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.
I think the key to this is that you started off your thread with "I have been fired a few times". That says it all unless by fired you mean laid off or downsized.
If you really have been fired a few times then I honestly don't think it matters what reason they gave you because they were probably right. "Not a good fit" is them letting you down nicely. Plain and simple. I am sorry you were fired but according to your post, your getting used to it.
I do not think many executives who have been in the full time job market for 30 years have not been fired at least one or twice. If not you are playing it to safe.
Most progressive organizations will not let their mangers fire someone with a catch all phrase like "it is not a good fit" That is something more common in small companies or fly by night organizations. Everyone should be given a warning before they are fired along with progressive discipline unless it is a case of gross misconduct.
its not you, the new system is employment at will.
this is what you get without unions. 1 meat ball means no bread.
by the way attitude will get you fired so fast.
w/o unions, what is "rights" to an employee is "attitude" to an employer
I do not think many executives who have been in the full time job market for 30 years have not been fired at least one or twice. If not you are playing it to safe.
Most progressive organizations will not let their mangers fire someone with a catch all phrase like "it is not a good fit" That is something more common in small companies or fly by night organizations. Everyone should be given a warning before they are fired along with progressive discipline unless it is a case of gross misconduct.
Actually, most progressive organizations have started utilizing the "not a good fit" phrase based on the fact that...you may not have been a good fit. In today's companies, people want to be able to work in or around co-workers that create a team feeling. Bad attitudes, poor work ethic and personality conflicts have been found to be larger disruptions to work flow than technical skills or even experience/knowledge.
In regards to:
Quote:
I do not think many executives who have been in the full time job market for 30 years have not been fired at least one or twice. If not you are playing it to safe.
Is this you we are talking about or is this a generalized, your opinion statement? In either situation, if being fired is "a part of being an executive" then shouldn't we hold the leaders of industry to higher standards?
By your reply it does seem that you do not understand Human Resources procedures, human nature or the business world.
Of course no organization wants to keep employees who are disruptive. In a team environment we need to get along and work well with each other. But progressive organizations understand that in most cases there is no right or wrong way to do a most professional tasks. We need to get a variety of personalities into the mix and some workplace conflict is helpful as long as people fight fair.
But if the employee appears to not be a good fit for the team, the first part of the process is a formal oral warning. Show them how their actions and behavior are disruptive and let them learn on their own how their actions are affecting the group. If the problem continues further warnings could occur or termination. But a progressive organization should never fire someone without a warning, discussion, counseling, guidance and an opportunity to improve.
Also if you look at the careers of most successful executives and senior managers, you will see most of them have been forced to resign, fired or pushed out at one or more times in their life. It showed that they took risks and made bold decisions. These actions do not always work out but are necessary for a company to prosper. Some people just did not appreciate the risk taking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tluv00
Actually, most progressive organizations have started utilizing the "not a good fit" phrase based on the fact that...you may not have been a good fit. In today's companies, people want to be able to work in or around co-workers that create a team feeling. Bad attitudes, poor work ethic and personality conflicts have been found to be larger disruptions to work flow than technical skills or even experience/knowledge.
In regards to:
Is this you we are talking about or is this a generalized, your opinion statement? In either situation, if being fired is "a part of being an executive" then shouldn't we hold the leaders of industry to higher standards?
By your reply it does seem that you do not understand Human Resources procedures, human nature or the business world.
Of course no organization wants to keep employees who are disruptive. In a team environment we need to get along and work well with each other. But progressive organizations understand that in most cases there is no right or wrong way to do a most professional tasks. We need to get a variety of personalities into the mix and some workplace conflict is helpful as long as people fight fair.
But if the employee appears to not be a good fit for the team, the first part of the process is a formal oral warning. Show them how their actions and behavior are disruptive and let them learn on their own how their actions are affecting the group. If the problem continues further warnings could occur or termination. But a progressive organization should never fire someone without a warning, discussion, counseling, guidance and an opportunity to improve.
Also if you look at the careers of most successful executives and senior managers, you will see most of them have been forced to resign, fired or pushed out at one or more times in their life. It showed that they took risks and made bold decisions. These actions do not always work out but are necessary for a company to prosper. Some people just did not appreciate the risk taking.
Actually I know more than you would like to think and I must know a little about the business world as not only have I been very successful, I have never been fired either.
"At will" is the ability to fire......at will. They don't have to give you a reason. They don't have to make you feel all warm and fuzzy or even give you closure. They can come up to you and say it's been nice, pack your stuff and leave and you have little or no repercussions. Maybe they did not see any value in giving you the verbal warning you so badly desired. Maybe they saw the writing on the wall and went by the code "addition by subtraction". Maybe it was just a bad fit and that was their reasoning. It does not matter unless you feel it was unethically based (race, sex, religion etc..)
Now if you were fired for taking a risk then I assume you wouldn't be posting this thread. If you were fired for stealing or sleeping on the job or even lying to your superiors you wouldn't have started this thread. My thoughts are....attitude. Just judging by your original post where you whined about being fired and needed a reason. The other is your jumping to a conclusion and running with it....and I base that on the quote above.
I know how HR works, I know how the business world works and I really know how firing people works. I have done it before and I most likely will have to again. That's what the good executives have to do
"It's not a good fit" is a code word for "people don't like you". You say this has happened several times: my advice to you is to seriously take stock in your outward appearance and interactions with others. Remember success in the workplace is not necessarily a meritocracy, in many ways it is a popularity contest.
I think there are two basic philosphies being discussed here:
Employment Philosophy Number one: The Company should quickly and unceremoniously fire (terminate, dump, throwout, replace) any employee who does not fit into the immediate needs of the company and the boss. No warnings, counseling, progressive discipline or due process is required because it is legal to terminate for no reason (employment at will)
Employment Philosophy Number Two: In today's world of business under performing employees or people who do not work well with others are disruptive and need to be handled fairly, legally and efficiently but with care and compassion. The entire Fortune 500 use a system where problem employees are given a due process with a oral warning, written warning and performance improvement program. Exactly how long this due process lasts with a specific problem employee will be based on replace-ability, market conditions, company size, managements view of the ability the employee has to change, training opportunities and the impact of the performance on the team.
If a company uses Employment Philosophy Number Two there is a chance that a disruptive employee may hang around a little longer but also a chance that he or she will turn things around and turn out to a a great member of the team. Also, other employees will see that troubled employees are treated fairly and so they will not be as concerned they will also be fired for no reason.
"It's not a good fit" is a code word for "people don't like you". You say this has happened several times: my advice to you is to seriously take stock in your outward appearance and interactions with others. Remember success in the workplace is not necessarily a meritocracy, in many ways it is a popularity contest.
This could also mean that narrow minded leaders in the company want to have only people who interact and think just like them and they are to laxy to use due process that is common in all of the Fortune 500.
Of course anytime someone is fired they need to look within them selves to see how much of it is their fault and personality based.
I think there are two basic philosphies being discussed here:
Employment Philosophy Number one: The Company should quickly and unceremoniously fire (terminate, dump, throwout, replace) any employee who does not fit into the immediate needs of the company and the boss. No warnings, counseling, progressive discipline or due process is required because it is legal to terminate for no reason (employment at will)
Employment Philosophy Number Two: In today's world of business under performing employees or people who do not work well with others are disruptive and need to be handled fairly, legally and efficiently but with care and compassion. The entire Fortune 500 use a system where problem employees are given a due process with a oral warning, written warning and performance improvement program. Exactly how long this due process lasts with a specific problem employee will be based on replace-ability, market conditions, company size, managements view of the ability the employee has to change, training opportunities and the impact of the performance on the team.
If a company uses Employment Philosophy Number Two there is a chance that a disruptive employee may hang around a little longer but also a chance that he or she will turn things around and turn out to a a great member of the team. Also, other employees will see that troubled employees are treated fairly and so they will not be as concerned they will also be fired for no reason.
True....but these are also different economic times. A company is going to adapt to the market as well as their short term needs (which is the biggest problem). Any company worth it's salt will give a productive employee the opportunity to "redeem" themselves, but there are also bad hires which need to be dealt with swiftly. Those are the ones that are too much of a disruption, don't get invited to lunch by others and overall have not contributed in the least.
There is also the fact that a manager needs to send a message to his/her team if there is a lack of performance. It happens mostly in sales, but it happens. Is it right in the eyes of society? Probably not, but society is not on the line when revenue is tanking.
Many people never get fired during their entire career so it's stretching it to say that it's common for people to be fired. Yes, at the CEO level (and their direct reports) where companies change direction you can see "good" executives fired but these folks plan for this with employment agreements that ensure they are living very well after the firing.
On the "not a good fit" statement. It's not uncommon for the employer to use this generically just because it's safer legally since it can cover a broad base and it limits the terminination discussion so you're not nitpicking every critique they make about your work or behavior. This isn't to say that they don't have formal documentation to support your firing if it comes to this. It also could be part of a probationary period in which "fit" encompasses your ability to grasp concepts quickly, get along well with others, strong work ethic (arriving to work on time and returning back from breaks on time, etc.) and a number of other performance and behavioral factors. If you want to avoid being fired in a probationary period, you can limit your chances by asking the company if they have one. My company does not but many do. People should also ensure they really are a fit by not overselling their skills and experiences on their resume or in the interview. This happens quite a bit and the supervisor becomes frustrated because they feel like they are teaching them 101 concepts that their experiences should have already given them.
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.
You do not understand business or Human Resources
