Telling others they are no longer welcome on a team or organization can be a traumatizing experience for all of the parties involved. Good leaders know that how people are terminated is a hugely symbolic act that reflects the true values of the organization and its leaders. Those colleagues who remain maintain a watchful eye, knowing the same treatment could be applied to them.
You're right, we mainly listed what not to do. So if one already agreed with that list of don'ts, this entry would need more.
We are writing something up now in response that outlines what we have called "Two Conversations" that we will post here in the comments section very shortly. We are actually surprised to look back and see we hav't already written about this method... so thanks very much for asking! Standby.
Ah yes! I remember the "two conversations" being discussed during an ALD Direct a few months ago. That will be good, maybe worth it to write up as a separate entry altogether too.
Best practices for terminating colleagues is highly contextual, depending on the reasons for termination (performance issues, layoff, etc.) and the people involved (tenure, seniority, identity, etc.). That said, a few ground rules should always be in play:
1. Avoid surprising people. As much as possible forewarn that circumstances warrant the possibility that changes may need to be made.
2. Before any termination conversation, explore how the colleague at-risk views their performance, fit, place in the org, etc. Hearing people and listening to their perspectives is both respectful and often produces a conclusion similar to the plans in play.
3. Ask for help from the exiting colleague to transition their work and knowledge to others in a condensed time frame. Compensate them for this effort separately.
4. As much as is possible, allow people to close the loop on existing relationships within the company. Create a process and/or structures to do so. For example, create a lunch forum of select relationships for a day or two after the exit conversation where the colleague can thank people for their collegiality. Don't be fearful of sponsoring a bitching session. That's not what happens.
Thank you. I’m the above 1-4 are a reflection of the “Two Conversations” outline mentioned above? I’m not getting a two conversation distinction and would look forward to being directed to that content. Thank you for your responsiveness. Take good care.
Hi Kathleen - the idea behind referring to it as "Two Conversations" is simply the frame work. The above context is some of the nuance.
Introducing it in the "Two Conversation" context is to remind those who might try to terminate someone in a single conversation. There is no right way to surprise someone, there is no correct tactic when it is done inside the framework of a single conversation, it will almost always be viewed as a surprising and therefore offensive if handled in once conversation. (outside of inappropriate of illegal activity)
So if you always think of it as a multi-conversation process, talking about performance gaps during a scheduled review gives you the opportunity to mention the gap. Many times a person might resign on their own after a continuous conversation of missing expectations. Either way, it won't be an unexpected conversation when it has been the topic of many conversations leading up to it.
Too many mangers evade and avoid critical feedback and they set themselves up for an unceremonious dismissal because they poorly communicated expectations all along.
This makes me think back to my own layoff experience. It was a unique one but it was absolutely governed by the need to remain harmonious. So much so that it completely sacrificed the truth. I was treated kindly, because there was a strong possibility that I could split the organization apart if I discussed the reasons for my dismissal openly. I didn't want to see the organization suffer, so I became complicit in some deceit in order for the truth not to do more damage.
It didn't work.
Looking back I can't imagine what would have worked.
It didn't work because the organization had several strains of hypocrisy woven into the fabric of its structure. My dismissal and the attempts to cover it up only caused more damage from people asking simple questions.
What needed to happen did happen, but now in an uncontrolled way. It happened in a way that turned the organization's harmony into outright lies and sabotage after I was gone.
Makes me think that NICE acts aren't always the KIND ones. The most KIND thing to do for me and the org would have been to let the truth out instead of trying to keep it under wraps.
When it’s a mass layoff, an organization had better have been transparent about the structural strains that lead up to that decision with more than one conversation ahead of time.
Even if company communication doesn’t get handled properly, individual leaders should feel the obligation to their team to communicate the reality of the situation instead of trying to conceal it. Get to know your people, establish trust, communicate in a transparent way… the symbolic act of terminating someone in a respectful and honorable way starts at the relationship building level.
The kind of leader who avoids building personal relationships because it makes it too hard to terminate people… that leader is selfish and wont be admired during or after the termination.
The A's GM was portrayed as a person who avoided personal relationships with his players for this exact reason. It was actually set up as a comic moment in the movie, which might be why it was set up this way... maybe there was no other way to present it without exposing it as an act of poor leadership.
Would like to have read an offering of “best practices” - beyond the reference of treat others as you would want to be treated.
Hi Kathleen.
Thanks for asking.
You're right, we mainly listed what not to do. So if one already agreed with that list of don'ts, this entry would need more.
We are writing something up now in response that outlines what we have called "Two Conversations" that we will post here in the comments section very shortly. We are actually surprised to look back and see we hav't already written about this method... so thanks very much for asking! Standby.
Ah yes! I remember the "two conversations" being discussed during an ALD Direct a few months ago. That will be good, maybe worth it to write up as a separate entry altogether too.
I look forward to it. Thank you for your response.
Here is a clip of that moment in the AL Direct session, Kathleen:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CoUyPvIObgc/
Best practices for terminating colleagues is highly contextual, depending on the reasons for termination (performance issues, layoff, etc.) and the people involved (tenure, seniority, identity, etc.). That said, a few ground rules should always be in play:
1. Avoid surprising people. As much as possible forewarn that circumstances warrant the possibility that changes may need to be made.
2. Before any termination conversation, explore how the colleague at-risk views their performance, fit, place in the org, etc. Hearing people and listening to their perspectives is both respectful and often produces a conclusion similar to the plans in play.
3. Ask for help from the exiting colleague to transition their work and knowledge to others in a condensed time frame. Compensate them for this effort separately.
4. As much as is possible, allow people to close the loop on existing relationships within the company. Create a process and/or structures to do so. For example, create a lunch forum of select relationships for a day or two after the exit conversation where the colleague can thank people for their collegiality. Don't be fearful of sponsoring a bitching session. That's not what happens.
We've also written a bit about this general topic in previous Field Notes titled Transition vs. Termination (https://admiredleadership.substack.com/p/transition-versus-termination)and Lame Duck Colleagues (https://admiredleadership.substack.com/p/should-we-encourage-lame-duck-colleagues).
Thank you. I’m the above 1-4 are a reflection of the “Two Conversations” outline mentioned above? I’m not getting a two conversation distinction and would look forward to being directed to that content. Thank you for your responsiveness. Take good care.
Hi Kathleen - the idea behind referring to it as "Two Conversations" is simply the frame work. The above context is some of the nuance.
Introducing it in the "Two Conversation" context is to remind those who might try to terminate someone in a single conversation. There is no right way to surprise someone, there is no correct tactic when it is done inside the framework of a single conversation, it will almost always be viewed as a surprising and therefore offensive if handled in once conversation. (outside of inappropriate of illegal activity)
So if you always think of it as a multi-conversation process, talking about performance gaps during a scheduled review gives you the opportunity to mention the gap. Many times a person might resign on their own after a continuous conversation of missing expectations. Either way, it won't be an unexpected conversation when it has been the topic of many conversations leading up to it.
Too many mangers evade and avoid critical feedback and they set themselves up for an unceremonious dismissal because they poorly communicated expectations all along.
thank you for the continuing unfolding of your thoughts. Take good care. K☘️
This makes me think back to my own layoff experience. It was a unique one but it was absolutely governed by the need to remain harmonious. So much so that it completely sacrificed the truth. I was treated kindly, because there was a strong possibility that I could split the organization apart if I discussed the reasons for my dismissal openly. I didn't want to see the organization suffer, so I became complicit in some deceit in order for the truth not to do more damage.
It didn't work.
Looking back I can't imagine what would have worked.
It didn't work because the organization had several strains of hypocrisy woven into the fabric of its structure. My dismissal and the attempts to cover it up only caused more damage from people asking simple questions.
What needed to happen did happen, but now in an uncontrolled way. It happened in a way that turned the organization's harmony into outright lies and sabotage after I was gone.
Makes me think that NICE acts aren't always the KIND ones. The most KIND thing to do for me and the org would have been to let the truth out instead of trying to keep it under wraps.
When it’s a mass layoff, an organization had better have been transparent about the structural strains that lead up to that decision with more than one conversation ahead of time.
Even if company communication doesn’t get handled properly, individual leaders should feel the obligation to their team to communicate the reality of the situation instead of trying to conceal it. Get to know your people, establish trust, communicate in a transparent way… the symbolic act of terminating someone in a respectful and honorable way starts at the relationship building level.
The kind of leader who avoids building personal relationships because it makes it too hard to terminate people… that leader is selfish and wont be admired during or after the termination.
Just watched this scene in the movie Moneyball.
The A's GM was portrayed as a person who avoided personal relationships with his players for this exact reason. It was actually set up as a comic moment in the movie, which might be why it was set up this way... maybe there was no other way to present it without exposing it as an act of poor leadership.
Soot on in my view - thanks for your input Jennifer. Take good care ~