10 Things Not to Say When Firing an Employee
by Jonathan A. Segal
Tuesday, November 17, 2009provided byBusinessWeek
Amid so much downsizing, it's risky and unnecessary for managers to let feelings confuse what ought to be a clean transaction
Since January, more than a million jobs have been cut in the U.S. Although the pace of layoffs has been declining, the downsizing is by no means over.
Job cutting is never easy, but it often becomes progressively harder as we go deeper into an organization. At the beginning, employers may be able to lay off only weak employees they might have considered letting go anyway. While these weak performers are human beings worthy of dignity and respect, we can make ourselves feel okay about their terminations because they are based on merit.
More from BusinessWeek.com:
• When Should You Let an Employee Make a Mistake?
• Five Deadly Interview Mistakes
• Oops! 13 Management Mistakes
The deeper we get, the less likely it is that we honestly can say that a job elimination is simply a matter of letting go those who should have been let go years ago. Now we are letting go of solid performers who would remain employed in a good economy. Every organization has solid citizens who do fine in anything but a deep recession.
But we are not done yet. We are told to go even deeper. Now we must let go of good, or even stellar performers -- employees who add value and who at a different time might be considered for promotion, rather than termination.
Last Fired, Last Hired?
Letting talented employees go is further complicated and can become emotionally difficult for managers. First, those terminated earlier often receive better severance packages than those terminated later. As times get tougher, organizations often cut back on severance or eliminate it altogether.
More from Yahoo! Finance:
• 10 Jobs With High Pay and Minimal Schooling Required
• Best Jobs in the U.S., 2009 Edition
• Where Salaries Are Rising and Falling the Most
Visit the Career & Work Center
Second, the last to be let go often are competitively disadvantaged at landing jobs, in contrast to poorer performers who were let go early on. Mediocre employees laid off at the outset of the economic crisis had less competition for scarce jobs -- and open positions are even harder to find now.
Perhaps the worst feeling of all may arise when employees you protected from termination in the early waves are caught up in subsequent layoff tides with less severance and fewer opportunities. You may wonder if you hurt them by protecting them.
Finally for some, there is survivor guilt. When you don't go down with the ship, you may be plagued by your "good fortune." This can become too much for a "feeling" manager. Such an administrator may need to find meaning in the job eliminations -- or at least explain his or her role.
So managers often say things in termination events to make themselves feel better. Unfortunately, the comments can make the employees on the wrong side of the axe feel even worse.
The Top 10 Comments to Avoid Uttering
Here are 10 things you should never say when terminating an employee:
While these comments may not be evidence of an illegal motive, they may produce anger that results in the employee's visiting a lawyer to determine whether a viable claim exists.
1."This was a job elimination and had nothing to do with your performance." Do not say this when a discharge had everything to do with an employee's performance. Your desire to protect an employee's feelings -- or your own -- can later be used as evidence of pretext if the employee brings a discrimination claim.
2. "We have carried you for many years. It's just not possible to continue to do so during these difficult times." Don't trash the past. It is not only insulting to the employee, but it may be inconsistent with the employee's prior evaluations. Remember, pretext alone wins cases.
3. "We have no choice but to terminate your employment." There are always other options. Why not tolerate mediocrity a little longer? Termination need not be the only viable option, so don't suggest that it is.
4. "You have no one to blame but yourself. You just did not try hard enough." Hold employees accountable, but don't impugn their integrity. When employees feel personally attacked, they fight back.
5."This is just as hard for me as it is for you." There are few absolutes, but it is absolutely true that it always harder to be fired than to fire. Don't ask an employee who is looking at unemployment to feel your pain.
6. "This is not the right job for you. When you get the right job, you will thank me." That may make you feel good, but it will make the discharged employee bristle. The "thank you" may come in the form of a complaint.
7. "I am sorry, but you are fired." You may mean: "I am sorry we have come to this situation." The employee may hear that you think you are wrong. It's not a good time to have a conversation about the meaning of "I am sorry." Avoid apologies, even though you may genuinely feel badly.
8. "I know how you feel." Unless you have been fired recently, you don't know how the person feels. If you have been fired recently, now is not the time to share that experience.
9. "You will always be a part of the corporate family." Trust me. This will make the fired employee think: "Oh, good. Will I still get the newsletter after I sue you?"
10 "Pardon the e-mail, but you are fired." This may not be unlawful, but it's gutless. And it invites the angry employee to go for your gut.
Copyrighted, Business Week. All rights reserved.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
snippet
$15,300,000 pincers
this is the word i had to type into send a nyt article on email-could have really long ones
this is the word i had to type into send a nyt article on email-could have really long ones
Saturday, November 21, 2009
modern times
November 22, 2009
Driven to Distraction
High-Tech Baby Sitters Get Drivers Off Phone
By SAM GROBART
Dede Haskins’s cellphone has been her constant companion for more than a decade. And she has always considered herself a careful driver — even using a hands-free set so she could keep both hands on the wheel.
But after missing one too many exits because she was distracted by a phone call, Ms. Haskins decided it was time to get tough with herself. So she signed up for ZoomSafer, a free service that uses her phone’s GPS sensors to determine whether she’s at driving speeds, and then disables her cellphone until she stops the car.
“I really love my cellphone,” said Ms. Haskins, the chief executive of a software company in Washington. “But I know I’m not driving safely if I’m using it while behind the wheel.”
Of course, there is a simpler, no-cost solution to limiting phone use while driving: the off button. But going cold turkey is hard for many Americans who have become addicted to their gadgets. And so technology companies are trying to solve a problem caused by technology with more technology.
But the solutions reflect markedly different answers to a simple question: How much can drivers be trusted?
One group of companies assume that some people know they can’t help themselves, and therefore want a service to automatically disable their cellphone when it is in a moving car.
But other companies say the habit can be made safer with hands-free technology. Ford and Microsoft, for example, are selling systems that rely on voice commands to dial phones.
Hands-free devices are far more popular. But it is cellphone-muzzling technology that has caught the eye of large auto insurers. That’s because some studies show that talking on phones while driving is dangerous, even if the driver is using a headset and has both hands on the wheel. One insurer has even said it will offer discounts to customers who use a call-blocking service.
A number of fledgling companies like ZoomSafer, Aegis Mobility and obdEdge employ systems that place restrictions on phones based on the phone’s GPS signal, data from the car itself or from nearby cellphone towers. Any incoming calls are then routed to voice mail or a message explaining that the phone’s owner is driving. Exceptions can be made for certain numbers.
Passengers in cars can override such systems, but in many cases doing so automatically sends an e-mail message to the account administrator — say, a parent or employer — alerting them that the cellphone is in use.
Employers that want to make sure their drivers abide by bans on cellphone use are obvious potential customers. Community Coffee, a Baton Rouge, La., coffee roaster and distributor, has had such a ban on its 400 trucks for three years, which the company says has helped reduce its accident rate by 30 percent.
It started testing a call-blocking system from obdEdge, called Cellcontrol, in August. ObdEdge charges companies $85, plus about $5 monthly, for each vehicle equipped with Cellcontrol.
“We realized we had to go beyond education and policy,” said Jamey LeBlanc, the risk manager for Community Coffee. “You’re going against human nature here, so you need something that works independently of that.”
In effect, addiction to gadgets is creating a new gadget industry.
“If we could control ourselves, we wouldn’t need any of this technology,” said Donald Powers, a managing partner at obdEdge. “We know it’s such a bad habit, but we crave being connected.”
Other companies insist the habit is not so bad and can be mitigated by employing voice recognition and speech-to-text technologies in cars.
Such systems are typically developed and promoted by some of the biggest names in electronics and automobiles, as well as well-financed trade groups like the Consumer Electronics Association and CTIA, the wireless-industry group.
Ford and Microsoft, for example, joined forces to develop the Sync system, which uses voice commands to pick out a name from a phone’s address book to place a call, It can also retrieve incoming text messages and read them aloud.
In 2008, 918,000 hands-free systems were installed in cars, according to the Consumer Electronics Association. By the end of 2009, the industry group estimates, that figure will climb to 1.6 million systems. In many cases, hands-free kits are packaged with other options that together cost around $1,000. “We are trying to take what people are doing and make it safer,” said Doug VanDagens, the director of Ford’s Sync project. “Voice provides the safest options and keeps the driver’s eyes on the road.”
Manufacturers of such systems argue that their products make driving safer. As proof, they point to a Virginia Tech Transportation Institute study published this summer that concluded that hands-free conversations were only a minor distraction to drivers.
But not everyone agrees that this technology is the safest option.
Studies from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, for example, show that drivers are four times more likely to have an accident if they are talking on the phone — hands-free or not — while driving.
The reason, researchers say, is that drivers often become engrossed in their conversation, rather than focusing on driving, even if their hands are on the wheel. “Once a conversation begins, we don’t see a difference between hand-held and hands-free,” says Adrian Lund, president of the institute.
The insurance industry is starting to put its thumb on the scales of which approach — blocking calls or hands-free talking — is safer.
The Nationwide insurance company said last month that its customers who sign up for the call-blocking service from Aegis Mobility would be eligible for a discount of around 5 percent off their annual premium. (Aegis has agreed to provide Nationwide a list of policyholders who are using the service.)
“Clearly, in addition to saving lives, it will lower auto-insurance costs,” said Nationwide’s safety officer, Bill Windsor.
State Farm Insurance, the nation’s largest auto insurer, is also studying call-blocking systems.
By contrast, no insurer offers such discounts on hands-free systems.
“We’re not convinced,” Mr. Windsor said, “that hands-free is safer.”
Driven to Distraction
High-Tech Baby Sitters Get Drivers Off Phone
By SAM GROBART
Dede Haskins’s cellphone has been her constant companion for more than a decade. And she has always considered herself a careful driver — even using a hands-free set so she could keep both hands on the wheel.
But after missing one too many exits because she was distracted by a phone call, Ms. Haskins decided it was time to get tough with herself. So she signed up for ZoomSafer, a free service that uses her phone’s GPS sensors to determine whether she’s at driving speeds, and then disables her cellphone until she stops the car.
“I really love my cellphone,” said Ms. Haskins, the chief executive of a software company in Washington. “But I know I’m not driving safely if I’m using it while behind the wheel.”
Of course, there is a simpler, no-cost solution to limiting phone use while driving: the off button. But going cold turkey is hard for many Americans who have become addicted to their gadgets. And so technology companies are trying to solve a problem caused by technology with more technology.
But the solutions reflect markedly different answers to a simple question: How much can drivers be trusted?
One group of companies assume that some people know they can’t help themselves, and therefore want a service to automatically disable their cellphone when it is in a moving car.
But other companies say the habit can be made safer with hands-free technology. Ford and Microsoft, for example, are selling systems that rely on voice commands to dial phones.
Hands-free devices are far more popular. But it is cellphone-muzzling technology that has caught the eye of large auto insurers. That’s because some studies show that talking on phones while driving is dangerous, even if the driver is using a headset and has both hands on the wheel. One insurer has even said it will offer discounts to customers who use a call-blocking service.
A number of fledgling companies like ZoomSafer, Aegis Mobility and obdEdge employ systems that place restrictions on phones based on the phone’s GPS signal, data from the car itself or from nearby cellphone towers. Any incoming calls are then routed to voice mail or a message explaining that the phone’s owner is driving. Exceptions can be made for certain numbers.
Passengers in cars can override such systems, but in many cases doing so automatically sends an e-mail message to the account administrator — say, a parent or employer — alerting them that the cellphone is in use.
Employers that want to make sure their drivers abide by bans on cellphone use are obvious potential customers. Community Coffee, a Baton Rouge, La., coffee roaster and distributor, has had such a ban on its 400 trucks for three years, which the company says has helped reduce its accident rate by 30 percent.
It started testing a call-blocking system from obdEdge, called Cellcontrol, in August. ObdEdge charges companies $85, plus about $5 monthly, for each vehicle equipped with Cellcontrol.
“We realized we had to go beyond education and policy,” said Jamey LeBlanc, the risk manager for Community Coffee. “You’re going against human nature here, so you need something that works independently of that.”
In effect, addiction to gadgets is creating a new gadget industry.
“If we could control ourselves, we wouldn’t need any of this technology,” said Donald Powers, a managing partner at obdEdge. “We know it’s such a bad habit, but we crave being connected.”
Other companies insist the habit is not so bad and can be mitigated by employing voice recognition and speech-to-text technologies in cars.
Such systems are typically developed and promoted by some of the biggest names in electronics and automobiles, as well as well-financed trade groups like the Consumer Electronics Association and CTIA, the wireless-industry group.
Ford and Microsoft, for example, joined forces to develop the Sync system, which uses voice commands to pick out a name from a phone’s address book to place a call, It can also retrieve incoming text messages and read them aloud.
In 2008, 918,000 hands-free systems were installed in cars, according to the Consumer Electronics Association. By the end of 2009, the industry group estimates, that figure will climb to 1.6 million systems. In many cases, hands-free kits are packaged with other options that together cost around $1,000. “We are trying to take what people are doing and make it safer,” said Doug VanDagens, the director of Ford’s Sync project. “Voice provides the safest options and keeps the driver’s eyes on the road.”
Manufacturers of such systems argue that their products make driving safer. As proof, they point to a Virginia Tech Transportation Institute study published this summer that concluded that hands-free conversations were only a minor distraction to drivers.
But not everyone agrees that this technology is the safest option.
Studies from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, for example, show that drivers are four times more likely to have an accident if they are talking on the phone — hands-free or not — while driving.
The reason, researchers say, is that drivers often become engrossed in their conversation, rather than focusing on driving, even if their hands are on the wheel. “Once a conversation begins, we don’t see a difference between hand-held and hands-free,” says Adrian Lund, president of the institute.
The insurance industry is starting to put its thumb on the scales of which approach — blocking calls or hands-free talking — is safer.
The Nationwide insurance company said last month that its customers who sign up for the call-blocking service from Aegis Mobility would be eligible for a discount of around 5 percent off their annual premium. (Aegis has agreed to provide Nationwide a list of policyholders who are using the service.)
“Clearly, in addition to saving lives, it will lower auto-insurance costs,” said Nationwide’s safety officer, Bill Windsor.
State Farm Insurance, the nation’s largest auto insurer, is also studying call-blocking systems.
By contrast, no insurer offers such discounts on hands-free systems.
“We’re not convinced,” Mr. Windsor said, “that hands-free is safer.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)