Should They Stay or Should They Go?   
By Rolf Corcker 

If your ear is to the ground, implicit and explicit messages are always running through your office, much like the body's Central Nervous System.  When a specific area is getting more traffic than it should (calls, e-mails, complaints, etc.), you need to look closer to see what is going on.  When I begin looking at an issue and it becomes evident that the problem emanates from a staff member, I must determine an appropriate course of action. John Maxwell uses the following saying when you're looking at your staffing options:  Train 'em or trade 'em.  If it appears correctable, I use the 'Train 'em' methodology to walk them through it.  This can run the gamut from a 'One Minute Manager' conversation (Hey!  Knock that off!) to something that may require a written action plan.  Assuming you have gone through some kind of corrective/training process, let's evaluate whether or not they need to be 'traded.'  Because any decision I make regarding the individual must be fair, made with integrity, respect and show dignity, I start by using what is commonly referred to as the "Ben Franklin Close."

This useful tool starts my visualization of what the good and not-so-good traits of the individual I am dealing with.  First the mechanics: Take a sheet of paper, place the individual's name at the top and create two (2) columns - one titled 'Pro', the other 'Con.'  Then start making a list, taking into account  work ethic, staff interactions, client feedback, contributions to the success of the company - any criteria  you feel makes up the culture of your organization.  When looking at the 'Con' list, ask yourself whether these are training , workload, competency or character issues.  The first two can be fixed.  The third one can sometimes be fixed.  The last one, short of a personal epiphany, can rarely be fixed.

Now let's look at some critical areas that need to be reviewed for the Ben Franklin Close to work:

1)      They're doing more harm than good.  This is the fulcrum of any decision.  Ideally, we look for individuals to be 'High Impact, Low Maintenance."  We may be able to tolerate "High Impact, High Maintenance" if the positive impact is significant enough. "Low Impact, Low Maintenance" is less than tolerable, but practically speaking, sometimes a warm body is better than no body at all.  "Low Impact, High Maintenance" is the biggest drag of all and needs to be addressed swiftly.

2)      Other staff members have to step in and carry the burden.  You do your staff no favors by keeping someone that they believe to be an underperformer.  Doing this sends two messages to the rest of the staff:  1) That you as a leader don't care about the extra workload you're allowing the other staff to carry and 2) Why should they work to the best of their ability when you don't consistently require that of everybody?

3)      There are an inordinate number of client complaints.  What I look for here is a pattern - a pattern of not returning calls, following up on e-mails or getting information to the Board in a timely manner. 

4)      There are an inordinate number of complaints from peers, subordinates and vendors.  Pay especially close attention to this one, as it's your best source of information that corroborates what you think is going on.

5)      They're not responding to correction and/or training.  Anyone can show 'CYA' progress on a laundry list of concerns.  What I look for here is a change of mindset and operation.  You can mask symptoms for a time, but root causes will inevitably manifest.  You want Roundup®, not weed whacking - one is temporary, the other is permanent.

6)      They don't hold the values of the organization.  'How' we do things is as important as 'what' we do.  Performing the tasks without supporting the organization, its values and its members isn't good enough.  Eventually, this attitude will manifest as bitterness and subversion.  If you let it go, it will infect others and grow.

7)      Leadership has to second-guess whether the job is being done correctly.  If senior staff has to worry about whether the job is getting done, it  takes time, energy and focus off other important tasks.  As I told someone recently, I have neither the time nor the inclination to be a detective.  If you have to second guess, you might as well be doing it.  If you might as well be doing it, you don't need two people in that role.

There may be other criterion that is mission-critical for your organization - list those as well.  Then do the math.  Most of the time, the list will make the answer to the question self-evident.

 With all deference to The Clash for the title, ending an employer/employee relationship is one of the most difficult tasks any supervisor must face.  It must be done for the right reasons and  in the right way.  Failure to do so can have repercussions both legally and practically.  Remember the following saying when you're looking at your staffing options:  Train 'em or trade 'em.  So, on that premise, how do you know when it's time to let a staff member go?  While the task is never stress-free, you can alleviate the stress of determining who should go by using the Ben Franklin Close.