manager borrowed money, refused to repay it, then fired me

This is long but really outrageous. A reader writes:

I was fired from my job 3 months ago. The reason I was given was "due to personality conflicts with your supervisor," which was shocking, considering that we were actually were pretty close in the office. I had been there longer then her and anyone else, and I never had any conflicts with anyone throughout the duration of my employment. To the contrary, I had wonderful relationships with every single person.

A couple of weeks before my termination, I did go to HR for some assistance because my supervisor began asking to borrow money from me in late 2009, and she continued to constantly ask through out 2010. She was pressuring me so much that it got to the point that I was so uncomfortable at work that I felt obligated to loan her the money. 

The last time she borrowed money ($750), she agreed to pay it back by our next pay period because I told her that could only afford to loan it to her if I got it back by that specific date; she agreed. Well, that date came and she didn't pay me back. A week went by and she didn't mention anything. When I sent her a message asking her about the loan, she simply ignored it. At this point, not only was I in financial trouble because my bills were unpaid, but she began to be really hostile towards me. When I asked again that she at least pay me back half of the money, she said that she needed to check her account and she could probably give me $100. Well, after that reply there was NOTHING. No payback, no message or email, nothing. 

So, since she was refusing to pay me back, I went to our HR person (hesitantly, because they were actually friends outside of work, but I had no choice). I told HR what was going on, and by the immediate reaction I knew there was something else going on, but she did not disclose anything, obviously. She did, however, want to help me and said that she was going to have to talk to the owner of the company about this, which I said would be fine. Two weeks go by and nothing, I then go to HR and ask what was going on, and she said that the owner told her not to get involved and at this point it is getting even more weird in the office. So, HR redirects me to the owner of our company. 

A day or so later the owner calls me into his office and says that my supervisor was told to repay me immediately. Then he asks me about my work environment, so I tell him how she has been making me feel, etc. He then continues to say that he wants to resolved as I have been the longest employee there and she was wrong, etc. Then he shared that she had already been warned not to ask anyone in her "work -related" environment for money or loans. One week later, I finally get my money paid back and that Friday I also get fired. 

After I was fired, I was contacted by the mail carrier who delivered our daily mail, who I'd known since I began working there. He said he was shocked to find out that I was no longer there, and when I told him the reason for my termination, he revealed that my supervisor had asked him to borrow $4,000 and that he reported it to our company.

I never had even one incident with anyone in my company, there are no disciplinary actions in my personnel file at all whatsoever, and throughout this time I remained cordial and respectful to my supervisor as I simply needed my money because I was suffering financially. So how do I explain this to a prospective employer? I guess I am still in shock and I can't even come up with the words to articulate it.

Wow. First let's talk about this firing itself, because I have to think that you might have a wrongful discharge claim. I'm not a lawyer and I don't have all the facts about what happened, but if, for instance, your employee handbook says that you'll get a formal warning before being fired, and you weren't warned, that would be legally relevant. There are also some jurisdictions where you have a claim for wrongful discharge if you were fired in a way that violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Any employment lawyers in the audience want to weigh in on the legal side of this?

Now, I'm not necessarily recommending that you explore an actual lawsuit (although you might have that option), because lawsuits are expensive, exhausting, and can take years. But I am recommending that you contact your old company (go to HR and the owner, not your old boss) and try to negotiate a very, very good severance package, based on how improperly they handled this -- including a sizable severance payment and an agreement about what the company will say about your tenure there and the reason for your departure. And you might want to have a lawyer help you with these negotiations, because the involvement of a lawyer sends an implicit "or else there's going to be a legal problem" message.

As a side note, it's interesting to speculate on what the hell this company was thinking. They're retaining a manager who apparently has a reputation for asking employees (and the postal carrier!) for loans and who ignored warnings to stop, and they've fired one of the employees she pressured for money without presenting a concrete performance-related reason. I'd love to know to what extent your manager's boss and/or HR were involved in the decision to fire you. My hunch is that (a) they aren't especially aware of employment law that might come into play here, and (b) they think firing a manager is a huge deal and they don't want to rock that boat, so they're willing to let her run wild all over everyone else (always a bad approach).

Anyway, let's answer your actual question, about what to tell prospective employers in interviews: Ideally, you'll have worked out an arrangement with your previous employer that requires them to say that you were a great employee and were driven out by a problem manager. In the interview itself, you can then say, "I made the mistake of loaning my manager a large amount of money, and it soured the relationship. It ultimately made things so uncomfortable that I ended up leaving as a result."

And to everyone else:  Loans in the workplace -- giving or receiving -- are not a good idea. Say no.

how to explain you were fired, when interviewing

If you were fired from a recent job, you’re probably dreading being asked about it in an interview. Is there any way to tell the truth without killing your chances of getting the job?

Fortunately, yes. There are five keys to handling this well, which I discuss over at U.S. News & World Report today. Head over there and check it out.

how do you replace an employee who doesn't know she's being fired?

A reader writes:

I’ve been going through your archives to see if you had any advice on replacing a current employee before they know they are being replaced…when that employee is HR. In a small company with one HR person we certainly can’t place an ad – and they want to have viable candidates before this person is let go. 

This is due to serious performance issues which have been addressed, time and again, yet continue. I am the one picking up the slack for what isn’t being done and am now involved in the replacement process.

The one HR professional I knew who was on the market got a job 15 days before I was asked to see if she was interested. That exhausted all our personal connections – such as they were.

This can’t be uncommon – but it’s really hard to find anything written about this.

Well, the first thing I'd ask is: Are you sure that's the order you have to do things in? I strongly advise firing her first and then launching your search -- largely because it feels like the right thing to do, but also because you want the strongest candidate pool possible, and if you're sneaking around conducting the search covertly, you're almost definitely going to compromise your ability to do that.

Yes, firing her first does mean that the position would be vacant for a short time (likely 4-6 weeks, as long as you move through the hiring process with reasonable speed), but I'd be surprised if it weren't possible to find a way to cover her essential responsibilities for 4-6 weeks until you get someone new in there. After all, if she were suddenly hospitalized for a month, you'd find a way to make it work. 

If there's no one on staff who can cover the essentials, look into getting a temp with an HR background to fill in while the position is open.

If for some reason you're absolutely committed to starting the search before she's gone -- and again, I strongly recommend against it -- you could (a) use a search firm so that applications aren't coming into your office, and make sure the search firm knows they can't identify your company in the ad, or (b) set up an anonymous email address for applications and do the screening yourself ... but I think it's fairly shady, and it doesn't send a great message to other employees who may hear about it.

There's another option too, although it depends on the employee's character: Does she have enough integrity that you could simply be open with her about the fact that it's not working out? In some cases, you can tell an employee that it's not working out and mutually set a date for their last day that's a month or two away, with the understanding that that will give them time to look for a job and you time to look for a replacement. Important caution: This only works with employees who you know won't be so hostile or demoralized that you risk them poisoning the office environment or sabotaging the company in some way. And if you find that either one of those things is happening, you need to be prepared to have them leave immediately. But with the right person, in the right culture, this can work. (You can read about one of the times I did it here.) Listen to your gut on this though; if you have doubts, don't do it.

Anyone else have other thoughts?

no one told me my coworker was fired

A reader writes:

Yesterday I found out through coworkers that one of our managers left/was fired (closer to the latter, I think... I have heard he was in a "you need to show improvement in three months" situation which ended this week). His name is still on his office, and his things are still here, but he is definitely gone--after confirming with a coworker, I sent him an e-mail wishing him well and have heard back from him.

My thoughts on the matter are definitely biased by the fact I really liked the guy, as did a lot of the people who worked under him, but I am writing to ask what communication is proper from an employer after an employee is let go in a situation like this? I am angry that there has been no word from my employer--this is someone I worked with on and off for the past year and a half! We were not working together recently, but I did not like finding this out through "office gossip" and it makes me uncomfortable that management is not willing to communicate that this employee no longer works here. Within what time-frame would you expect to be told of a coworker's firing? Or is it appropriate not to communicate this?

Our office is about 60 people (the company is 300-400), and we frequently get office-wide e-mails. I was very frustrated yesterday, because I wanted to reach out the employee, but did not want to do so mistakenly in case the rumor was false. I know decisions like this are usually made with a lot of planning--is there some reason I'm missing why other employees can't be informed afterwards? When employees leave under other circumstances we usually have a little ice-cream social goodbye meeting ("Office Space" style) which makes it hard to take when one employee just disappears.

Yes, employers should let other employees know as soon as possible. Not only is it completely weird not to for the reasons that you cite, but there are also practical reasons that demand it -- for instance, you might still be transferring calls to the person, or sending them work.

However, for some reason, a lot of employers really struggle with how to do this gracefully. I worked at one place that would never announce it -- one day the person's desk would just be empty and it was clear that they were Not To Be Spoken Of Again. This place also fired a ton of people, so it of course the company's bizarre handling of it quickly became a morbid joke among all of us, and whenever anyone was out sick or even just late, speculation would be rampant.

Anyway, in my opinion, the way to do it is to let people know quickly and directly, along with information on how things will be handled while the position is vacant. For instance: "Jim's last day was today, and we wish him the best. Until we hire a replacement, Linda will be handling his accounts, and please talk to her if you have questions about specific projects Jim was working on."

But it's often going to be awkward anyway. In my experience, there are two ways people react when a coworker gets fired: They either think "I saw that one coming" (or even "it's about time") or they're shocked.

When people saw it coming, it usually doesn't cause much of a ripple. But in cases where coworkers are shocked, it can be really be rattling. When you're shocked, keep in mind that most people don't advertise it when they're struggling in their jobs, and good managers are discreet about it too. So even though the firing came as a surprise to you, it probably didn't come as a surprise to your coworker. It's pretty rare for someone to be fired without any warning (except in particularly egregious cases, like embezzling or, say, punching someone). In most cases, the employee has had numerous conversations with their manager about whatever the problem is and what needs to change. And if the employer is at all responsible, the person has also been explicitly told that they could lose their job if the problems aren't fixed.

But that's a tangent. Back to your question: Anyone want to shed light on what's up with those companies that fire people and then don't announce to the remaining staff that the person is gone? Are they too wimpy? Suffering from misplaced fear that they'll get sued if they say the wrong thing? Something else?

should I include a job I was fired from on my resume?

A reader writes:

I was just terminated from my job. I was five days before being off probation and two days away from my first big job event (I plan and run conferences). Without any prior notice, meeting, or confrontation, I was ushered into my department head’s office and told that in order to make a strong team, she needed to let me go immediately. I asked if there was any particular cause or option for a re-negotiation, but was told that since I was still in my probationary period, they were within their rights to terminate me at any time. At that point security came in and ushered me to my office to collect my things and leave the building. It was all quite dramatic.

Of course, I understand the rules. I am, however, at a bit of a loss on how to move on from here. I had been out of work for five months prior to this position and worked there for 2.5 months before being terminated. In those weeks I did not rack up any accomplishments I would typically list in a resume -- summer is a downtime for conferences. And, until I receive a copy of my file with my termination letter from HR, I do not want anyone contacting them. I also cannot speak to what happened or how I plan to improve whatever it was they found lacking in my performance until I have a better explanation, if I ever am to get one.

So, my question is, do I leave this job off my resume, which shows that I have been out of work since March? Or, do I include it? I don’t know if I ever will find out the "real reason" I was fired, and I know that a short stint in this job looks suspicious. I would be suspicious of me. Or, does being out of work, even in such an economy, look worse?

Leave the job off your resume.

It was only two and a half months, which means that it's not useful in showing any real accomplishments or advancement. And in addition to not doing you any good because of that, it will actually do harm -- by raising questions about what you were fired or left so soon. Those are questions that can be addressed if it's absolutely unavoidable, but it's better to never raise the questions at all if you can.

In general, I'd suggest leaving any short stints like this off a resume, unless there's a way to paint them in a flattering light (and to do so honestly). For instance, short-term consulting is fine. But leaving after two months because of fickleness or dismissal aren't things that strengthen your candidacy.

Your resume is not required to be a comprehensive accounting of how you spent each month of your professional life. It's understood that the whole point is to present yourself in the strongest light.

Now, of course you may get questions about how you spent a period of time that your resume left unaccounted for. In your case, you had already been unemployed for five months before. You didn't say why, but let's assume for the sake of illustration that you were laid off. When asked about the period of time since your last job, you would simply say that you, like so many others right now, were laid off and have spent the time since job-searching and doing ____. (Fill in the blank with freelancing, caring for family members, taking a class, or whatever happens to be true in your case.)

Regarding your question about whether being out of work looks bad: Show me a hiring manager who hasn't been spending her days talking to strong candidates who are out of work because of the economy, and I will show you a hiring manager who just started her job this morning. Great candidates who are unemployed have become normal right now, unfortunately. Any hiring manager who would discard a candidate for being out of work right now isn't living in reality (and is a jerk you don't want to work for anyway).

So leave that job off your resume, and good luck.

firing an employee of 27 years

A reader writes:

My husband is a wonderful dentist, but has not been exactly the best manager. He has a small office with one employee who has been there for 27 years. When she started 27 years ago he sent her a general confirmation letter that stated her salary at the time and time off. The rest was pretty general.

I am a computer consultant who came in to update his office. What I have found has been unbelievable – to both me and my husband. The books were off by $9,000, recalls weren’t being made, etc. On top of that, she can’t even understand the fundamentals of computers so she can’t do many elementary aspects of her job.

She has blatantly ignored instructions I have given her, she has lied, and more.

She is good with patients. That is her redeeming quality.

I think we should fire her. I have documented everything. After the last conversation, I wrote everything down and asked her to sign or to write her version that we could staple to the appraisal. She refused to sign and did not write up anything.

My husband is concerned that she will try a lawsuit since she has worked there so many years. I say she doesn’t have a ground to stand on.

I know people can collect unemployment if they are incompetent. How about if they have lied or if they have just ignored instructions?

Since we sent her the initial employment letter – is she still considered “at will” or is she under contract?

Your husband is worried that she will file a lawsuit based on what? You're allowed to fire people for being incompetent, or for pretty much any other reason you want, as long as that reason isn't discrimination based on a legally protected category (race, religion, sex, disability, etc.). That's not to say that some people don't file frivolous lawsuits, but there's nothing you can do about that, and you certainly can't be held hostage to a bad employee by fear of that.

Now, normally I would advise you to see if you can figure out why this woman's performance is so bad. Does she need additional training? Better guidance on priorities? Some other sort of help? Plenty of struggling employees can be turned around. However, in this case, it sounds like there are deeper problems, particularly in light of the lying and the refusing to sign the appraisal (which indicates she's deeply out of alignment with you and not doing anything constructive about it, at least not from what I can see here).

Frankly, if she's lying about things, that's grounds for firing without a warning. But this woman has worked for you for 27 years, so I recommend proceeding a bit more deliberately that that.

Sit her down and say something like, "We've had some recent conversations about some serious performance concerns, and I haven't seen the improvement that we discussed. I need to let you know that these issues are now at the point where your job is in jeopardy. We will need to replace you if these issues aren't immediately corrected."

Be explicit about the fact that she's in danger of being fired; too often managers mess this step up because it's hard to tell someone their job is in danger. Believe me, it is much kinder to say it explicitly than to give no warning. Tell her explicitly: "Your job is in jeopardy. We need to see immediate improvement or we will need to replace you." Do not hint around; come out and say it.

While you're not required to explicitly warn someone before firing them, this post explains why it's a good idea.

From there, you don't need a long, drawn-out probationary period; if there's going to be improvement, you're going to see it quickly. Keep a close eye on her, and if you're still seeing serious issues a week or two later, then it's time to take action. Read this post for specific advice on how to conduct the firing.

Regarding unemployment, she'll likely be eligible for it. To prove her ineligible, you'd have to show deliberate misconduct, which you probably can't do here. (But also, why fight her on unemployment? You're firing her; showing some compassion in this area is not just kind, but also smart -- angry ex-employees denied unemployment are more likely to harass you with frivolous lawsuits.)

Regarding the initial employment letter 27 years ago, it sounds like a pretty standard at-will offer of employment. Unless she's signed a contract with you somewhere along the way, or unless you have an employee handbook that says employees are anything but at-will, she should indeed be an at-will employee, meaning that you or she can terminate the relationship at any time.

Good luck!

career counselor is advising me to lie

A reader writes:

I was told by a career counselor that if asked in an interview why I left my previous job I should answer that I was laid off. I was actually fired, but the company did not dispute my claim for unemployment so I am now collecting. I feel to tell an interviewer that I was laid off is misleading, but this career counselor stated that in the eyes of the government since I am collecting it is ok to say I was laid off, since technically you cannot collect if you are fired.

That career counselor, unfortunately, is an idiot. I hope you weren't paying this person.

First of all, you can indeed collect unemployment if you were fired, at least in most states -- as long as you weren't fired for gross or deliberate misconduct. If you were fired for mere incompetence, bad fit, etc., you can get unemployment.

Second, prospective employers don't care if the government has deemed you eligible to collect unemployment or not. You can't lie and say you were laid off when you weren't. What's going to happen when they call your employer to check references and are told you were fired? When they come back to you to ask about the disparity (if they even bother), are you going to say, "Well, they didn't challenge my unemployment so I've decided to call it a lay-off"?

This "career counselor" is giving you wrong facts and really bad advice. Run.

which employee should be let go?

A reader writes:

I supervise a staff of 5 people as part of a team that was just created within the organization since the beginning of the year. Two of them are constantly bickering between themselves and each runs to me with complaints about the other. I have tried coaching and mediating with the two of them. But this has been going on for six months now. I do not have the time to do a weekly “intervention” with these two and it is draining on the whole team.

I have decided that one of them has to go (not fired; just to another team within the organization). The dilemma is...which one? One of them is disorganized, has made some mistakes and cannot seem to stay on task. The other one performs efficiently but has a track record of not getting along with people, gossiping and just generally keeping things stirred up. I have addressed the specific issues with each of them independently to no avail. Any suggestions?

Yes. Expect them each to meet appropriate standards and fire them if they don't. With their current level of performance, I don't see why you'd want either of them staying on your team, or why you'd inflict them on someone else in your organization.

You're not holding them accountable, and you need to.

Meet with each one individually and explain that you have serious concerns about her performance. With the one who's disorganized, makes mistakes, and has trouble staying on track, address each of those issues. With the one who causes problems among the staff, address that. And with each of them, tell them the bickering is going to stop, effective right now, and that you're not willing to deal with it anymore. They are expected to deal with it between themselves like adults, without it affecting their work or taking up your time, period. These are fundamental requirements of the job. If they don't or can't meet those requirements, they can't stay on staff. It's not negotiable.

And then stick to it.

Do you know how many competent people are on the job market right now, who wouldn't cause you these kinds of issues? These two aren't entitled to hold onto their jobs at all costs. Plus, the opportunity cost of having the wrong people on your staff is enormous. Think about if you had stars in those positions -- the impact can be dramatic.

As a manager, getting results is your fundamental job, and since having the right people makes a huge impact on your ability to do that, you should be putting significant energy into getting and keeping the right people on board and moving out the ones who don’t meet a high bar.

Be clear about your expectations, warn them that if they don't meet them you will let them go, and then back up your words with action.

boss fired me but her assistant keeps calling

A reader writes:

I worked in a domestic capacity and lived in the house where I worked.

After a couple of months of working non-stop, I took a weekend off (didn't take time off before because I didn't want to and there were problems finding cover). A few days later, I was fired and was bundled out of the house on the same day. I was told it was nothing personal, that's just how they deal with firings and that they didn't need a live-in anymore. I had nowhere to go as I wasn't from the area so the employer paid for one night in a motel. I was on my own after that, although the assistant's last words to me were that if I needed "anything at all" to call her.

Needless to say, I was pretty shocked when the next day and every week since the firing, their assistant has been in touch with me, trying to touch base and asking me to keep in touch. I am not sure how to take this apparent concern so, except for the day immediately after the firing, haven't replied.

Are they trying to get me back? I know I was good at the job because their manager said she thought I was good and said it was "them, not (me)" and that it was nothing to do with me.

Even though I haven't had a formal offer to return, I am wondering how to deal with the communication I am receiving in such a way that I leave the door open to returning (I'm not crazy - the money was good for my field), but at the same time not be a doormat. The person who had the job before me kept in touch every week, and every time she called, the lady of the house was pretty disdainful after hanging up the phone. I don't want that situation, which is why I haven't kept in touch with the family - but maybe the assistant is a different matter?

First let me say that dismissing you from where you live without any notice and then only paying for one night in a hotel is not nice behavior, especially when they're saying you did nothing wrong. In fact, let's officially categorize these people as asses. (I do realize this is not unusual with domestic live-in's, thanks to a book I just read about nannies, but that doesn't make it okay. And I don't know why I read that book, since I don't plan to have kids, but it was fascinating nonetheless.)

Anyway. Would you have any interest in keeping in touch with the assistant if you knew for sure that it wasn't going to lead you back to the job? If so, why not do it for its own social merits? But if not, I'd just be straightforward and just ask the assistant what's going on. For instance, "Hey, I really appreciate hearing from you, but to be honest, I'm confused. Are you calling just to be nice? If so, it's really a nice gesture but also not something I want you to feel obligated to do. Or should I be reading something else into this? If you think the possibility of returning at some point is open, I'd be interested in talking about it, but I'm not at all sure if that's what this is about."

When someone is confusing you, ask them to un-confuse you.

But I'm skeptical of these people anyway. They sound volatile and not especially considerate. And maybe a little tyrannical, if what triggered the firing was that you took a weekend off. If you get anything from them, you might want it to be just a reference for your next position. Good luck!

can I be fired for this?

A question I get a lot is "My boss is firing me for ___. Can he do this?"

Yes, probably.

Most employees in the U.S. are at-will, meaning that you can be fired for any reason at all, as long as it's not based on illegal discrimination (i.e., firing you because of your race, gender, religion, or other protected class). There are two exceptions this: (1) if you have a contract, or (2) if your company has an employee manual that commits to always using specific disciplinary procedures before firing someone -- if it does, it's generally obligated to follow those procedures first.

But aside from that, it's generally legal to fire someone for any reason, even if the reason is unfair or illogical.

Is it smart to fire someone for silly reasons? No, of course not. But that's a different question.

should I mention a job I was fired from after 6 weeks?

A reader writes:

I have a question for you regarding being fired. The quick setup is that after several years in my profession, I accepted a management position at an expanding organization. After 6 weeks, I was fired for "not fitting in." The meeting where I was fired was the first and only indication I received from my manager that my performance was anything other than exactly what he wanted.

I am not sure if I should put this position on my resume. I am actually proud of the work I did in that job but it's probably unwise to draw attention to the fact that I was only there 6 weeks. I understand that if I had to complete a job application where I verify all information to be complete, I would include it, but what do you think about putting the position on a resume? Would a resume that showed a six week position as the most recent position pass your initial scan of resumes?

Don't include it.

Here's what goes through my mind when I see a six-week stint: "Is this ... six weeks? Was she fired? Did she quit before even giving it a chance? Why is this even on her resume?"

If the rest of the application is good, this wouldn't stop me from doing a phone interview, but it would absolutely be one of the questions I'd ask early on. And so then we're talking about you being fired, which isn't something insurmountable, but it's really not worth taking the hit when you could have avoided the whole conversation and concerns it raises. It's like deliberately putting a typo on your resume -- there's nothing good that's going to come of it.

Also, six weeks isn't long enough to have meaningful accomplishments of the sort that belong on a resume anyway. So there's nothing here to be gained. Don't include it.

would you fire this woman?

Politico has an incredible account today of a congressional staffer who freaked out on someone she didn't know who called her "Liz" instead of "Elizabeth" in an email. And by freaked out, I mean had a 19-email exchange with her, lambasting her for the mistake, when the person was just seeking a meeting for her boss.

You can read the whole exchange over there, and it's pretty amazing. The other person keeps apologizing and Elizabeth keeps attacking.

What do you think? Would you fire this woman?

should you warn an employee before firing her?

A reader writes:

I am a partner in a small, family-owned small business and financial services firm with 9 employees and 4 consultants in northern California. I've always handled all the back office/HR issues - hiring, firing, performance evaluations, training, disciplinary issues, etc., with no problems for the last 10 years.

My situation is that I will be terminating one of our full time admins, who happens to be family. I've terminated family before, again with no problems. My question is this: do you think I should give her "notice" before I terminate her this week? My father, who's the other partner, wants to because she's family (his niece's daughter) and he has been stalling for the last month.

I am also a bit concerned because we've let her slide without formally saying anything - no verbal or written warnings - for things that I would have terminated her on the spot for, but we were in the middle of an unusually busy and stressful tax season that we are still trying to recover from. My father didn't want me to do anything until we were finished with taxes.

I want to know if I should tell her that she will be losing her job this week due to poor performance (there's a laundry list of things!). Also, my father wants to give her 2 weeks severance as well. "We are firing you because you've been an awful employee who has taken advantage of your situation, but we're going to pay you too." Yes, I know that this is dumb (my gut instinct along with several years of corporate HR management tells me so). I need a professional's opinion.

Well, you're not legally required to warn her in advance that she's in danger of losing her job -- unless you have an employee manual that spells out specific steps that must be taken before someone is fired, in which case courts have held that you must adhere to your own written policies.

However, it's still generally a good idea to warn someone before actually firing them, for the following reasons:

1. The person may actually make the improvements you need, if you spell them out for her. People often don't realize what they're doing wrong, and they frequently have no idea that the problems are severe enough to jeopardize their job, unless you tell them explicitly. People can and do improve when you set out clear expectations -- not always, of course, but you can't always predict who will and who won't.

2. It's simply the kinder thing to do. You're talking about a decision that will impact someone's livelihood; she deserves to have a chance to fix the issues first. If your boss was unhappy with your performance, wouldn't you want to know and have a chance to improve before you were fired?

3. It removes a lot of drama. If you have clearly told the employee about the problems, your expectations, and what needs to change, and have explicitly told them that their job is in jeopardy if specific changes don't occur, then when the termination conversation happens, it’s more a matter of following through on that agreement than an out-of-the-blue shock. I've seen numerous situations where a manager gives lots of negative feedback to a struggling employee but never explicitly says that the person's job in jeopardy, thinking they'll just "get it" -- but the employee ends up stunned when they're ultimately fired.

4. If you don't warn people when their job is in jeopardy, it can create significant anxiety among other employees, who may begin to fear they’re on the verge of being fired every time they receive negative feedback. You want your staff know that they won't be fired without first knowing that their job is in jeopardy and having a chance to improve.

Now, obviously there are some offenses so egregious that they warrant firing on the spot, like, say, embezzlement or punching someone, but those situations are pretty rare. Most of the time, you can afford to give the person a warning ahead of time.

(That said, after a warning conversation, you should expect to either see improvement quickly or know pretty quickly that it’s not going to work out. Don't let it drag on for weeks and weeks at that point. The employee doesn’t need to become great overnight, but you'll want to see a fast and steep climb in that direction.)

As for severance, it's not crazy to offer some. Companies handle this in different ways: Some give no severance when someone is fired for cause, some give a couple of weeks, and some are more generous. It's up to you, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. This post discusses some advantages of offering it.

You seem to think severance would be an outrage in this case, but you also say that you haven't spoken to her about the problems. So, frankly, your and your partner bear some of the responsibility here -- you haven't been good managers in this situation.

I'm concerned that you've suffering from what a lot of small, family-owned businesses suffer from: inattention to or lack of knowledge about good management practices. I'd use this situation as the impetus to focus more on that in the future.

Related posts:

How to fire someone
Alternatives to firing
I used to suck at firing people

how to deal with a coworker being fired

A reader writes:

How do you deal with it when a coworker is fired? Today I was talking with my coworker and nothing seemed out of the ordinary. He went into a meeting with our boss, and next thing I knew he was gone, and an E-mail was sent to the whole department saying that as of today he no longer works here. I don't know what happened, but it surprised me, worried me, and made me nervous about my job.

Want to read the rest of this post? Head on over to U.S. News & World Report, where I answer this question -- and please leave your own feedback in the comments there.

how to fire someone

The first time I had to fire someone, I had no training and no guidance. I remember scouring the Internet looking for tips. Since then, unfortunately, I've become more experienced in it than I'd like to be.

Over at U.S. News & World Report today, I offer six key principles to keep in mind if you have to fire someone. Please check it out and leave your own thoughts in the comments section over there.

how to determine severance when firing an employee

A reader writes:

I have just finished reading what you've written on how to fire an employee. Excellent advice. I do have one question. The employee who will soon be “let go” has certainly had many chances to improve, been given objectives and not met them, etc. However, because this person is still human, has a family, is the bread winner, I do not feel right just severing the ties without some sort of departure package. I do have to take into consideration that this person was an under-performer who had plenty of chances and did cost many other employees a lot of time.

Can you make a recommendation as to what I could do as far as pay, if any? We operate based on the hire date so all of the sick time and and vacation time has been used so I can’t use that to “pay out.” Would I just pay two weeks salary and wish them well? Any suggestions, recommendations, words of wisdom would be greatly appreciated at this point. By the way if it is any help, we are a work at will state that has no requirements with the exception of the standards like COBRA.

There's a wide range of standard practice here -- some companies give no severance when someone is fired for cause, some give a couple of weeks, and some are more generous. In deciding what you'll do in this case, here are some questions to consider:

- What precedent, if any, has your company set in similar situations? Legally you're on safer ground if you don't violate an existing precedent (unless you're more generous than that precedent and willing to do that in similar situations in the future).

- How much warning has the person had? Have they had the chance to see the writing on the wall and start job-hunting? Or are they likely facing a long job search that they haven't had any notice to start yet?

- Are you worried about the employee retaliating in some way, such as through (hopefully frivolous) legal action? If so, severance can be a good incentive for him not to do that -- since to receive severance, employees typically have to sign a general release, releasing the company from any future claims.

- What can you afford to do? This is the biggest one. I tend to think that if you can afford to be generous, you should be. (Without knowing factors like the length of employment and nature of the problems, I'd consider two weeks' pay to be reasonable and one month or more to be generous. I'd also consider zero to be defensible in many circumstances.) If you can afford to be generous, it's the compassionate thing to do.

Advice from anyone else?

job-searching after being let go

A reader writes:

August 29, 2008 - After working for this IT services company for 2.5 years, I was taken into the boss's office and told that the money was bad and business was scarce. My boss cut me from 40 hours per week down to 20 hours per week to save the company money. He stated that he didn't want to get so bad that he had to shut the doors of the business.

September 24, 2008 - Heard from the accounting/office manager of the business that the company is not doing any better and that the boss had to use funds from his personal account to cover the business taxes.

September 25, 2008 - My boss took me into his office and stated that I made a typographical error and that he was going to let me go.

I felt that he let me go due to the business lacking in funds to cover me on the payroll; however had to come up with a lame excuse to fire me. Please understand my former boss has no people skills and likes to bark commands instead of talk to you like you are a human. In the 9 years that the business was open, my position was the one with the highest turnover. In the 9 years of operation I was number 34 to sit in that seat.

How should I address this on my application and in interviews so that I don't have a hard time finding a job in the future?

I'm not sure that you were fired. As you point out, it sounds like a layoff (which are financially based). You can find out for sure this way: Did the company rehire for your position, or are they leaving it vacant? If the position no longer exists, your position was eliminated, which is often the definition of a layoff.

Now, is it possible that your boss genuinely fired you for cause and then later decided not to refill the position for financial reasons? Sure, absolutely. But given the context that you've laid out here, I'd be skeptical.

If future employers ask why you left, I'd simply explain that the business was in extreme financial trouble, your hours were cut in half, and the boss was using his personal money to pay business taxes. Given the economy right now, most people's brains are going to fill in the rest on their own and move on to the next question. However, some interviewers may specifically ask, "Were you laid off or did you leave voluntarily?" so I'd find some wording that implies you were laid off without outright lying about what your boss said.

Of course, the best thing you could do would be to get the company to agree to consider your departure a layoff (if indeed they didn't refill the position). Assuming they've eliminated the position, you can call your old boss and ask if he'd be willing to call your departure a layoff rather than a firing for future reference calls. It's at least worth a shot -- the worst that can happen is that he'll say no. If there's an HR department, start with them; they may be able to advocate for you with your boss. And actually, even if the company did refill your position and it wasn't a layoff, you should still try this approach; see this post for more details on how to do it. Good luck!

why poor performers don't get fired

Almost everyone has had the experience of working alongside someone who is a chronically poor performer—and then puzzling over the question of why nothing is being done about it. Today at U.S. News & World Report, I explore the reasons why. Please check it out, comment, etc.!

5 signs you're about to be fired

It's always baffling to me how many people don't realize when they're in danger of being fired, even when the signs are all there. When it finally happens, they're stunned and seem never to have seen it coming. Over at U.S. News & World Report today, I give five signs that your job might be in danger. Check it out.

answering "have you ever been fired?" in an interview

A reader writes:

I was in a job interview the other day and everything was going well, until I was asked if I had ever been fired, and if so what were the reasons. Having never been asked that question before, my initial reaction was to feel that my privacy was being invaded and that this was an inappropriate question. Additionally, I was asked to sign a statement that I had not answered this question honestly, or it would be used as a reason for dismissal.

Since that interview, I have learned that this is a common question. The idea behind that question is that whatever happened before will happen again. (This was also said in the interview and not "may," but "will.")

I was indeed fired from a job about 10 years ago. I did the job well, I contributed to the organization, but my relationship with my supervisor was not good (this really can happen). Since then I ensure that I do both -- I do the job well and work at my working relationships.

So my question is, how can I answer this question honestly? Is it a trick question?

It's not a trick question. It's exactly what it seems to be -- a genuine desire to know if you have ever been fired before and, if so, why. If you put yourself in the employer's shoes, you'll probably understand why an interviewer would want to know this. It's not that no one who has been fired could ever be the right fit at a different job -- but it certainly does provide useful information about problems that the candidate has run into in the past (even if only personality conflicts). And perhaps most importantly, there's a lot to be gleaned from the way the candidate discusses it now. Do they just seem bitter and angry about it? Have they learned from the experience? How has it changed how they conduct business? And so forth.

It's hard to tell you how you yourself should answer this question without knowing more specifics, but one option might be talking about how you ended up in that situation, what you learned from it, and what you do differently now as a result.