moving people to a new team just so they can be fired, only some people are getting retention bonuses, and more

It’s four answers to four questions. Here we go…

1. Moving people to a new team just so they can be fired

This got relayed to me from a coworker who is in a supervisory role, Dorothy. She has a direct report who she is working on terminating, as this individual has not been meeting the basic requirements of the job, including the essential functions. They were already given an extended probation and continue to not meet the requirements of the role. There’s a whole backstory to it, but a new development has occurred that seems really suspect.

Dorothy was told by her supervisor, Sophia, that once this person is out, they will transfer another employee to Dorothy’s team who has been performing poorly for years, despite repeated interventions by their current supervisor, Rose. Sophia wants to transfer this person to Dorothy’s team so Dorothy can fire them, because “Dorothy now knows the process.” Sophia plans to repeat that with a third poorly performing employee currently being supervisored by Sophia (in lieu of Blanche, who retired a month ago).

This is obviously incredibly messed up, but my question is … HOW messed up? Transferring people to a different team explicitly so they can be fired feels like stepping into illegal territory! Also, I’ve told Dorothy she should be documenting this in as many ways as possible, because this seems like the type of thing that could then be used later down the line to get rid of her.

Clearly, the supervisors who are supervising these poorly performing employees should be the ones to handle any terminations — they are the ones who know the person’s work! It is part of the responsibility of a supervisor! But what should Dorothy be doing to protect herself or stop this from happening?

Yikes, this is ridiculous! It’s not illegal — companies can use whatever process they want to fire someone, as long as it’s not discriminatory — but it’s terrible management and incredibly unfair to Dorothy. Sure, she has “learned the process” by dealing with her current person, but there’s no reason Rose can’t “learn the process” too — and it’s part of Rose’s job to do that when it’s needed. Dorothy presumably didn’t sign up to be the company firer, and if she agrees to keep letting people be transferred over to her so she can fire them, it’s going to affect her reputation: people will think that Dorothy’s team is where you get sent to be fired, or that Dorothy is a bad manager who fires people without cause.

Dorothy should push back with her own manager and say she’s not willing to take on firing processes for other managers. She can point out that it’s time-intensive and emotionally draining, and that while she will of course take that on when there’s a problem on her own team, it’s far too great of a burden to take it on for teams that aren’t even her own. She should be firm about this, because the idea is ludicrous enough that there’s a good chance they’ll cave if she flatly refuses.

(For what it’s worth, I’m betting that Rose is a big problem here: she’s had an employee who’s been performing badly for years and hasn’t dealt with it, and apparently Sophia considers her incapable of dealing with the situation now. Although obviously Sophia is also a big problem, as the architect of this bonkers idea.)

2. Should my company have been more discreet about only some people getting retention bonuses?

I am very happy at my company and feel well-treated. A few years ago, the owner/CEO went into semi-retirement and sold half the business to NewCEO (but he still does some work behind the scenes from home). When he made the announcement about this, he also stated that he was giving all employees who had worked there more than a year a large bonus to thank us for our hard work in helping grow the business. My understanding was that it was a retention bonus as well as a thank-you, to be paid out in chunks of money a year apart (I assume to make sure the transition to NewCEO was smooth with little turnover, which it was).

Fast-forward a few months later, and a Teams message went out from NewCEO saying, “All employees hired more than one year from X date, your bonuses will appear in your next paycheck.” I was very happy and grateful to get this substantial bonus — after all, OldCEO didn’t have to do this! But two newer women who had missed the one-year mark were blindsided and very upset by this. One was in tears. Either they weren’t at the meeting when it was announced or were hired since, I’m not sure.

Should the company have done this more discreetly, not mentioning it on company-wide Teams? The bonuses weren’t a secret (even though amounts weren’t made public). Or should they have given everyone a bonus just to avoid hard feelings? Should they have given the new women a heads-up? I’m not sure that would have been well-received either.

Yes, they should have been more discreet about it. Sending out a message announcing some people but not at all are getting substantial bonuses is a recipe for the people who aren’t getting them to be upset, even if there’s a clear, objective reason for who falls in which category. It’s naive to think it won’t. (It’s also naive for people not to understand that bonuses sometimes work like this, but the company still should have foreseen this.)

I’m not saying they should have hidden it; trying to do that could cause worse problems if it eventually came out anyway, which it probably would. But sending a blithe “people in category X, your bonuses will appear in your next paycheck” message to the whole company was tactless and unnecessary.

That said, tears are a pretty strong reaction and I wonder if something more was going on there.

3. Should I offer feedback to unprofessional intern candidates?

I’m a program manager at a small nonprofit. Along with managing the several interns we have, I’m also the person who receives their application materials. I’m currently in the middle of hiring for a marketing internship, and while I’ve seen some strong candidates and am looking forward to interviewing them, I’ve also seen some … less than great application materials.

I remember being in college and am sure I made some errors in professionalism while applying for internships, but it wasn’t quite on the level of having a shirtless picture of a guy (which is not applicable to the nonprofit I work for, although I’m sure it might be for some roles?) as the cover of my online portfolio. I received one application from someone who simply just said “Thanks” in the body of their email, and another applicant sent me an attachment of a .txt file that contained a link to their LinkedIn in lieu of a resume.

I feel very strongly about replying to all applicants, even if just to say “We appreciate your interest, but we’ve decided to go with a stronger candidate” because I know how disappointing it is to get radio silence. Would it be a kindness to also gently point out the issues I notice? I don’t want to preach to them, and I would never want to do it in a demeaning or demoralizing way, but not saying anything that could help them in the future feels unkind. Am I overthinking this?

It would be a kindness and I understand the impulse because I used to have it too, but it’s not a good use of your time and it’s not your job.

If someone specifically asked for feedback, I’d be more inclined to offer some, but otherwise there are lots of resources on job-hunting and communicating with employers out there. Plus, “don’t include a shirtless photo on your portfolio” and “your email is way too brusque” is just not the kind of thing that you, an employer with no relationship with these candidates, are well positioned to offer. If it were something more straightforward like “yellow type on a grey background is making your resume hard to read,” then sure.

Related:
should I point out job applicants’ mistakes to them?

4. I was charged PTO for attending a work event

In my first week at my new job, we had a team-building outing. Everyone was expected to attend. We had to leave the office at 2 p.m. and the outing was over by 6:30. This week, I noticed that three hours of my PTO had been deducted for it. This also happened before. Last summer, while I was interning for the same company, I had to go to a team lunch (which I ended up having to pay for myself, btw) that ran over, and (because I was hourly at the time) they deducted the 1.5 hours the lunch ran over from my paycheck.

As a newly hired employee fresh out of college (and intern, at the time) I don’t feel like I can skip out on these team activities. Do I have any recourse? Obviously I do not want my PTO used for what are essentially mandatory work events. Is it even legal?

If you’re required to attend, it’s work time and must be paid. However, they can charge your PTO for it — because that’s still paid time. The law on paying you for required work stuff just mandates that you be paid; it doesn’t look at whether that pay is coming out of your PTO balance or not.

But it’s still BS and completely contrary to logical understanding of what PTO is. (And wow, way to team-build; I’m sure that didn’t have the effect they were going for.)

You could approach it this way: “I don’t think this PTO should have been deducted from my check because the team-building event was mandatory — so work time, rather than me taking time off. Is there a way to get this fixed?”

The post moving people to a new team just so they can be fired, only some people are getting retention bonuses, and more appeared first on Ask a Manager.