We find that for most employers, deciding whether or not to fire an employee is the toughest call they make. Often, we see our clients agonize over termination decisions, and rightfully so.
While a termination may be the best course for the company and ultimately the employee, this action will cause the employee initial pain and disrupt the organization in the short term.
It also has legal implications for the company. Employers should make the choice to terminate only after thoughtful consideration, but they should not drag out the decision. If an employee isn’t performing, an employer should first try to help him or her improve. However, if those efforts fail, the next step is to explore whether or the employee is capable of, or willing, to do the job.
We are coming to the end of our series on increasing employee effectiveness. Recently, we have explored the first four reasons why employees may not execute to their full potential the instructions issued by you, their employer. (Links to those articles follow.)
If you have determined that 1) The employee understands the objective; 2) There are no roadblocks (internal to the company) keeping the employee from performing; 3) The employee is sufficiently trained, and 4) You have given the employee proper motivation — “incapable and/or unwilling” is the only other conclusion.
Sometimes, though, the employee may not be physically capable of doing the work. Perhaps the job requires stacking 35-pound boxes onto pallets or swinging a framing hammer for seven or more hours each day. Not everyone is physically capable of performing such strenuous manual tasks for extended intervals.
Physical capability also pertains to the ability to concentrate and stay focused for long periods. Air traffic controllers, security guards and workers who enter or review data, write computer code and perform many other jobs will encounter this requirement. We worked with an employer who found that his accountant was incapable of focusing on her…