Keyword: job action

Alberto Gonzales

Once again, I’m going to risk taking this blog into the political realm by discussing a current political controversy.  But, I promise, the emphasis here is not on the who, or the why, but rather the how.

Alberto Gonzales, the United States Attorney General, is in a lot of hot water lately about the firing of eight US Attorneys around the country.  This action has stirred up a hornet’s nest of political noise, and has once again backed the Bush administration into a corner.  No matter the outcome, there is a lot to be learned from how this was handled.

Let’s begin by stating that I firmly believe the Bush administration has every right to have whoever they want as US Attorneys.  These are political appointments, and often turnover between administrations.

But there are ways to handle this problem, and ways to not handle it.  With most incoming administrations, the typical approach to these political appointments is to fire the whole lot of them, then fill the positions with people you want.  This has the great advantage that you get all your own team, and more importantly is it eminently fair.  Nobody feels singled out because everyone was escorted out.  Sure it feels harsh, but it is hard to argue with the process.

Unfortunately, Mr. Gonzales took another approach.  Drawn into the incessant politics that seem to permeate the Bush whitehouse, it appears that he yielded to the pressure of the machine.  He picked only a few attorneys who had somehow angered the powers that be, and summarily fired them.

The problem with this approach, aside from the overtly political nature of the process (a discussion I’ll leave to others) is that is was inherently unfair.  Of course it was biased by the politics of the decision, but more importantly to our discussion, it violated my number one rule for job actions: no job action should be a surprise.  As witnessed by the testimony of the fired attorneys on capitol hill a few days ago, clearly every one of these people was at least somewhat surprised by their termination.

All of the terminated attorneys received stellar performance reviews in the last several appraisals.  They were praised for their hard work, their integrity, and their results.  Then they walked in one day and — poof, they were fired.

Now this is just simply bad management.  I’d like to recommend that Mr. Gonzales, the entire Bush administration, and you all read my FAQ on how to fire people correctly.  It is a clear guide on how to move someone out when you’ve decided they need to go.

But to make matters worse, and perhaps a more devastating political issue than the suddenness of the firings, was the uniform denial of the reason for the action by the entire Bush clan.  They denied the fact that they were political actions (which I will remind everyone the Bush administration has every right to do), but instead called them actions based on performance problems.

Just as I note in the FAQ article, this is bad management because it’s not being honest and straightforward with the victim, and is likely to cause them to get upset.  Especially when the facts do not back up a claim of performance issues.  Quite the opposite, in fact.

So, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the terminated employees cried “foul!”  And it should come as even less of a surprise that an overtly political process handled poorly would become a firestorm.

Too bad, because if they had simply handled it right, we’d all be arguing about vastly more important things, like how to get out of a quagmire and who the next person to lead us there should be.

If you’ve been following along with me, you know that I’m a huge fan of clearing dead or diseased wood from your organization.  Nothing rots an organization more effectively than people who don’t carry their share of the load, or who complain all the time, or are jerks.  These people become a cancer to the team, and if you leave them around you send a very strong signal that this behavior is not only tolerated, but perhaps even preferred.  Removing these people from your organization is often the fastest, best, and maybe even the only cure.

So, after much pain and deliberation, you’ve decided that the only really good solution to your problem with that person is to simply get them out of your organization.  Good for you.  Now the question is: how do I do it?

The short answer is: quickly, like removing a band-aid.  Dragging it out is just like slow death, and it doesn’t make it any easier for either party.  You just need to buck up, sit down with the victim, and fire away.

No, I don’t mean to let them have it with both barrels.  If you’re firing someone, they don’t need to hear your long litany of reasons why this is the right thing to do.  You may in fact be better off just keeping it simple, and not getting into specifics.

But you do need to be honest.  You do have to tell them that there is a problem, you consider that problem insurmountable, and the time has come for them to leave.

You should do it quickly, frankly, and professionally.  Don’t talk about the weather and “those darn Red Sox”.  Don’t get wishy-washy and say “I think that maybe this is the right thing.”  You have to be definitive and not make this seem like a time for negotiation.

And you absolutely have to be a professional and take responsibility.  It’s not “the company is making me do this”, it is “I am doing this because…”.  Just like every other aspect of being a leader, it’s not “them” that are doing this, it’s you.  You have to be an adult and take ownership.

None of this is to suggest, however that you violate my number one rule for all employee job actions: no job action should ever be a surprise.  Period.  I don’t care if you are hiring or firing, promoting or demoting, giving a raise or laying them off.  If you sit down with the person, and the action comes as a surprise, you, not they, have done something wrong.

If you are firing someone, this is especially true.  They should have received steadily more dire performance appraisals.  They should have had at least a couple of different private conversations warning that the behavior is not what’s expected.  And they should never get mixed messages that makes them think that the behavior is sometimes OK.  It needs to be clearly, and always wrong.

This progression of warnings is not only true because it’s just good management, but it’s also the law in many places.  You can’t simply go merrily along telling someone they are doing fine, and then — BOOM — drop the hammer on them one day.  It’s morally (maybe criminally) wrong, and it leads to the whole organization wondering if they are next.

So be sure you telegraph your intentions, in several different ways.  Make that final conversation when you let them go be one they knew was coming, and is now finally here.  It will make the conversation easier for both of you, and will also make it less likely to turn into a debate, a negotiation, or worse, a lawsuit.

Finally, you also really should check out your local (usually state) laws and/or union rules if they apply.  As I say in my disclaimer, I am most definitely not a lawyer, nothing about this is to indicate you should violate any laws, regulations, or contracts.  Your mileage may vary.  Some conditions apply.  Yadda, yadda.

But, you’ve made huge progress, you’ve decided they need to go.  Good for you.  Now get it done with and move on with your life, and make your organization into that great team you envisioned all along.  Everyone, the team, you, and maybe someday even the victim, will be proud of you for it.