Ideas and Opinions from Donald Trump and TrumpU Faculty.
When You Really Have to Say, "You're Fired!"
Although it’s become one of my signatures, firing people is not something I enjoy doing. In reality, I’d rather hire really great employees in the first place so that firing them is something I never plan on doing.
But in reality, managers are often placed in tough situations when they have to let underperforming employees go. Since most people don’t have the benefit of a boardroom and cameras following their staff around, it’s not always easy to know what to say or how to do it. So let me offer some tips.
First, never fire someone when you’re angry or when other workers are present. Don’t let an employee bait you into losing your temper. If you feel yourself getting angry, immediately walk away and cool down. When you are completely composed, discuss the situation with someone who can give you objective advice. Develop a plan on how to proceed and continue reviewing it with an attorney.
Never blow up in front of your employees. When you’re displeased with a worker, discuss your feelings with him or her privately, not in a public area where other employees might watch or overhear. If you’re concerned about meeting alone with the employee, have another member of your staff sit in. Meet in a neutral area - not your office - so you can get up and leave.
At termination meetings, never get drawn into debates or arguments. Be civil, polite and businesslike. Expect the employee to be upset, so be direct and courteous, and give the employee an opportunity to speak.
Fortunately, I seem to attract people who like to work hard and get a sense of achievements from their efforts. Most of the people I’ve fired knew they weren’t performing to a satisfactory level, and I’ve had very few problems in that area. I’m demanding but fair, and they know it.
Amanda Knox Prosecutor Convicted of Abuse of Office
See how you stack up against Donald Trump take our FREE entrepreneurship test.
Follow Us on Twitter
Become a Fan of Trump University's Facebook Page
Trump University on You Tube
How to Change the World
Tom Peters
Conversation Marketing
Freakonomics
Marketing Excellence Blog
Rajesh Shakya
Trump University Real Estate 101 Building Wealth with Real Estate Investments
Commercial Real Estate Investment 101 How Small Investors Can Get Started and Make It Big
28 Comments
My comment is in regards to the Apprentice episode that aired on March 18th, 2007, as well as this topic. My opinion is that Christine should have been fired. I would love to hear your thoughts of my perception versus your decision.
It is my feeling that Christine purposely placed the fine woman who had gotten fired into, what I would call a firing hole. She was placed in the position that she would be a lack lusting performer. Accepting failure of the project with the exchange of saving her position on the show & not putting the proper people in the right place. Knowing her accent may interfere with sending a clear message.
Do you consider that this was the case & decided to keep Christine because she played the game better at the sacrifice of being a team player and doing an overall better job on the project?
Best regards,
Barry Weisinger
If and when I am faced with such a choice I will carry on the meeting of trust and hope that someone would support me it what is one of the hardest decision an employer has to make.
Jason Seelmann
- Calgary, Canada
Ken Flowers
www.kflowers.blogspot.com
I think you provided us with excellent advice on firing an employee if the situation comes up. Personally, I never had to fire anyone or have I ever been fired. I have done two of the things you mentioned in yout article a few times in my air force career. First as a supervisor/manager, when a subordinate of mine was not meeting standards or his/her work performance was below average, I would always counsel that individual in private away from other personnel. Secondly, when I was frustrated or upset about something, I never allowed my troops see me upset because I knew this could have a negative impact on my troops. Hopefully, others will follow your advice.......rickyl
I saw your interview with Wolf Blitzer. I thought it was great and some of those you spoke of need to HEAR the words you are so famous for!
You have strong opinions based upon facts and this is what people need to hear.
Your expertise, with business and money, is truly an expertise our government and future elected officials should listen closely to.
I am wondering if you have ANY opinion on the Leo Wanta (story), and all the related info, involving this situation that is everywhere on the internet. Many of the sites, and especially those from overseas, are credible sites. One, in particular, is: www.worldreports.org. Christopher Story is a journalist who has been around for a long time. Other sites: : www.thechiefblogspot.com, www.ahrc.com.... There are really a lot of sites. Do a simple google search and you will come up with all the related sites.
If , in fact, these trillions of dollars, ($27.5 trillion, some say), is due back to the USA, why are we not taking it back, and if these funds do come back to the USA, can they be used to help invest in America? American jobs, education of our American youth, etc.
I, and others, will greatly appreciate your thoughts. Best wishes and thank you.
I was very disappointed as I had a lot of respect for Mr. Trump and was behind him when he was battling Rosie - but it looks like they are 2 peas in a pod. Even if you don't like our president or agree with him, bashing him is not an option. Had either of them did so to Saddam when he was ruling - they wouldn't be around today.
I pointed to him on the t.v. and said "You're Fired!"
Thank you.
The office I work in has managers all over who's only concern is to cover their assets. You should not have fired muna, she was put in a tough position and the project manager who put her there knew exactly what she was doing. The PM stated herself much earlier in the show that she couldnt stand her. Based on the film the ladies were watching she should have made an exective decision to do that part herself(the pm) but the pm was off doing something else. Christine should have been fired. I disagreed with you this time just like I totally disagreed when you fired tanna in a previous season. She was the best candidate you had.
She was tough, and wouldnt take any crap, just like you.
The office I work in has managers all over who's only concern is to cover their assets. You should not have fired muna, she was put in a tough position and the project manager who put her there knew exactly what she was doing. The PM stated herself much earlier in the show that she couldnt stand her. Based on the film the ladies were watching she should have made an exective decision to do that part herself(the pm) but the pm was off doing something else. Christine should have been fired. I disagreed with you this time just like I totally disagreed when you fired tanna in a previous season. She was the best candidate you had.
She was tough, and wouldnt take any crap, just like you.
Christine should have been fired because she did not manage the project well. First she let Muna talk her out of her original, correct, decision to have her work behind the scenes as a detail person--and not before the cameras. A real leader sticks to their guns! She took the easy way out to avoid conflict.
Secondly, Christine was not there to oversee the production! She was out buying lipstick with Angela. Clearly, she did not need to do this and should have been overseeing the video! Then, as Muna stated, she didn't review the tape when she finally arrived at the video shoot. Had she done this she would have seen the problem earlier, when it probably could have been resolved.
Christine made two bad decisions, Muna made none--at least not until she got in the boardroom. Christine should have been fired, she had more to do with the loss than Muna. Muna clearly tried her best, her accent is nothing she can help!
John
What I have found, as I get older, and am more skilled and qualified, and work with peers who are more skilled and qualified, is that most managers are not qualified to be firing people - they are simply given that authority.
I have found, when dealing with more skilled and/or senior people of a company in the same peer position, when inept management comes along, they need to be fired, demoted or removed. But, their boss, the Vice President is not on the premises to realize management is not doing their job and, literally, creating a counterproductive environment.
So, the Vice President does not fire, demote or remove them and barely seems to know how severe the problems really are (or maybe he did know) that are direct results from poor, inept, under skilled managers. Most of whom do not even receive proper training from the company.
At this level, I realize the only way for a company to balance the scales is to not have management directly over people. Rather have management perform exclusively assistive and 'further training' type responsibilities over the whole, rather than a select group. This gives people more than one manager to rely on, if there is a personality issue it can be addressed by the two adults immediately without one being negatively harmed over and over by the other, and this takes a manager's control to harm those 'under them' away.
However, most large companies, seem stuck in old school modes of management and are not adapting and evolving to their sales forces, or other departments. (At my last job, with new sales, the ratio of sales to manager needed to be 1:5, more skilled sales to manager 1:10. Sales reps were so sophisticated at my last job the ratio was actually 1:20. The company did not recognize this nor adapt. The extra manager always caused problems, fabricated problems, harassed people (women), and created a counterproductive work environment.)
The solution I propose would eliminate most of the problems that occur between management and those under them.
Besides, we can always learn something beyond what we know in order to be even greater at our jobs. I worked for such a highly skilled sales force that the Vice President of the company would send out Sales 101 training programs to a Level 7 Sales Team and he never 'furthered' our training in any capacity.
The benefits: a sales person can perform the same level of tasks in 40 hours instead of 70. Then 30 hours instead of 40. And, as your skills grow even more 20 hours instead of 30 - which was my actual experience at the same job for 5 years.
As it was, these skills were primarily self-taught, or taught to me through my peers, as compared to learning because of aggressive and targeted measures taken by the management and executive team of the company.
I think sometimes, that is all we really need management for, but companies have to acknowledge it and adapt.
Please Tell Rosie she's fired. I look up to you as a leader , she is well beneath your caliper. Please do not play her game just walk away.
A fool will some times bring you down to his or her level and beat you with experience.
leave this fool along
Thanks for the well needed firing advice
I didn't know where else to post so I chose this blog. I am a medical professional and it is my passion. I recently took your Trump challenge just out of curiosity. I failed miserably and I did so because I took the test from my stand point of being a medical professional. My passion in life is not getting rich with wealth, but feeling rich from learning everything I can and perhaps saving a few lives along the way.
I am just curious why every thing is about "money money money". It just doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps that is why we rarely see medical doctors on the show.
Just my humbly annoyed opinion.
I think Mona, had the best credentials all around. I was surprised Heide, showed no loyalty to Mona. Mona's firing was short and pointed, but wrong. However, respectfully she left the board room with her honor in tact.
About Katherine, Heide, and Amy much was lost in the translation of their actions. Firing someone can be difficult when they have been billed as the "sacrifical lamb" by those who don't want them around. Firing, can also be just based upon the employees lack performance there of.
Mary Pominville
- Rit
Another person who responded to your criticism of President Bush caused me to comment as well. There is a group of people who feel that just because someone is a celebrity or public figure, they shouldn't "ram their opinions down the publics throat." I think this position is absurd and shows their emotional weakness in the argument. Opinions are just that, they carry no more weight unless someone gives them more weight. Donald Trump is just as entitled to his opinion as anyone else. If he has a more powerful venue in which to share his opinions, so be it. Being a public figure does not require someone to give up their rights of free speech or expression. Do your own thinking, don't criticize what others think, join the debate!
with your permission, I need an advice, look, if a small enterprise would like to co brand with a big corporation
*may the small one provide extra services to the customers the big brand open it already!? let say, that new markets are desireable but present high rate crime, and in order to be proactief, during the approuvements period and ground breaking for example of the principal investment as R.E. one, what if in that frame of time the co brand * clean
the waters and rise the quality of life by projects now : here is the question:
*as much as the globalization services generally spoken is as known Mercedes Co. has from automobiles to wood industry until spatial tech investments, but my question is that if a brand in R.E has to pay a lot of rights, taxes and approuvements in order to create value by the investition, ok,. so if the co brand small enterprise will run the extra services how that affect the brand from the mix of services with thissame regimen of taxes of i hope will benefit of some lower tax regime?how the best is: co branding on thissame type of services at thissame tax level or it depend of wideness of services we provide to the community too in order to obtain some tax abatement...I mean for public works, vital ones, are platformes projects encouraging the work
of responsibility? water supply, scarce resources but if spilways planned, than a lot of troubles not woth the noble cause we start with...
is a paradox isn*t? and if that jonction of investment is international, will the US for example encourage and honour that abatements? let*s say that is about terror aspects, that that kind of work really help the peace proces to maintain it safe..
Appreciate the time to think about that aspect, if not exist as legal frame,
than is a long term process to implement it or relatively short timed if well sustained?