[Someone]

The idea in large parts of western europe is that it is OK to fire employees who aren’t fit for their job, but that “low performing”, at best, only is a low quality indicator of the former.

For example, management can stifle productivity in ways that individual workers have little influence on.

Also, employees may be ‘useless’ for a while, but then improve again, for example if they are going through a divorce, the death of a relative, etc. Firing people because they perform worse for a few months is frowned upon in some circles.

[hyperpape]

How do people there understand the difference between low performers and people who aren't fit for their job? The latter has the sound of something lasting that cannot be fixed, but I'm wondering how it plays out in practice. How do you determine that someone is not fit for their job as opposed to a mere low performer?

[throwawayknecht]

By discussing things with them like a regular human being and giving them opportunities to try things they are more comfortable with.

Good management is not, ironically, rocket science.

[hyperpape]

I think this comment is the 'RTFM' of employee-employer relations.

Very few things in this world are actually simple enough that this kind of dismissive attitude works. I've seen people who didn't care about giving helpful feedback and second chances, but I've also seen people who agree in spirit, but don't know how to do it well.