Exiting an Employee

I am a head-hunter. I like to think I am a good head-hunter (we are all deluded in some way, I suppose) and I try and help my clients and my candidates get the job (I do get a fee when I do that properly).

However, I have, myself, only ever worked in small organizations and there is one subject I would love to find further information on: resignation and exit interview (from large firms: I work with banks).

-Resignation is typically done to the direct line manager. To what extend does HR get involved, other than administratively?

-What are Exit Interviews for? I did extensive research (i.e. I read your WHOLE BLOG) and the one post you made on it is a little ambivalent. Now this question is really for my intellectual curiosity. My real question is: Should the employee be honest as to the reasons why he is leaving? Arguably in my position they are not fundamentally unhappy about the position they are about to leave (I called them, not the other way around) and so we will assume that the frustrations they have with their role are relatively minor.

Resignations are a fact of life. In fact, a certain level of turnover is good for business--the thing HR cares about is not so much that someone is terminating, but that the right person terminates.

You see, there is good voluntary turnover and bad voluntary turnover. We're interested in decreasing the bad voluntary turnover and increasing the good voluntary turnover.

Once someone has resigned, though, you are right, it's pretty much administrative. (That is, in my never to be humble opinion, how it should be. I am not a fan of counter offers and think they should only be offered in the rarest of circumstances. My question when someone wants to make a counter offer is, "why weren't you paying the person that much to begin with?" Of course, the answer is usually something involving poor compensation structures, but I digress.)

So, why do we want to do exit interviews? Well, because they are thrilling and break up the monotony of filling out forms all day. (Oh wait, exit interviews are paperwork. Sigh, I'll have to think of something else that's exciting. I know, I know, EEO investigations!)

Exit interviews. First of all, we know people lie. "This was just too fabulous of an opportunity to pass up, although it pains me to leave because I love it here so much," means, "I've been networking like mad and stalking headhunters for the past year because I'm dying to get out of this nightmare." That is fine. We know that.

We also know that the the main reason people leave their jobs is their managers. If you love your manager, you'll put up with a lot more. Because I know people won't be forthcoming (in most situations) about their true feelings regarding their managers, what I'm looking for more is trends. How many people are leaving in that particular department? How do they compare to other departments.

Questions that I want to know the answer to, but don't generally get a straight answer to, are what company are you going to, and what is your new salary going to be? This can help HR know who our competition is, and if our pay structures are competitive.

You state that because you called them, not the other way around, they must be happy with their jobs. Well, yes and no. An object at rest prefers to remain at rest. It's much easier to retain someone than it is to recruit someone new for that very reason. And it's much easier for someone to stay in a job then it is to find a new one. And how did you get their names anyway? If you are cold calling, well, that's one thing. But, generally when I've been contacted by headhunters and I've turned them down, they've always asked me the same question, "Do you know anyone who might be interested?"

Sometimes the answer is yes, and sometimes the answer is no. But, if I hand over a name of someone (by the way, I always ask the person first), it's because I know they are interested in changing jobs. If they weren't interested, you wouldn't have their names, in that scenario.

Should an employee be honest? Absolutely. Should he be cruel and burn bridges? Never. Why are you leaving? Opportunity, more money, better hours, closer to home, can all be true answers, even if your manager is also driving you up the wall.

We do gain valuable information. And I think a second level answer is more revealing than a first level. Almost everyone will say they are leaving for a new opportunity. The second level question is what makes this a better opportunity than what you have here? Salary, promotional opportunities, management experience, varied industry experience, etc all help HR to develop succession planning tools and development plans that can meet the company's goals, as well as help employees to be fulfilled.

And you say you are in banking. Do you have a job available that only involves blogging, but pays a lot? I'm very interested.

Asking for Severance

I started work in January 08 as an HR Manager for a very small company of 35 employees. I was told this week that they can no longer afford to keep this position as they are "hurting" for money. I am in a protected class and wondered if I should be asking for a severance package? Thank you.

I will make no comment on the fact that they hired you 4 months ago and now realize that they can't afford the position. No comment whatsoever.

There are several different possible scenarios here.

1. The management at the company you work for is just darn stupid. They said, "hey we need an HR manager." (True, apparently.) "Let's hire one!" Then they did and they realized they had to pay you, which they couldn't afford. Oops!

2. They have the money for an HR manager, but they don't like you, so they figure that telling you it's a financial thing is easier than saying, "you keep talking about KSAs and regulations and what's up with your OSHA worries? Plus, you keep trying to come to our meetings. This annoys us, please leave."

3. As with situation 1, they realize they need an HR manager, so they hired you. Now that you are on board, they realize they are paying too much and have another candidate in the wings who will do the job for less, so they want to get rid of you and hire that person.

I'm sure there are other possibilities, but these are the three main ones. You'll note none of them have to do with your protected class status. Being in a protected class doesn't mean you can't be terminated, it just means you can't be terminated because of your status.

The reason why I'm confident your status has nothing to do with your termination is that they just hired you. One of the strongest defenses you can have to such a complaint is that the person who made the decision to hire you is also the person making the decision to fire you. Since you made no mention of a change in management, I assume that is the case.

Now, the fact that they believed they needed an HR manager and you are an HR manager should put you in a good negotiating position--because they need help in that area.

Should you ask for severance? Absolutely. Always ask for severance if you are being terminated. The worst thing that can happen is they say no. Your protected class status can help you here--not because it's relevant, but because they may not know that it's not relevant.

I'm of the opinion that severance should be offered for all involuntary, not for cause, terminations. (Please note, I am not advocating a government mandate requiring severance. I am advocating that companies do the right thing.)

So, ask for severance. I hope they give it to you. And ask for a reference for your job hunt. You'll need a good explanation for why you left after such a short time frame. And make sure you apply for unemployment as well.

No Legal Advice Here

I have a co-worker (who also happens to be a house-mate). We had been working together at the same company for two weeks when this individual was fired this week due to inappropriate use of company property (extremely inappropriate web-site browsing) coupled with over-anxiety for a skill-test. I work at a security monitoring center where we are required to be level-headed at all times. When the date of the skill-test drew near, my former co-worker began to panic and spent the last two days before the test stating that they would be better off resigning, at times openly panicking during training and once bursting into tears.

Anyways, that problem became moot after it was discovered that my former co-worker was browsing the web, on company computers and going to extremely inappropriate websites. This person was subsequently fired the following Monday.

My house-mate is now intent on filing a law-suit against the company on charges of discrimination, stating that the company discriminated by firing this person because they were too emotional for the job. I believe that this is a waste of this person's time, due to the other factor involved in the termination

My question is this: is my house-mate (former co-worker) within their rights to file charges against the company based on what has transpired?

Discrimination is such a threatening word. It sounds like you have a real grievance when you say, "but they discriminated against me!" Well, discrimination isn't illegal. (What!?!?! Of course it is.)

No, it isn't. We all discriminate all the time. We make decisions based on characteristics. (I discriminate against all sandwiches with mayonnaise. Blech.) I also discriminate against people who show up to job interviews inappropriately dressed. (Ladies, leave the Daisy Duke shorts at home. Okay, that was when I worked for an auto parts wholesaler, and I wasn't conducting the interview, but the woman didn't get the job and the entire office talked about her for weeks.)

Now, there is a chance your house mate could win a claim based on a violation of the Americans with Disability Act, but given that he (to my knowledge) never asked for accommodations for such a disability, I think this is a long shot. Besides, someone who is too emotional to actually do the job may not have a reasonable accommodation available to him.

If I was the HR person handling that, I would take his threat as an empty one. Why? If he's been looking at "inappropriate" websites, that is a slam dunk in and of itself. (Of course, I'm now waiting for someone to send me a link where a court said that looking at "inappropriate" websites at work was due to a mental problem covered by ADA.) This is a situation where a termination for cause applies, and I would even fight unemployment. Because I'm just that mean.

No, it's not that I'm just that mean. Some things are just INAPPROPRIATE for work. Period. That is one of them. "Inappropriate" websites don't just prevent the person from doing his/her work, it also opens the company up to lawsuits. You don't believe me? Read yesterday's post about a bad radio station.

Tell your housemate that he made a big mistake and he better darn well not do it again and he should go out and try to find a new job. Preferably something that doesn't bring out the emotional stress level this past one did.

You Get What You Screen For

From the Boulder Daily Camera, May 5, 2008

I needed to make some copies, so I dashed over to the copy shop and copied and collated until I was burnt out by the experience, then met my friend for a glass of wine.

As I was paying for the wine, I realized I didn't have my credit card.

"Yikes!" I thought. I'd left my card in the copy machine when I'd made all those copies.

Back to the copy shop I went. I stood in line and waited my turn to ask the young man behind the counter for my lost credit card.

Finally, it was my turn, and I approached the counter and started to speak.

"Not yet," said the gentleman attending customers. "I'm helping someone else."

I didn't see anyone else -- no one besides me and the people standing behind me in line, waiting for service. A woman appeared from behind the greeting-card rack. "It's OK," she said, "I'll wait."

"No," said the man behind the counter. "She can wait."

He thrust his chin in my direction. Whoa nelly, I thought. I guess the woman had stood in line earlier and needed a bit more help at this point. That's fine. No problem there. The unspeakable rudeness of the gentleman was the problem.

He had on a tie -- I guess that makes him a manager. Another gentleman eventually arrived to locate my missing card.

I thought back to my 18 million years training people in customer-service skills, and the catch phrases, "If you don't mind," "So sorry, I won't be a minute" and "Thanks for your patience" that come in handy at a time like this.

On the drive home, I remembered that the copy shop uses extensive testing in its pre-employment screening. I've seen about every big-company pre-employment test there is (thanks to Camera readers and others who know of my geeky interest in such things), and I've seen this copy shop's tests -- and they're extensive.

They're taken online at the start of the application process. They measure a job seeker's math and analytical skills. They measure his or her logical skills.

What they don't touch is interpersonal communication -- no questions like, "Which one of these responses is the best choice when a customer is unhappy with our service?"

It's no wonder the guy with the tie at the copy shop was no fun to deal with -- the company isn't hiring for so-called "soft skills."

Now the tie guy is a manager himself -- who do you think he'll be hiring? As employers, we get what we screen for.

If we focus on math and logic, that's what we'll get in our new hires. I'm not sure that I would emphasize quantitative skills to the exclusion of customer-service abilities in a high-volume, customer-facing environment, but each employer gets to pick its own priorities.

If the customers get miffed from time to time, or even every time, at least the help will know what 45 percent of 1,865 is -- and obviously, that's somebody's fondest wish.

Why Evil HR Lady Likes a Strict Workplace Environment

Okay, first of all, I have a no bad language (Including crude, rude and socially unacceptable language) rule on my blog. You know that. (Or you should. No bad language, please!) And I think a similar rule should be enforced in the workplace. Why? Because it's not polite. And more than politeness, it can get very expensive. From Overlawyered:

The Eleventh Circuit on Monday "held that Ingrid Reeves could proceed to trial with her hostile environment harassment claim -- which is to say, that if the jury agrees with her on the facts, it's entitled to award potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages -- even though the case didn't involve any sexual extortion, any offensive touching, any sexual propositions, or even any insults targeted to her personally. Rather, her complaints, as described by the Eleventh Circuit were chiefly related to "sexually crude language that offended her." Among the sources of that offense, per the court opinion, was "a radio program that was played every morning on the stereo in the office", per Eugene Volokh "a morning program on Birmingham's 107.7 FM during 2002-03, according to one brief".

And you wonder sometime why we HR types put a damper on the fun.

Expectations

Many of the problems we deal with in Human Resources stem from managers being unable to solve problems in their departments.

Now, I know full well that those non-management types aren't perfect little angels either. They cause the problems in the first place. (Or rather, it's a joint effort between everyone--it's one of the few things you can count on for a united team.)

I don't know why we HR types are surprised. After all, do we give clear expectations on what managing people, or working in a particular environment should be like?

The Voice of San Diego reports on a school that has had great success--by setting standards and expecting students to meet them. Except, they didn't just say "here are behavioral standards, meet them," they explicitly taught the students how to do so.

"Schools assume that a student will come in, and just know what to do," school psychologist Steve Franklin said. "At Webster, teaching a student how to be a student is really important. We don't expect them to already know how to read, to do math or write. So why aren't we teaching these things, too?"

Why aren't we doing the same thing? Oh, because we're so busy running the business, right? (Stop snorting you non-hr types, we really do care about the business.)

Or, more realistically, we're solving the crises that come up. What if we explicitly taught managers what we expected of them? What if we taught employees how to be an employee at "x" company? I know, that would spoil all the creativity.

Hogwash. Once you know the rules and the norms, then you can make informed decisions on if you wish to deviate from them. If you don't know, then you're just guessing and making uninformed or ill-informed decisions.

If we're concerned about the business, consider the success of this school:

Webster has seen suspensions plummet and test scores surge since instilling the Webster Way. Only 10 students were suspended last year. Test scores ranked Webster in the top echelon of demographically similar schools statewide.

Wouldn't we want that for our companies? Wouldn't we want the business equivalent--profits to soar, turnover to plummet? (Voluntary and involuntary--I hate it when companies only look at voluntary turnover. High involuntary turnover means you have bad hiring practices, bad management practices, bad training, bad succession planning or a combination of any or all of those.)

Sure it takes effort and getting management on board may be difficult. After all, if the senior manager didn't know how to manage, he certainly wouldn't be in the position of power, right? (Please control your guffaws, this is business.) What mistakes are your managers making repeatedly? How many layoffs have you done lately? How many grown-up versions of suspensions and expulsions? How many complaints have you had?

(Via Joanne Jacobs)

A Lousy Raise

I just spoke with our Finance Director, who indicates that, due to our company's subpar performance (of note: we conducted a 10% company-wide RIF in July '07), our typical 4-5% annual increases will either be
(a) zilch;
(b) 1.5 - 2.5%; or
(c) option "b" plus the possibility of 1-2% more based on company performance when September '08 rolls around.

To complicate matters, our pay increase formula typically includes comparison with market data (some are at market, some are below) and scores from performance appraisals. Any of the options presented by the FD throw our formula out the window, thereby ticking off employees who have (a) spent a significant amount of time on self-appraisals, multi-rater appraisals, appraisals with managers, etc. (I can hear it now -- "what's the point of appraisals?!"); and (b) know they are below market rate.

I have highly recommended that, if at all financially possible, we go with any option that is not "zero,", knowing that, regardless, our staff of approximately 40 individuals will be upset and further demoralized by the news because they have been working hard throughout the last six months to get our numbers up.

My question to you is this: In our small, close-knit environment, how do we best manage employee expectations for increases given the reality of the situation? *I* know that no raises or minimal raises are reasonable given our company's financial situation (I'd rather have a job than give everyone the raises they "deserve"), but we've had some other major internal morale issues lately (top managers started a shadow organization and left last fiscal year to compete against us -- it's ugly), and I can see this situation inciting employees to either (a) stay and quit, or (b) leave and cause all the issues that turnover in a small company creates. Another note: we are in a niche market that's difficult to recruit for. Additionally, we have approx. 65-70% of staff who have been with the company 5+ years.

Thank you, Evil HR Lady! I appreciate your kind consideration and assistance!

I feel your pain. You've lost a bunch of managers, you've laid off 10% of your workforce, and now you have to tell the remaining group that their raises will stink. Fun!

Your company is small--40 people. They should ALL be aware of the situation already. In fact, with a company that small, every one of them should be able to have a direct effect on the financial success of the company.

What is going on to improve the financial success of the company? Have the Finance Director, CEO, and head of HR (I'm guessing that's you) met with everyone and taken their suggestions?

I guess I see this more as a business failure than as a need to spin things to make employees feel like they are getting a good raise when they are not. There may be a fundamental disconnect with understanding where the money comes from in a business. "I've worked hard, I deserve a raise." But, your work has not been successful for the company.

Yes, that will go over great.

What I would do is publicly tie compensation to performance--with the understanding that with increased COMPANY performance people could do much, much, better than the 4-5% they've received in years past. Long term incentives, such as stock, can really help the company in this situation.

Because the company is so small, and people should be able to see the results of their work, I would recommend stock options or another profit sharing plan, in conjunction with performance evaluations and whatever raises the company can afford.

The CEO may freak out (it's MY company and that cuts into MY profits), but there won't be any profits if the workforce is disgruntled or gone to a competitor. Keep in mind, as well, that it's more expensive to recruit new hires than it is to keep the current ones happy. If you can't afford a 4% raise now, how are you going to afford to recruit, hire (at market rate) and train new employees?

This is not to say you need to give the higher raise, just that without giving employees a reason to work for the company's long term success, you'll be in that boat.

I don't envy your situation. But, it's reality. And the good news is, if your people are paying attention to the news, they'll think that the economy is just about to crash into a recession, the likes of which have not been seen since the great depression. So, give them some gruel in the company cafeteria and tell them to like it! (Just kidding.)

As usual, I am betting my brilliant readers will have other suggestions to make your life happier.