The "No Fire" Policy

http://www.michelemmartin.com/thebambooprojectblog/2013/02/an-antidote-to-disposable-worker-syndrome-the-no-fire-policy.html

by bconway • 13 years ago

10 9 13 years ago

michelemmartin.com

hudibras• 13 years ago

This is wrong in so many ways...

Getting fired is not the end of the world.

Timmy_C2• 13 years ago

As someone who recently was fired . . . you're right, it's not the end of the world. But it does make life very uncomfortable for a lot of reasons. You don't see work friends. You don't have the cash to do the things you once did. Searching for a job becomes your new job and going to interviews sucks. Writing 20 different versons of the same cover letter sucks. Filing for unemployment sucks. And the list goes on. It's not something I would wish upon someone unless they really deserved it.

rodw• 13 years ago

Wait, are we talking about be fired (i.e., "for cause") or being laid off? As I understand it one isn't eligible for unemployment (in the US) when it is the former.

"No layoffs" is a stronger (and harder) criterion to meet.

(My condolences either way. Neither is the end of the world, but they both suck. If you haven't yet found a new gig, hang in there. Persistence will pay off. Like any sales, applying for a job is a numbers game.)

brokentone• 13 years ago

I'd argue that telling someone "their new job was to look for a new job" is similar emotionally to a proper firing. Then what time contraint to you give this person? Someone will abuse the system.

I worked at a company who had an effective "no fire" policy, while it wasn't official, they just never fired to my knowledge. It was very frustrating being a competent employee there because the staff knew they wouldn't be fired and did very poor work--like the one person doing all the work in the school group.

Policies like this, while sounding pretty and caring, actually create poor workplace culture and punish your best employees.

RougeFemme• 13 years ago

It sounds like maybe that company didn't do the upfront work required to make sure - or at least increase the likelihood - that they were making a good hire in the first place. Or maybe they didn't have good employee development in place once the employees are hired. Having said that though, my knee-jerk reaction is to be skeptical of no-hire policies. For the company in the article it seems to work. I'm just skeptical that most companies would have the will/capability to truly make it work.

chc• 13 years ago

Even a perfect hiring process won't completely eliminate bad employees. Just because someone was good when you hired them doesn't mean they'll continue to be. Maybe your needs change and they are unwilling to cope effectively. Maybe they develop a drug problem. Maybe they burn out. Maybe they just stop caring. Sadly, a good employee is not necessarily good forever.

shyn3• 13 years ago

Does anyone remember when they were young and you used to get 1st place, 2nd place, or 3rd place ribbons. Now they give you a ribbon for participating.

This "no fire" almost feels like the same. Granted I like the fact it encourages hiring managers to use their brain when hiring because a lot of organizations hire badly and this could potentially provide value.

mdkess• 13 years ago

I guess at the heart, the problem with firing is the emotional and social stigma associated with it.

Someone is under-performing, and you don't think that it can be corrected. By firing them, they have to go home to their wife and kids and tell them the news, that _they_ were rejected, that _they_ failed (even if it's not true). Managers don't want to inflict this on people, but they're looking out for something greater than an individual employee, they're looking out for their team.

The other trouble is that sometimes under performance isn't the employee's fault. They were a bad match for the team, but your interview wasn't a good filter for that. Or maybe family issues are making them unfocused. Or their job has morphed out of their control into something beyond their skill set. Point is, even if someone needs to be laid off, they don't deserve to be punished.

What they are proposing is not no-firing, it's making firing expensive, and treating people respectfully during it. Some companies fire quickly. Others, really slowly - mostly because there's no process for it, and nobody wants to take initiative to get rid of someone. Both have problems. The former puts employees on edge, and can feel random (project slips a week and you're gone? That'd be like programming with a gun to your head). The latter will reduce the team's productivity, since teams seem to tend to converge to the lower bar.

Were they to say "we'll keep you on payroll for N months, please find a new job. You can continue to say that you work here for those months" people would be able to leave with their ego more in tact.

The "No Fire" Policy

Related Stories