Anonymous wrote:Your managers are the ones that should be managed out!

Agreed. Your managers are without a doubt sowing dissent, and their vague orders are making you miserable because you fear failing at it and then upsetting them. If your managers had a real reason to get rid of your staff, as others have said, they (your staff) would be gone. They have no incentive to leave, nor do you, when the job market is so awful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you bring up the problem team members, and heard, "we want you to manage out difficult staff"? Or did management bring up specific people and ask you to begin managing them out?

It was a message delivered from the top to all of senior management, they want a culture change. But… I’m concerned that I misread the room. I’m about to cut my losses and stop pushing this rock up a hill. Some of these folks have been problems for years—I thought they hired me to shake things up, but the lack of traction I’m getting with HR is concerning me. I promise with my whole heart that the people I’m trying to move along are toxic and underperforming, but this experience is making me doubt myself big time.

Then I wouldn't push too hard. Document issues, but not to harass. Leadership wants to make themselves feel like they're being good leaders, but from my experience, you are just wasting your capital, especially if the work product is getting better overall. Just be careful, foo, that others don't come to see you as toxic.

Be wary of being told to use certain tactics, but only told them verbally but you are documenting. It could be presented that you are rogue and trying to 'get rid' of people.

You have been in the role for less than 1 year and have been trying for months to manage out multiple people? Managers like you who are chomping at the bid to “clean house” the moment they start a new role are toxic. Companies can’t keep hiring new staff each time there is a management change. These workers knew, probably within weeks, that you were jeopardizing their livelihood, they are going to make it miserable and almost impossible for you to fire them, unless there is a reorg. You sound good experienced at managing.

Talk to HR. Get information on what the processes are.
Yes it is to avoid lawsuits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did they actually say "manage out"? Because that term specifically means making the person quit / move on, not firing them.

I'm not saying that you should make these employees miserable until they leave voluntarily -- but that is what the term typically means. Nag and document and warn and take away flexibilities and generally be terrible = managing people out.
Setting them up for a retirement or promotion elsewhere also falls in this category, but is usually used for too-expensive high performers.

+1. They want you to make these folks lives miserable so they quit. If they were going to fire them, they would already done so.

Not to get too meta but is it possible that this is a game within a game? Put another way, maybe the company is trying to make the OP's life miserable that that they quit.

Sometimes it's best just to take the loss and move on to the next job and hope for a more function organization.

You’ve all asked good questions and made some valid points and suggestions. Bottom line is that I’m exhausted by this place. The kinds of changes needed aren’t things I can lead from my position. It is clear I don’t have the support I need to do more than I’ve done and I’m going into self preservation mode now. I don’t even have the support I need to maintain the status quo.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did they actually say "manage out"? Because that term specifically means making the person quit / move on, not firing them.

I'm not saying that you should make these employees miserable until they leave voluntarily -- but that is what the term typically means. Nag and document and warn and take away flexibilities and generally be terrible = managing people out.
Setting them up for a retirement or promotion elsewhere also falls in this category, but is usually used for too-expensive high performers.

+1. They want you to make these folks lives miserable so they quit. If they were going to fire them, they would already done so.

They won’t quit. I’m making my own life miserable doing this. Perhaps that’s what they want.

Pretty easy to make them quit. My old boss did this. Scott is behind in his work, we all need to pitch in to help Scott. Going forward we will be working every Sunday and OT every night. Scott last two weeks, the peer abuse he got was a lot

I had a coworker who just melted down and refused to come to work or do any work. Took fmla saying they were stressed and needed time. The other employees basically revolted. We couldn’t absorb his workload. Every project was so incredibly messed up. The employee had trashed all of his files and we couldn’t figure out what happened. We’re still angry at this person.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did they actually say "manage out"? Because that term specifically means making the person quit / move on, not firing them.

I'm not saying that you should make these employees miserable until they leave voluntarily -- but that is what the term typically means. Nag and document and warn and take away flexibilities and generally be terrible = managing people out.
Setting them up for a retirement or promotion elsewhere also falls in this category, but is usually used for too-expensive high performers.

+1. They want you to make these folks lives miserable so they quit. If they were going to fire them, they would already done so.

They won’t quit. I’m making my own life miserable doing this. Perhaps that’s what they want.

Pretty easy to make them quit. My old boss did this. Scott is behind in his work, we all need to pitch in to help Scott. Going forward we will be working every Sunday and OT every night. Scott last two weeks, the peer abuse he got was a lot

It sucks only in government. Anywhere else, you just gaslight the fella and then have security posted outside the room to conduct an escort immediately after the conversation is over. "We'll send you your things."

The process of firing people sucks unless the employee really Fs up.

It sounds like this may be your first time firing somebody. Is that right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did they actually say "manage out"? Because that term specifically means making the person quit / move on, not firing them.

I'm not saying that you should make these employees miserable until they leave voluntarily -- but that is what the term typically means. Nag and document and warn and take away flexibilities and generally be terrible = managing people out.
Setting them up for a retirement or promotion elsewhere also falls in this category, but is usually used for too-expensive high performers.

That’s a really good point. I don’t think they used the phrase but that is what it feels like is happening. I took the message as one of support for firing people — it was delivered with an acknowledgement that the organization had made it too hard for management to discipline and terminate people with known issues. I’m not willing to push any more, given the fact that every time I want to take action, HR backs off or asks for more support. People aren’t going to voluntarily give up jobs they know they’ll never be fired from. In my case, no amount of coaching or nagging is fixing their issues. In fact, the more I push without imposing real consequences, the worse they get. Maybe they’re managing me out!

Well okay, but to me if they’re saying you need to do xyz before firing people it clearly means either
a) they don’t want you to fire as many people
or b) they want firings to be airtight under whatever contract rules so they don’t become a hassle after the fact

Is there a union? Do you have any reason to think it’s b? If not, it has to be that they want you to fire fewer people, because why else would they do that. And HR is pushing back because they’re being evaluated on you firing fewer people, which is why they are making you do this stuff.

I am not on the spectrum but this kind of song and dance drives me insane. You’re all on the same team, so just get clear about what you’re all trying to achieve so you can work together effectively. If the answer is that they want you to fire fewer people, and that’s an immovable rock, it seems like it would be way better for you to just know that and you can decide if you still want the job instead of flailing against this managing out stuff.

Forgive my ignorance, but, why can’t OP just fire the employees who need to be terminated? Nothing I read in fact pattern suggests this will end up being an EEOC nightmare if simple termination is the course of action

Your managers are the ones that should be managed out!