dougv.com « Doug Vanderweide

Sophistry And Misused $10 Words Don't Change The Facts: Your Company Will Fire You In A Heartbeat If It Serves Their Purposes

Recently added as a comment to my post about job performance reviews:

It is unfortunate that your experience has taught you to view the generic company-employee relationship as such. While I don’™t doubt that many organizations do deal with their employees in that way, it is thankfully not true of all.

Any successful company in the capitalist system is more interested in profit than the individual welfare of workers. That’s why we have trade unions and communists.

Poor companies employ mediocre middle managers; great companies are not devoid of incompetence but most within are not of the pointy-haired variety. A truly talented and able business leader understands the value of employees who are motivated to improve themselves, and communicates this effectively to the managers beneath him.

Man, I wish people would take 10 seconds to check facts before spouting total nonsense. Average annual turnover rates for all US industries have increased in the last five years, according to the US Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (June 2001-May 2002 vs. September 2005-August 2006).

This happens because corporations are not singular entities of a particular species; they are a composition of many individuals with varying abilities, interests and goals. A successful company is less concerned with treating employees as potential liabilities because a successful company has an very high rate of successful hires, which fosters an environment of treating employees as both valuable assets and appreciating investments.

Wrong again. If employers were hiring the right people, turnover rates would be decreasing, not increasing. People don’t quit jobs they like; and if employers were as altruistic as this person suggests, they’d simply cut profits to increase payrolls.

The evidence, of course, belies that. In February 2007, there were 935 mass layoff events (defined as 50 or more employees being laid off), up from 216 in February 2006, according to BLS. In fact, you can chart the rise in mass layoffs quite easily: Every time the Dow Jones Industrial Average was in decline, layoffs were also in decline; when layoffs spiked, so did the stock market.

Reason: Profits come first, payroll second. You are expendable.

Ultimately, your entry suggest you hold a very common, but unfortunate and incorrect assumption – that the ‘other people’, the vague ‘them’ who sit on high and make decisions about how and why to hold performance reviews – are radically different from you.

I understand you probably went to business school, and therefore cannot understand, nor communicate in, proper English. But I never even allude to what you suggest. My message could not be more clear: Companies must have a written record to fire you. Middle managers are largely incompetent. The former is demonstrated by the evidence. The latter is common knowledge, again demonstrated daily in mass media.

It’™s simply not the case. There are exploiters, inconsiderates, incompetents at every level – from the custodial to the executive – but assuming that people always become more diabolical as they climb the corporate ladder to points higher than you have been is the foundation point for an adversarial relationship, which is never beneficial.

You don’t look smart if you string together a bunch of big words. It doesn’t make your point valid, either.

If all management, especially large corporate management, was as philanthropic as you suggest, we would never have wound up with labor unions or the communist bloc.

Instead of everyone preparing themselves for layoffs and litigation, a better strategy would be to actually try to learn from the performance reviews – the intention does not negate the value of what is said.

If performance reviews were legitimate instruments, your point would be valid. But again, performance evaluations exist to establish a paper trail, in the event an employee tries to fight discharge or discipline. That is the extent of their value. Suggesting they are honest assessments of skill, and nothing more, is a patent lie, and not even a clever one. It begs the question.

If performance reviews are legitimate instruments, then a company only has two options: Promote those who are exceptional, demote those who are inferior. Which bears out my two central points: Middle managers are often promoted from the ranks, which means they aren’t good managers, just good workers thrust, unprepared, into management positions. And the performance review exists as documented proof should you be fired.

Even mediocre companies do not fire people who don’™t deserve it – the simple cost of replacing an employee is far too high – the middle managers know this and the upper management knows this.

I point, again, to the mass layoff statistics. The second you become unprofitable, you’re gone. It may not happen immediately, and that’s the point: The day you need to go, the company has an arsenal of ammunition against you in the form of repeated performance reviews in which you never show satisfactory progress in some aspect of your work.

So if they say you can improve, take heed. And if the environment does turn so foul that it looks like an unwarranted firing is on the horizon, send out your CV and be thankful you got out of such a terrible company before things got too bad.

All employees should always be looking for greener pastures, because believe me, the company is always looking at your salary and benefits and trying to figure out if you’re worth it. The second you aren’t, out the door you go.