Of course, there’s a process to be gone through to stay the right side of the law, but dismissal should be very strongly considered.
The case in point is an e-mail I received from David Cameron. Personally I think he’s writing directly to me, but my husband has a sneaking suspicion that he’s writing to many people at the same time.
The gist of the e-mail is that he’s in despair about a manager he knows.
A couple of months ago that manager had a real performance issue. He’d lost the trust of his team and made several costly and high profile errors. His judgement was shown to be lacking and, all in all, it was felt that he wasn’t up to the job.
A meeting was held and his short comings were pointed out. The manager in question agreed that he hadn’t performed to the standards required but promised that he would do much better in the future.
He was given a final written warning that pointed out the performance deficiencies and the improvements that were required. The warning was time specific – three months were given to make the improvements needed, otherwise he would be dismissed.
David wrote to me pointing out a further failure of the manager in question; one that was directly mentioned in the final written warning received a couple of months ago – a failure of leadership in a particular situation. In short, one of the improvement areas that our subject promised to work on.
David went on to ask me what I thought should be done with the manager.
This is what I told him:
I think there should be a further investigation and evidence gathered to back up the claim of another failure. If it’s found to be true then the manager should be given the opportunity to explain himself but, failing a satisfactory response, he should be dismissed.
That’s what would happen in Enterprise Britain.
Unfortunately, in the case of our manager we can’t get him out unless a) he decides to leave or b) he is forced to call a general election.
It’s so unfair… on us!