CASE STUDY:PAUL RYAN and Eric Cassidy met at university in the 1980s. They both studied hard, got good degrees and were chuffed to achieve their ambition of landing software development jobs in California's Silicon Valley.
Ryan was a very talented developer with a tendency to become so absorbed in a project that the outside world ceased to exist. Cassidy too was a competent developer but he was also good with people and had clear leadership skills. As a result their paths diverged, with Ryan sticking to development and Cassidy moving into management.
In 1990 Cassidy married and moved back to Ireland. Initially he worked with a large multinational software company based here but, two years later, left to set himself up as an IT consultant. He began writing pieces of software for client companies and found himself drawn more and more into what was then the fledgling computer gaming industry.
Within the space of 18 months his one-man band had become six and was growing apace. Cassidy knew he had a head start in the sector and was anxious to keep it, so he approached Ryan to come home and join him.
He wanted Ryan to take responsibility for the technical and development side of the business and offered him a 40 per cent stake in the already profitable operation. Ryan accepted. Since then, the partners have built an extremely successful company, employing more than 35 people, providing development and support services to the online gaming industry.
Ryan still has his head in the clouds, but comes up with brilliant ideas. Cassidy, on the other hand, has his feet firmly on the ground and, until recently, this combination worked very well. Knowing Ryan’s tendency to get lost in cyberspace, Cassidy provided him with an efficient PA to handle his administrative load and make sure that Cassidy has timely access to the information he needs to run the business effectively.
Cassidy has primary responsibility for hiring and firing at the company but usually bows to Ryans judgment when it comes to recruiting developers. Cassidy recognised that Ryan was very good at spotting exceptional talent and, while there had been one or two disasters over the years, Ryan generally chose well.
Just over a year ago Cassidy started doing an in-depth review of the business with a view to gearing up for a major expansion involving an outside investor. Knowing the investor he desperately wanted to bring on board had a reputation for examining potential investments with forensic intensity, Cassidy was going through the business with a fine-toothed comb.
Turning his attention to the development department, he noticed that Ryan was relying heavily on one particular developer to lead all new projects. Uncomfortable with the level of dependency on one individual, he began looking at the developer’s employment record and noticed that he appeared to be often late for work and had a lot of sick days. He mentioned this to Ryan, who shrugged it off and defended the developer by saying that nine-to-five did not suit the individual, who often worked late and in his own time.
Cassidy felt uneasy with Ryan’s explanation and began to watch the developer, becoming more aware of the time he came into work each day and also of his absences. There was something erratic about his behaviour and Cassidy had a growing conviction that all was not well.
Two months later he raised the issue again with Ryan who dismissed it and even became quite hostile when Cassidy insisted he find out what was going on. Cassidys hunch was given further credence when four members of the development team, who were the deputy leads on various projects, left within weeks of each other.
Cassidy confronted Ryan, who insisted it reflected natural job mobility among young developers eager for varied experience and more money. This latter explanation particularly stung Cassidy who felt Ryan was already paying some of his hirings over the odds in the current environment. Over the coming months Cassidy policed delivery deadlines vigilantly and while things often came down to the wire, no deadlines were actually missed. Cassidy guessed this was because Ryan was taking up any slack and saying nothing.
A chance meeting with a former employee gave Cassidy the opportunity to ask, straight out, why she had left. The ex-employee chose her words carefully but made it crystal clear to Cassidy that there was a feeling among Ryan’s team that the “star” developer, for all his brilliance, was unpredictable and more trouble than he was worth. She said other members of the team were constantly being left to pick up the pieces caused by his sudden absences and that there was bubbling resentment within what had been a happy, cohesive group. Cassidy’s suggestion that his behaviour might be an unfortunate kink of personality was met with a raised eyebrow and Cassidy was left with the uncomfortable feeling that he was missing something major.
With the pitch to the potential investor looming, Cassidy put his concerns to one side and spent long hours preparing the presentation. Both he and Ryan would speak but he also wanted the problematic developer to present, given his role in leading the company’s most important new projects. Cassidy was not concerned about the “polish” of the performance. He simply wanted to demonstrate to his investor that he had the right people, no matter how “nerdish” they may appear, to deliver in a highly technical field.
To his great relief, Cassidy found the developer more than willing to play his part. He worked hard on his presentation, putting in long hours over a number of nights and enthusiastically showed Cassidy the fruits of his labour the following morning. But when the day of the presentation arrived, there was no sign of him. His mobile went unanswered and Cassidy sent an employee in a taxi to the man’s apartment to see if he could rouse him, all to no avail. In the end, Ryan had to take over the developer’s presentation as well as making his own.
The presentation went well and, at the end of it, the investor indicated a willingness to commence. The partners were delighted with this positive sign but Cassidy, still furious about the no-show developer, tackled Ryan about him the moment the investor left the building. This time Ryan admitted that there may be some kind of problem related to the abuse of alcohol.
Cassidy was rendered speechless by this admission. The developer was vital to the company making its next big move and Cassidy had just discovered that he was relying on someone who was, in all probability, an unreliable alcoholic. Worse still, it turned out his business partner had known about this for a long time and had been covering up for him.
Eric Cassidy is confused by the whole situation. Deep down he is so angry that he simply wants to call the developer into his office and sack him on the spot. In calmer moments, he thinks he should talk to the man and his family and offer to pay for rehabilitation. He also feels bad that other employees have been left carrying the can while management apparently idled. On top of this, he is incandescent with Ryan for allowing things to reach a point where the future of the entire business is in jeopardy.
Should Cassidy be cruel or kind?
The Experts’ Advice
THERE CAN be no question of “sacking the developer on the spot”. Such an extreme step would leave the company seriously exposed under the Unfair Dismissals Acts. Moving to dismissal without complying with the company’s disciplinary procedure and the employee’s contract, without following fair procedures and, particularly, without affording the developer a hearing, would surely give rise to a determination of unfair dismissal and if the developer could not secure alternative employment over a lengthy period, could give rise to a significant compensatory award or reinstatement.
In circumstances where Ryan is stating that there might “possibly” be “some kind of problem” related to the abuse of alcohol, Cassidy should note that problems with alcohol abuse can constitute “disability” for the purposes of the Employment Equality Acts.
An “on the spot” dismissal could also expose the company to a discriminatory dismissal claim under the equality legislation. That said, the developer would not be able to secure compensatory awards in respect of an unfair dismissal claim and a discriminatory dismissal claim and would ultimately have to elect and pursue one or the other.
While High Court injunction applications are perhaps not quite so common as they once were, if the company sacks him, the developer might look for a High Court order preventing the company from giving effect to the dismissal. Such injunction applications give rise to significant legal costs and even if the company was to succeed in opposing such an application, it is normally extremely difficult for the employer to recover those costs.
Cassidy should not rush to talk to the employee’s family. As of now, he is contemplating acting solely on Ryan’s word to the effect that there might “possibly” be “some kind of problem”. Cassidy needs to deal directly with the developer. Cassidy should confront him with regard to the issues that have arisen. He should probe the alcohol issue with him. If it emerges that the work issues are related to alcohol abuse, the company should seek expert assistance.
If the alcohol abuse is considered a disability under the Employment Equality Acts, it will be incumbent on the company to consider whether there are any measures which would address those issues and enable the developer to work while having regard for his disability and the treatment of that disability.
If it emerges that the work issues are not related to alcohol or that there are no measures that would address the work issues or if such measures would give rise to a disproportionate burden on the company, the company can contemplate moving to dismissal, in accordance with the disciplinary procedure and the developer’s contract and fair procedures generally and particularly, after a fair hearing.
If Cassidy also wants to confront Ryan with regard to his performance, he will also have to comply with the company’s disciplinary procedure and Ryan’s contract, follow fair procedures and particularly, afford Ryan a hearing.
– Michael Kennedy
THE DEVELOPER’S behaviour almost lost the company a key investment partner, endangering its future, and appears also to have been responsible for significant staff turnover. Responsibility for this rests squarely with Cassidy as the senior executive manager. His role is – or should be – to ensure the smooth running of the firm, as well as charting the strategic direction of the business. This extends to making sure that other managers manage adequately - a key imperative in any business, but especially so in a high-technology firm, where developers’ first allegiance is often likely to be to their jobs or current projects.
Cassidy’s problem is that he failed to recognise that as businesses grow, there is a need for management systems and processes of a more formal kind than may be required in early start-ups. Talented staff bring with them challenges and demands which require robust management systems. In the area of human resource management these include some kind of performance management process – which need not be, and should not be, unduly bureaucratic, or dissonant with the culture of the firm. Such a process would have spotted the developer’s alcohol problem earlier for his immediate manager, and Cassidy would have had a better chance, in turn, of becoming aware of this before it threatened the future of the company.
As for the developer, the options appear stark. I recall a very experienced and respected HR manager, who had experience of working in a creative, high-technology, knowledge-based organisation, telling me that he often had to ask senior executives how much they were willing to tolerate non-conformist behaviour by talented and valuable employees.
In the case of the developer, the answer may well be not this much, or type, of non-conformist behaviour. Still it seems an open question whether the developer can be rehabilitated through intervention of an appropriate kind, or whether the firm, operating in accordance with labour law, will, in effect, initiate a process that may lead to the termination of employment. The strategic upshot of the incident is clear. Cassidy needs to develop management systems, especially in the area of HRM, which can assist in the proper management of a developing company. These include an appropriate performance management system, provision for HRD, possibly an outsourced employee assistance programme.
– Bill Roche
THE DEVELOPER described appears to be a highly competent and indeed motivated employee. Due to his exceptional skill Ryan has taken a laissez faire approach to managing him. This is not uncommon, particularly when a manager is more comfortable with technology than with people.
By being “hands off” Ryan was communicating to the employee that it is okay to be erratic once you are technically good and we meet deadlines. As a professional manager, however, Ryan could be regarded as negligent in that he failed to manage the developer’s performance.
At a business and management level Ryan has clearly let the company down. At an individual and personal level Ryan has let the employee down by being complicit in the slippage of his performance. At an even more serious level he may have “stood idly by” as a valued employee succumbed to a dangerous addiction. If the developer’s behaviour is not seen as a gross disciplinary issue, I would suggest that Ryan has a “powerful conversation” with him to detail the behaviours he is unhappy with and the consequences for all concerned.
Take on board his good suggestions and identify why certain items will not work/help. If the response is inadequate, tell him directionally what he must do. If appropriate Ryan could insist that he attends a medical.
Turn this into a contract so that if he fails to deliver he will have failed to respond to an agreed action. Ryan should set out review dates (14 days suggested) and offer support and/or access to professional counselling.
He should identify the consequences of not complying and state clearly that he believes in the developer and in his capacity to change. If it is decided that the situation amounts to gross misconduct the individual should be formally called to a disciplinary meeting by letter.
He should be advised that it is his right and that he should bring a representative. The letter should include the formal complaint and back up evidence.On the basis of the eventual outcome Ryan and Cassidy will need to decide whether to dismiss the programmer or go for a lesser penalty such as a final warning subject to the individual signing up to a professional rehabilitation programme and completing it.
– Fergus Barry
