Dear Employee: Unwritten Resignation Accepted

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Thanks, GL Hoffman, for relating how you actually accomplish good management of young workers. Sounds like you're doing the very thing that seemed to be missing in the author's scenario.

Daniel David of NM 3:00PM May 10, 2008

I like your point. And I had missed it myself.
When I first read this by Mr. Wade I found myself nodding my head because one of the things I have done in my career is to attempt to set crystal clear expectations for people. I am talking mostly about younger sales reps here. Expectations with the basics, getting to work on time, number of activities accomplished that we know will lead to a sale etc. Basically things completely in their control, and when they choose not to do them, it sends a message that they want to be fired. Although 'fired' is something we hardly ever really do...we counsel or coach them to find some place that might be a better place for their skills.
But, overall your point is very valid and hard to refute.
best---

GL HOFFMAN of MN 12:29PM May 10, 2008

I can appreciate the author's comment added above, as I have seen situations where some employees knock themselves out to do right and others shirk.
Still, there is something about all this that doesn't ring true and still sounds Dilbertesque or perhaps written for the amusement of the Chamber of Commerce crowd more than to address the concerns of co-workers. Number one, the word disgruntled is an over-used putdown not ever mentioned by wise managers, and in this case, the author now commenting with explanation would have us believe the ones disgruntled were the hard-working coworkers, not the one being fired and addressed as Dear Disgruntled. Odd.
Secondly, the source of a situation like this ever developing in the first place is a bad hire, followed by bad front-line leadership for too long---basically top management tolerating bad middle management. You know this, because now an un-named
letter-signer describing itself as "we" and signing as "Management" is firing the worker while admitting some nonsense about "we didn't have to work alongside you"---as though they had no chain of command or on-site supervision.
I still think you can take this article all kinds of ways. The sarcasm may be telling.

Daniel David of 12:06AM May 10, 2008

I greatly appreciate the thoughtful and well-written comments.
Just to note some background: This post was not inspired by any affinity for a Dilbert-boss perspective or for employment at will. Lord knows poor managers need correction and employers should not rush to terminate people. It was sparked by discussions with a large number of employees who said that they are tired of situations in which co-workers who don't pull their weight are tolerated by management. This perspective in no way excuses poor managers or slipshod discipline. Managers need to notice what the co-workers notice and have the professionalism to address behavior that is unprofessionalism, regardless of its source.

Michael Wade of AZ 8:41PM May 09, 2008

Maybe it began when you unoffically fired me.
You know, when you are constantly passing off my ideas for your own, unless everyone else thinks it stinks. Then there is no end of ridicule, public humiliation and condemnation that you will not stop at.
Motivation? Don't get me started. How many times must I hear my intelligence and my parentage questioned? EVERY time I open my mouth? And that 2% raise you keep dangling...boy that's makes it all okay!
I would suggest looking in a mirror before striking, but I remember that your image just won't appear.

RJ of NH 4:28PM May 09, 2008

This article might be witty (to bosses and lawyers anyway) for being composed as though its a "letter", and it might be poignant as a reminder to all of us to not conduct ourselves as deadwood.
It might also strike most of us as sounding as though it was sent from the company where "Dilbert", the comic-strip character, works. And it might, just might, remind us that nearly everyone these days has reason to detest corporations for their uniform arrogance of having everyone sign in advance their agreement to being fired at any time and for "any" reason or "no" reason. Employment-at-will is a fine and fair legal doctrine between an individual (unincorporated) boss and his employee. When extended to corporations, especially large corporations, however, employment-at-will is a crock that us dumb citizen sheep merely accepted from the Ronald Reagan era as though we didn't know better.
What we just don't know about the above article is whether the employee recipient of the letter was really a non-producer, or whether it's more like a deal where Dilbert's bosses are being true to their arrogant characters. Your call.

Daniel David of NM 3:33PM May 09, 2008

This article might be witty (to bosses and lawyers anyway) for being composed as though its a "tetter", and it might be poignant as a reminder to all of us to not conduct ourselves as deadwood.
It might also strike most of us as sounding as though it was sent from the company where "Dilbert", the comic-strip character, works. And it might, just might, remind us that nearly everyone these days has reason to detest corporations for their uniform arrogance of having everyone sign in advance their agreement to being fired at any time and for "any" reason or "no" reason. Employment-at-will is a fine and fair legal doctrine between an individual (unincorporated) boss and his employee. When extended to corporations, especially large corporations, however, employment-at-will is a crock that us dumb citizen sheep merely accepted from the Ronald Reagan era as though we didn't know better.
What we just don't know about the above article is whether the employee recipient of the letter was really a non-producer, or whether it's more like a deal where Dilbert's bosses are being true to their arrogant characters. Your call.

Daniel David of NM 3:32PM May 09, 2008