Leadership Worthy of a Legacy: A Blueprint for Today's Leaders, Inspired by Martin Luther King Jr.
Inflation Ticked Up in December, but There's Some Good News
After Cookies, Businesses Will Need to Find New Ways to Reach Customers
Amazon Joins the Fit-Tech Frenzy to Curb Returns. Is Now the Time to Give the AI Tools a Try?
5 Documentaries for Business Owners at the 2024 Sundance Film Festival
According to a viral TikTok video, Cloudflare -- an internet security company based in San Francisco -- recently terminated an employee named Brittany Pietsch. This is a prime example of why you should always assume your employees are recording your conversations. This termination did not go well, and I'll tell you why.
The conversation is between Pietsch, an HR rep named Rosie, and a director whose name I can't make out.
First, Pietsch's video indicates she was not the only person terminated, so it sounds like a layoff situation. However, a Cloudflare spokesperson told me,
Cloudflare did not conduct layoffs and is not engaged in a reduction of force. When we do make the decision to part ways with an employee, we base the decision on a review of an employee's ability to meet measurable performance targets. We regularly review team members' performance and let go of those who aren't right for our team. There is nothing unique about that review process or the number of people we let go after performance review this quarter.
So, while it may look like a layoff, it was a performance-related termination, which raises additional questions. Here's what went wrong and what you can learn from the experience.
An employee's direct supervisor should do their termination. Pietsch described the HR person and director as people she didn't know. If this were a mass termination and Pietsch's manager and that manager's manager had already been terminated, then meeting with a stranger would make sense. However, Cloudflare says this was standard practice. Where is the manager?
It's clear from Rosie and the director's interactions that they don't know Pietsch. They don't know what she did wrong. They are complete strangers, à la George Clooney in Up in the Air.
The director says, "We've finished our evaluations of 2023 performance, and this is where you have not met Cloudflare's expectation for performance." But everything about the conversation feels like position elimination.
Pietsch defends herself rather well. But this is the first time she's heard of any performance issues. She states that her manager never gave her negative feedback. The people conducting the termination have no documentation available to them. They talk about metrics that they don't see in front of them.
If Pietsch's job loss is because she is a poor performer, then this should not be the first time she has heard about it. She's a new employee; according to her, she's received positive feedback. She should not be losing her job over performance without warning. Her boss should have addressed any and all of these issues before the termination.
Indeed, Pietsch asks why her boss isn't involved in this conversation, and why her boss and her boss's boss didn't even know about this.
Performance terminations should not be a surprise to the employee. A termination for performance should be the culmination of multiple meetings and documentation. The manager should be leading these discussions. This does not appear to have happened.
In a layoff situation, the message is: "Your position has been eliminated, and today is your last day." There doesn't need to be a huge explanation for why the company selected this employee over another. Just, "your position is eliminated."
But this is not a layoff. It's a termination for performance, and Rosie and the director don't know the details. Someone has given them something to say about calibrations and blah, blah, but they don't know. Rosie says she will find out, which is nice, but she should have known.
If you terminate for poor performance, you'd better know what that performance was and have clear examples.
You should have paperwork to place before the employee that demonstrates, "You needed to do X, and you did not." This is not the case here.
"I cannot speak to what your manager has communicated to you directly," says Rosie when Pietsch reiterates she had no idea her performance was a concern.
I would guess that this isn't a performance termination, that Pietsch didn't need to do something differently. My guess is that this is more likely part of a periodic culling of the bottom performers. You can be awesome, but you get booted if everyone else is more awesome.
You can have your own opinion on whether this is an effective way to manage. But if that's what's going on, say so: "Every year, we terminate the bottom 5 percent of employees, and you fall into that."
Here's a quick guide to how to properly terminate for performance issues:
You need documentation of the poor performance.
You should have had multiple conversations with the employee.
The manager should be delivering the message.
You should present the documentation to the employee, provide the necessary paperwork, and wrap it up.
Don't allow the employee to beg or argue for their job.
Is there anything illegal about terminating like this? Probably not. Unless Pietsch was chosen for a protected reason, such as race or gender, conducting a bad termination isn't legally actionable.
That said, Pietsch should absolutely apply for unemployment and appeal if denied. Chances are she will receive it. This is not a termination for gross misconduct, and she should be entitled to unemployment.
Correction: An earlier version of this article misspelled Brittany Pietsch's surname.
A refreshed look at leadership from the desk of CEO and chief content officer Stephanie Mehta
Privacy Policy
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Mort Laitner
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
visit website
