Slow to Hire, Quick to Fire - Binder #014 Culture/Leadership
“Slow to Hire, Quick to Fire” is the opposite of how many of us start our businesses.
We start as an operator, get busy, then realize we have to hire someone ASAP, or we’re going spend the next 5 weeks working 18 hours a day, 7 days a week.
We usually hire quickly - someone to get us out of an immediate jam.
Sometimes, that hiring trend continues - we hold off on hiring until it is desperately needed, choosing to “bend” the system until it is about to break.
However, the downside to this method is that we are usually making reactive hiring decisions, meaning we don’t hire the best possible candidate - we are hiring someone with a pulse.
Because we are new to this process, we also decide that we can’t possibly fire this person:
We have to find ways to support them.
We have to give them enough hours.
We have to spend time training and inspiring them.
And yet, many business owners in the early days have these employees:
Show little to no signs of interest in improving:
They cancel their shifts often.
They make careless mistakes (and don’t seem bothered by it.)
Frustrated, you keep trying to fix this person because sometimes the “known commodity” seems more comfortable to you than an unknown new employee.
We have become “Quick to hire, slow to fire.”
The Critical Change to Culture - Slow to Hire, Quick to Hire
As the business grows, a new approach is needed. Here is what it looks like:
Slow to hire:
We hire proactively, not reactively.
We carefully analyze staffing needs, making sure we put hiring strategies in place before things are chaotic.
We use advanced tools, strategies, and methods to make better hiring decisions.
We interview candidates thoroughly, ensuring they are an organizational and cultural fit.
We have a strong onboarding process to make absolutely sure that we hired the right person.
Quick to fire:
While we work with employees through learning and even mistakes, we don’t tolerate behaviors and attitudes that contradict the culture.
We quickly spot potential culture issues and work immediately with employees to resolve them.
If they don’t resolve, we communicate the company expectations clearly (preferably through core values, a company handbook, or something documented), showing how they can meet the company's standards.
If they continue to show disregard or disinterest in making the changes, we move them on from the company and terminate their employment, letting them know they are no longer a good fit for the company.
Why this is a struggle for growing businesses:
This is the opposite of how they started - quick to hire, slow to fire.
We don’t have a history of firing people, and we avoid it at all costs. (Note: It still sucks to do, regardless if it is the right decision.)
We have proven that we can build a business and learn basically every position the company has, and we can’t reconcile the fact that the wrong person for the company may not ever be able to learn the one we hired them for. (AKA: We project our ability onto others.)
We fear being labeled a “bad boss” or a “bad leader” by the employee if we fire them.
Cam’s Rule of Thumb: If this employee handed in their resignation, and we don’t feel compelled to fight to keep them in the company, we either have to coach them better (starting immediately), or we acknowledge we have already tried to coach them and it is not working - we need to let them go.
Firing sucks.
It never gets easy.
But, the greater good of your culture demands that all employees meet the company standards. Not being quick to fire after attempting to improve a situation can erode the entire culture by signaling to everyone else that poor performance, bad attitudes, or other negative behaviors will be tolerated in the company.