Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Human Resources Director, who is quite professional and experienced, was also in the meeting and he argued with the CEO about his plan to drum out the bottom 30% of the workers (the dead wood as he called them). The HR Director said that if these bottom 30%ers were really that bad then write them up, give them an oral warning, written warning, performance improvement plan and give them really strict standards and if they don't do the job, send them packing with a severance package for a signed release for the minorities and over 50 crowd.
The CEO rejected that out of hand and said that most of the bottom 30% were not bad workers who would fit into a progressive discipline process because most of them have not done anything specifically wrong, but instead their transgression is being just too average and unremarkable in an era where competitive pressures require superstars. Going through a performance improvement plan with them would be fruitless because none of them have the talent to be the superstar we need them to become.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tampaite
1. Assign them to work on projects with lower priorities.
2. Give them hard deadlines and write them up for not meeting them.
3. Make senior employees report to junior employees.
4. Have meetings at 8.30am everyday and at 5.30pm and repeatedly ask them if anyone is available to work on the weekends!
i didn't read all the replies some might be posting a dupe response....
This is illegal to go after the older less-hip folks that make more money. Classic age discrimination. There are whistle blower hotlines for this to be reported to the federal government. Someone at your company might be reporting this.
IMO, YOU should not try to get your 5 folks to resign. Continue business as usual.
------------Part 2. I was a mgr at a company where there was political wrangling going on where a high level mgr "had it out" for a few lower people. One of those was one of my direct reports that was a very high performer/good worker. I was forced to modify this person's performance review to lower it. I did this against my will. I fought back and just lowered it slightly, rather than make it as low as my mgt wanted. It was awful and it still bothers me many years later. It put me in a bad political situation by pushing back.
I left that company and chose a career path that does not include managing other staff , partly because of that situation. My good performing employee resigned and went elsewhere and moved up the ladder.
The Human Resources Director, who is quite professional and experienced, was also in the meeting and he argued with the CEO about his plan to drum out the bottom 30% of the workers (the dead wood as he called them). The HR Director said that if these bottom 30%ers were really that bad then write them up, give them an oral warning, written warning, performance improvement plan and give them really strict standards and if they don't do the job, send them packing with a severance package for a signed release for the minorities and over 50 crowd.
The CEO rejected that out of hand and said that most of the bottom 30% were not bad workers who would fit into a progressive discipline process because most of them have not done anything specifically wrong, but instead their transgression is being just too average and unremarkable in an era where competitive pressures require superstars. Going through a performance improvement plan with them would be fruitless because none of them have the talent to be the superstar we need them to become.
Which sounds as though you've already decided which side you're aligned with so the whole discussion is really moot. This is going to come back and bite you one way or another.
I hate the idea of doing that myself (maybe I am too nice for managment!), but I have my marching orders.
* I am not suppose to ask anyone to quit but just make their life miserable so they quit on their own.
If you can do this (make anyone's life miserable), you are definitely NOT too nice for management. Don't fool yourself.
Damn. Just Damn. I've seen this done to people over and over. It's why the idea of ever going into administration/management makes me incredibly nauseous.
Yeah, good luck with that. I'm willing and perfectly able to put up with nastiness including yelling, shouting, emotional abuse, etc. - pretty much anything short of Physical Violence to stay at a job and not quit voluntarily, and in this economy, I'd think the vast majority of workers are that way too. How someone could get someone like me to hand in a resignation is beyond me.
Which sounds as though you've already decided which side you're aligned with so the whole discussion is really moot. This is going to come back and bite you one way or another.
I agree, and would add, you deserve the full repercussions.
This is a terrible predicament, but I'm sure it is happening all over this country every day. If I were you, I would aggressively look for a new job. In the mean time, I would do nothing in terms of trying to get these other people to quit. Sometimes passive aggression is the only way to survive when you do not have the luxury of being assertive or aggressive.
OP, If you go along with and assist in the plan, you are no more ethical than the CEO. Sometimes, life presents difficult choices, crossroads if you will. You are at one. You need to choose between being what the CEO would see as a "team player portion of senior mgmt" OR having a backbone, and ethics. Those are mutually exclusive paths, and there truly is no going back.
Another thing, even if he does go along with the CEO 100%, who's to say that his job won't be on the chopping block next year? If a company is so unethical to one group of employees, it does not mean that they will subsequently "spare" the employees assisting them in this task. Case in point, when offshoring jobs companies often fire most Americans and keep a few around to train the offshore employees. Sometimes they lie and say that the trainers will not be laid off. But the standard MO is to get rid of the trainers once the offshore employees have been trained. If he were to go along with this, he might just end up reaping what he sowed. I think the OP should look for a new company to work for ASAP.
Another thing, even if he does go along with the CEO 100%, who's to say that his job won't be on the chopping block next year? If a company is so unethical to one group of employees, it does not mean that they will subsequently "spare" the employees assisting them in this task. Case in point, when offshoring jobs companies often fire most Americans and keep a few around to train the offshore employees. Sometimes they lie and say that the trainers will not be laid off. But the standard MO is to get rid of the trainers once the offshore employees have been trained. If he were to go along with this, he might just end up reaping what he sowed. I think the OP should look for a new company to work for ASAP.
I agree, and beyond that corps are either ethical or unethical, so beyond firing staff, if I were he, I'd distrust every action of every employee in a position of power each and every day.
Too often, folks look for gray where none exists. Do I think there are not more corps like this-no.. Do I think any like this merit any consideration at all, or any interaction..no.
The OP paid a heavy price for a higher level position.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
