How do I toughen up to succeed in the corporate world?

February 6, 2011 10:06 AM

How do I toughen up? I want to be successful in my career but I wonder if I have the necessary ruthlessness.

I manage a team of analysts and have to fire someone from my team this week.

The rational part of my brain says that it is the right decision:
1. The quality of his work is not up to par and he has yet to complete his probationary period.
2. I have had to constantly monitor and validate his work. This has resulted in me putting in extra hours and weekends to ensure timely completion of projects and the quality of output.
3. The company can easily find someone more qualified and competent.

However....,

1. I feel guilty about snuffing out his family's only source of income.
2. It made me wonder if I'm too demanding as a boss. I'm known for my high quality of work and also for inflicting similar expectations on others.
3. He's a thoroughly nice guy.

We made the decision to let him go last Friday and will proceed with action this coming week.
My boss and his boss thought nothing of the decision and were happy to go out for drinks later. I could not bring myself to go out with them and they found my trepidation somewhat amusing.

I love my job and want to be really successful in my career, but I don't want to be branded as an "emotional little girl" or a "cold, unfeeling bitch".

Is there a way to strike a balance? Or do I have to be completely ruthless to really succeed in the corporate world?

posted by quirksilver to Work & Money (21 answers total)

Once he's gone, the job will go to someone else who's a better fit and who will need that income too. Plus, the guy might be better off somewhere else - with that record it's not like he'll be up for any promotions anytime soon.
posted by Neekee at 10:11 AM on February 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

This is an unenviable situation. Unless you can figure out a way to turn it into a "win-win," like transferring the guy to a position for which he is better suited, then you have no choice but to fire him. Because you have a boss, and your boss can easily go out and find someone who will fire the guy without thinking twice.
posted by dortmunder at 10:12 AM on February 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

Best answer: First of all, you do not have to be ruthless. My own experience has shown me that it's much more important to develop your own management style. Trying to be something you are not will never work. I found that bringing more of my own personality in to my workplace was more successful. Leadership does not equate to ruthlessness, in my opinion. However, I believe that you must be open, fair, honest, straightforward, and communicative in order for people to follow your vision.

In this specific instance, it will help tremendously to have a written agenda you want to follow during your meeting. There is nothing wrong with being sympathetic, but you will be doing this guy a huge favor if you can clearly communicate to him why this is happening. It has helped me in the past to look at these situations as an opportunity to help this person along on his journey by giving him information he can work with later in order to become a better employee for someone else down the road.

High expectations are a very good thing, as long as you clearly communicate your goals, roll up your sleeves and actively help meet those expectations, and praise your team when they succeed.

Good luck. I know this is difficult, but you need to focus on the other people who are depending on you to lead them to success in order to support their own families.
posted by raisingsand at 10:15 AM on February 6, 2011 [5 favorites]

I've been very successful and manage a lot of people and have fired plenty and I still don't much like that part of the job. You don't have to give that up to be a success. It does get a bit easier as you go along, but sometimes it still bothers me, especially in the borderline cases. One thing that did help me is that the toughest one I ever had to do resulted in the guy making a career change and he is now very successful, so it is easier to tell myself that it is sometimes the best thing for them in the long run. I realize it is often a lie, but it helps me nonetheless.
posted by Lame_username at 10:21 AM on February 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

You're in a position of power, and that means your actions will have a direct impact, good and bad, on those under you. You're either willing to accept the fact that you have to be The Man or you won't succeed where you are. The fact is that two things will be responsible for losing his job: his incompetence and management's willingness to fire him for it.

I think it's interesting and commendable that you couldn't celebrate your employee's impending misery. I'm disturbed that some people are so callous to not have any emotional reaction to the situation at all and I think if you decided to "harden up" about things like this, you're ignoring your own humanity. You're part of a system, a game with rules. Your employee is as aware of the rules as you are. If you don't play by the rules, the system spits you out. But to pretend that those playing the game aren't thinking, feeling, human beings with families is irrational. I think there is a way to rationally understand the capitalist machine and yet remain human within it.

If you ever fire someone and feel nothing, or feel celebratory, then the machine has just eaten you up. If you can look the man in the eye and acknowledge the challenge and difficulty this will bring him, then you are still a human being who works within the machine, but hasn't turned his humanity over to it.
posted by madred at 10:23 AM on February 6, 2011 [5 favorites]

I run a business and I've had to fire people over the years. It's not clear to me what steps you've taken to turn around the situation up till now. If you've made it clear to him what's going wrong and what steps he needs to take to turn it around, I don't think it should come as a surprise to him and I think you can let go of a lot of guilt. However, if you have never had these conversations, it's a different situation. Of course, I don't live in a fire at will state, so I may have a different perspective than a lot of people do. But I think it's important to communicate early and often - not just to monitor and correct.
posted by acoutu at 10:25 AM on February 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

There is nothing ruthless about firing someone who isn't doing his job. Especially someone who's still in a probationary period. That's what a probationary period is for.

Either he's poorly suited to or not competent enough to perform the job, in which case firing him before he spends too much time at it is doing him a favor; or he's underperforming out of laziness in which case it's his own damn fault.

If you can honestly "easily find someone more qualified and competent" then you're not being too demanding as a boss -- if he'll be that easy to replace with someone better, then you weren't demanding anything more than the readily-available norm.


I mean, yes, it's never fun having to fire someone, but I assume he must know it's coming (you've been communicating clearly with him thus far about the fact that he's underperforming, that you're working weekends to correct his work, etc., and have given him chances to improve, right?)
posted by ook at 10:26 AM on February 6, 2011

So he was on probation...he already knew that his work wasn't up to par, and didn't make the necessary changes? You have nothing to feel bad about in firing him. You gave him a chance and he didn't seize it. He is an adult, free to make his own choices about his own efforts and future. In addition, you should be personally relieved. This guy was making you work extra hours. That was pretty dick of him.
posted by blargerz at 10:31 AM on February 6, 2011

I've never been in your position, but I would think that you need to be clear and assertive rather than ruthless. Assuming that the decision was made carefully, based on established confidence that this person is a bad fit for the job, nothing you or they say can make them a good fit. Emotional reactions such as fear, anger or sadness are perfectly valid as emotions, but they don't change the facts of the situation. You can be kind and helpful within the limits imposed by the unfortunate reality that this person is a bad fit for the job; you just can't change or deny that reality.
posted by jon1270 at 10:34 AM on February 6, 2011

There's "ruthless," and then there's "professional." They are not the same thing.

If you're a manager of any kind, you're being judged, professionally, by the accomplishments and the ability of your team. Your job is to run a good team of analysts, not to be a good analyst yourself. Do you understand the difference?

So, did you give the guy clear demands? Did you give him the right tools and information? Did you give him the right feedback? Did you position him for success?

If you answered yes to all of those, and your team still isn't firing on all cylinders, then you have to let him go. Not because he sucks, but because YOU are not performing in YOUR job as the person running a good team.

That's not ruthless. That's professional.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:45 AM on February 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

I have to be honest. If I were the guy's friend, I would think you were a terrible person with no compassion. I would feel for his wife and kids. How long did he work there? Why is it all the sudden he's being fired? Have you given him the help/training he needs? If he didn't cut it during the trial period, why did you keep him on?

From a business perspective, it is easier to just fire someone and say he wasn't up to snuff. It's not good to pull a lazy person along. But did you do the very best job you could to manage him and help him, or was he so far behind the rest of the team that he couldn't be helped?
posted by anniecat at 11:14 AM on February 6, 2011

I'm with blagerz and Cool Papa Bell.

If the guy was on probation, he must have known his work wasn't up to snuff. Either he consciously didn't improve his performance, or he's incapable of improving his performance. That's what probationary periods are for.

You need to fire him, because that's your responsibility. You can't afford to coddle someone who doesn't pull his weight (or worse, adds weight to the rest of the group's load). Otherwise the other effective members of your team will suffer, and potentially quit.

It sounds like this guy just isn't meant to be in that job. When you fire him, he'll draw unemployment checks for a while (so you're not going to be starving his family), and hopefully he'll be able find a job that suits him better.

If you want to be really friendly, you can offer to write him a recommendation, based on the aspects of his performance that you appreciated (but be specific that you won't be willing to recommend him for another similar position).
posted by georgikeith at 11:31 AM on February 6, 2011

No one likes to let someone go - for cause, or as part of a reduction in force. But the best advice I received as a new manager was "fire fast" if you are certain someone is unable to deliver.

If you have evidence someone who has been adequately trained is not performing in their job, and if you have looked hard for any adverse situation affecting their ability to perform and found nothing, the best thing to do is let that person go. It's far worse to have other team members begin pulling that person's weight -- it will cost you more in lost productivity and anxiety over the long haul.

There is no need to be ruthless, but you need to set standards and enforce them.

Good luck.
posted by mozhet at 12:26 PM on February 6, 2011

OP can you clarify 'probationary period'?

I'm reading this to mean the initial 3 month period after hiring (typically in the UK and some other places, this 'probationary period' is a time when either party can give minimal notice, e.g. one week). My reading is that he's nearly completed his initial period but it hasn't really worked out.

Some of the other posters seem to be reading this as being 'on probation', i.e. he's on a disciplinary after a warning?

Might help to clarify where you are as well (this could be a case of 'divided by a common language).
posted by plep at 1:13 PM on February 6, 2011

Best answer: Don't paint yourself as ruthless, but don't act it either. You can't control how this person reacts, but you can do a sincere job of your responsibility.

"Ruthless" is the following:
I once belonged to a work team (six people), doing a good job (documented, appreciated all-around, in more demand than work-hours allowed...), that got sacked because the company "changed direction." In spite of the fact that it was a government-funded organization (which in Sweden generally means that everyone has the right to full insight), this had been a closed-door decision; there had been no warning signs at all.
One of the two high-in-rank persons who were at the crucial meeting was vaguely regretful yet silent. The other one, with the task to say "you may go," had no idea what he was talking about. He was, however, personally invested in the company's said direction change, and had prepared an insincere, unoriginal and humiliating lecture about what had been lacking with our work and what was better about their future plans. It was an ugly little scene.

It is your choice not to be any of these brands of ruthless:
Person 1) of my example: if you are positive that someone needs to go, you will also be able to argue for the case and express true and sincere compassion with the hardships. You do not need to sit back, make a sad face and let someone else preach some nonsense.
Person 2) of my example: call a spade a spade. Don't invent a justifying tale that isn't what you mean. This person needs to go, so he has a right to hear the truth about why.
posted by Namlit at 1:13 PM on February 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

(Just to explain my question above and your location may be important).

In the US, there is the concept of 'at-will employment', which means that an employee can be let go for any reason or no reason. In Europe generally, employers have to give a bit more justification.

So when someone is hired in the UK, for instance, they have a 3 month 'probation period' to prove themselves - effectively they are 'at will' then. In the US, it's often the case (when employees don't have a written contract certainly) that everyone is 'on probation' (in the UK sense), all the time.

I think that he has to go, but the way you approach this may vary slightly if he is a new employee who hasn't completed his initial induction period, as opposed to a long-standing employee who has received a warning?
posted by plep at 1:24 PM on February 6, 2011

Oh, I was interpreting probationary period as the 3-month period after hiring that we have here in Canada (and apparently in the UK, as above). Here, it would be expected that, if someone isn't performing up to snuff, that you'd be communicating with them. Sometimes, when people join a new team/company/role, there's some misunderstanding or even a gap.

However, if this is a disciplinary kind of probation, then that's entirely different. In that case, it seems that the employee should have some understanding of what's going on. But, again, at least in Canada, you'd be keeping them in the look and would have to be documenting some of this. Still, if he's not meeting expectations and you do have to fire him, I think it's wonderful that you have empathy for him and his family. In that case, I think any help you can give him in finding another role, giving a reference on specific areas he does excel at, introducing him to others, or simply pointing him toward a career coach or program would be a really great gesture. If you can fire him without attacking him and say that it's just not a fit and that you do see that his skills in ____ would hold him in good stead elsewhere, I think that's a humane thing to do. And the posters above are right that you have to worry about the ability for all employees to support themselves - and for the company to support them.
posted by acoutu at 1:28 PM on February 6, 2011

Best answer: If you cannot fire people that are not right for the job, you will go down with them.

Your emotional reaction proves that you have what it takes to be greater than your two bosses. Firing people never should be easy nor non-chalant. It is a required element with managing people -- not everyone is a good fit and things change. That being said, it does not have to be done lightly, callously, or coldly.

However it must be done to keep your company competitive. You're running a business not a charity. But, I hope it is always difficult for you to fire people because that means you care about them and THAT is what will make you a solid boss and professional.

Ruthless would be if you tricked your boss into firing him, turned your boss in for wrongful termination, got him fired, and took his job. That's ruthless. You're balancing between being professional and being human. And doing well at that balance from what it sounds like.

No worries.
posted by nickrussell at 2:15 PM on February 6, 2011

Good comments here. Additional considerations: As a manager, you are responsible to your employer for optimizing the resources allotted to you. You are also responsible to your team for not unilaterally assigning them more of the load just in order to shield yourself from the unpleasant task of replacing the weakest link.

You do have to toughen up enough to be responsible and do the difficult thing. The way you do it is where you hang on to your humanity. Keep on caring. There are always times when it hurts to care for those around you but IMO it is always better than not caring.
posted by Anitanola at 4:02 PM on February 6, 2011

Response by poster: Thank you for all your answers.
I thought about this for a bit today. I am going to let him go. He is not at the level he needs to be, to work in our high pressure environment. The team will benefit from someone with more relevant experience and a higher degree of competence.

That being said, I intend to treat him with respect during the meeting. I have made a list of things he did do well as well a list of reasons why he is not suitable for this particular job. There is no good way to do this, but I am not going to attack him.

For those that asked, I work in Canada and he has yet to complete his initial 3 month trial period.

It worries me a little that any form of empathy is seen as a sign of weakness. I'm willing to be tough but fair. I'm not willing to be callous.
posted by quirksilver at 4:33 PM on February 6, 2011

If you are in Canada, you might want to talk to HR or at least read this article, especially Section E to make sure you have all your ducks in a row.
posted by acoutu at 10:00 PM on February 6, 2011