HR question

[happyhoix]

Since this is a public message board I don't want to be too specific, but there was a woman I knew in a different department from mine who was having problems with her boss.

The whole thing came to a head with him screaming at her to go to HR. She went and spoke to the HR director, who kept insisting that the employee was working very hard, doing a good job for the company, was a valuable asset, yadda yadda yadda, but when the employee asked for guidance on how she might better interact with her boss, the HR director offered nothing. There was no follow up counseling set, no meetings between the employee and her boss and HR, nothing. This was the first time things had escalated to the point where the employee had to talk to HR.

A week later the employee was escorted from the building by HR, carrying a box of her stuff. I assume she was terminated, although due to my job responsibilities I get all the termination notices and I haven't seen one for her yet. (Termination means any type of separation - from quitting to being fired).

This seems very strange to me. Is it typical that HR would tell someone they're doing a good job, then immediately fire them? If this was the first time the employee was sent to HR with problems with their job, isn't the normal procedure to offer counseling and try to resolve the conflict, rather than just firing them? I don't know both sides of the issue, but from what I can see, the boss is rarely there (I used to think he traveled a lot, then found out he just doesn't show up a lot) and I've heard him not infrequently screaming in his office (although I think a lot of time he's screaming at someone on the phone).

I don't know, I guess I'm naive in thinking that if you do a good job your company won't fire you out of the blue?

[Deleted]

getting in a screaming match with the boss usually does not end up well for the subordinate.

[Deleted]

Jun 25, 2012 8:44:21 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

getting in a screaming match with the boss usually does not end up well for the subordinate.

If the boss wasn't reprimanded for screaming at you, you are in BIG trouble.

[zibazinski]

[milee]

"This seems very strange to me. Is it typical that HR would tell someone they're doing a good job, then immediately fire them?"

Maybe, maybe not. First, unless you were there, you don't know that HR really told that person she was doing a good job. People tend to hear what they want to hear (like picking out 3 encouraging words out of 150 negative ones and clinging to those 3...) so HR may have just been using placating general encouragement which the employee misinterpreted. Example, "You are doing the right thing in coming to talk to me - good job" is not the same as telling someone they are doing a good job at work. Also, HR may even have said some positive things to calm the employee down. Even crazy people usually have some positive attributes you can point out in a pinch; HR sometimes does that. Sandwich criticism or need for improvement in between positive comments (called a "coaching sandwich") makes the tough stuff easier for people to hear.

"If this was the first time the employee was sent to HR with problems with their job, isn't the normal procedure to offer counseling and try to resolve the conflict, rather than just firing them?"

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how important and/or replaceable both parties are. The employee could be the best data entry clerk on the planet, but if she is nasty to the boss and the boss is tough to replace, the data entry clerk is going to be turfed.

Also, the employee may be doing good work at some things, but a key part of work is also getting along with the boss. If she can't do that, it's not unreasonable to fire her.

[milee]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is a tough economy. Even if the screamer was doing good work, it might just be easier to replace her. Lots of people looking for jobs...

[Deleted]

We don't know what happened. The subordinate may have had a "take this job and shove it" moment - which pretty much guarantees you will get the immediate walk out.

[swamp]

Jun 25, 2012 8:57:58 GMT -5 milee said:

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is a tough economy. Even if the screamer was doing good work, it might just be easier to replace her. Lots of people looking for jobs...

When I was PUblic Defender, I had an Assistant PD who did excellent work, but she was a PITA diva who never showed up on time, whined all the freakin' time, and expected me to cover for her at night court whenever she ddint' want to go.

Her DH got a job elsewhere, which was good because I was about to fire her for being a pain to work with.

I replaced her with a guy who was new and didnt' have as good legal skills, but he was a willing to learn, showed up to court on time, was pleasant to the judges, nice to the clients, and did his work.

I can teach someone to be a lawyer. I can't teach someone not to be an asshole.

[busymom]

I can teach someone to be a lawyer. I can't teach someone not to be an asshole.





I've had the "screamer" boss. There is no reasoning with them, and even people who supervise the screamer are often afraid of them. As unfair as losing a job to a screamer, I'm sure her life will be greatly improved!

[happyhoix]

Jun 25, 2012 9:10:52 GMT -5 @craftysarah said:

We don't know what happened. The subordinate may have had a "take this job and shove it" moment - which pretty much guarantees you will get the immediate walk out.

According to the employee, she had been reading a book on how to improve your communication skills, and she had some suggestions from it on how the two of them could communicate better. She tried to discuss this with her boss and he started screaming at her.

Apparently he felt that any opinion she offered was an attempt to control him. He's not American and from a male dominated culture, so I'm wondering if a good part of the problem wasn't cultural.

Of course, I've worked for a crappy, irrational boss before myself and learned how to lay low and not provoke him until I could find another job - she probably should have picked this strategy.

[shanendoah]

Just because the employee was never sent in to HR before doesn't mean there wasn't a documented issue.
I don't send staff to HR, but I document problems in their personnel files and I have contact with my HR rep about problems. I could fire staff without ever sending them to HR.

A lot depends on your company's policies. We do have policies that say we go verbal warning, written warning, final written warning, firing, but in certain cases I can skip one or any of the warning steps, based on the severity of the problem.

[happyhoix]

"Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how important and/or replaceable both parties are. The employee could be the best data entry clerk on the planet, but if she is nasty to the boss and the boss is tough to replace, the data entry clerk is going to be turfed. "

This is what I think happened. The boss said he couldn't work with her, either she had to go or he did, and the company decided she was more replaceable than he was.

I can see that the guy isn't here much and when he does come in tends to show up late and leave early. However his boss works in a different building so his boss may not know he's doing that. According to the employee, she did 90% of the work, and her boss passed it along as his own work.

It will be interesting to see what happens over the next months. If what the employee said was true, the boss should flounder on his own, because she did almost all the work. If, on the other hand, the boss does fine by himself, then I'll have to wonder how much of what the employee said was true.

[happyhoix]

Jun 25, 2012 9:41:25 GMT -5 shanendoah said:

Just because the employee was never sent in to HR before doesn't mean there wasn't a documented issue.
I don't send staff to HR, but I document problems in their personnel files and I have contact with my HR rep about problems. I could fire staff without ever sending them to HR.

A lot depends on your company's policies. We do have policies that say we go verbal warning, written warning, final written warning, firing, but in certain cases I can skip one or any of the warning steps, based on the severity of the problem.

Our policy is that the person gets 3 verbal warnings, then 3 written warnings before they're terminated, unless they do something really out of line, like punch someone or show up drunk.

From what I could see, this person was a hard worker, one of those that put in extra hours without getting overtime pay, she got along with everyone else and according to her had never been written up or had a verbal warning (that she'd been told of - if her boss is as psycho as she described him he might have been documenting these without telling her he was doig it). I've seen the company work with employees who had significant behavioral or attendance issues before and they seem to jump through a lot of hoops before they let anyone go. So this seemed very unexpected.

[Deleted]

Jun 25, 2012 9:54:16 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Jun 25, 2012 9:41:25 GMT -5 shanendoah said:

Just because the employee was never sent in to HR before doesn't mean there wasn't a documented issue.
I don't send staff to HR, but I document problems in their personnel files and I have contact with my HR rep about problems. I could fire staff without ever sending them to HR.

A lot depends on your company's policies. We do have policies that say we go verbal warning, written warning, final written warning, firing, but in certain cases I can skip one or any of the warning steps, based on the severity of the problem.

Our policy is that the person gets 3 verbal warnings, then 3 written warnings before they're terminated, unless they do something really out of line, like punch someone or show up drunk.

From what I could see, this person was a hard worker, one of those that put in extra hours without getting overtime pay, she got along with everyone else and according to her had never been written up or had a verbal warning (that she'd been told of - if her boss is as psycho as she described him he might have been documenting these without telling her he was doig it). I've seen the company work with employees who had significant behavioral or attendance issues before and they seem to jump through a lot of hoops before they let anyone go. So this seemed very unexpected.

She must have done something really out of line, then. Oh to be a fly on the wall of that office.

[happyhoix]

Jun 25, 2012 9:57:29 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Jun 25, 2012 9:54:16 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Our policy is that the person gets 3 verbal warnings, then 3 written warnings before they're terminated, unless they do something really out of line, like punch someone or show up drunk.

From what I could see, this person was a hard worker, one of those that put in extra hours without getting overtime pay, she got along with everyone else and according to her had never been written up or had a verbal warning (that she'd been told of - if her boss is as psycho as she described him he might have been documenting these without telling her he was doig it). I've seen the company work with employees who had significant behavioral or attendance issues before and they seem to jump through a lot of hoops before they let anyone go. So this seemed very unexpected.

She must have done something really out of line, then. Oh to be a fly on the wall of that office.

I've seen our company let people go to drug rehab or hang out there on FLMA for over a year before without terminating them. I've seen them shift people between departments when they had a case of incompatible co-workers or boss/workers. They do not have the reputation of letting people go unless they have very well documented cause.

So the question remains, did psycho boss frame the employee to get her fired, or was it really the employee who was psycho all along and she got caught in a manipulation?

Clearly not my business, but I would love to know....

[Deleted]

Could also be that the economy is making the company rethink those that they hold onto, rather than sh|t-canning them.

[happyhoix]

I just realized I haven't seen the boss since the employee was escorted off the property, maybe his boss got tired of the two of them not getting along and let them both go LOL.

[shanendoah]

Maybe the reason he told her to go talk to HR was because the company was eliminating both of their positions.

[shanendoah]

There's also the possibility that this employee has been written up before and just doesn't get it. I've had to write my admin up twice (even our verbal warnings have to have signed paperwork) for the same thing, and she still doesn't really get that she did something wrong. I think she won't do it again, but in her mind, she was reacting to someone else's bad behavior, and therefore, her own behavior was completely excused.
No matter how many times I said- We're not talking about Y's behavior, we're talking about your's, you could tell by talking to her that she doesn't think she did something wrong.

So maybe that's the case with this woman. Because she was responding to bad boss, she doesn't think she ever actually did anything wrong- his behavior excused her's. And that could be true even if she had received warnings.

[thyme4change]

I had to have several meetings with an employee who didn't get along with a VP. It took a while for him to stop walking around talking about how horrible that VP was. It didn't help any that I also did not care for that VP, so the first couple of discussions were something along the lines of "I know she sucks, but you have to get along with her." HR had similiar discussions. Kind of like the "coach sandwich" mentioned above. He kept thinking that he was fine and she was the problem. The reality was that they were both problems. He was not great at his job, and she was a horrible person. I got damn near having to fire him, but I had one last talk with him that gave him a very specific plan to get out of trouble. It saved him just long enough for her to get canned. But, if he had a different boss, he would have been gone. And he would have left with the indignant position that he was not at fault.

[emma1420]

Jun 25, 2012 16:49:21 GMT -5 shanendoah said:

There's also the possibility that this employee has been written up before and just doesn't get it. I've had to write my admin up twice (even our verbal warnings have to have signed paperwork) for the same thing, and she still doesn't really get that she did something wrong. I think she won't do it again, but in her mind, she was reacting to someone else's bad behavior, and therefore, her own behavior was completely excused.
No matter how many times I said- We're not talking about Y's behavior, we're talking about your's, you could tell by talking to her that she doesn't think she did something wrong.

So maybe that's the case with this woman. Because she was responding to bad boss, she doesn't think she ever actually did anything wrong- his behavior excused her's. And that could be true even if she had received warnings.

Many organizations I've worked for don't make employee's sign any sort of acknowledgement or even tell them specifically that they have received a warning. And so the employee believes everything is fine, and then when they are fired they feel it comes out of the blue.

[wvugurl26]

Jun 25, 2012 8:44:21 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

getting in a screaming match with the boss usually does not end up well for the subordinate.

We had someone do it during their review. The subordinate started it. He was pretty hands off with her after that. Fortunately she decided to find a new job. No matter why you fire someone with 15 plus years in, the union's going to defend them even though my group cannot no way no how belong to the union. HR wouldn't sign off on that.