inexcuseable. wimpy. souless.

[Uriah]

Alert: this is a vent and purposely vague on names/call letters. Many of us have experienced format and leadership changes that are the precursor to staffing "adjustments." Heck, I've even had to clean house as a PD. However, in that circumstance, the company had enough class to offer fair severance packages to the released employees. This week a Major Market station fires a Sr. AE (allegedly "with cause" so no severance) after 20+ years of dedicated service, millions in billing, rave reviews from clients and professional brand representation that you can't buy. To my friend that was fired - you are now free to grow, learn and contribute to a new endeavor. To the managers that concocted this sham -and I realize this post is unlikely to awaken your long buried compassion - congratulations! you can now brag to your boss that you saved the company a few bucks. And may the word LEADER never be referenced within the same sentence as your name.

 

[secondchoice]

If this was in GA. a right to work state, I wonder how long (if) the non compete is in effect. Don't get mad, get even!

 

[buddysomeday]

If this sales person was the model AE why would they let them go? Your describing them as the complete package, everything a sales manager would want so what happened? Great sales people aren’t growing on trees. I often wonder when I read rants like this if there might be another side to the story. ???

 

[jackiechiles]

"........often wonder........."? Yeah, I've lived long enough to know there is another side to this story.

 

[nocomradio]

Its generally been my experience (as a business owner of many years) that the employee who has been let go, always has a different take than the employer, who terminated them.

Excellent peforming employees are rarely if ever terminated, simply because they produce enough to pay themselves and generate a profit for the company. You don't have to pay them. They pay themselves.

If it truly is a case of a soulless employer just cleaning house, I'd question why they'd show valuable talent the door, unless they are incredibly stupid.

 

[Uriah]

Agree that there are three sides to most stories - in this case his, managements, and what really happened. However, Incredibly stupid has a nice ring to it as a descriptive. The rant is fueled not on the firing so much as the effort/play/convenient new metrics used to avoid severance. New management wants their own team in place and that's just business. This was just an ice cold, heartless move. Reminded of a line from the film All the Presidents Men, "it's not what you did that p**sed me off, it's how you did it."

 

[buddysomeday]

Agree that there are three sides to most stories - in this case his, managements, and what really happened. However, Incredibly stupid has a nice ring to it as a descriptive. The rant is fueled not on the firing so much as the effort/play/convenient new metrics used to avoid severance. New management wants their own team in place and that's just business. This was just an ice cold, heartless move. Reminded of a line from the film All the Presidents Men, "it's not what you did that p**sed me off, it's how you did it."

One of the three sides you might be missing is that the termination is for justifilble cause in which case they don't have to pay severence. To AE's have contracts?

 

[cynicroute]

And it has been in MY experience that management RARELY acts out of principle, yet pretends that they do. The projected image of 'doing the right thing' or 'justifiable decision making' is perpetuated by members of upper management and essentially used a tool for damage control to cover up the REAL motive. Furthermore, many assume that, by default, management knows best SIMPLY because of the of the titles they hold. This is not always the case. In fact, principles are practically non-existent among the decision makers these days. And especially in a smaller company where there are less checks and balances to make sure that JUST decisions are being made. Just sayin'.

 

[taylorengineer]

Showbiz is such an emotion driven business.....it's amazing the mistakes that are made due to anger without thinking.
I've seen sellers get punched in the nose for billing too much money. One station I worked for many years ago would either: 1. cut commissions or 2. Take away accounts if someone started making much over $100K/yr in commissions. It happened more than once and it was no secret. How's that for motivation! The sales manager said, and I quote, "anybody can take agency orders."
The sales people I see every day bust their butts for business......and I hope they're making more than $100K for their effort. Pulling off radio spot sales is a unique talent.....they sell intangibles. Producing results and profits for their customers requires specific knowledge, imagination, and intelligence. It's not a job "anyone " can do!
Anyone who would fire a good sales rep for anything less than sleeping with the GM's daughter should get horse whipped.....

 

[nocomradio]

And it has been in MY experience that management RARELY acts out of principle, yet pretends that they do.

Principle is the driving factor many times. Think about it: If an employee isn't doing what they are paid to do, and costing you money, what good are they doing your company? If you've tried (as a manager) to get them to improve their work habits or ethics, or whatever you want to call them, and you are still not getting the results (i.e; positive cashflow) then they are no longer an asset. They are a liability. As a manager you can only hear personal excuses, family issues, economy problems, etc, ad nauseum, before you have to look at one factor: The bottom line. Businesses don't run or work without money coming in, and workers are responsible for doing just that. If they don't, then the business runs in the red, and it won't be long before the problem corrects itself.

That is principle. You aren't firing someone because you don't like their hair color, or their grooming habits, or simply that they are a bore. You are letting them go because they aren't doing what they are paid to do. I do realize that there are times when employers are just hard to work for, but how often do employees actually confront their boss rather than just deciding to do a crappy, halfway job in retaliation for some perceived slight? I think a bigger problem is that there is little to no dialogue between employees and employers.

 

[nocomradio]

The sales people I see every day bust their butts for business......and I hope they're making more than $100K for their effort.

If they truly are doing that, then yes, they should be recognized an compensated for it. If not, then they can just complain all they want and hopefully no one will listen or codify them. There are many people out there in any business who will make some wonderful claims, but at the end of the day, the books show the truth. That is the real basis.

I think everyone should have to work one year on a true, 100% commission based income. Maybe then they'd understand the whole cause and effect thing.

 

[taylorengineer]

The sales people I see every day bust their butts for business......and I hope they're making more than $100K for their effort.

I think everyone should have to work one year on a true, 100% commission based income. Maybe then they'd understand the whole cause and effect thing.

I wonder how many of us would walk away with only pennies in our pocket if we were paid every day for our real contributions to the company!
I, like most others, suffer from the myopic "how does this affect me.....what's in it for me" syndrome. We fail to see our real purpose in the scheme of things.....we are part of a team whose only purpose is to produce revenue and value for the company shareholders.

 

[jabba17]

The sales people I see every day bust their butts for business......and I hope they're making more than $100K for their effort.

I think everyone should have to work one year on a true, 100% commission based income. Maybe then they'd understand the whole cause and effect thing.

I wonder how many of us would walk away with only pennies in our pocket if we were paid every day for our real contributions to the company!
I, like most others, suffer from the myopic "how does this affect me.....what's in it for me" syndrome. We fail to see our real purpose in the scheme of things.....we are part of a team whose only purpose is to produce revenue and value for the company shareholders.

And your job (as CEO and sole shareowner of You, Inc.) is to produce as much revenue and value for yourself. Nothing wrong with that. The way to do that is to make sure that the product(s) or service(s) of You, Inc. are enticing enough for Company XYZ to pay You, Inc. for it.

Remember, everyone's favorite radio station is WII-FM - What's In It For Me. That goes both ways. The reason behind rational self-interest lies in realizing that your ultimate, fully-thought-out self-interest may not be the same as your immediate, instant-gratification self-interest. That goes both ways, too. Businesses fire customers and customers fire businesses all the time, mostly because they aren't getting what they want.

The tragedy is when, due to various legal and cultural reasons, people try to make the parting of ways a disciplinary issue when it isn't. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it's not. I don't shop at Babies R Us anymore, not because of anything bad they did, but because I don't have a baby anymore and don't need their products anymore. People need to be honest--not necessarily fully transparent, but certainly not lie or try to make a case that really doesn't need or deserve to be made.

 

[taylorengineer]

The sales people I see every day bust their butts for business......and I hope they're making more than $100K for their effort.

I think everyone should have to work one year on a true, 100% commission based income. Maybe then they'd understand the whole cause and effect thing.

I wonder how many of us would walk away with only pennies in our pocket if we were paid every day for our real contributions to the company!
I, like most others, suffer from the myopic "how does this affect me.....what's in it for me" syndrome. We fail to see our real purpose in the scheme of things.....we are part of a team whose only purpose is to produce revenue and value for the company shareholders.

And your job (as CEO and sole shareowner of You, Inc.) is to produce as much revenue and value for yourself. Nothing wrong with that. The way to do that is to make sure that the product(s) or service(s) of You, Inc. are enticing enough for Company XYZ to pay You, Inc. for it.

Remember, everyone's favorite radio station is WII-FM - What's In It For Me. That goes both ways. The reason behind rational self-interest lies in realizing that your ultimate, fully-thought-out self-interest may not be the same as your immediate, instant-gratification self-interest. That goes both ways, too. Businesses fire customers and customers fire businesses all the time, mostly because they aren't getting what they want.

The tragedy is when, due to various legal and cultural reasons, people try to make the parting of ways a disciplinary issue when it isn't. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it's not. I don't shop at Babies R Us anymore, not because of anything bad they did, but because I don't have a baby anymore and don't need their products anymore. People need to be honest--not necessarily fully transparent, but certainly not lie or try to make a case that really doesn't need or deserve to be made.

Good points and very well said!
Why does WII-FM never play any Emmylou Harris or Miranda Lambert??

 

[nocomradio]

.....we are part of a team whose only purpose is to produce revenue and value for the company shareholders.

If that is the way an employee really feels, then I wouldn't have them working for my company. They need to see it as more than just making the owner/shareholders "rich" which is a fallacy anyway. The typical worker doesn't understand,or doesn't want to see that companies and higher-ups have other expenses, bills to pay, daily operations to oversee, and generally a job to do themselves. They seem to think that company owners and managers sit on their behinds all day and rake in the large piles of cash their worker drones dump at their feet. Then they figure they go home to their 20K sq ft mansion and laugh at all the little people out there suffering at their expense. After this little movie is made up in the worker's head, they then decide that they are only going to produce as much as they see fit. As long as they get paid, then they don't really care. Hence my comment about everyone should be required to do just one year of commission based pay. You truly get to see how the amount you produce has an end result. If you only receive a salary for your entire career, often times I think that there becomes a complacency that you know you will get paid no matter what as long as you don't just stop working.

I am not saying everyone is like this, but it happens more than you'd realize. And I am not defending crappy bosses or management either. They have their problems as well.

 

[Uriah]

Great dialogue and thanks for the forum. I was on 100% commission for 18 years. Wouldn't have it any other way in a sales position. You learn first hand that attitude and effort are the two things we really control.

 

[taylorengineer]

.....we are part of a team whose only purpose is to produce revenue and value for the company shareholders.

If that is the way an employee really feels, then I wouldn't have them working for my company. They need to see it as more than just making the owner/shareholders "rich" which is a fallacy anyway. The typical worker doesn't understand,or doesn't want to see that companies and higher-ups have other expenses, bills to pay, daily operations to oversee, and generally a job to do themselves. They seem to think that company owners and managers sit on their behinds all day and rake in the large piles of cash their worker drones dump at their feet. Then they figure they go home to their 20K sq ft mansion and laugh at all the little people out there suffering at their expense. After this little movie is made up in the worker's head, they then decide that they are only going to produce as much as they see fit. As long as they get paid, then they don't really care. Hence my comment about everyone should be required to do just one year of commission based pay. You truly get to see how the amount you produce has an end result. If you only receive a salary for your entire career, often times I think that there becomes a complacency that you know you will get paid no matter what as long as you don't just stop working.

I am not saying everyone is like this, but it happens more than you'd realize. And I am not defending crappy bosses or management either. They have their problems as well.

What is the purpose of a "share" in a company? It is an investment instrument purchased for the purpose of creating wealth from the labor of others. There is nothing wrong with gaining wealth from other people's labor. Just like there is nothing wrong with charging people money, or interest, for lending them money.
Like it or not, your purpose in an organization is to create products and services which, in turn, create profits and wealth. I would not want an employee who doesn't understand that fact! Class warfare is detrimental to our economic system.....that is the attitude that needs "adjustment."

 

[jabba17]

.....we are part of a team whose only purpose is to produce revenue and value for the company shareholders.

If that is the way an employee really feels, then I wouldn't have them working for my company. They need to see it as more than just making the owner/shareholders "rich" which is a fallacy anyway. The typical worker doesn't understand,or doesn't want to see that companies and higher-ups have other expenses, bills to pay, daily operations to oversee, and generally a job to do themselves. They seem to think that company owners and managers sit on their behinds all day and rake in the large piles of cash their worker drones dump at their feet. Then they figure they go home to their 20K sq ft mansion and laugh at all the little people out there suffering at their expense. After this little movie is made up in the worker's head, they then decide that they are only going to produce as much as they see fit. As long as they get paid, then they don't really care. Hence my comment about everyone should be required to do just one year of commission based pay. You truly get to see how the amount you produce has an end result. If you only receive a salary for your entire career, often times I think that there becomes a complacency that you know you will get paid no matter what as long as you don't just stop working.

I am not saying everyone is like this, but it happens more than you'd realize. And I am not defending crappy bosses or management either. They have their problems as well.

What is the purpose of a "share" in a company? It is an investment instrument purchased for the purpose of creating wealth from the labor of others. There is nothing wrong with gaining wealth from other people's labor. Just like there is nothing wrong with charging people money, or interest, for lending them money.
Like it or not, your purpose in an organization is to create products and services which, in turn, create profits and wealth. I would not want an employee who doesn't understand that fact! Class warfare is detrimental to our economic system.....that is the attitude that needs "adjustment."

The economic position of whoever hires you is irrelevant. Should Orkin charge different amounts (per square foot, and all else being equal, to make it equivalent) for a guy in a mansion and a guy in a 2 BR house? Of course not. And if the Orkin Man does a bad job, OR if all the bugs become extinct, or if the guy in either dwelling moves into an apartment that includes pest control, in each case Orkin (and maybe the Orkin Man) gets fired. The last 2 reasons have nothing to do with performance, either on an absolute basis or compared to a competitor. It would be dishonest to say that it did, just as it would be dishonest to say that it DIDN'T in the first case (even to yourself). Don't lie, and above all don't lie to yourself.

I hire an exterminator to make my life better (WII-FM); Orkin sells the service to make money (what's in it for them). Some people (say, a restaurant) might hire Orkin to make more money (or save money from avoiding getting cited for running a nasty restaurant) as a result of having Orkin's service.

If people just remembered that they are being paid for something of value, and when that value disappears (for whatever reason, and there are many possibilities) so will the pay, we'd be a lot better off.

 

[secondchoice]

I wonder if the dismissed sales person was in line for some kind of "extra" commission. I once worked sales at a small station in NC that had "two" level commission deal. When collections went over a set amount, you got an extra 10%. One month I hit it and then some of my accounts became "house" accounts. It was time to leave!

 

[jabba17]

I wonder if the dismissed sales person was in line for some kind of "extra" commission. I once worked sales at a small station in NC that had "two" level commission deal. When collections went over a set amount, you got an extra 10%. One month I hit it and then some of my accounts became "house" accounts. It was time to leave!

It wouldn't be the first time anyone got fired for being too highly paid, relative to their peers, regardless of their contributions.