The role of a manager is not to determine the fire-worthiness of current employees
Then whose job is it?
Any good employee would be out the door as soon as they were handed a "second chance". They would use that chance just long enough to find a better job, if they didn't quit outright. Truly "bad" employees would likely stick around (lack of motivation to move, inability to move, spite, etc) and wreak havoc on your business.
That's not been true in my experience. The good employees tend to appreciate the heads up, and work with you to either fix the problem (which may be as much your problem as theirs) or move out in a productive way.
The bad ones tend to realise the jig is up and move themselves out ASAP, or rapidly foul up again giving you the evidence you need to shift them out without the decision being seen as arbitrary by the rest of the company.
My attitude at worked had declined immensely. My communication with coworkers suffered and important pieces of information from clients was lost lost on my desk.
I was given a list of behaviors of mine that were frustrating my project managers.My first reaction was flippant. But after an hour I knuckled down, read the list thoroughly, and drafted a personal action plan for each item. The next day I went onto my review, handed the 3 man management team copies of my plan, took control of the review and went through each point one by one and how I would correct it. And then, after all their concerns were addressed, I told them that they were failing me too, and gave them three actionable measurable goals for improving my career there.
It is like a marriage. There is a power balance. Each party needs to know what they want and be able to communicate it in clear actionable measurable goals.
As I stated elsewhere in this thread, correcting employee behavior is a normal part of management but is not the same as saying "you may be fired if" or "improve or else". Putting an employee in a defensive state (where they're either looking for another job or trying desperately to keep their current one) is not sound management technique.
Do you really run a business where you threaten employees with termination as a form of motivation? I've built three companies and have managed, hired or fired dozens of people. Under no circumstances can I see what the OP proposed working for me.
Do you really run a business where you threaten employees with termination as a form of motivation?
Absolutely not.
Putting an employee in a defensive state (where they're either looking for another job or trying desperately to keep their current one) is not sound management technique.
Agreed.
I've built three companies and have managed, hired or fired dozens of people. Under no circumstances can I see what the OP proposed working for me.
I think we're both reading different things from the OPs post. I don't see it as threatening. I see it as transparency. Making it clear to everybody - employer and employee - how issues around continual employment are resolved.
This is not something that's introduced at the point of "I want to get rid of this person". This is something that's a part of how the company is run, and is made explicit right from the start.
This is not something that's done with the aim of firing somebody. This is something that's done with the aim of fixing the problem. Fixing the problem doesn't always mean firing the employee. That's just one outcome of many.
Perhaps it's a cultural thing.
I'm in the UK and pretty much every company I've worked for, and every one I've run, has had a structure to how employees leave a company in the same way that there's a structure to how they come on board.
The "fire you for any reason at any time" thing that seems to be the general rule in the US seems a far more scary and demotivating mechanism from my perspective.
> The "fire you for any reason at any time" thing that seems to be the general rule in the US seems a far more scary and demotivating mechanism from my perspective.
Do keep in mind that it goes both ways: employers who often exercise that right for reasons that appear arbitrary suffer from it in the long run, because even the good people aren't happy with management like that.
Good employees will do that, you are absolutely right here. As was the parent poster. I think it all depends on the current stage your emplyer is in, organisation-vise. Right at the start and for quite a long time only the bad ones will quit after the first feed-back rounds. As soon as these rounds become actual "warning shots", meaning they aren't constructive any more but turned into some behave-or-be-kicked-out process (sometimes around the same time the reasons for being warned tune from actual performance andmistakes to percieved value and personal and / or political issues) the good ones will leave. Eventualy you be stuck with a bunch of people who were to smart to be warned earlier on in the process and unable to leave in the later stage.
In this last group of people, those unable to leave are the really poor souls. I don't speak about those being to bad to find something else easily but rather those willing to leave but who either stuck for being to old, to sick, being the only employed person in the family, unable to move elsewhere for whatever reason.
The result for you as a company will be unmotivated (aka pissed) and unable workforce. Welcome to big company hell.
The Ribbonfarm articles on the Gervais Principle (a rather long 5 article series with part 6 in the making) provides stunning background on this. Thanks for the HNler to bring it to my attention and thanks to the author to formulate that good.
Then whose job is it?
Any good employee would be out the door as soon as they were handed a "second chance". They would use that chance just long enough to find a better job, if they didn't quit outright. Truly "bad" employees would likely stick around (lack of motivation to move, inability to move, spite, etc) and wreak havoc on your business.
That's not been true in my experience. The good employees tend to appreciate the heads up, and work with you to either fix the problem (which may be as much your problem as theirs) or move out in a productive way.
The bad ones tend to realise the jig is up and move themselves out ASAP, or rapidly foul up again giving you the evidence you need to shift them out without the decision being seen as arbitrary by the rest of the company.