A client of mine recently had a situation where they could have run into trouble, not because of what they did, but because of what they didn't do several months ago.
Last summer, they called me with a question of what to do about an employee who had behaved in an inappropriate manner while at an industry conference. To protect the guilty I'm not going to get too specific. Let's just say, while she didn't exactly sexually harass someone, it was a close call. No question it was an offense for which she should be terminated. That was what I had advised them to do, and until just a few weeks ago, I thought they had.
That's when they called me about another incident with the same employee. This one was not sexually based, at least, but this one was more complicated, involving lying to one supervisor about what another had approved, and more or less walking off the job. Again, termination would not have been inappropriate. However, put into the context of the overall situation under which it happened, it would have been overkill. (It would take too much space to describe the circumstances fully.) A final written warning would have been more appropriate.
So now what to do? There were two ways of looking at the situation. One view was that since they had not fired her for the more serious offense, it would be difficult to justify firing her for the less serious one. Another view was that since this was the second serious offense in less than a year, termination was not only justified, but appropriate.
We discussed these two points of view a number of times before the client decided that a final written warning was the response they were most comfortable with. I did not get the idea that this was universal among the partners, but it was the majority opinion. We determined the wording of the warning letter and agreed on the method of presentation. The warning was presented on a Thursday.
On the Tuesday after, they called to ask me about termination. Apparently, upon being given the warning, the employee had said something along the lines of, "If you don't want me working here, let's just proceed with the termination." They wanted to know if it was okay to take her up on it.
Yes, I told them, they could certainly take her up on it. But if they were going to do so, they should put it in exactly that way: that they were going ahead based on her response. Otherwise, the question might eventually arise as to why the situation warranted termination on Tuesday when it only warranted a warning the previous Thursday. They agreed, and the termination proceeded with no further questions.
They could have saved themselves a lot of trouble had they not been afraid to terminate after the more serious offense last summer. I'm all in favor of giving employees a second chance when it is warranted — in most cases, I'd prefer to go through progressive discipline and give the employee a chance to change their behavior before terming. However, there are some offenses that clearly warrant immediate termination, and, in my opinion, the first offense was one of them. (I realize I haven't been specific, in deference to my client.)
My advice: If termination is an appropriate response to an employee's action, don't be afraid to take it. Things worked out well overall for my client, but the longer you wait to take action, the harder it can be to do so. Don't let inaction paint you into a corner!
Catherine Bannon is an HR consultant in Marshfield, MA (catherine.bannon@gmail.com). Bannon worked for 10 years in HR management before starting her consulting practice.
Home
