Polite Dismissals

Ghost Writer continues to haunt Marti's blog as she returns tan and happy to a busy, big box retail world.

 

Yet again, another underperforming colleague receives the polite dismissal under the cloak of job elimination.  Having been down that road, I understand why companies do it.  It precludes the liability associated with dismissal for cause.  However, it also allows the organization, and specifically the person's boss(es) off on accountable management.  It's one thing if the role really no longer has a place in the organization.  It's quite another if everyone knew the person wasn't performing, and the company just handed over a whopping severance package to avoid being accountable with the person.

Or is it?

If everyone knows the person was underperforming, then everyone would know the job elimination is a sham.  Right? 

Maybe for me, it's a sense of justice and process.  If I want to terminate an employee, I have to do my homework, document the performance, document my actions, and execute the process.  If a middle manager or executive needs terminated, the job is just eliminated.  At least until the company changes its mind again about that role, or a year expires, whichever can be defended should the former employee find out the job has been reinstated.

What are we teaching our HR Leaders when we hand out polite dismissals to people?  That certain people aren't worth due process?  That certain people aren't doing a bad-enough job to be fired for cause, but aren't good enough to stay?  Would we potentially be better off sending a clear signal? 

I think my HR Manager friends would tell me the law doesn't allow us to communicate the truth.  Privacy.  Dignity.  Liability.  All those ity-bitty things.  So instead, we're left with a workforce who rumors a truth and shakes their head at polite dismissals.