quit?” Good perspective from @bradaronson http://t.co/McODKrRa
In my experience I have seen morale of employees go up when management proactively takes action on low performers. Management isn’t the only one to notice when employees are not performing and even though it may mean more work in the short term until the person is replaced, high performing employees appreciate the action.
Great points William. I think peers often notice non-performers even quicker than management. Thanks for the comment.
Good point by William. It often seems that management is afraid to fire b/c it will hurt the overall staff moral- but I think the opposite is true. The bad eggs bring the whole team moral down!
It’s been my experience that bad employees usually hang around a lot longer then they should because management doesn’t like to be proactive about either improving the worker or removing the worker.
The lesson I take from your boss is that if you know someone isn’t good, action should be taken.
I totally agree. Poor employees need to be dealt with – through training, management, and guidance. If that doesnt work, unfortunately, they should be replaced. Otherwise, other employees may move towards mediocrity as they realize that mediocre employees get to stick around.
Russ and David, I completely agree with you.
It’s the people you should fire who never wind up leaving on their own. For me, as soon as I start feeling like I’d be happier if someone left the company, it’s one sign that it’s time to start the termination process.
I do find it fascinating that many people (including me) would see voluntary turnover of poor performers as a positive. We’d say, “we’re happy that person left”, as a good thing, when it really could be a negative — we didn’t deal with the problem soon enough and waited for a low performer to quit on his own.
Thanks for the comments.
Employee Rentention – Avoid this Dangerous Mistake: http://t.co/cIr1clx7 via @bradaronson
Avoid this dangerous employee retention mistake http://t.co/zVqosudY Unlike me
#retention #turnover