Timeline for How to handle an insubordinate employee faction when I can't replace them?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 6, 2015 at 10:20 | comment | added | thanby | There is a chance that the group will rebel entirely but I think that's the less likely outcome. However you should be ready to face that if it happens. Generally in these situations taking out the "ring-leader" will make the rest unhappy for a time, but they will begin to rationalize it to each other saying "Yeah he really was a jerk." Be prepared to have a good reason to single one of them out or they may cry foul about fairness. The less ground they have to stand on the smoother the transition will be. | |
| Sep 4, 2015 at 15:25 | comment | added | DoubleDouble | One consequence of firing the ring leader may be that the others all threaten to leave as well, thinking the boss surely wouldn't let them all go. That circumstance aligns with the fact that they know they are hard to replace. If that were to happen I would take the stance to be sorry to see them go but if that's what they choose then so be it. | |
| Sep 3, 2015 at 21:30 | comment | added | donjuedo | @JoelEtherton: You bring up an important point about personnel privacy -- that boundary must be preserved, I agree. As you say, "the fact that someone has been let to signals [emphasis mine] that ... their performance determines...". That signal is what I meant to say is important to emphasize. I should add, the change in consequences really amounts to a new set of rules, and it's only fair to spell out that there are new rules (old, unenforced rules don't count). | |
| Sep 3, 2015 at 20:40 | comment | added | Wesley Long | I'm with @donjuedo on this one. Sometimes the head on the pike is entirely appropriate. If the OP's assessment is accurate, then this is probably one of those times. | |
| Sep 3, 2015 at 19:20 | comment | added | Joel Etherton | @donjuedo: I disagree wholeheartedly. The sharing of personnel information in this fashion is inappropriate and sows discord among the "survivors". Employee X has been let go. The others who have been placed on a PIP can be left to wonder or collude why, but the fact that someone has been let go signals that action is being taken (for whatever reason) and their performance determines if that action is taken against them. Discretion with respect to employee information is always a paramount concern. | |
| Sep 3, 2015 at 19:15 | comment | added | donjuedo | While others have mentioned showing or hiding the firing, I would like to add that it is important that the survivors clearly know why the firing occurred. They may be able to easily guess, but having it said, connected, out loud is certainly important. | |
| Sep 3, 2015 at 16:21 | comment | added | Val | +1 for the performance improvement plan. It's not specified in the question what country the company is in, and what kinds of contracts the employees have, but in any case, an official performance improvement plan, which the employee fails, can help in case they try to sue you. Depending on the jurisdiction it can happen that firing someone without a proven reason might result in them successfully suing you, especially if they can find any pretext to claim they were discriminated against. Especially if the group is so aggressive, it is likely they'll try to accuse you of discrimination. | |
| Sep 3, 2015 at 14:29 | history | edited | Joel Etherton | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 30 characters in body
|
| Sep 3, 2015 at 14:28 | comment | added | Joel Etherton | @KentAnderson: Yes, that was my definition of quietly when I wrote it. I can see how that sentence would look like I'm recommending that it be hidden, which is not the case. Thanks for that insight, I'll make an edit to that. | |
| Sep 3, 2015 at 14:22 | comment | added | Kent A. | Joel, it sounds like OP can put together any documentation needed, if needed. You're right, don't make show out of it (an overt attempt at humiliation is never called for) but also don't do it so quietly that nobody knows it's happened, and why. It can be done visibly, and still be done professionally and with dignity. | |
| Sep 3, 2015 at 14:14 | comment | added | Joel Etherton | @KentAnderson: I only really recommend the PIP as a form of legal protection. As with anything, documentation ends up saving the day usually. Also, making a "show" of it has more potential of embarrassing the "sacked" individual which could create further entanglements and also galvanize the spirit of those remaining. Everyone has their own style, I just personally think the professional manner is best. | |
| Sep 3, 2015 at 14:10 | comment | added | Kent A. | +1 for the one-by-one approach. But I wouldn't waste time with a PIP. Just do it. Take out the ring leader (not quietly) and see if whether any of the others has the fortitude to take over. Probably not. They'll start to self-select out of the organization. | |
| Sep 3, 2015 at 13:11 | history | answered | Joel Etherton | CC BY-SA 3.0 |