Absolutely agree. Pace hired Nagy which is not good.
But ...
I will give you an example.
You are the GM of some business looking to hire a manager of a store.
You ask around and one highly respected manager tells you that there is an employee who is the best employee he ever worked with. You know this manager and you also know that he has had other employees become managers with success. One of them has had a 10+ manager career of great success.
So you take his word for this employee because you honestly do not have a ton of GM experience and rely on others to help you along on your own career.
You interview this employee and, because this employee is a successful bullshit artist, you are impressed. That along with the respected manager's comments, you decide to hire him as your Chicago branch manager.
Now, we will leave the missteps that you may have committed (yeah, Pace should be fired for them) for another discussion.
One day the owner of the company comes to your office and starts talking about what is wrong with the Chicago branch.
You find out that:
- sales are bad which is caused by your mistakes and your new manager's mistakes.
- The Chicago Branch sales staff has not been trained
- The Chicago Branch janitor just sits around watching tv and eating the products ... without paying
- No one in the Chicago Branch is following the company guidelines
- The Chicago Branch staff yells at customers and is physically threatening to them
- The Chicago Branch assistant managers have no clue what they are doing.
- There are sexual harassment issues within the Chicago branch.
Now your company has a very strange firing policy: Only 1 person can be fired per a 30 day period. This policy is in place for someone not to act too severely across the board, only removing the "cancer" to see if, within 30 days, the rest of the staff improves.
So, in this situation, who gets fired?
- You who:
- hired the Chicago Branch manager
- had some very bad decisions
- The Chicago Branch manager who:
- had some bad decisions
- hired some bad assistant managers
- held no one accountable
- allowed the staff to not follow the rules
- did not train anyone for anything
- let employees consume the stock without paying
- allowed a very negative atmosphere to grow
- created his own rules of running the Chicago Branch which are contrary to the running of a successful business.
- Kept forcing those same bad business practices even though they have tanked the success of the business
- The Chicago Branch assistant managers who
- had some bad decisions
- did not train anyone
- hired some bad employees
- held no one accountable
- allowed the staff to not follow the rules
- let employees to consume the stock without paying
- allowed a very negative atmosphere to grow
- The Chicago Branch employees
- had some bad decisions
- did not follow the rules
- consumed the stock without paying
- created a negative atmosphere
Before you answer, that same Chicago Branch Manager already fired many Chicago Assistant Branch managers and employees with nothing getting better.
So who should go now? Who is the bigger cancer?
Remember, only one can go right now.