[b]MSNBC has an article on the growing trend of outsourcing firing.
What are your thoughts?[/b]

[b]"You're fired!" now often comes from strangers - Growing number of bosses hiring outsiders to usher out unwanted workers[/b]
Welcome to the final frontier of human resources: the outsourced termination. The popularity of HR outsourcing and consulting has exploded in recent years...


[u][b]My first reaction:[/b][/u] Outrageous, cold, definitely not along the lines of MT and the manager is missing a huge personal (albeit unpleasant) growth opportunity here. In some examples, it seems like the manager just sits there in the room saying nothing while the hired firer does the talking. If I was the direct, I would be astounded (at this style, not just at the firing). Granted that the article does counter with "For their part, firing specialists say a manager should never defer entirely to them, but that it doesn't hurt to have a consultant in the room in case the manager starts to get into trouble."

jhack's picture

Cowardly and unprofessional. If you can't "pull the trigger" yourself, you have no place in management.


WillDuke's picture

This strikes me as just like any other time a manager wants to have HR do his or her job for him or herself. Just now HR is outsourced. So basically the article is saying that if you're a bad manager then you need someone to help you fire a direct.

But if you have O3s. If you have feedback. If you have coaching. If you have late stage coaching. What do you have to be afraid of?

They totally gloss over the cowardly portion of this approach.

Cripes, Mark must be losing his mind! If ever there was a comment on the sad state of management, this has to be it.

Mark's picture

Stupid idea.

But don't blame the media. They just think it will sell, and it is happening.


Mark's picture


Pardon me?


bflynn's picture

I read: Must be loosing his mind = must be going crazy after reading this.

I think we all agree its cowardly and unprofessional to do this. Unfortunately, it does accomplish the result, although in a greatly inferior manner and with some relatively minor negative side effects.


karaikudy's picture

Yes, I read this kind of situation in some other link,about a couple of days back. Found shocking. Never believed that things can stoop down to this level.

I remember a case some years back, when one of my senior colleague was fired and the English VP in Bombay was reluctant to release his final settlement due payments. It was left to the corporate HR Vice President to explain him the dire legal consequences to make sure he got the payments.

I think managers must be thought on Human relations first I guess. I wish more people listen to MT podcasts and redeem themselves, I wonder!!!.


jhack's picture

It accomplishes one aspect: the formal / legal side of the termination. It differs significantly in its effect on the morale and commitment of those who stay behind.


WillDuke's picture

Mark - my apologies for lack of clarity. I definitely meant that I thought you would not approve of this kind of behavior.

I just had this picture of you reading that kind of article and pulling on your hair wondering what the heck people were thin king and how management ever got so weird.

I have full faith in your continued mental acuity. :)

Mark's picture

No worries!


pneuhardt's picture

When I first heard about this, I couldn't decide if this was better or worse than Radio Shack's infamous email lay-off notifications.

I finally decided this was better, but only in the way that having the septic tank flood your yard is better than having the sewer back up in to your house: it's only a matter of degree regarding how repulsive it is.