If a business unit is not doing well financially, and the decision-makers of an organization aren’t sure of the cause, should other fixes be tried before eliminating the head of that unit?
Hiring is such an expensive, time-consuming, and uncertain endeavor that my instinct would be to alter everything else and then, if all else fails, eliminate the person from employment.
Just a Piece of the Puzzle
I once knew of a manager who told an employee whose business unit was struggling: “You’re just one piece of the puzzle. We’re dumping out all the puzzle pieces from the box right now.” She didn’t go on to the next logical part of the statement, that they then would try to put the puzzle together. If you eliminate a crucial piece of the puzzle, rather than doing due diligence to see how it fits into and with all the other pieces, the puzzle is never honestly solved.
The Cost of the Human Component
Changing the technology or marketing support given to a business unit is often less expensive and less philosophically difficult than switching out a human being. For example, if you have a Website with traffic that is down, but that site has not been redesigned in more than a decade and is behind on technology updates, why not try addressing all of that first and seeing what the effect is before eliminating a human being?
When the new person takes over management of the business unit after the redesign and technology and marketing changes are made, and traffic starts to go up, the company will never know for sure if the improved traffic was due to the new person or to the additional support given to the business unit. If the former employee were given the same support, is there any reason to think the result would not have been the same, or even better?
A Question of Ethics
If an organization knows key investments are needed in a business unit and eliminates an employee ostensibly because that employee is under-performing, is that fair and ethical?
Be wary of the manager who wants to rush to eliminate an employee who is heading a business unit in need of investment. Be especially wary if the manager just came into their own position and the employee they want to eliminate is at the head of a business unit they long wanted to control themselves. If they argue that the needed investment—whether in technology or marketing—shouldn’t be made until after the employee is gone, executives should be well-trained and savvy enough to ask themselves why. Could it be that the new manager knows the investment will finally move the needle in business results and only wants that success to come after they, themselves, have taken over? I watched this very scenario play out. I bet it’s not uncommon.
Sustaining Trust
Employees observe how you treat other employees. If an employee who gave colleagues the impression of doing a great, unimpeachable job is eliminated, they will want to know why and will question how secure their own role is. It won’t be enough to say something like, “Well, traffic was down on the site he managed,” or, more obliquely, “It wasn’t just one thing; it was lots of little things.”
Layoffs and terminations are at the top of the list of employees’ job-related fears. When these unfortunate decisions must be made, be sure they must, in fact, be made.
You want a manager who can truthfully and ethically defend their decision: “This was truly a last resort for me. I got the executives on board with redesigning the site, updating the technology, and allotting greater budgeting for marketing, and it was all to no avail. We really had no choice but try a different head of that unit.”
Do you train employees and build a culture that puts people first, so that termination is never a first-line strategy?