Bob,

I think your advice is bad. If an employee's performance has improved and it's documented that's grounds for a lawsuit. I know managers today like to think that employees are subhuman but here's the ordeal a lot of employees are under...they've been through several managers and they all want things specifically for them and set unrealistic expectation. Second, if your really talented..you'll get fired. Proving yourself to someone else only postpones the inevitable. I can't tell you how many people I've worked with who were exceptionally talented but we're axed because they didn't "fit in." Not all employees want to run up the ladder and embrace that lifestyle.

Finally, I wish manager mentioned had the backbone to question his superior. When a manager says, "there's nothing he could ever do to regain the confidence of our users...He's lying. He's using something that can't be measured to remove someone that he/she probably screwed over and feels the need to remove now because the employee doesn't respond to his/her "management tricks!"

GeorgeC: if he's in an at-will state and has no contract, he basically can't sue unless he can prove legally-forbidden discrimination, e.g. racial prejudice.

Bob, your advice was the best possible solution to a very difficult situation. With respect, I strongly disagree with GeorgeC's response, which exhibits a classic us-versus-them attitude, with a dash of "if only the damn managers would leave us alone, we'd take this company to new heights".

"On the Horns" dilemma stems from the fact that he apparently let himself be locked into a promise, implicit or explicit, that he wouldn't fire this employee if he met expectations. That promise wasn't his to give in the first place. Obviously his boss has some say in it; there could also be other circumstances that could come into play. What if the company has to let people go for financial reasons? Is he now going to fire a better performer because he's "given his word"? What if the guy does something that merits firing that has nothing to do with his performance standards?
Any improvement plan for an underperforming employee should start with the statement, explicit, preferably in writing, signed by the employee if need be, that nothing in this plan constitutes a promise of continued employment, and does not supercede standing company policy, which is that employment is at-will. Not making that clear was the writer's mistake.

Carl is only correct if the termination is not "for cause". If it is a "for cause" termination, then the employer is liable for proving that cause.

As an HR person I've seen a number of situations of below par performers who appear to turn around after great effort on the part of the manager (which typically has to be sustained to maintain that level). As painful as it is to the individual employee (and the manager), Bob's advice is right on target (including the part about involving the HR dept, just in case race, gender, age, disability, veteran status, company policy, or state law comes into play) And IF there are any HR issues, then the superior needs to hear it directly from HR, so the superior knows it isn't the manager that is the road block. In that case, there may be a way to do some negotiated separation ("we know this won't work out in the long run; we'll give you some money, and a good reference - you are better off finding another position.")

GeorgeC -
Actually, Bob's advice is very good and you should go read it again. It's clear from your comments that you have never been a manager of any substance, and as long as you maintain that mindset, you never will be.

Bob makes the point that the employee in question has "...risen all the way to adequate", and that the investment in this employee is far greater than it is worth. You argue that you've known many employees "...who were exceptionally talented but we're axed because they didn't 'fit in'". (BTW, the incorrect use of the term "we're" is yours, not mine.)

Consider this - Just because an individual is exceptionally talented, that really doesn't excuse bizarre behavior, rudeness to customers, refusal to comply with company policies, failure to wash, and any of a number of other eccentricities I've encountered over time. You may be a delicate genius, but most companies don't have the time to waste on people like you. You better be absolutely certain that you are truly irreplaceable before you start violating policies because you regard them as "management tricks".

Sadly, the advice is dead on. Another option is appealing the order up the chain of command, but it probably came from there originally, so without a compelling argument save your breath and credibility. By the time these things get to the last chance, it is already too late.

I had to terminate a very good friend under similar circumstances and had a mental break down over it that eventually cost my job, too, so take care of yourself in this process.

Bob: The OP did not mention anything about the employee being a slacker. Where do you get that from?

I like Bob's advice and I would like to be treated the same way as the soon-to-be-unemployed intentional goof-off were I in his shoes (and I once was).

To badly paraphrase Tolstoy, every top performer is the same but every slacker slacks for his own reason. Maybe this guy really hates his job. Maybe he has it out for management and passive resistance is his weapon of choice. Maybe he's actually incompetent. It doesn't really matter. Horns is personally and professionally responsible for the work performance of someone who has been a problem for years.

I think it's clear that the risk of keeping this person outweighs the risk of looking like a toady in front of the remaining staff. I also agree with Bob that the rest of this department probably resents the slacker -- perhaps to the point that it might be hurting Horns MORE to keep him.

The manager is in a tough place but ultimately, he works at the pleasure of his boss, his boss etc. The test of management is whether you listen, act, and complete requests of senior managers. As a cog, you have no choice. Bob is right, blame the “company” for the action. It’s a tough world, there are lots of jobs out there, Gen Y is use to the fluidity of change and Gen X/W/U have to adapt that job transition is now the norm, not the exception. “On the Horns” must act as his manager wishes, disassociate his personal objections, act as the “company cog” that’s required for this and leave the remorse elsewhere. As I’ve done in the past I let the employee know well before a termination that it would be in everyone’s interest if the employee would consider other options for employment outside of our company. A termination is harsh and a resignation is gentle. Why not encourage the employee to find gainful employment elsewhere and if that fails, terminate.

Gene W:

Horns specificaly stated the worker was "someone who intentionally goofed off for years". To me, that is a good definition of a slacker.

Tom S

GeorgeC,

I've been in the position of being the customer of a poor-performing (in my case, incompetent to do the job) employee. Believe me, after a few months of dealing with this person, the only solution I was willing to accept was assignment of my work to another employee whose skills suited the task. I'm currently working with someone in my group whose customers don't want to work with him, and I wind up fielding questions from them, taking time away from my own tasks. Keeping someone around whose customers don't want to work with him anymore is a bad idea all the way around.

I'd add one thing to the termination conversation. Let the guy know that the behavior that wasn't acceptable here won't be acceptable in his next job either. He's getting an opportunity for a fresh start, don't waste it. That should help with 'On the Horns's' conscience.

For some semblance of balance, may I lend some support to the minority side here (which appears to be the rather less than endearing Mr. GeorgeC), and try to do so without being disingenuous to the unfortunate situation Mr. "On the Horns" finds himself in.

First, Horns did not say the employee had "...risen all the way to adequate", that was Bob's editorial. Horns said the employee achieved clear performance standards. To set clear performance standards, and then fire the employee when he achieves them is indeed treating the employee as sub-human.

Second, Bob's advice is full of "management tricks" - which may or may not also be company policy. His advice is to lie to the employee (by telling him that he is firing him for any reason other than "my boss told me to"), and to form an agreement with the employee on the appropriate story (by implication, lie) to tell everyone else. That's a management trick - notwithstanding whether it is good advice or not. Note that the essence of preserving your credibility is choosing the best lies to tell. That ice strikes me as a little thin.

Bob and John Stork delineate Mr. Horn's mistakes, whether it was failure to set the correct performance standards or failure to get the employees signed acknowledgement of his 'at-will' status. So Horn's made a mistake as a manager, but the employee gets punished? Horn should be given an opportunity to fix his mistake, which (for Bob's definition of the mistake) would mean setting higher performance standards including fixing his reputation, delighting his customers, or whatever.

Of course the employee will still be 'at-will', and can be forced to sign an acknowledgement because he can be fired if he doesn't. Though (Tom says) the company has to prove the cause if it fires him and gives a reason, but not if stays mum on why. The company can fire him just because his face doesn't fit - unless (according to Lee) his face is black or yellow or disfigured - in which case the company may have to pay hush-money to fire him. What part this does not fit "subhuman treatment" or "management tricks"?

Rich Clark suggests Mr. Horn's conscience be relieved by pushing the responsibility for the action up the line. It's called the Nuremberg Defense. But it didn't work so well for the Nazis.

I agree that Horn arguing with the boss gets him nowhere. A famous CEO called it "push-back" and had no more time for it than Saddam Hussein had. Each step up the ladder it will be worse. Common sense and experience says that at each step up the ladder the decision maker knows less about the real situation and is more driven by 'making the numbers.' "I didn't get where I am today by doing the right thing; I did what my boss told me."

I am not a Christian, but statistically most of this discussions' participants and readers are. Does it not worry you that the best advice we can come up with relies on "bearing false witness", forgiving your own sins, while letting others take the consequences of them; and on a defense we didn't let our enemies get away with?

Perhaps Mr. Horn's first mistake was trying to get better performance out of employee rather than summarily firing him (as the 'at-will' management trick permits). This episode will no doubt cure Mr. Horns of that silly mistake.

We may all be just cogs in the company wheel, but in the end the company is nothing but cogs. The company behavior is no more than the sum of the cogs' behaviors. And if you act against your principles because that's what cogs do, you are part of the problem. No doubt, Horns will follow Bob's reality-based sagely advice, but is that a reality you really want to live in? Isn't that the reality GeorgeC alludes to? It may not be a reality Mr. Horn's created, but he isn't doing anything to fix it, if he follows that advice.

My advice is to treat your commitment to the employee as golden, including that implied commitment - "meet the performance standards I set and you keep your job."- 'at-will' law, company policy and the boss notwithstanding. If you made a mistake, such as not setting the standards high enough, you fix it by setting higher standards, and you maintain that commitment if the employee meets your corrected standards. If you and the employee feel the standards are unachievable (his reputation is unrecoverable; he his incapable of delighting your customers) then help him to a mutually-agreed separation and you call it that. If you have to fire the employee because you believe he is not doing the required job, then fire him; tell him that you are firing because he's not doing the job; and tell everyone else (who needs to know) the same truth.

If this doesn't work with your boss (and it probably wont), get a new boss.