I’ve worked in companies where it would be considered poor leadership to delegate a termination discussion to HR but have also worked where it would be poor leadership to do it yourself because the company was always afraid of lawsuits.
Early on in my career I learned I was being terminated in a conference call with 20 others listening in and the person giving the news not realizing I was in the call… yes, it wasn’t the highlight of my career! Needless to say, I took them to the cleaners.
Corporations enable great innovations but can also bring out the very worst in people.
@Neville How are you now? Was it a blessing in disguise or are you still affected by the layoff?
I’d like to share a similar story, even though I was let go after 9 months.
I was hired by a guy shortly before his retirement and he was very happy with me after 2 months when he communicated that I was to stay even before the 3-months probation period was completed.
It was a brand new position in public administration and I treaded lightly, knowing there was some resistance to what I was brought in to do and also knowing that the private sector has a different way of doing things. I carefully and cautiously interacted with the various teams but also expressed my views freely when talking to my peers from other departments (all also in a new role).
When my old boss retired after 5 months and the new boss was installed, she immediately called me and wanted to get some things off her chest. Some things she didn’t like about how I handled stuff, some things thrid parties had heard me say and other things she felt her predecessor had done wrongly or sloppily (like not waiting 3 months to declare the end of the probation period). It was not just her talking to me, but there was HR and a piece of paper I was to sign: spelling out the things she wanted me to change and some goals she pulled out of thin air that she wanted to see me perform during the next 3 months. It felt like probation period all over again but when I asked her if she wanted to get rid of me, she said that it all was something that just bothered her and that she wanted to address without losing me. She also said that the goals she gave me were obtainable and that she would give me impossible-to-achieve goals if she wanted to make me go.
Well, I did what she asked of me. One thing I could not do was to stop criticizing aspects of the administration. As I was hired to transform this organisation, part of my job was to put the finger on things that were inefficent or disempowering. I also saw a major risk factor in implementing a 5-years old software in a 7-year project and being driven by the unit that represented the last step in a long process. I was outspoken and pissed off a team leader from that last step who said she would lodge a complaint with my boss if I didn’t stop asking futile questions and occupying their valuable time. I stopped asking questions.
So, after three months of working on the goals my boss had given me, I was eager to be let off the hook and prepared myself for a meeting with her. Her first words were: “we don’t need to have a bilateral meeting, because I decided that I no longer want to work with you.” She had receved the complaint nevertheless and had talked to all team leaders to cover her base. Some of them had allegedly mentioned that they didn’t feel too much value-added of my collaboration with them.
It came as a surprise and in came HR person and a paper they had prepared. They offered that we could announce an amicable separation (“Auflösungsvereinbarung”) or else they would need to prove that my work was bad and that they then would have to be truthful in the reference letter and state the shortcomings (or omit some phrases). I chose the amicable way and was paid for half a year with immediate release. I thought it was a good deal until 6 months later.
I did not find work within that time and then had some issues with the unemployment agency. They felt I had given notice while I felt I had been kicked out. I wonder if I should have chosen the hard way, letting them sack me and fight for my livelihood with a lawyer. Then I consider the toll it might have taken on my mental health and am pleased with myself with how I handled the separation. I turned 58 during the 6 months of garden leave and I feel that age is currently the largest contributor of not being able to find a new job. Ok, I had a couple of interviews but just 25% of what I got to 2 years ago when I was approaching “only” 56.
Last not least, I am almost FI and was prepared for such a scenario. I would be fully FI living on the countryside, but this is one of the most expensive cities in the world: Zurich.
Not sure what you all can learn of it. I guess it is better to be kicked out by the employer than separating amicably. At the age of almost 58, I should have requested a full year of salary to compensate the difficulty of finding work. And I feel that bosses are not good if they act on hearsay and don’t want to invest time in fixing issues (which are part of doing a job).
I know Stanford prison experiment both the movie and the book was somewhat
fake, even professor Zimbardo was admitting that some characters were told how
they should act.
However, this does not mean that the sense of power or a place in a good position
in a hierarchy does not go to ones mind. Even if logically or deductively said person
does not have impact, nor outstanding intelect.
I enjoyed very much Sapolskies’ “Why Zebras don’t get ulcer”, discussing this very topic.
Sorry for how you were treated. It stems of unprofessionalism regarding the way the process was handled, particularly cancelling the bilateral meeting and admitting that she would willfully set you up for failure to get rid of you if she wanted to.
What was the motive for the amicable termination? Some motives might be stronger than others when dealing with unemployment agencies. I’m thinking reorganization/termination of the position altogether or budgeting reasons (which I guess would be hard to defend in a public administration without a protocoled vote from the entity in charge of validating budgets).
She wanted me gone. A new guy showed up 6 months after I had left.
“Luckily” for me she mentioned in an email for the unemployment agency that my work effort was not satifactory. The Arbeitslosenkasse" then changed the procedure from “Auflösungsvereinbarung” to “terminated by employer”, again granting me “rechtliches Gehör” (the right to be heard). So we’re on the right track there.
I’ve been told that in Switzerland this means that this was a first formal warning, ie very serious.
Sounds like a typical case of HR not working for the employee but for the company…offering a supposed good deal which turns out bad. Regarding the bolded, I’d been told by my ex manager (German, but living in ZH for decades) that in Switzerland it’s not allowed to give a bad reference. Not sure if this is true or not. I know that in England a company is not obliged to give any reference, other than confirming the time you were in your position and title. Same ex-manager (good guy) told me that (in theory) if you don’t sign anything HR gives you until you’re satisfied with what it says there’s not all that much they can do about it other than initiate procedures like proving you’re bad. A friend who worked for Credit Suisse told me they had a useless person in their team but couldn’t be bothered to fire them, literally because it was going to be a huge administrative bother for them, so they went Japanese on the person, giving them meaningless tasks, no career progression, unachievable goals hoping they’d quit by themselves. Still the person didn’t ever quit, and is likely still there (unless the UBS buyout made them redundant).
Sadly I’ve heard this many times, I’ve even heard of cases in my field that hiring over 50 is more or less impossible unless you have strong connections and/or it’s a small firm.
Yeah technically you don’t get a bad reference, because everything sounds positive, but there’s some coded language that any HR department knows how to read.
I’ve terminated the employment of a LOT of people in my career - either directly 1 on 1, or informing groups or indirectly by launching broader restructuring initiatives. In total probably 1000-2000 people. Not once has somebody complained about how I handled it. They were not happy of course, I’ve seen people break down in tears, but I always went out of my way to ensure transparency, fairness, respect and - as far as possible - generosity. The result is that I’ve had people thank me on their last day for how I treated them and people come back to me (years) later asking for a refernce, career advice, etc.
I’ve also seen companies screw it up. And 9/10 employees will go along with that due to the pressure companies create around “you need to be professional” (what they mean is: we want you to go quietly, we don’t want a hassle). Of the 1/10 that have the guts to stand up for their interests, occasionally somebody will have a strong case incl. potentially a quiver full of arrows to fire with. This is something employees (at all levels) should be aware of… once a company starts the process of terminating your employment
You become (for them, in particular some HR person) just another time consuming to do on their to do list
You can use that to your advantage because for you there will be no more work to do’s on your to do list for the time being except clearing your desk and squeezing as much as possible
I’ve had a good career sofar and many would say a great career (which is not over) despite at some point making the choice to not let “the company” f$%k with me. More people should have that attitude (not blindly of course).
In the example I gave, it eventually led to the company completely overhauling what/how with regard to termination processes and building in a much better treatment of employees… because all it takes is one who - unbeknownst to the company - has them by the balls.
I think you were given an impossible task: you had to do a job that would invariably step on toes and piss people off, but didn’t have the political backing to see it through and was eliminated in the corporate game of thrones.
You needed your boss to stay on or have a mandate from a higher authority. Having those you need to challenge not on board and with power over you would have inevitably lead to the result you ended at.
I’ve seen a lot of similar actions: typically they are from incompetent people who are scared and try to protect their roles and are threatened by competence. The problem is that the incompetents band together so, you have to excise them root and branch otherwise it corrupts the whole organisation.
Yes, I thought so too. That’s why I asked if she want to get rid of me. But the title of the document was “Zwischengespräch” and the warning would have only started when she told me that she wanted to end the cooperation. there was nothing actionable in that first document, even though she chose to use the warning procedure on me.
So sad I didn’t get to be that heroic guy. Putting up a fight requires serious mental health capacity if the relevant people are against you. I didn’t want to commit that. This was not an anonymous maze of cubicles. Everyone knows everyone (and talks behind their back).
@PhilMongoose Your description sounds very, very similar to my experience in the corporate world and is one of the reasons why I respect (and encourage) people who dare to speak up and ‘rock the boat’ in a world where that is almost never appreciated.
In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act…
I advised someone the opposite: he was the new joiner in an organisation that was incompetent and corrupt. He should blend in, not rock the boat and be patient. Rocking the boat at that stage will end up with you being ejected.
Luckily patience has paid off, immediate boss is being rotated out and he will take over his role. Unfortunately, everybody on the teams is useless as the boss hired only sycophants and fired anyone who was competent and a threat to him, or who challenged his overall crapness. Now there’s a chance to fix the situation and build bridges that he burned with the other departments.
Yes, it’s all shades of grey in the end. Unless you’re Elon Musk and have bazillians, there’s always a degree of ‘bending with the wind’. Certainly as a newbee you don’t yet know what you don’t know (not just content, but also internal alliences) and that takes time.
Where it gets tricky is when ethics becomes an issue.
Which takes time (if not years). I am kind of in that situation right now and a cultural change is such a tedious an long process which requires full attention and a whole lot of ressources.
It is not even that the people are bad or don’t want to change, it is just that the ways are so ingrained that it feels impossible at times (and on the side the business needs to be still running).
If you do not have the backing and the understanding of the superiors, than the battle is kind of lost in advance.
Apparently the words I chose to describe the situation during “rechtliches Gehör” along with what my boss wrote created the impression that I am to be blamed for the end of my work contract (schweres Verschulden) leading to 31-60 days without pay (Einstelltage). This means that in combination with the 20 waiting days I will not be paid for 3 full months.
What can be learned of this is that a lawyer specialized in employment law could be a great investment early on. Plus I don’t know if I am the asshole here or if a nameless person in a cubicle of the Arbeitslosenkasse chose to misunderstand the situation.
Sorry to hear that. I am not an expert here, but my idea would be: had your empolyer before mentiond the „non satisfactory work effort“? Was this a topic in the intervention you had before?
If not, you may get them by that. I doubt that they can tell you „I dont lile you, you have to go“ and the Arbeitslosenkasse „no work effort“. Wouldnt this be at least üble Nachrede?
another 3 months with new unrealistic goals, constant supervision, pressure and soul-sapping work culture
then got predictably kicked out with 1 month notice period while still shy of a fulll work year.
I would have been gone after 4 months. Arbeitslosenkasse might still have decided it was my fault for not improving my behavior and/or effort in spite of having been offered 2 chances to do so by my boss.
I like that the system is protecting itself financially. At the same time I feel treated like scum.
By reading and partipating to this forum, you confirm you have read and agree with the disclaimer presented on http://www.mustachianpost.com/
En lisant et participant à ce forum, tu confirmes avoir lu et être d'accord avec l'avis de dégagement de responsabilité présenté sur http://www.mustachianpost.com/fr/
Durch das Lesen und die Teilnahme an diesem Forum bestätigst du, dass du den auf http://www.mustachianpost.com/de/ dargestellten Haftungsausschluss gelesen hast und damit einverstanden bist.