gbadev.org forum archive

This is a read-only mirror of the content originally found on forum.gbadev.org (now offline), salvaged from Wayback machine copies. A new forum can be found here.

OffTopic > Problem Employees

#157941 - sgeos - Mon Jun 02, 2008 8:18 am

In my management techniques course, someone pointed out that many companies can not get rid of "bad apples" due to union agreements, etc. I guess I basically knew that, but it is scary to think that some companies are actually stuck with problem employees.

-Brendan

#157942 - kusma - Mon Jun 02, 2008 8:46 am

It's not exactly like employees can fire bad management either.

#157945 - sgeos - Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:16 am

In most places, your employer can not take your ability to quit from you. I do not think this holds true in all places when it comes to contracts. I suppose companies can always fold as well.

Speaking of "bad management", one of the multiple choice questions on one of the tests was actually "The internet is...".

-Brendan

#157946 - kusma - Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:30 am

sgeos wrote:
In most places, your employer can not take your ability to quit from you. I do not think this holds true in all places when it comes to contracts. I suppose companies can always fold as well.

Yeah, or a problematic person in management can quit as well. But it's not very likely.

When the wrong person is hired, it's usually a management-error. This isn't the fault of the employee, and he or she shouldn't take the hit for it. So, the employer and the employee should sit down and talk about the problems, and see how they can make the best out of it. In some cases, the employee might have put a lot of things on the line to get a job. Like moving to a different country.

#157964 - keldon - Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:37 pm

You can always give them an offer they can't refuse ;) Is it legal to demote/transfer someone to a lower paid position? A back-door might be to transfer them to a position of equal pay in March, then make that role redundant!

#157965 - Maxxie - Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:50 pm

keldon wrote:
You can always give them an offer they can't refuse ;) Is it legal to demote/transfer someone to a lower paid position?


No it isn't (at least not here). A common used way to "get rid" or at least get him/her/it out of sight is to move someone to a different position with a worse environment (colleques, location, more physical, etc)

However i am in the opinion that the best method is still to talk clearly and open with the employee. A solution is in the interest of both, as most times either of the sides can make life difficult for the other.

#157968 - Lynx - Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:24 pm

Well, in Illinois, you can be let go at any time for any reason (or no reason at all). We are a right to work state, so you don't have to join a union even if a company is a union shop.

But, isn't "your position has been eliminated" the easiest way to get rid of someone.

Of course, there is also the lateral move (into crappy job), consolidation or the "multi-hat" job, where they have more work then they can handle. If they don't choose to quit (which is normally best for the employer, no severance or unemployment pay) they just continually provide poor reviews. Put the person on "probation" and then let them go when they don't improve.

Then, you have the way most corporate companies do it.. at least, in my experience. You take the dead weight and promote them so they can do the least amount of damage to a company. This is how you end up with the useless management. And the people working for them can only hope that someone along the way realizes they are useless and gets rid of them, or promotes them into another department so you don't have to deal with them. ;)
_________________
NDS Homebrew Roms & Reviews

#157973 - silent_code - Mon Jun 02, 2008 6:37 pm

this is slightly off topic, because not "technical" enough, but i'll tell you what i think about that topic:

misbehaviour has reasons, we all know that.
assume an employee has to go through a hard time and behaves worse due to the stress the person has. the least such a person would need is to loose the job. that could potentially ruin the little life the employee might still have left. this may sound a bit over the top, but i don't want to remind you of reports about certain incidents involving raging former employees seeking for revenge... yes, those are the extreme cases. still, they happen.

now, i know that's not always the case and some (again, not all) employees have resigned long ago and are actually waiting to be fired.

in any case, as you probably can't be sure what is going on inside a person's head and most employees (i think) wouldn't approach management with such a topic, it's always the best to have a talk and find out for sure. when a person still refuses to cooperate, you can at least be asured that you tried to help.

remember, that if you're trying to help, you actually need to *be* nice and friendly as a person, not "nice" like a supervisor or manager would (no matter what your position is.) it's always good to have someone in the staff that can handle such situations, much like a counselor.

i am naive, i know, but i believe, that an employee that actually feels and knows he is being helped and supported at work and isn't endangered to loose it, will be a loyal and maybe even a better employee in the end.

peace out! :^D

ps: please, don't be too hard on me! :^)
_________________
July 5th 08: "Volumetric Shadow Demo" 1.6.0 (final) source released
June 5th 08: "Zombie NDS" WIP released!
It's all on my page, just click WWW below.

#157980 - Lynx - Mon Jun 02, 2008 7:31 pm

Quote:
i am naive, i know, but i believe, that an employee that actually feels and knows he is being helped and supported at work and isn't endangered to loose it, will be a loyal and maybe even a better employee in the end.


Wow.. great comments.. I didn't even think about it that way.. because.. well, the people I think of are people that could be gone tomorrow and it wouldn't impact the company at all. I was talking about 100% useless people. Like, if an employee is able to take a two month vacation.. and the company doesn't even notice.. how are they not let go? If we didn't need you for the two months.. why would we need you after the two months?

Or like having two directors of sales and a sales manager with only 4.5 (.5 = part time) sales people? Wow huh?
_________________
NDS Homebrew Roms & Reviews

#157984 - kusma - Mon Jun 02, 2008 8:48 pm

Lynx wrote:
I was talking about 100% useless people. Like, if an employee is able to take a two month vacation.. and the company doesn't even notice.. how are they not let go? If we didn't need you for the two months.. why would we need you after the two months?

Doesn't it make more sense to look into why that person isn't performing like expected? Are the expectations too high? Does he or she need additional training? Is he or she not motivated? Firing people for not performing send very bad signals to other employees, and might make them worry about their own positions.

#157985 - silent_code - Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:09 pm

although i also understand what Lynx means, i agree with kusma. plus, you would have to train a new employee anyways, it's just that the old one already knows "the game" better than any newbie. ;^)

i guess some of those no good employees just want to know they are more than just a name plate. oh, dude, i'm not going emo here (did i mention that emos suck?) - just sometimes theres more than meets the eye (TRANSFORMERS, BABY! ;^D) and everyone deserves a chance from time to time, no matter how useless they may look to you. who knows what's up your road?

i'm not going all chris rocker... nO! ;^p

EDIT: @gauauu: i understand and i don't want to disagree (and sure i don't want this to look like mild flaming - take it easy! ;^) ), but you didn't mention talking to the person in your post, just everybody *except* that person (if i didn't misinterpret your post - i'm trying really hard not to, believe me, but it still happens). and yes, i didn't feel like making a new post just because of this minor side note. :?D
i will crawl back into my hole, now. beware of sneak hugs! :^p (oh, boy, too much srubs today!)

pps about the 80% disliking: (i really couldn't detain it) wouldn't that mean that those managers would have to fire themselves then? X?D
_________________
July 5th 08: "Volumetric Shadow Demo" 1.6.0 (final) source released
June 5th 08: "Zombie NDS" WIP released!
It's all on my page, just click WWW below.


Last edited by silent_code on Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:52 pm; edited 6 times in total

#157988 - gauauu - Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:28 pm

Hmm...in my experience, in most "reasonably sane" workplaces, the only people that they would consider letting go are extremely dead-weight. And everyone knows it. If someone is completely incompetent, it RAISES morale when they go: nobody enjoys having to put up with the questions/comments/broken code/annoying opinions/laziness of a completely worthless coworker. And they hate the fact that that coworker is using up company money -- doing none of the work and getting equal pay.

Now there are some employees who don't rate very high on most technical ways of rating employees, but are still valuable, as they raise morale, or have skills that are hard to quantify in an objective way. These people shouldn't be let go.

I'd say managers can't always tell directly who is worthless, but if you talk to the employees peers, you know it's time to let that person go when over 80 percent of them think the person is worthless for the job. And believe me, those people exist.

#158016 - Lynx - Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:42 pm

Quote:
although i also understand what Lynx means, i agree with kusma. plus, you would have to train a new employee anyways, it's just that the old one already knows "the game" better than any newbie. ;^)


That's my point. I wouldn't fire someone that is actually needed. My point with the 3 "managers" for a department with only 4.5 employees is to let the two most useless managers go (the two that don't actually do any work), and have a single manager with 4.5 employees. No need to train anyone.

I agree with what gauauu said about morale. Personally, If I reported to one of these useless people (and there are a lot here), I would quit. But, that is just me. Other people don't feel they have the ability to find another job, therefore they must deal with the person. If you have enough employees quiting, the problem is reversed. The company is forced to continue to train people because the manager is useless.
_________________
NDS Homebrew Roms & Reviews

#158017 - kusma - Tue Jun 03, 2008 4:01 pm

Lynx wrote:

That's my point. I wouldn't fire someone that is actually needed. My point with the 3 "managers" for a department with only 4.5 employees is to let the two most useless managers go (the two that don't actually do any work), and have a single manager with 4.5 employees. No need to train anyone.

But that won't happen. They will try to justify themselves, and hire more engineers. You don't all of a sudden get a big managment-overhead - it grows gradually. And managers are usually very well aware that they have to justify themselves - and that's what they're often good at.

Ofcourse, there ARE cases where you have to let people go - and that's not my point. Those cases are usually not related to the skills of that employee at all.

gauauu wrote:

And everyone knows it. If someone is completely incompetent, it RAISES morale when they go: nobody enjoys having to put up with the questions/comments/broken code/annoying opinions/laziness of a completely worthless coworker.

Not everyone in an organization with a certain amount size knows the skills of everyone around them, or have to work with them at all. I get worried each time I hear about layoffs at work, even though I know very well that I'm not in danger of getting fired. But ofcourse, this isn't a completely one-sided thing.

When someone "completely useless" has been hired, isn't it really the person that hired him that should be fired for lack of competence?

#158058 - sgeos - Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:03 am

kusma wrote:
Yeah, or a problematic person in management can quit as well. But it's not very likely.

I was actually talking about the company liquidating.

There was some game magazine that liquidated and reformed and used to opportunity to get out of paying some debts. The people who go burned on the deal (normal folkes) were quite upset, but whatever tactic was used was legal in that jurisdiction and there was nothing they could do about it. Liquidating for this reason is never an ethical business practice, even if it is legal.

keldon wrote:
You can always give them an offer they can't refuse ;)

My dad got one of these when I was in Japan as a child with my family- "Resign, and I will fly you and your family back to the USA. Stay and I will make your life a living hell." I'm not sure that is the kind of offer you were thinking of. =P (The superintendent was not a nice person. My father chose the plane tickets, although the superintendent was actually removed the following year.)

Paying someone to quit is probably one of the better options. Afterall, if they are really counter productive you will pay later if you do not pay now. Zappos does this, although their goal is not to get rid of problem employees, but to build a committed team from the start.

Maxxie wrote:
A common used way to "get rid" or at least get him/her/it out of sight is to move someone to a different position with a worse environment (colleques, location, more physical, etc)

This strikes me as an ethical grey area. I would be more comfortable directly telling the person that I "do not see a bright future for you here given your current attitude".

kusma wrote:
Ofcourse, there ARE cases where you have to let people go - and that's not my point. Those cases are usually not related to the skills of that employee at all.

Often times the people you need to get rid of most are the people who look the best on paper- a proper attitude is worth a lot more than being all knowing.

gauauu wrote:
you know it's time to let that person go when over 80 percent of them think the person is worthless for the job.

I do not think that being unpopular should be a fire offense (it is in some places), however I pity the place who can not let go of people because things are generally not working out. Evidently, it is not uncommon for companies to be stuck with bad employees who know how to play the system and abuse rules put in place to protect employees. These people can be right on the line jumping up and down making faces, and nobody can do anything about it. In some places, a person needs to be written up for the exact same thing three times in a certain time period. Given a creative problem employee, they could actually be written up every day so long as they are careful not to make the same infraction too many times in one period.

kusma wrote:
When someone "completely useless" has been hired, isn't it really the person that hired him that should be fired for lack of competence?

Evidently I went to high school with someone who had an interesting college plan- get a degree doing as little actualy course work as possible. Based on what I've heard from someone else who also went to high school with her, she was basically successful in testing the limits of ethical behavior in her pursuit of a degree. She shot for a couple points less than a credit granting pass, lied about relatives dying to get out of tests, and then argued the grade up to a pass on the grounds that there was a lot going on. At this point I suspect she has been inflicted on the world. I have no desire to be co-employed with her in any capacity, although I have no reason to worry about about working with her in the future. Unfortunately, I'm sure there is a version of her floating around somewhere in the idustries I work in.

I think that there is a high chance that this person will not only be completely useless, but also drag down the morale of any honest employees who happen to be unlucky enough to work with her. If you were to interview her, you would be interviewing someone who spent four years perfecting her mad deceptive skills, ignoring an pre-existing talent. I have no doubt she is very good at what she does. Is it fair to fire someone in HR because an applicant lied (or wildly "eggagerated") in an interview? If you do think it would be fair to fire the people in HR and / or project managers, then I would like to hear how you propose handling the ethically bankrupt people who randomly appear out of the blue. They are out there.

-Brendan

#158063 - kusma - Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:30 am

sgeos wrote:
Unfortunately, I'm sure there is a version of her floating around somewhere in the idustries I work in.
[...]
They are out there.

Yes, and the people hiring needs to compensate for that. Testing potential employees is a very common method, and should be done throughly.

#158066 - sgeos - Wed Jun 04, 2008 3:21 am

kusma wrote:
Yes, and the people hiring needs to compensate for that. Testing potential employees is a very common method, and should be done throughly.

I can see where you are coming from. It is HR's job to screen people, and they should be doing their job?

Any sort of standardized procedure screens out people who do not fit in the box, either because they are legitimately not qualified, or because your test is not a good fit for them. That may not be a problem. If you do want someone outside of the box, you could alway use some kind of non-standardized testing. Either way, someone who is not cut out for the job will not get in.

My next question is, your HR team is a bunch of losers who do not do their job, so you fire all of them. At the same time, you are stuck with employees who are not cut out for the position, for whatever reasons. Now what?

-Brendan

#158070 - Alphanoob - Wed Jun 04, 2008 5:02 am

Simple: Run in circles screaming.

This may be my solution for everything, but it works fine for me... of course I only use that tactic when I am playing halo 3, and it usually involves a lot of grenades along with the running and screaming... nonethenless, it works! lol.

-Seriously though: this is getting deep... maybe you should have the boss be an HR guy, thus making him either fire himself or learn to be a better HR guy, because he is only hindering himself by allowing "problem employees" past screening at that point. A confusing sequence, but might work better than the aforementioned running in circles screaming.
_________________
w00

#158074 - sgeos - Wed Jun 04, 2008 5:43 am

Alphanoob wrote:
Simple: Run in circles screaming.

Welcome to management. =)

Ethics questions are very hard, because there is no right answer, although there are seemingly wrong answers.

If you enjoy doing your job, and you are offered a promotion to a management position, think long and hard about accepting it. You need to deal with people and there are many interruptions. I just learned today that one of my coworkers actually turned down a promotion about a year ago because he is happy where he is now. I think he made the right choice.

Alphanoob wrote:
maybe you should have the boss be an HR guy, thus making him either fire himself or learn to be a better HR guy, because he is only hindering himself by allowing "problem employees" past screening at that point.

The owner/operator may be horrible at HR and smart enough to know it. At the same time, both not participating in the company and giving up on the company may be unacceptable. What do you do if you happen to be this guy?

I can understand expecting HR to do their job, but at the same time sometimes things are just not that simple. Unexpected things happen. Certain people may have simple and straightforward values, and I can respect that. However, the problem I have with personally adopting a simple approach is that it is not flexible. Unless you live in a monoculture one size does not fit all. To the extent you are engaging in international business, you will not do well with an inflexible approach. I am not happy living with that.

-Brendan

#158085 - Lynx - Wed Jun 04, 2008 3:40 pm

Quote:
it is not uncommon for companies to be stuck with bad employees who know how to play the system and abuse rules put in place to protect employees


Even when there isn't "laws" in place to keep companies from firing people, it's still the lack of "balls" of their manager to do what they know is best for the company.. or, they just don't care.

The hiring process is a whole different subject. HR by no means has the ability to make sure an employee is right for the job. That is what an interview process is for. It's the managers job to make sure they are right and to follow up with a 3 month evaluation. As I believe you will find, many "bad" employees are not hired, they are inherited. By company acquisition, moving to another department, etc.

Quote:
actually turned down a promotion about a year ago because he is happy where he is now.


I think it depends on a lot of things. When I was with Clorox, I was regularly being pushed toward a management position.. because, my boss thought it was the "path" for my career. I love what I do (hands on with systems), and do not want to manage (step back and let other people do the real work). But later, at Cadbury Schwepps, I was sat down by my boss and given another perspective of why he thought I should pursue a management position. His perspective was that he thought I had the ability to influence others around me, and with my technical knowledge, the ability to mentor new employees that would join the company in a way that would be best for the company and the new employees. It wasn't until I heard that perspective that I actually began to accept the idea of being a manager. I'm still not a manager, and I do love my job, but if I am ever pushed in that direction in the future, I will actually give it some thought.

Where do you draw the line between what is best for the company, the employee, the team members, and the manager?
_________________
NDS Homebrew Roms & Reviews

#158174 - sgeos - Fri Jun 06, 2008 5:27 am

Lynx wrote:
As I believe you will find, many "bad" employees are not hired, they are inherited. By company acquisition, moving to another department, etc.

There are a whole bunch of reasons why you might end up with a problem employee. I was just shocked that in some environments nothing can be done about it. Even in a place where employees can theoretically be dismissed for any reason according to local law, collective bargaining agreements can change that. If your collective bargaining agreement, a contract, says that you can not dismiss someone unless they are written up for the same thing three times in a six month period you are stuck if they are written up for things that are different enough.

Quote:
But later, at Cadbury Schwepps, I was sat down by my boss and given another perspective of why he thought I should pursue a management position. His perspective was that he thought I had the ability to influence others around me, and with my technical knowledge, the ability to mentor new employees that would join the company in a way that would be best for the company and the new employees. It wasn't until I heard that perspective that I actually began to accept the idea of being a manager.

Front line people need excellent technical skills, some people skills, and a vague understanding that there is a big picture. All management ought to have a certain level of people skills (more than the front line people), and from there front technical skills are traded for big picture conceptual skills the higher you move up the ladder.

I suspect that the big picture remains the same longer than the details, so if you are planning to shift into management, it is probably worth doing when you would rather spend your free time doing other things than picking up technical skills. Say reading story books to your kids instead of geek books to yourself. Having said that, lower management still needs a lot of technical skills. If you find training others rewarding and you want to do some front line work, you could do your best to remain in lower management forever.

Quote:
Where do you draw the line between what is best for the company, the employee, the team members, and the manager?

People are supposed to work when they are at work. A manager's job is to look out for the company. In healty environments where the manager is a good fit for the position, the company, team and individual employees all go hand in hand. Afterall, a company is made of teams, and teams are made of individuals.

If the company expects you to do something you consider unethical, you may want to talk to them about it and you may want to consider leaving. The company may actually be unethical, or it may legitimately have a different set of values that are a bad fit for you. Either way, if your present position is not working out, attempt to find one that is a better fit. If you feel you need the position right now, it is a tough situation, but I think you should do your best to do what the company feels you should be doing.

If a manager puts their own personal interests before the company, team and their employees, that strikes me as irresponsible.

Special case- if your company knowingly expects you to do something illegal, then they do not have thier own long term interests in mind. Leave ASAP even if you like the job and feel you need it, because chances are the company's bad practices will become somebody's problem sooner or later, and you do not want that person to be you.

-Brendan