Improving versus replacing poor performers:

A third key strategic choice in the development of employees involves how much the firm will invest in an employee to improve subpar performance. Several key issues must be considered the probability of improving performances, the cost of improving it, legal consideration, replacement costs and top management philosophy. When employees do not perform their jobs to the standards expected in some companies, they are terminated. In other companies, they are coached, counseled, trained in hopes of improving their performance. With the emphasis on drug and substance abuse rehabilitation and legal protections prohibiting discriminatory actions ( including termination) based on age, gender, religion, race or disability, companies often seek ways to improve employees performance instead of terminating them. Employee assistance program(EAP) have been developed to help the substance abuser or troubled employee. In addition, many employers fear that termination for poor performance could result in litigation charges of discrimination. Because of this, employers who at one time might have immediately terminated an employee (e.g. for drunkenness) now may continue the persons employment but require that the employee enter EAP. Today an employer must decide whether additional training can salvage marginal performance or whether a swift termination policy is more desirable.

Question: What factors influence whether an employee who is a marginal performer is trained or fired?