Slow To Hire & Quick To Fire

[Derek]

a good philosophy when taking on employees?

yes or no?


thanx --- Derek.

 

[Doug Cox]

YES!!!

 

[B&BGaryC]

Last company I worked for, when you averaged 20 plus jobs per week, you were allowed one complaint. Two complaints in a single week or four in a single month was an instant termination.

A low bid on a job was also grounds for termination.

 

[Jeremy]

Depends...

 

[The Great Oz]

Over simplistic, as any short phrase would be.

Slow to hire if you want someone to stay for more than a season. You don't want to waste training time, and you don't want other employees to have to work harder to prop up a weak link. Someone that will just be extra hands under direct supervision doesn't matter as much.

Quick to fire is a catch phrase because most of us want to give people plenty of time to succeed, and will hang on to a non-productive person to the detriment of their company. I'm more in the mindset of slow to fire, as many technicians have taken some time to pick up on all we want them to do, but once they have it, they're great. I also want to make sure I haven't failed them somewhere in the training process, so extra coaching time is spent with anyone that has issues. No one should be surprised if they're let go.

 

[joey895]

I agree with above. Quick to fire if there is integrity issues for sure but not necessarily quick to fire for the person making honest mistakes. Even if he is making a lot of honest mistakes as stated above a lot of times that person once it "clicks" for them, they will be great.

As for slow to hire in general that is probably ok but again there are exceptions. If the person is really sharp and out actively looking for a job (maybe they are new to the area for example)and you are too slow to get them on board somebody else will snatch them up before you. Most times the best way to hire someone is to actively recruit rather than waiting on that great person to magically come to you. If you recruit someone who is not necessarily looking to move jobs you can generally take your time because you are not competing against every one else in town who needs help.

 

[Alex]

YES. Without Exception

 

[minuteman]

"BigTime" "Yes!"

Greg

 

[The Servant]

slow to fire

Over simplistic, as any short phrase would be.

Slow to hire if you want someone to stay for more than a season. You don't want to waste training time, and you don't want other employees to have to work harder to prop up a weak link. Someone that will just be extra hands under direct supervision doesn't matter as much.

Quick to fire is a catch phrase because most of us want to give people plenty of time to succeed, and will hang on to a non-productive person to the detriment of their company. I'm more in the mindset of slow to fire, as many technicians have taken some time to pick up on all we want them to do, but once they have it, they're great. I also want to make sure I haven't failed them somewhere in the training process, so extra coaching time is spent with anyone that has issues. No one should be surprised if they're let go.

(quoted) : I also want to make sure I haven't failed them somewhere in the training process, so extra coaching time is spent with anyone that has issues. No one should be surprised if they're let go.

I like that way of thinking cause no one is always 100% right about everything. Not even the employer when teaching the employee. May 98% or 99%, but are we covering that 1% that could make the difference in having a employer employee relationship. So employers must ask themselves : Have i done all that i can to see that employee understands his roll? The answer...... If you're quick to fire, well let the reader use discernment.