This was Tony’s most difficult and painful decision. He discussed the topic extensively with Paulie and Sil, wrestling with what to do after he heard from Vin that Pussy was "wired for sound." Rather than displaying his usual short fuse, Tony made an effort to collect the facts; he wanted to be sure that he had 100 percent accurate information before he made his decision. Unlike Paulie, who was ready to kill Pussy the moment he heard he was working for the Feds, Tony was methodical in his information gathering and analysis.
TONY ON IF HE SHOULD KILL PUSSY
"This is the most serious effing decision I’ve ever had to make in my life. I need proof."
The analogy to a business situation is when an executive hears that a direct report has done something that warrants dismissal or at least censure. This may involve something unethical or illegal, or it may be a performance failure of some type. Whatever the cause, good leaders like Tony don’t react like Paulie and tell an individual that he’s fired. Instead, they go through a dual-level evaluation process. One level involves gathering the facts about the infraction. If the facts support the initial description of the infraction, a leader must go to the second level and evaluate what punishment is appropriate for the crime. In Tony’s case, Pussy had violated the most sacred value of the family. He committed the ultimate crime and deserved the ultimate punishment. Tony faced the problem head-on and took the responsibility for the hit on Pussy. Because of Tony’s solid relationship with him, this was tough for Tony to do, but it came with the leadership territory.
Still, Tony’s assessment process was right on the mark. It could have been that Pussy wasn’t wired for sound, that he had been running some scheme to find out what the Feds were doing. Maybe he was simply faking being an informer; he got it into his head to be a double agent and earn Tony’s respect for his clever plan. Though this wasn’t the case, Tony recognized that it was important to get to the bottom of the situation because other explanations were possible. Making a decision to fire a valued, longterm employee has repercussions throughout an organization. If people view the firing as unjustified, it will have a negative impact on morale. Therefore, due diligence is called for, even when the crime and punishment seem transparently obvious.
What we can learn from this decision:
- Don’t jump the gun. In other words, don’t be so quick to make decisions on important issues because you’re reacting emotionally or because you’re under great pressure to make a choice. In the business world, leaders are finding that more decisions than ever before aren’t black-and-white. Many times, there is no correct answer. This is especially true when it comes to termination decisions. It’s far more difficult to fire people today than in years past, and not just for legal reasons. Do you fire someone whose performance has been declining primarily because he’s been going through a difficult divorce? Do you terminate a high potential who was caught smoking dope in the men’s room? Do you get rid of a potential star because you’ve discovered he’s been interviewing for other jobs? Conducting some fact-finding and talking with the individual involved may change your mind about what to do. You may learn enough to give this person another chance or to even change your own behavior to help this individual grow and develop. Of course, if a direct report has committed an illegal or unethical act, you must thoroughly investigate what took place. If the crime is serious enough, the punishment should fit the crime.