> It's the fact that they kept the employee around as a toxic asset/reminder that I think really puts it into "mistake" territory.
This is the exact line of inquiry that I took.
I asked why they didn’t just offer the toxic person a buy out or just fire the person and take the hit.
And…
1. They did offer a buy out. The person refused. The person was towards the end of their working career, and backdoor comms revealed that the person felt like they had quite a few years left of earning potential.
2. Then why not fire and pay the price? This turned back into the issue of the legal team not having the capacity to handle a case like the one they would have. The person would basically be retired and bitter and would make harassing the company legally their full time job — one that would probably yield decent dividends. Remember, the person was not looking for an equitable outcome — it was an identity issue.
Ultimately, they decided to put the person in a differ department, don’t give them any power, but give them something to do that was at least marginally productive. The person was placed under a super chill person and coasted to retirement.
It’s hard to tell if the path taken was financially optimal, but it was certainly close. That said, the path they took led to far fewer strains on the legal and executive staffs. I’m guessing that was actually worth a lot.
This is the exact line of inquiry that I took.
I asked why they didn’t just offer the toxic person a buy out or just fire the person and take the hit.
And…
1. They did offer a buy out. The person refused. The person was towards the end of their working career, and backdoor comms revealed that the person felt like they had quite a few years left of earning potential.
2. Then why not fire and pay the price? This turned back into the issue of the legal team not having the capacity to handle a case like the one they would have. The person would basically be retired and bitter and would make harassing the company legally their full time job — one that would probably yield decent dividends. Remember, the person was not looking for an equitable outcome — it was an identity issue.
Ultimately, they decided to put the person in a differ department, don’t give them any power, but give them something to do that was at least marginally productive. The person was placed under a super chill person and coasted to retirement.
It’s hard to tell if the path taken was financially optimal, but it was certainly close. That said, the path they took led to far fewer strains on the legal and executive staffs. I’m guessing that was actually worth a lot.