You've already cleared it with political allies they have at the company who could stop it.
If I found out that a manager was undermining me in this way, I'd strike back and it probably wouldn't be good for me or him. Trying to turn my friends against me? That's war. I'd fuck him up and I'd keep fucking him up after the end of that job.
Letting an employee go isn't personal. Reaching out to his "political allies" to undermine him is personal. If you want me off your team, I'll leave. If you try to stop a transfer by corrupting people who like me, then I'm going to fuck up your shit, and it's totally personal.
All that said, no organization should be in a state where a truly toxic person can be protected by having a political power base. If you can't fire someone who's genuinely causing problems (e.g. harassment) without bringing that person's political power base into the equation, you have a dysfunctional organization.
This sort of thing is why companies should fire fast and be generous with severance instead of writing dishonest "performance improvement plans" that essentially mean an already-fired employee gets a month to come in to the office and still wreak havoc. It's better to err on the side of a bad employee getting an "undeserved" severance package than to have "walking dead" employees pissing all over morale. Once it's clear that the only move is to fire someone, it's best to do it quickly. Severance (enough to cover a typical job search) is actually very cheap when you consider the risk and misery (for the manager and team) involved in a PIP or paper trail.
If I found out that a manager was undermining me in this
way, I'd strike back and it probably wouldn't be good for
me or him.
Allow me to clarify: Before you make a threat (such as to fire someone) you need to make sure the threat is credible.
This is for exactly the reason you say: If you openly try but fail to get rid of someone, they may take it personally and try to "fuck up your shit".
If there's someone who can stop your threat (e.g. the employee is buddies with your boss) you go to that someone, lay out the problem and what you see as the options for solving it, and ask them for their advice. This advice will either be "go ahead" or "I'll take care of it"; in the latter case you should allow some time for them to take care of it.
My point is that you should never threaten to fire someone. Once the decision is made, you should do it.
Yes, this means you'll have to pay a severance because there is no paper trail. A typical severance (enough to cover the expected length of a job search) is a small cost, considering what you're getting in the deal: non-litigation, non-disparagement, minimal drama, and the employee moved out the same day.
1 - please (do/don't do) X. Hopefully this takes care of things.
2 - I said (do/don't do) X. why the fuck are you (not doing / doing) X. Now I'm unhappy, but again, hopefully this is the end of things and the employee starts doing / not doing X.
3 - (and this is what parent was talking about; I now have an employee refusing to do what I said and not providing good reasons for said refusal.) Now the conversation is: do / don't do X again and you're fired.
it isn't a decision, it's laying out consequences. Now, between steps 2 and 3, when I become aware of the doing or not doing X, I'm now moving on to the point where I have to give pretty blunt orders. I'm going to make sure my boss and potentially a peer or two, depending on which teams this employee works for, are aware of the situation and are ok with what will happen; I think that's what michaelt is talking about. There's also, obviously, a query for extenuating circumstances that they are but I am not aware of.
Yes, if your legislative environment and HR department will let you fire someone without going through written warnings and improvement plans, I agree that sounds easier than inviting them to start looking for another job.
I think you're likely speaking from different societal/legal models of employment. Here in the states, when you're ready to fire someone, you fire them. Unless you're dealing with a union. Then there are 10 additional steps.
That's not necessarily true if you want to minimize your exposure to an employment discrimination suit - often, you would want to have evidence that you gave the employee in question ample opportunity to improve. E.g. it helps the employer's position if they have regular performance reviews and those reviews reflect inadequate performance.
You've already cleared it with political allies they have at the company who could stop it.
If I found out that a manager was undermining me in this way, I'd strike back and it probably wouldn't be good for me or him. Trying to turn my friends against me? That's war. I'd fuck him up and I'd keep fucking him up after the end of that job.
Letting an employee go isn't personal. Reaching out to his "political allies" to undermine him is personal. If you want me off your team, I'll leave. If you try to stop a transfer by corrupting people who like me, then I'm going to fuck up your shit, and it's totally personal.
All that said, no organization should be in a state where a truly toxic person can be protected by having a political power base. If you can't fire someone who's genuinely causing problems (e.g. harassment) without bringing that person's political power base into the equation, you have a dysfunctional organization.
This sort of thing is why companies should fire fast and be generous with severance instead of writing dishonest "performance improvement plans" that essentially mean an already-fired employee gets a month to come in to the office and still wreak havoc. It's better to err on the side of a bad employee getting an "undeserved" severance package than to have "walking dead" employees pissing all over morale. Once it's clear that the only move is to fire someone, it's best to do it quickly. Severance (enough to cover a typical job search) is actually very cheap when you consider the risk and misery (for the manager and team) involved in a PIP or paper trail.