Garvin was the most incompetent employee in the whole organization.  He had a pleasant demeanor, outwardly helpful, but left a trail of unfinished business and disasters behind him.  Garvin had to go!

I first met Garvin when I took up a management role with a new employer.  The usual first day introductions were barely complete before I got wind of the "Garvin" factor.  The slightly longer than normal pauses when his name was mentioned, the pained smiles and the benevolent comments about Garvin "meaning well" sounded the alarm bells straight away.

Within the first week I had some further unwelcome insights into this new working relationship.  

"Garvin, would you please prepare a briefing about the Carter account?  I understand they are not happy with our service and are disputing our account. I’ll be meeting with them tomorrow at 2."

"No problems John" Garvin replied.  "I’ll get right on it."

In the rush of activity that accompanies most new jobs, it wasn’t till the next morning I thought to ask about progress.

"Almost done." said Garvin.  "I’ll bring it in when it’s finished."  

Just before midday I noticed Garvin handing a document to my assistant.  I finished my telephone call and went out to retrieve the briefing.  The briefing was abysmal in the extreme.  It contained basic data about Carter Enterprises and could have come straight from their "About Us" page on the Internet.  Not a whisper about what services we provided or the circumstances surrounding the dispute.  I went to find Garvin only to discover he had left for lunch.  When the MD for Carter arrived for our meeting Garvin was still nowhere to be found.  You can imagine my embarrassment at having to learn about the problem from an aggrieved client.

No amount of discussion, training or direct questioning would move Garvin to undertake anything in which he did not have a personal interest.  His pleasant demeanor was like a waterproof skin that repelled even the most stormy debates.  Before long, I resolved to "let Garvin go".  Why this hadn’t happened before was anyone’s guess.

A colleague from another division met with me after I had been in the new job for several weeks.  We finished discussing the relevant business before he asked with a wry grin "How’s Garvin going?"  I took the opportunity to gather some first hand, unedited and very raw data!

It turned out that Garvin had been one of the leading lights in the organization until about 5 years previously.  At the request of senior management he had undertaken a new role, widely regarded as a "poisoned chalice".  Over a period of about 18 months he had broken down under the stress of constant conflict, arguing for resources and being "hung out to dry" by management when the project ultimately showed signs of failing.  There was a period of unpaid leave, before he returned to the less prestigious position that he was now employed.  Without going into detail, it became clear that he had been placed in a role for which he was inadequately prepared, and to add insult to injury, unjustly blamed for a system failure.  The day to day stress of the role was compounded by a lack of management support.  After his leave, his humiliation was completed by a "reassignment" to a lower level role.

I began to gain a new appreciation for Garvin’s apparent lack of identification with organizational goals and personnel.  Not only was he carrying an unresolved grievance against management, he was also aware that the staff in general regarded him as a joke.  The only thing between Garvin and unemployment was a subliminal kind of organizational guilt.

What was I to do?  I could see the injustice of circumstances leading to Garvin’s current lack of performance, but I did not want to be part of the conspiracy to support its continuance.  I already knew that the range of approaches I had taken so far, had failed to make a dent in Garvin’s armour.

My decision was to go with a "cruel to be kind" strategy.  Garvin was astute enough to recognize the collective guilt that kept him in work and allowed him to wreak a sustained revenge on the organization.  I resolved to make it clear that as a "newbie" I was not interested in wallowing in that same pool of "poor, hopeless Garvin" sentiment.

"Garvin, I’d like to talk with you today.  When are you free to meet for about 30 minutes."

He looked vaguely surprised, but not alarmed as we agreed to meet at 11 am.

Come 11:00, I got right to the point.

"Garvin, I am going to fire you before the week is out."

The look of shock on his face was total.  Garvin was speechless!  I explained that I found his work performance totally unacceptable, particularly as I was now aware that he had functioned at a superior level in the past.  I continued to outline why I was not prepared to tolerate the inadequacies I was observing, hoping to provoke a reaction that would force him to break out of the waterproof skin in which he lived.  

The strategy was successful beyond my expectations.  His face went deathly pale, lips compressed and he began spitting out his anger in staccato language.  I got a front row seat in the "I hate you all" performance, complete with graphic details as to why.  I let him continue uninterrupted for about 10 minutes.  As he wound down from the first onslaught, I simply said;

"Garvin, I take no responsibility for what has happened in the past. I’m only interested in making this division function well.  Right now, you don’t fit.  What can YOU do about that?"

His expression registered a brief sense of hope: possible reprieve.   The discussion began to assume a more moderate tone.  Each time Garvin diverged into blame and recrimination I reinforced the "not my problem" strategy.  I wanted him to either assume responsibility once again for his work or to leave.    The discussion finished with an uneasy agreement to see the week out before I implemented my decision to fire Garvin.

During the remainder of the week I observed Garvin struggling with his resentment whilst he exercised his dormant capacity for teamwork, initiative and anticipating the needs of clients.  There were several opportunities to acknowledge good results, which I did without condescension or patronization.  

Friday came and we met again.  Garvin was uneasy and opening the discussion was slow.  Eventually, he smiled reluctantly and said;

"You’re the fairest a**hole I’ve ever met!  There’s more B.S. in this place than down in the barn.  Nobody has ever spoken to me the way you did on Monday!  What happens now?"

"Have you got any suggestions?" I replied.

The long and short of it is that Garvin valued his salary more than his anger and began to claw his way back into the workplace.  The team wondered what the hell happened and even began to resent Garvin reasserting his professional authority.  They were so used to working around him they didn’t know quite how to take it.   Over time though, adjustments were made as they realized this was a long term change.  Trust was rebuilt with colleagues and clients.

One of the unexpected outcomes for me was the development of a really positive and open professional relationship with Garvin.  We were able to communicate with increasing ease in a "B.S. free" context.  Over time there was also a sense of connecting about issues outside of work.  Garvin still resents some of the most senior management.  But he has managed to make a separation between them and his professional responsibilities.  He learned again to enjoy the sense of achievement when things go right.

That was 3 years ago.  Today he is in a team leader role in another division.  People have become accustomed to a "functional" Garvin and have raised their expectations.  His team has a good profile within the organization and there is some "back-room" chat about Garvin being considered for a more senior management role.

When I think about my history with Garvin I am struck with how completely an individual can be destroyed by poor management practices, disloyalty and the internal anger that this engenders.  I am also struck with the realization that for the individual concerned, it is all too easy to get to a point of no return.  

I am much happier working with the "soft options" such as discussion, counseling, understanding and so forth.  But I recognize, in this instance at least, shock therapy had a part to play.  By rejecting the corporate guilt, grabbing the "paddles" and sending a massive jolt of energy through Garvin’s protective armour, his professional heart beat was restored.

To all executives and senior corporate managers I would say this though…prevention is better than cure.  Realistic expectations, fair play and professional respect will save the organization immeasurable damage through long term and subtle sabotage.