C (2:28)

We were famous for saying. Actually I was famous for saying, as the guy who writes the podcast and is likely the voice on Manager Tools said, I hate hr. And the reason is because we were speaking to managers and four managers and the average manager has less than a great relationship with their HR business partner. Not that HR should think of themselves as a business partner to a manager, but that's a separate discussion and it's a well deserved tension in the relationship. Unfortunately, a lot of people that are in our community, HR people are in our community. They listen to our cast. And they got tired of hearing it because they said it made it worse. It empowered managers to come to them and say, listen, I listen to Manager Tools. And I hate you, too.

B (3:12)

I hate you. You're terrible.

C (3:13)

So you're not helping. And I said, okay, fine. So we've changed our motto now to we don't hate hr. We love good HR and we hate bad hr. And unfortunately, there's a lot of bad hr. But we also think that managers have a responsibility to rebuild the relationship with hr, no matter how bad it is. You have an obligation to have a good relationship with your colleagues. That's part of one of the fundamental responsibilities that every employee has in your company is not just outputs, not just communication, but also relationships. And. And this is one that managers can change, and they should.

B (3:48)

That's exactly it, folks. For. For way longer than Manager Tools has existed, managers have been complaining that HR won't let them fire anyone. So today, our outline is going to include three parts. We're going to start by going over some caveats, including geocommercial kind of caveats that exist. Then we're going to go over, I think, the crux of the cast. That is why HR says no, rightly yes. Followed by the right way to fire someone good.

C (4:19)

By the way, is that a Canadian pronunciation caveats?

B (4:23)

Yeah, it must be. How would you pronounce it?

C (4:25)

Caveats.

B (4:26)

Oh, caveat. Oh, I don't know. Yeah, I would say caveat.

C (4:29)

Okay.

B (4:30)

I don't know.

C (4:30)

So caveat is decal.

B (4:32)

Decal.

C (4:33)

Decal. Decal.

B (4:34)

Decal. I forgot how y' all say it.

C (4:36)

That one. That one. When you said that, the first time I heard it, I was like, oh, my. I never dreamed that that would be. And then I realized it's a French derivation.

B (4:43)

Oh, I didn't know that.

C (4:44)

Oh, yeah.

B (4:45)

Oh. All I know is my sister sells decals.

C (4:48)

Yeah, exactly.

B (4:49)

She knows how to say them. Okay, I didn't make that up.

C (4:53)

Yeah. Which sounded to me like some ancient coinage. I've got two decals and a drachma.

B (4:58)

I don't know.

C (4:59)

I don't know. Anyway, okay, so we're going to start off with caveats, including a bit about geocommercial, which, by the way, if you're wondering what geocommercial is, it is not a word. I've created a neologism, which is a new word, and it means with a good vocabulary, which is not unusual for Aye eyes. It means commercial operations, which are different based on geography. So there Are geocommercial differences between the U.S. probably not. Between the U.S. and Canada, very little. Very little. Right. But U.S. and Europe, you know, Europe tends to have higher taxes, tends to have more, more strict union laws, more strict personnel and employment rules and so on. Italy is famous for a rule that says from 1 to 49 employees, your taxes are relatively low. When you hit 50 employees, your taxes massively increase. These are simply different geographic. Of course, they're nation state driven, but they're also geographic because nations in close proximity to one another tend to compete with one another. And so they, their relative commercial approaches, the government's commercial approaches, what it incentivizes and what it disincentivizes gradually becomes similar as a function of cultural adaptation within your geographic region. So that's the word geocommercial. I'm sticking with it.

B (6:25)

Thank you for defining that.

C (6:26)

Yeah. Okay, so we want to start this with the HR bit and we made, I just made reference to it. Relative to Europe, this guidance is primarily USA centric folks. And we normally don't do that. We normally don't call it out. But because in many other countries who listen to our guidance, hello Europe. Hello Asia. Hello South America. Hello Africa. Hello Australia and New Zealand go Kiwis. When you listen to our guidance, we're aware that the processes for terminating employees are quite different, in fact much more onerous than in the US and we can actually cite here two recent examples that, that have been related to us firsthand.

B (7:10)

And now I might interject here, Mark, and say, while today's guidance around what managers are doing wrong, what they could do better, things like that might be very US centric. I think it's a very worldwide phenomenon, if you will, that managers everywhere complain. You can't fire anybody around here.

C (7:30)

Well, no, what I meant was it's actually worse in Europe.

B (7:32)

Yeah, that's true.

C (7:33)

Right. And so if it's done here, imagine what it. What our European listeners are feeling.

B (7:39)

Yeah, exactly. Okay, so folks, now. Oh my gosh, I'm going to try your pronunciation. We must mention a caveat to our caveat.

C (7:48)

Very nice, thank you.

B (7:49)

We're talking only today about terminations for failed work performance. Now, many countries do have rules that make termination for things like theft and harassment or ethical breaches, the process is much more reasonable, much straightforward. Much more straightforward. Exactly. The burden on the individual manager for them to do additional activities to make proof that this person is deserving of leaving the organization is much less. I mean, theft is theft. It's very easy to measure. Did it Happen or no. So to be clear, our guidance today is only for failed performance termination. Yeah, that's what we're talking about today.

C (8:32)

I'm going to mention one of those caveats that is specific recent example, in one of our European clients, we were told that even if you followed this guidance that we're going to lay out, at least at a high level at the end of the cast, their country's laws would still prohibit termination. And it's not a corporate thing, it's not an HR thing, it's a legal thing. And the lawyers would say no, there's a law against that. And what's more, the worker union board, different places call them different things that is present, that exists as an additional managerial structure inside organizations would be very involved with such a termination, making the termination process in fact an enormous burden. I would say 3 to 400% more than the one we lay out at the end of the cast. Enough so that keeping the failed employee, and I've had this conversation 10 or 15 times with managers in this country, keeping the failed employee is a better solution than termination. Now there are some things you can do to limit the risk associated with this person's failed performance. And in many cases the employees quit because they're not growing and developing and they realize their resume is shriveling. But that's a different thing entirely.

B (10:05)

And folks, that's not the only example we have of a European client of ours sharing with us a situation that makes this guidance more difficult, if you will. That is we have got a different client, a non European. Lying around is not something many organizations.

C (10:23)

It was hundreds of thousands of dollars. And and to be clear, when we say cost, we don't mean the cost of them going through the process. It would be the cost they would have to pay to the employee. We're going to give you a termination, separation compensation, separation bonus or whatever else.

B (10:40)

Which as you, I'm sure anybody listening to this right now, when you think a couple hundred thousand dollars knows rightly that financially that is untenable for an organization to come up with in a day and much easier for a company to absorb over the duration of two years. So it also makes it a little bit more tricky.

C (11:00)

Good. And look in both of these cases and in many others over the years, when people write in with really, in some cases heart wrenching stories, but also really detailed accounts of their experience which were not an accounting that was like what we'll tell you so many American managers do, it's very clear to us the problem. And I Say this very carefully because I don't mean to be political here. The problem is national laws around employment that are virtually ironclad. Now again, nation states can choose their own approach to the commercial world. The US is generally considered less regulated, although Singapore is even less regulated than the us and there are other places that are also less regulated, whereas generally Europe is perceived to be more regulated. The idea in Europe is we want people employed totally. I mean, that's a legitimate national interest.

B (12:03)

Absolutely.

C (12:04)

If you hire them, you're going to have to keep them, which of course, to me this has always been interesting. The hiring standards should be massively high. You should be interviewing for 50 hours before you ever hire. I don't care how desperately you need somebody because as our saying goes, every warm body has a halo. And if you're really just looking for a warm body, that warm body is going to turn sour at some point and you can't get rid of them. Whereas the US says no, we want a very dynamic hiring environment relative to Europe or some places in South America or Canada or Mexico and so on. And you could clearly argue to us, protecting employees is good and we respect it. Right. It's not unreasonable. Nevertheless, the majority of managers and executives in countries with more restrictive employment policies agree that the laws are in fact too restrictive and wish for more laws more like the usa. And as I said, as you might imagine, the solution to this inability to fire problem, that's the problem, quote, inability to fire, unquote, is quote, not higher in the first place, unquote. It just creates competitive restraints based on geography that bite increasingly harder in a more connected global marketplace. Before, we weren't as connected as we are now. If you don't understand how connected we are, I think everybody does. But if you don't read the World is Flat by Thomas Friedman, some of the stories in there are mind boggling and there are some people who still would be blown away by them. But we're in a different place now. And there is competition for talent both in America, you know, for Americans from the, from the Europe and for our Europeans from America. Even just visa programs. Right. You and I talk regularly about who can immigrate. E. Immigrate meaning, right? Who can immigrate to Canada or who can immigrate to the U.S. the rules are changing.

B (14:06)

Yeah. And yeah, Mark, I don't want to, I don't want to lose the lesson about hiring because today's cast isn't about hiring. I mean, we do cast about hiring. But folks, something that we say oftentimes something that I know I've said many, many times at our effective Hiring Manager conference is the amount of difficulty that you must go through as a manager to fire someone, which is a big burden of difficulty for many of us, ought to be at least equivalent to the amount of effort exerted in your interviewing process, in your hiring process.

C (14:40)

That's a great way to think of it. It's a balancing test.

B (14:44)

Exactly. I mean, they wouldn't make it so darn hard to fire people around here and also simultaneously expect that you're just going to let anybody in. Oh, it doesn't even matter. Just come on in, we'll just hire you. No big deal. It's meant to be a proxy that you can use to measure the amount of effort you ought to put into determining whether or not they should have been here in the first place. Yes, Use it that way. If it's very, very hard, it should be very, very hard to hire them as well.

C (15:13)

That ought to be its own podcast entirely. And if we could extend, if we could double, triple, quadruple the amount of time people spend on hiring. When I tell people I once interviewed Judy, who used to work for us for 50 hours, they were astounded. She was my assistant. She had access to my personal wealth. She talked to my kids all the time. What am I gonna do? Just go, I like her. Let's give her a job. No.

B (15:36)

Yeah, let her, Let her go in my email. It's great. No, you gotta make sure that person's worth that. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Okay, so folks, and to final, or to end up this section here, to close it out, one more caveat is that we think our community knows, but we wanna be crystal clear about it. This guidance does not apply to managers within executive roles and executives altogether. There isn't an enforced requirement for an executive to meet this standard when they're firing another executive. At least again, geocommercially here in the US that's true. Executives are generally considered to serve at the privilege of the firm and as such, their bosses. The firm itself can simply dismiss them. And folks, you've heard all the stories. You know that there's often compensation proffered in return for a resignation. They retired to be with their family or to pursue other opportunities, which means they got fired.

C (16:38)

But we don't want to admit we fired an executive.

B (16:41)

Exactly. And these things exist even without an employment contract to suggest that that will happen. But organizations, we've said this before, don't want the embarrassment of the organization looking as though they promoted someone or hired someone into an executive role and that person didn't work out, so the organization often pays to make that problem go away.

C (17:06)

Yeah, with a non disclosure agreement as well. Exactly. We won't tell anybody and you shouldn't tell anybody.

A (17:12)

Consistency is what separates great teams from average ones. With a Manager Tools license, you can give your entire team access to the same proven management practices. Learn more about our group licensing options to help your team have access to the tools they need and get the results you want. Build a common language of management by Contacting us at customerservicesanager-tools.com all right, so.

C (17:39)

Now let's get to the meat of this and our defense of HR for doing their job rightly and well, to the great consternation of managers all over. Why does HR say no rightly? Or you know, put another way, why does HR make it so hard to fire people? Look guys, the bad rap that HR gets for refusing to terminate employees is caused by managerial incompetence. That's my favorite sentence in this entire podcast. I should have bolded that one, but I didn't. No one's expecting that the bad rap HR gets for refusing to terminate employees is caused by managerial incompetence. Actually, it probably technically should be managerial incompetence and whining to their peers, because that's how the bad rap oh, they won't let me find it is not folks, it is not HR's fault for someone not being terminated. When a manager doesn't uphold reasonable standards for taking such a drastic step relative to the terminated employee's life and career, the standard for firing should be high and 99% of managers, the first time they do it, don't meet it. And HR is the bulwark against a place where we can just fire whomever we want, however we want. Which is probably how Europe sees us, but is in fact not true.

B (19:09)

And folks, in addition, we have to remember that as managers, in order to terminate an employment for performance, two things must be true. The employee must have failed to do their job and the manager must have done her job. Yes, it takes both an employee not fulfilling the requirements of their job and a manager not talking to them about that and not holding them accountable for.

C (19:43)

That because it's hard.

B (19:44)

Because it's hard isn't HR's fault.

C (19:48)

Right?

B (19:49)

That's the manager's fault. It takes both people doing what they're responsible for doing in order for it to result in a termination.

C (19:58)

This is just like when we tell people and they're shocked that in order to get a raise or a bonus, you have to have not only good personal performance relative to the mean or whatever the standard is. And the company has to do well. It takes both. And people don't like that. That's part of the reason why you should have a teamwork mentality, because you want to help other departments so they do well. So there's more departments doing well leading to the company doing well. So if you do, you will be rewarded. But if the company doesn't do well, there's not a lot of cash left around to increase bone, increase salaries of compensation, whatever form it might take, you're not getting a raise.

B (20:36)

We're an organization, not an individualization. Is that a. Is that one of those words where you glue things together?

C (20:43)

No, I don't. I don't think. Individual organization.

B (20:46)

Individualization. No.

C (20:48)

Individualization, yeah. Close enough. Yeah.

B (20:51)

Good effort to make a geocommercial.

A (20:53)

It did.

B (20:53)

Mine didn't work. Mine didn't work. Okay. It fell flat.

C (20:59)

Now, look, here's how it happens. And I think most people know, but actually there might be some people in Europe or Canada, Mexico, Asia, Australia, Africa, whatever, that might not know this story, although I think it's pretty broadly understood. But we're going to set it down so that there's a clear reference point or a foundation for this guidance. Here's what happens. An employee performs poorly over time. There are various reasons why this can happen. Obviously there are things that are singular, things that can happen just simply independently. They don't have a skill or whatever, they don't want to. Or there could be things that are happening in concert with one another. Their work, to be clear, does not meet a communicated quality standard. I don't mean just quality, but I mean the overall totality of their work does not meet the minimum standard that the organization has communicated or the manager has communicated, although in many cases the manager has not communicated. As we well know, either their quality is weak or their quantity of work is insufficient, or the accuracy of their work requires rework causing delays. Potentially the involvement of their colleagues and their cleanup, which is inefficient, costs money and affects profitability. They miss deadlines. Their communications, especially written but also verbal, do not meet the organization standards. They may not be accurate, they may not be positive, they may not be respectful. They may not be sufficient in terms of frequency and timeliness and so on. They have poor relationships with their colleagues, by the way, I'm not saying all of this. There could just be one of these, but these are the standard behavioral definitions of what work product is Quality, quantity, accuracy, timeliness, documentation, and safety. These are all reasonable and accepted work performance behaviors.

B (23:03)

And folks, please keep in mind that if you ever find yourself managing a poor performer and if you're a manager for any length of time, you will friend, the key to their success or the reasons that you must offer for that individual's failure is always behavioral. Always behavioral, not impression based. It is the objective reality experienced by both parties, not the subjective reality experienced by you and you alone.

C (23:34)

Exactly. Yeah. Without that communication, without some clarity around that, it's simply because how you feel becomes how you feel. I. I think which is. Which is a vulgar standard. It's a really vulgar standard. The manager's in a bad day, so somebody gets in a bad mood, so somebody gets fired.

B (23:49)

Which is again why HR does right by the employee. Because I'm sorry, your bad mood oughtn't result in this person losing their ability to pay their mortgage. That is ridiculous. You need more than that, friend. I need some real reasons we can all agree on. So yes, in terms of our ability to, as managers make the case to hr, that we're going to let someone go, we must have behavioral examples for them so that HR also can see why our feelings are valid. And I'm not saying they're not, but we need to make that case prove exactly. Thanks folks. Join us again next week as we continue this topic.

A (24:38)

Now help us help others and tell your friends. And of course follow rate and review our podcast. And remember, five stars only.

B (24:45)

Please.