A Tale of Two Firings

This is a tale of two firings.

Names and several other details are changed to protect privacy. Besides, I’ve seen enough versions of Harold’s story that even if you’d been watching over my shoulder my entire career, you’d still not be certain who it’s about.¹

The point isn’t the specifics of the two firings, or any other firings they may resemble.

But before we can get to the point, the stories of Harold and Walter.

Harold

Years ago, I worked with an individual we’ll call Harold, because this individual was not named Harold.

We all knew Harold was a slow-and-steady type. Often slower than steadier. But always respectful and helpful to the rest of his team.

One day, my boss stopped by my desk. “I’m going to fire Harold today,” he said. Then he asked if I’d join him, just in case a witness was needed. I agreed.

We set up in a conference room, and my boss asked Harold to join us. “Harold, you’re not performing to expectations, and we’re going to let you go effective immediately.”

I can still picture the look of shock on Harold’s face, and the flash of sadness that followed it—not sadness from being fired, but from realizing he’d been letting his boss and his team down. Then shock returned. “I-I had no idea!” A few minutes later, Harold had cleaned off his desk and was gone.

Even though I was just the witness in that meeting, and Harold didn’t report to me, I didn’t sleep well that night. As I reflected on what had happened, I realized all the feedback Harold had gotten had been neutral or positive. Slow project delivery? Congratulations on completing it! Misunderstood something and someone else needed to rewrite it? Thanks for getting the ball rolling! And he’d mostly been left alone to work, without reminders of deadlines.

Walter

Some time after Harold had been fired, I was managing a team. That team included an individual we’ll call Walter, because this individual was not named Walter.

We all knew Walter was learning, enthusiastic, and struggled in some areas. He wanted to build skills and help the rest of his team. When we had hired him, we agreed he was a low-to-medium-risk, high-reward hire.²

Over a few months of employment, we realized he wasn’t going to work out. I told my boss I’d be letting him go.

I asked Walter to join me in my office. “Walter, we’re going to let you go. We’ll give you a week to hand off your tasks and projects. Unfortunately, you’re not getting to the level we need you to be at.”

Walter nodded, and with an earnest expression, said “Thank you so much for the opportunity here!”

A week later, Walter cleaned off his desk, said goodbye, and was gone.

Even though I had made the decision to let Walter go, and delivered the news to him, I slept well, completely at peace with how it all went. Some regrets Walter hadn’t done better, but completely at peace.

Getting to the Point

So what’s the difference between these?

It’s not that in one case I’d done the firing. It’s not that one of them had a week to wrap up, and the other was done that day. It’s not the personality differences, or any difference in experience or career stage. It’s not even that one thanked me, and the other was distressed.

The difference was the months leading up to the firing.

In Walter’s case, my team had invested in training him up. I had worked to coach him on skills he needed. I had personally delivered regular, repeated, detailed feedback over the course of several months, both affirming and correcting. My lead engineer had. Several other engineers had as well.

I had also had candid conversations with Walter about his standing. He was aware, several months before I called him in, that his work was not meeting the standards for my team. I had told him that he needed to bring his work up to those standards to continue being a member of my team and employed by the company.

Nothing was secret, hidden, or surprising.

As far as I know, Harold never had a conversation about performance with his manager. Harold never knew where he stood. If anything, he was misled into believing his performance was adequate.

It wasn’t always easy to review Walter’s work (for me or for folks on my team) and give him honest commentary. Sometimes it would have been far quicker and easier to just re-do it ourselves.³ It seemed like a waste of time for the team to explain basic concepts.

But without those explanations, reviews, and conversations, we’d have been routing around Walter instead of investing in him and giving him feedback. That would have been ineffective for us—which is enough reason to not do it.⁴

To fire someone for performance without giving them months of feedback⁵ is unethical and unprofessional.

Now, there’s obviously situations that warrant immediate firing. You don’t need to give someone months of feedback for embezzling, or physically attacking customers on the sales floor, or coming to work intoxicated.

But before you call someone in to fire them for poor performance, make sure you’ve made them aware of your evaluation of their performance.

If you’re not sure how to have conversations about performance or give feedback, there’s hope! The Manager Tools Basics podcasts are an excellent, detailed, actionable place to start. If you want more, I offer coaching for managers that can help you (yes, you!) get good at having performance conversations.

1. That is both unfortunate, and a sad commentary on the current state of management and business. [↩]
2. We figured Walter had potential to be anywhere from terrible to excellent. He was inexperienced, and fairly inexpensive. Lots of potential upside. And the risk was mostly that we’d spend time trying to train him and he wouldn’t work out. [↩]
3. There’s one document I remember him working on. I reviewed it several times, with progressively more detailed feedback. The last time, I nearly re-wrote it, longhand, on the printed copy. It would have been far faster to write the document myself to begin with—but it was worth investing in Walter. Either he would learn the skills he needed (a big win for everyone!)…or he wouldn’t, in which case we could talk about his performance calmly, objectively, and caringly. [↩]
4. Other reasons to give the feedback include it being the right thing to do and helping someone grow. [↩]
5. This is not hyperbole. I mean regular, specific feedback over at least six weeks, and possibly multiple months. Two or three instances of feedback scattered over six months is not enough. Feedback like “hey, could be better” is not enough. Multiple instances of specific feedback, over at least six weeks and likely multiple months. [↩]