Before You Make That People Decision, Ask Yourself This
Updated: 6 days ago
One of the simplest pieces of HR advice I can give a business leader is this:
Make employment-related decisions for legitimate business reasons—and be able to explain what those reasons are.
That sounds obvious. But in the real world, employment decisions aren't always made when everyone is calm, objective, and looking at all the facts.
A manager is frustrated with an employee. Someone has become difficult to work with. A leader has "just had enough." One employee gets a little more grace because they're well-liked, while another gets written up for essentially the same behavior.
That's when organizations can get into trouble.
Whether you're hiring, promoting, giving someone a raise, addressing a performance problem, or terminating employment, you should be able to answer a fairly simple question:
Can I clearly explain why we're making this decision?
And preferably, your explanation should be supported by facts.
"I'm frustrated" isn't a business reason. Sometimes frustration signals that something needs to be addressed. But frustration shouldn't be the basis for the decision.
For example, a manager may come to HR and say:
"I want to let John go. His attitude is terrible, and I'm tired of dealing with him."
Before making that decision, I'd want to dig deeper.
What does "terrible attitude" actually mean?
Is John missing deadlines? Being disrespectful to customers? Refusing reasonable directions? Creating conflict on the team? Has anyone talked with him about it? Have expectations been made clear? Is there documentation showing that the problem has continued?
The answers to those questions shift the conversation away from emotion and toward a legitimate business reason.
Instead of:
"We terminated him because he had a bad attitude."
You may be able to say:
"We addressed repeated instances of unprofessional communication with coworkers on three occasions, clearly explained our expectations for improvement, and the behavior continued."
That's a very different decision-making process.
Consistency matters too
Another question I frequently encourage leaders to ask is:
How have you handled similar situations with other employees?
Consistency doesn't mean every situation has to result in exactly the same outcome.
Circumstances matter. An employee's work history, seriousness of the issue, previous coaching or discipline, and other factors can legitimately affect a decision.
But there should be a reason for the difference.
For example:
Imagine two employees repeatedly arrive late for work.
One receives a written warning after multiple conversations. The other has the same attendance problem, but the manager ignores it because she's one of his strongest employees.
That's difficult to explain.
A better approach is to set expectations, consider the relevant circumstances, and apply the same basic decision-making process to both employees. When employees in similar situations are treated very differently, and no one can explain why, that's a red flag.
It also affects more than legal risk. Employees notice. They notice when one person gets away with something another person doesn't. They notice when policies seem to depend on who you are or who your manager is. And over time, inconsistent decisions erode trust in leadership.
Promotions deserve the same scrutiny
This principle doesn't apply only when something goes wrong.
Suppose you have two employees interested in a supervisor position, and the hiring manager says:
"I just think Susan would be a better fit."
Maybe she would. But what does "better fit" mean?
Look at the requirements of the role. Consider each person's performance, skills, leadership capability, experience, and readiness. Determine what criteria matter before making the decision.
Then you can explain why Susan was selected based on what the business actually needs—not simply because someone liked her better or felt more comfortable with her.
Slow the decision down
Some of the worst employment decisions I've seen weren't necessarily made by bad managers. They were made too quickly.
Something happened. Emotions were high. A manager wanted immediate action.
Before making a significant employment decision, ask:
What is the business reason for this decision?
What facts support it?
Have expectations been clearly communicated?
Have we handled similar situations consistently?
Is there anything about this situation that makes it legitimately different?
Do we have documentation that supports what we're saying?
Would I be comfortable explaining this decision to the employee—or to someone outside the organization?
That last question can be especially helpful.
If your explanation is mostly "I just feel like...", "Everybody knows...", or "I'm tired of dealing with this...", you probably aren't ready to make the decision yet.
Good HR doesn't mean avoiding hard decisions
Making thoughtful, consistent employment decisions does not mean keeping poor performers indefinitely or making managers jump through endless hoops before taking action.
Sometimes termination is absolutely the right business decision. Sometimes the right decision is to promote one employee and not another. Sometimes you need to tell a good employee that their performance isn't meeting expectations.
Good HR isn't about avoiding those decisions. It's about making them well.
Be clear about expectations. Get the facts. Address problems early. When appropriate, give people a reasonable opportunity to improve. Document important conversations. And when a decision needs to be made, make it based on legitimate business reasons you can clearly articulate.
This reduces risk. It's better for the organization. It's fairer to employees. And it makes those difficult people decisions a lot easier to stand behind.
***
Learn more on this topic and other HR fundamentals that can reduce legal risk and help you build a better workplace at our upcoming virtual insider event.
Comments