Over the course of my career, I have witnessed what it means for a crucial employee to be felled—at least for a few months—by a debilitating health crisis. I also have witnessed when that catastrophic health crisis dovetails with the fruits of that very manager’s decision to eliminate another crucial employee.
Essential Questions to Consider
The first question that arises is how long the employee will be out of commission and unable to function in their job. If they just made the decision(s) to streamline their department with one or more layoffs, or even if they just eliminated one other essential employee, does management still abide by that decision? If the ill employee was the one who drove the elimination of one or more employees, with just one senior executive rubberstamping that decision, how do you proceed when the affected employee(s) wants to come back and nearly everyone (except the ill employee) loved working with them?
From a bigger-picture perspective, when an employee who oversees a lot is incapacitated shortly after making unpopular, controversial management decisions, for how long (if at all) should executives honor those decisions? At some point, executives will need to hire someone (perhaps even rehire the person who was laid off) to pick up the many tasks the seriously ill employee can no longer complete or oversee.
It’s important to support an ailing employee, but there is a need for business continuity. When I witnessed this very situation of a crucial employee rendered incapacitated after making the controversial “management decision” to eliminate another crucial employee, I thought: Shouldn’t the possibility that this very scenario could occur have been considered before she was allowed to make that staff cut?
Always Have a Contingency Plan
“Well, Sally, it sounds like it isn’t going well between you and Melinda. Yet her former manager had nothing but rave reviews about her work for more than 14 years. You’re two months on the job and are already exploring ways to eliminate her from our department,” an executive who is a higher-level thinker notes.
The executive then tells Sally, who is aggressive about getting what she wants and exercising control, to put together a case against the employee in question if she wants her gone so badly.
So that’s just what Sally does. She cobbles together what is, in reality, a specious “case” against Melinda, and within another few months, Melinda receives notice that she is being terminated from the company.
Putting aside the specious elements of the case against Melinda (which should have given the executive pause from the beginning), the executive should have expressed their concerns to Sally: “If we lay off Melinda, that will leave you as the only senior person in this department. I know how productive and effective you are as a manager, and we have a couple new hires who can help you, but I don’t know if I’m comfortable having you be the only senior member of that team. If you are intent on terminating Melinda, we’re going to have to create a contingency plan for what will happen if you are unexpectedly taken away from your job for any reason. If you can help me do that, then I will move closer to approving this termination.”
Better Off with Them or without Them?
No one—even the most overall great employee—comes without shortcomings. If you have been in your job long enough, it is fairly easy for a person intent on eliminating you to assemble a “case” based on your particular shortcomings.
That means that if the employee being considered for termination is one of just two senior employees in a department, it becomes highly important for executives to weigh that employee’s shortcomings against the many things they did well.
If that employee is an essential cog in the running of a department, part of their value is providing senior-level backup in leadership. Even the most reliable, productive employee is not immune from being struck down out of the blue by a significant health crisis or injury.
The executives who approve new hires, terminations, and layoffs need training on how to approach these decisions—including knowing when to say, “No.”
Do you provide training to executives on factoring in contingency planning when making staffing decisions?