A reader writes:
The clinic I work for filled a medical receptionist position. The new hire had worked as a receptionist for other offices for over 18 years. Sure, they had to learn the ropes of a new EHR (electronic health record) program, but they should already know enough to not be so overwhelmed that they had to call in, right?
On the third day of employment the new hire called in, stating that they “were too overwhelmed and needed to regroup.” They were going to take the day to get their notes together and would come in the next day. I, as the training manager, asked that they come in and offered to help them organize their notes and answer any questions. They refused. There was not any sign of remorse or promises to be more dependable.
For only two days in, the new hire had been doing well. But training was just the basics at that point. We had not even gotten to the vast amount of information required to fully do the job. And training for any job is a bit overwhelming, but that is part of the training process, right? If the employee was too overwhelmed to even come into work, it would no doubt be far worse down the line.
Yes, there was a chance that they would work out and be the ideal employee. But after having been burned one too many times wasting time and resources and wary of any red flag, our administration team decided it was best to terminate them instead of waiting for what seemed like the inevitable – having an unreliable or easily overwhelmed employee.
Is this a reasonable response? The individual had quit their job to start the new position at our clinic. But they were the one to call in for their shift. Is it reasonable to terminate such an employee within their first week because you are not “sure”?
It’s not unreasonable to be very alarmed that a new hire called out on day three because two days of training had been too much and they needed to “regroup.”
I’d be alarmed by that too.
I think ideally you would have talked with them in person the next day (assuming they did come in the next day) and tried to get a better understanding of what was going on. Who knows, maybe it wasn’t just about the job but also outside stuff as well … but absent any additional details like that, it’s a pretty major red flag and I don’t think it was unwarranted to just decide to cut your losses at that point.
I am curious about what the rest of the picture looked like: was this someone with strong references and a history of solid stays at previous jobs? If so, I’d be a lot more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, at least as far as having a conversation with them before deciding anything (as well as to wonder if something had happened during those two days that you didn’t know about yet).
But with the person not offering up any additional info about what was going on, even after you asked that they come in and said you’d sit and help them, I can’t deem your management team’s response unreasonable.
