The Loss of Talent: A Hidden Business Cost.
I don’t understand and cannot explain why talented people are let go; fire is a better word, for repeatedly disagreeing with somebody in authority. In my eyes, the opinion of others, even if the exact opposite of my own, is something to value. After all, it’s always the most vital points of view, contrary to our own, that help us grow and learn. How sad life would be if we surrounded ourselves with “yes men” and toadies. A Pyrrhic Victory. Loss of Talent.
Disclosure. I use Generative AI tools to help me when writing. From outline suggestions to topics or subtleties I had yet to think of.
Firing an individual for disagreeing, especially if that individual is intelligent and talented, is a road to nowhere for any business. It may be a short-term win, but in the end, the company is damaged. If this occurs too often, we may as well close our doors and give up—a Pyrrhic Victory.
We need to listen carefully, and even if, after consideration, we reject the other’s opinion, we must respect it and learn from it, perhaps even soften our stance. The loss of talent always damages any company, big or small. Knowledge, an asset impossible for accountants to quantify, is irretrievably lost.
The Anatomy of a Talent Drain.
Unfortunately, some in a position of authority don’t take too kindly when others disagree with them. They dislike those whose voiced opinions differ from their own. This doesn’t immediately lead to an employee being dismissed, but over time, their so-called uncooperative reputation will build even if they are far from being uncooperative.
It doesn’t matter that these unfortunate individuals are amongst the department’s most talented and valuable personnel. They are now marked for termination sooner or later.
In a bizarre twist, many of these talented people are the most well-liked and respected within their department and the organisation as a whole. Naturally, this doesn’t encourage any form of dissent from other employees; if they do, they might be the next target. What firing good people does achieve, however, is to force other employees to reconsider their future in their current positions.
The Double-Edged Sword of Management: Balancing Criticism and Praise
The more talented the person is, the more likely they will start to look into jumping ship. This effect can snowball; the gifted individuals will also consider leaving on their terms. Worse, people talk, especially on social media platforms and other social or professional events. Hiring replacements can become more difficult as the organisation may be viewed as toxic and not to be considered.
As far as the manager is concerned, at least at first, all is roses again in their sweetly running department. There are no dissenters or critics to worry about. Bliss. That is until the loss of talented people starts to mount up.
Finding good, or even reasonable replacements, becomes more difficult. Those who are successfully recruited may begin to regret their decisions and start looking for an exit. Projects suffer, deadlines are missed, and quality nosedives. Clients will not be happy that their pet project is delayed, and if the organisation is unlucky, contractual penalty clauses may begin to bite.
All this is because the manager couldn’t handle policy disagreements and differences of opinion. It wasn’t worth it.
Measuring the Immeasurable
For small and medium-sized businesses, project planning is vital. In software development, for example, projects are lined up for the various teams to complete before the next project can start. When a project is delayed, the knock-on effect on the following projects is felt immediately. Here is where key employees can make a difference between meeting and missing deadlines. Productivity and quality suffer.
When these personnel leave for whatever reason, a competent manager must anticipate the potential loss and have suitable replacements ready to take on the additional load. When the manager is pissed off with a key individual and fires them, often, they will not have considered the direct effects of running projects; they may have acted on emotion rather than logic.
Tech Talent Tango: SMBs and the Hiring Hustle
The nightmare does not end there, of course. Replacements have to be found and fast. Recruitment is, by nature, a slow and expensive process. If the organisation has an in-house recruiter, the cost is immediately felt with the time required for research and canvasing potential interview candidates. Otherwise, outside recruitment agencies must be brought in and their services paid for, often before successful results are seen from the recruitment drive.
Once potential candidates are identified and invited for one or more interviews, the interviewers must divert their attention from their primary role. Naturally, this may also have an impact on running projects and may potentially cause additional delays.
Finally, after all this, we have our successful candidates. Remuneration packages are agreed upon, and a contract is signed. The additional fly in the ointment is that they must give notice to their current employer where they may be contractually bound to several weeks, sometimes months, before they may start to work for us.
This is where the fun starts, as key talented personnel were fired; their unique skill set was lost, and key knowledge could also be lost. Their replacements may be lucky and have some decent documentation left behind, but documentation never replaces face-to-face training and coaching. The replacements must figure out a lot themselves, causing more project delays.
The Ripple Effect on Remaining Employees
Consider this scenario. A well-liked and respected key senior team member disagrees with the team manager (about what isn’t important). The manager decides they could do without this additional hassle; their job is already difficult enough. At first, they may agree to disagree, then another friction point arises, and another.
Finally, the manager has had enough and directs the employee to follow the defined policies or else. This can go two ways; the best case for the manager would be when the ‘troublemaker’ decides to leave. They will invariably be obligated to serve a lengthy notice period, during which a replacement or replacements can be trained to take over responsibilities. The manager is happy; within the short term, all his problems will be resolved, and things can continue as they always have.
Or, the individual concerned is fired, and although they are also obligated to serve out a notice period, it’s understandable at this point if they become less than cooperative. Their impending termination may seriously affect their attitude, and they can begin to ‘infect’ their colleagues. To prevent this from happening, they are more likely to be escorted out of the building and serve their notice period, not contributing to any form of handover.
Either way, the effect on the remaining team’s morale can be severe and immediate. They are initially shocked that such a vital colleague has been kicked out, and after the shock has worn off, they become worried about their future employment. Their trust in the manager is severely damaged; they may feel like they are walking on eggshells daily. The work begins to suffer as, rather than producing quality; they may instead work to avoid making mistakes.
How to spot a bad manager. And how not to become one.
Now, if the scenario described, or similar, occurs again. The employees will question the entire team, department, and company culture. Questioning their future is a small step towards pushing them to look elsewhere. Starting afresh sounds much more attractive than trying to push themselves to turn up to work every day in what may be seen as a toxic work environment.
Rebuilding After a Talent Drain
The best-case scenario is, of course, for managers at all levels to avoid such conflicts from escalating.
But, if the damage has already been done, what steps may be taken to limit the damage? If, after reflection, the manager regrets what has happened, they can learn from the unpleasant experience and handle things differently in the future. This must be communicated to the team in one way or another to ease any tensions and to help restore some level of trust.
Speaking of trust. Building trust is a slow and challenging process; destroying it happens in the blink of an eye. Rebuilding is far more difficult the second time, and what trust is eventually restored may forever be tainted with the memories of what happened. It’s unlikely that the same levels of trust can ever be fully restored until the entire team is replaced over time.
On the other side of the coin, if the manager can never admit, even to themselves, that they may have been wrong or too hasty with handling the incidents. Damage control will fail, and trust will, most likely, never be restored. The only option remaining would be for the manager to be moved on unless they are the company, in which case, they’re stuffed.
The saddest part is that it could all have been so easily avoided. As I said in the first paragraph, criticism is often precious, whether it is intended constructively or otherwise. The simple trick is not to personally take anything said, especially in the heat of the moment. If more of us learned to listen and think things through before reacting, life and our work would be much simpler.
Final Thoughts
This article targets team and department managers but is also valuable for all. The critical lesson is quite simple. Listen carefully to what is being said, analyse and think everything through before reacting.
Try not to react immediately; let everybody calm down, including yourself. This cooling-off period differentiates between escalating a stressful situation and potentially learning something.
These days, talented and professional personnel are increasingly challenging to find and, once found, retain. Just watch you don’t spoil them or treat them any differently to the less talented employees. That only leads to simmering resentment.
KodifyIT B.V. is an advisory bureau targeting businesses that have either been on the receiving end of a failed project or are aware of the potential pitfalls and wish to mitigate as much risk as possible while developing a project’s client requirements. We aim to side-step any issues before they cost time and money.
I apologise to my readers for some of the spellings you may feel are incorrect. I was born and brought up in the United Kingdom, and this is the spelling I am comfortable with (Grammarly is happy with it anyway).