If the expectation is 150 widgets, then that should be clearly expressed in writing.
Law aside, if you fire someone for not meeting an expectation that you never clearly expressed, you’re an incompetent boss.
The performance expectation, officially, is 100 widgets minimum and 125 ideal; if Amanda produces 125, there is no justification for firing her. The company is clearly run by incompetents, if their performance expectations are so warped as compared to actual performance. I would be much more concerned about the competence of the managers in this scenario.
Writen policy > verbal policy. The numbers achieved were in compliance with writen policy. HAD policy been re-writen, then I’d say fair. They weren’t - As best can be determined from the scenario, the verbal policy was subjective, and that’s dangerous.
Not supported by the scenario. Go with what was presented, or you’re off in the weeds, and there’s no end to that.
The managers are doing just fine. They set a target, the workforce demonstrated that they can meet that target and more, so now the management are re-evaluating the target and have made that clear to the workforce. Amanda has been told that continuing to do less work than her peers will result in the sack, and to avoid this all she needs to do is the simple act of doing the same amount of work as everybody else. Not exactly a crazy expectation, and getting hung up on the now out of date target really is missing the woods for the trees.
Amanda isn’t at risk because the lowest producer gets fired, she is at risk because her output is significantly less than anybody else’s. I doubt very much the guy on 147 widgets is getting fired as well, there is no need to assume that there is any policy of firing the lowest producer, this scenario doesn’t state it nor suggest it.
The scenario should not have that much detail, otherwise this thread focuses not just on trees but the bark on the trees rather than looking at the forest. This thread is just for getting people’s broad, general gut-feeling about the issue.
Disagree. The management of this Scrooge Co. has a written policy and a mystical verbal policy. I’d quit in heartbeat and leave them in the lurch for pulling bullshit like that. More than likely, they’d fire her and expect the other saps to make up for the lost production.
Obviously you never worked for one of the Big 4 accounting/consulting firms.
Here’s a question. When I’m putting together my goals for the year, how come the company won’t let me put “minimum amount of work required to not get fired”?
When I hired a guy to paint my apartment, I told him the color (blue) and he quoted me a price and how many days it would take (three). Can I arbitrarily decide not to pay him because he didn’t go above and beyond and paint the roof of the Sistine Chapel. Or change my mind and tell him it needs to be done in 2 days?
Keep in mind that when you refer to “the company”, you are really referring to its various equity owners and their agents in upper management. It’s an important distinction because employees like Amanda typically don’t reap any extra benefit from doing extra work (other than keeping her shitty job). And yet, she is apparently expected to go “above and beyond” in helping her company succeed.
It’s like the old “Flair” joke. Companies don’t just want you to exceed expectations. They want you to WANT to exceed expectations. Which IMHO is about more than just profit margins and doing good work. It’s about control. And in the long run it’s not good for society IMHO to have an economy that only rewards sociopathic workaholics who are willing to put their job ahead of everything else in their life so they can rise a bit higher to the middle.
You did not read the OP very closely. The only information you are given is that the standard is 100, and employees should ideally reach 125. The employee is producing 125 and is therefore reaching the expressly written stretch goal.
Nowhere was is stated a different performance expectation had been set. The expectation was 100 as a minimum and 125 as the written expected norm. That’s it. If you don’t believe me, re-read the OP.
Nothing was written down saying 125 wasn’t enough. In business, if it isn’t written down, in didn’t happen. Any manager who tried to manage like this is a fool and would not be competent enough to manage a hot dog stand.
To be fair, the OP says the manager informed her that continuing to lag behind her coworkers would jeopardize her employment. She could’ve been informed verbally or in writing.
As bad and as soulless as it sounds, she’s been told what success equates to in her organization: it means performing as well or better than the average peon at her level. It doesn’t matter anymore that 125/wk was once the ideal. Obviously there has been some change that has caused production to far exceed the “ideal” rate among most of the employees, and its not unreasonable to question why she can’t keep up with that. If, for instance, the company just purchased new equipment that makes the overall process 30-50% more efficient, then 125/wk would be considered fairly crappy output and no longer ideal at all. This is particularly the case if the equipment was so expensive that a high rate of returns is needed to justify its purchase. If every employee aimed for no higher than 125, the company could go under.
Hopefully I don’t sound like a heartless capitalist, but I don’t feel this employee is entitled to keep doing the same ole thing indefinitely just because of what was on paper previously.
I didn’t mean that you have to give us all that information, but some of it would be very relevant. I don’t think it’s a good management strategy as presented but if this is a new company still working out the kind of productivity expected from its workers than it could be just fine. I stated earlier that they may be more than fair to Amanda because she’s not as productive as the other workers and they’re giving her a chance to do better. More likely though, they’re trying to find the breaking point of the workers and could easily end up firing more of them and have a hard time maintaining a work force that can meet their demands which will end up costing them more over the long term.
Here’s information we are given. Every one of her peers is regularly averaging 150 widgets.
If it isn’t written down it didn’t happen? Good luck with that. In the real world, Amanda is significantly less productive than all other employees, she can stick her head in the sand if she wants but thats the bottom line here.
Her biggest mistake is actually hitting 125 widgets, because if everybody else can do 150 then it implies she could easily do more but is choosing to stop at 125. Again, in the real world managers don’t like that.
I voted unfair. “Ideal” has a meaning. If anything, it would be fairer to fire the employees producing 150 widgets, as they are not producing the ideal amount. Maybe the company can’t sell that many leading to overstock, maybe working that fast leads to quality control issues, or any number of things. As others have stated, the company needs to change the expectation of what is “ideal” before firing someone. Those who argue they have done that by speaking with Amanda are on the right lines, personally I would say it needs to be done formally (i.e. in writing) to be fair.
Something stated orally isn’t worth the paper it isn’t written on.
The written standard is unclear, but it’s either 100 or 125. If the standard is supposed to be 150, it should be clearly communicated. That means writing it and being able to prove everyone involved read it. Nothing less. Anything else is shitty management, full stop. I honestly don’t know a single decent manager who’d disagree with me. This isn’t hard to do; everyone in my company has performance standards written down, and they sign off on them. That was true at my last company, and the one before that, and it’s as common as dirt.
That’s problem 1. Problem Two is logical. The obvious logical problem with “you’re meeting the written target, but it’s not enough because you’re below average” is that you will, eventually, run out of people to fire. Someone will ALWAYS be below the average; that’s what “average” means.
That’s all very true. So change the standard. Then find out why Amanda can’t break 125.
Neither do I. I’m a heartless capitalist, actually, but this runs both ways; the employer and employee both have responsibilities. The employer’s is to set the employment standards, and that means they’re in writing. In the OP’s company, the standard in writing is 125.
Legally, yeah it is, if an employer can fire you for any reason it likes.
Ethically, I see no difference between verbal and written notice. If the employee knows that management expects her to increase production to a certain level, then she can make an informed choice. Either leave the job or find some way to improve. There’s no unfairness unless she’s given insufficient time to show improved performance.
Perhaps, but if the employee fully understands that the new expectation is 150–with or without it being on paper–and decides to drag feet until management gets around to putting it in a memo, then that’s pretty irresponsible. I’d have little sympathy if she came to with this sob story.
We’re not talking about what will hold up if challenged in a court of law. Putting stuff in writing is what makes lawyers happy, but this really has nothing to do with fairness.
Of course it’s fair. Everyone is pulling 150. Amanda’s doing 125. She gets fair warning that they’ll cut her loose if she doesn’t match her peers. What’s the problem?
If they fire her with no warning because she’s doing 125 when they said 125, that’s unfair. This isn’t that.
Sorry, I didn’t want to make the example too complicated. Assume that each person is replaced. You’d still have the same problem, a cycle of firing and hiring the lowest performers, costing the company time and money in training.
And yet there are successful companies that do just that. Every year, the lowest tier get fired, and new blood is brought in. It costs money to train new employees, but it can be offset by increased productivity. It’s not the most pleasant work environment to be sure, but if the successful workers are well rewarded there will always be new hires available.
They are not always getting the savings they expect. Someone has to be looking closely at the overhead costs, simply comparing payroll line items year to year can be misleading. These practices are often legacies of Monty Burns types from ye olde days and serious management/financial analysis is necessary to determine if it actually improves the bottom line.
This thread reminds me of that Rodney Dangerfield movie, back to school. Where he has that conversation with the economics professor about running a company.
