The Cost of Firing
For the most part in this blog I try to avoid what may look like blatant promotion of Cogmed Working Memory Training and I have explained my relationship with them in the first post. In short, I do marketing work in Canada for them. However, to get to the point of this post, with the recession and the mass lay-offs that are occurring I recalled an article I wrote for HR Professional a year ago. HR Professional is the journal of the Human Resources Professionals Association of Ontario. Don’t let the Ontario part mislead you, this is one of the largest professional associations in North America. Anyway, to get back to the point, the thesis of the article was that in building a case to fire an employee, a supervisor may turn up what looks like poor performance but could actually be symptoms of problems with working memory and they were listed in the article. For the sake of convenience these symptoms could include work turned in late or not at all, persistent lateness, inability to get along with co-workers. Anyone familiar with HR practices knows the cost in time and revenue in building a case for dismissal, dismissing an employee and the cost of hiring a replacement. The cost of Cogmed Working Memory Training, which has a record of improving working memory in 80% of people who go through the training, is about $1,500 and this cost would certainly be less than the cost of firing any employee in any organization and you get to turn an underperforming employee into a valuable asset. Some analysts say the recession may have bottomed out. Regardless, smart employers, looking to the future, know that now is the time to start to rethink their HR practices including those around individual dismissals. Layoffs don’t usually involve much of a selection process and it is acceptable to most employers that one cost of doing it is losing some good employees. As the recovery begins, individual dismissals, once again, will become a fact of life but why fire an employee who could become a genuine asset to the organization. Retaining an employee and turning him into a valuable corporate asset is good for the company, good for the bottom line and, of course, will ensure the employee’s loyalty for a long time to come. Taking a step back and having another look at what is behind the poor performance of under performing employees could pay off in the long run. If it is a working memory problem it may be worth having a go at trying to improve it with Cogmed Training or something similar.
When I presented this argument to Bob Redford, an independent consultant in labor/management relations in Canada, his only comment was, “Well, when you look at the math its pretty much a no-brainer…”