Firing Idiots: A Commentary on Management

I was looking around for a topic and ran across a blog entitled Phil for Humanity. Written by a guy named Phil B. he covers a number different topics. His post called Firing Idiots struck a note with me because, as an employee, Phil points out some of the failings of management as well as, in my opinion, HR. Phil goes off on a fellow employee who does not seem to be able to do their work, explain there work or think through their work. They then bother productive employees to help get a solution or some guidance and even then can't seem to get it. We have all had coworkers, or employees, and even bosses like this. I know I have! Yet nothing seems to get done about it.

Phil asks the question "Don't managers see the uselessness, counter-productivity, and extreme slowness in accomplishing basic tasks from certain individuals in their teams? I am beginning to think that managers are blind to these problems; because they either do not care, are not looking at their people as the source of their problems, think some productivity is better than none especially if hiring a replacement is too difficult, or think firing someone is not worth the hassle in a large corporation." My answer to Phil is "all of the above." As a consultant I run into this issue all the time and have many times asked the question "Why is this person still here?"

I will add a few more reasons to Phil's list for why nothing gets done and unproductive, or even toxic, employees are left on the payroll:

1. There are no stated goals for the person to achieve.


2. There are no measures of productivity or "success" in place, so how do you hold someone to a standard that does not exist?


3. The "idiot" person is in a protected category and the manager is afraid of firing them for fear of being sued. Because of the absence of 1 & 2


4. The performance appraisal system sucks and is geared toward just "showing up" and the manager gave them a good rating for that.


5. The person is related to someone higher up in the company.


6. They don't want to pay unemployment (like that is more expensive than the drag on productivity and morale.)

All of these issues are fixable. People like Phil should not have to put up with nonproductive fellow employees. HR can lead the charge by making sure managers are trained on proper performance appraisal, coaching and counseling and goal setting. HR needs to insure that proper measures of productivity are in place and that proper documentation of success or lack of success is used. HR needs to realize and tell managers that it is OK to fire people for lack of performance even if they are in a protected category. Nothing in any law requires a company to keep a poor performing employee! (A union contract may be a different story.) HR needs to grow a backbone in some companies.

I will end my rant with a portion of Phil's rant "...I wish I could fire idiots. Right there on the spot. Wouldn't it be nice to say, "You're a useless and unproductive idiot! You're fired!" The company that I work for would be so much better off for it. Morale would be higher. Productivity would increase. "

That might be fun sometime, but as a human resources professional I would exhibit a bit more decorum than that... although I might be thinking it underneath.

What about you? How do you deal with stupid employees?

The "Poison" Employee

I have seen a number times and have discussed with many HR managers the concept of the "poison" employee. What I mean by this is that employee who slowly destroys your organization through their actions or words, much as a spider or snake's poison starts slowly digesting its prey. You can recognize these employees because they:

• Use intimidation
• They foster "bad blood" between coworkers or managers and employees
• They spread rumor
• Circumvent the rules or encourage others to do so
• Find fault with others actions, be they formal rules of the company, or someone else's work habits
• Find fault with other people and talk about it
• Are conspiratory
• (fill in your favorite here)

The problem is these employees are often "good", productive employees and thus give you no objective reason to get rid of them. As HR people we are left trying to referee situations or dealing with the aftermath of another employee opting to leave. Managers put up with the situation far too long as do HR people.

When the situation finally gets to the point of being intolerable we terminate them, yet are unsure of the footing we are on and live in dread of the lawsuit that may follow. Businesses without any HR guidance often live with this type of employee for a long time to an unknown cost in business and opportunity.

Michael Wade of Execupundit.com had a blog on Predatory Employees in which he describes something similar to what I called the 'poison' employee. He describes the fear employers have "Employers fear how suspicious or reprehensible behavior on the part of an employee may be represented to a jury as the expected conduct of a victim. They worry, in turn, about how a manager's reasonable and appropriate behavior may be portrayed as oppressive or harassing. Their assumption is that juries will have an automatic sympathy for the underdog - the employee - versus the big, rich employer. Fear of litigation is both the sword and shield of the predatory employee."

However you describe this type of employee they are a very real problem. Wade suggests that this needs to be discussed and "Selection procedures need to be improved so the predators can be screened out. Early intervention in potential cases, with the energetic involvement of the firm's attorneys, should be the rule and not the exception. Team values need to be set forth and reinforced." That is a very good call on his part and one I hardily agree with. Unfortunately, many companies do not articulate their culture well enough to be able to screen properly.

What is your take on this? How do you prevent the poison employee, or Wade's predatory employee, from destroying your organization? Or if you have a way to screen them out what is it?