Harvard Business Publishing

Your comments are helpful regarding interactions with the employee dismissed, but I believe you are leaving out a key component to the response -- the employees who remain with the company. The employees know as well as the leader that the laid off employee was a top performer. They need a strong, transparent understanding of the business environment that led to the current actions and a key understanding of what they can do the help the business succeed. Otherwise, the leader's remaining top performers may be the next to find their own way out.

All of the above is good advice. I've had to terminate great performers, and while any terminations are painful, these are the worst.

I have a couple of other suggestions. If you have influence on the termination process, lobby to ensure that outplacement services are included. Often these services are only offered to executives, but even a few sessions of outplacement counselling can be very helpful and motivating to a recently separated employee.

The other suggestion is to have an HR representative in the room when you deliver the message - not only to cover the details of the severage package, but also to witness the conversation. These discussions can get very emotional, and it's helpful to have a good cop there when you've been put in the bad cop position.

Tell the truth, be prepared for an emotional response, don't sell out others, be helpful--all of this is good advice, especially at a time when you terminate someone's services.

However, it would be difficult to pull off the act unless one has practiced such behavior in the time before the termination became necessary. People must know you as a trustworthy and mature colleague first.

Hi Marshall,

I have not been through the tough termination process that you discuss.

I can't imagine how such a process would ever be easy or personally comfortable.

I found your link to Billie Holliday surprising and intriguing, especially the lyrics.

After briefly deliberating on the lyrics, I quickly realized that they are easily tied to 'programmed identity'. In the lyrics I see a clear message about the importance of 'independence' - the idea that a blessed child is one that makes it on his or her own, without the extra support of mother and/or father.

It is interesting to think that the more industrious and independent child may be more prone to glory and unbridled success - 'worrying about nothin' as the lyrics go.

I would work under a hypothetical assumption that Peter F. Drucker would strongly protest to the given lyrics. For in the "Concept of the Corporation", Drucker makes it clear as day how "almost impossible it is for the son of a very rich man to lead a useful life" - pg. 147.

Ironic how intense independence breeds uselessness in others, particularly offspring. Especially when a son only wants to see proudness reflecting in the eyes of his father.

Still though, the broadly independent become cast as heroes - they are the ones who so skillfully and artfully lead us down a path of unwavering steadiness and certainty. Those who are largely dependent get cast as the villains and the sycophants.

And so fingers start pointing - for the blamers must have someone to blame - just as the blamed require their blamer.

Just as the fostering of independence requires and demands the equal fostering of dependence. For without one, the other cannot and will not continue to exist in a balanced form. The form may, on occasion, become unbalanced, yet not remaining in such a way for a prolonged period of time.

Insidiously, those who fall in the realm of dependent, by and large, receive stigmatization and social alienation - for such individuals do not work 'right' or perhaps, more accurately, have not been 'programmed' to work right.

And so, some individuals who have been handed down the role of dependent will do almost anything to shake the shackles - they make sacrifices that most others cannot even begin to fathom.

Thanks for including the thought inspring lyrics.

Four years ago my position was "eliminated", as part of a company downsizing. My boss, who I always admired and still do, did essentially what you suggested. He really stressed to me that it was not personal and that he really liked my work. What really impressed me was that he had a list of contacts and leads for new positions for me that he collected in the days before I got the notice. This list really showed to me that he really did value my contributions and that he believed I did not deserve to have my position terminated. I always appreciated his support.

Marshall, I'm on the tail end of reading your new book, "What Got You Here..."...which I'm recommending to all my friends and colleagues. As I see it, a lot of what you discuss in the book results in demonstrating respect for employees (and family).

In the scenario in question, respect is key. I've been on both sides of the table. There's always a corporate script to follow to eliminate any debate about the decision. But the acceptance of the decision, in my experience, has always been facilitated by the respect exhibited for the employee(s) impacted.

Thank You!

James - Excellent point! My post deals with the interaction with the person that is leaving. It is also critical to focus on the people who are remaining.
Joyce - Two great suggestions! Thank you.
Matthew - Thank you for this analysis. I am a fan of Billie Holiday. Her rendition of this song is a jazz classic. It relates to her life story.
Sarah - Thank you for your 'real world' example. You know better than I how important it is to be supportive to people who need help.
Norm - Thank you! I agree with your assessment of my latest book. As you note, real respect has to come from 'inside' and go beyond just reading a 'script'.

Of course, the points you referred are obsolutely mandatatory to avoid any sort of emberassing situation. It would be better to let them know that even we, as boss, are forced to take an action like this. And we need to explain them the whole company's scenario and the situations and how they forced the company people and we ( as boss ) to take this tough action.

Apart from this, it would be ideal if we can help them in showing a job opportunity immediately according to their qualifications, expertise and experience.

But ultimately, we need to master the human behaviour to tackle this kind of situations.

I think it is a very good article for me to read and for every boss who is going to layoff their peoplo to read....

Recently our company has laided off a number of employees including those high performers. I know a number of people who were very good and very loyal to the company who left the Company. I feel very painful to know those good people left the company. It is not only the pain the people who left the company, but also the pain to the people who remains in the company. I wonder whether there are better rating system or other alternate ways to reduce the damage and pains (like, move the high performers to some other company's position rather than let them go...since if they are high performer at one position, they will be value to the company at another position also.)

Regarding how to help those who left the company, I do appreciate the idea that we should connect with them so to let them feel they are still warmly welcomed by his (her) colleagues and people worked for (with) him (her)still miss them.

Anyway, it is a very good topic during this tough economic situation. We'd better do good job to mitigate emotional damages to the peole who left company and the peoplo who remains in the company.

P. Sampath - Good point. Even though we cannot always find a job for them - we can try.
Julia - Thank you. I can tell that you are a very sensitive person. It can fell 'awkward' to reach out to people who have been laid off, but, to the degree they are receptive, it can be greatly appreciated.

Great post Marshall.
Under the "Help Them Anyway You Can"

Sit down with them and help them distill their leverage which is basically "what they have already gotten done that produced a positive measurable change relevant to the success of the company." Then help them brainstorm about those companies and opportunities that most urgently need what they can get done. Then if you can, find a way to make an introduction to that company. If you have target marketed their skills accurately, it should just be a matter of contacting that company and seeing if you are right in assessing that they could really use someone who is terrific in the area that this person is.

Your article might have been helpful to the management of the Green Bay Packers over this last month or so.

Although the termination in this case was self-imposed, the retirement and subsequent unretirement of star quarterback Brett Favre was not handled in a way that reflected well on the Packers or Favre.

Had management been prepared, as you suggest, for the anger of their star performer, they might have been able to avoid a high-profile tussle that became uglier than was necessary.

Major league sports is, in the end, a people business, and management has to be very adroit at handling the organization's human assets -- especially the good will and allegiance of its fans.

While Favre did some damage to his own image, the outcome for the Packers is not yet clear. The fact that he led the team to 14 wins last year makes Favre a rare commodity in the NFL, but they felt it was time to move on -- that it's management's team, and not Favre's.

That is management's duty and prerogative, and the wisdom of that choice will play out in public over the next sixth months. But the entire episode could have been handled in a more sensible way.

Assalam - o - Alaikum / Hi Marshal;
It’s really painful process I'm passing through right now. Owing to some of the strategic decisions, we are going to lose 200+ employees at certain level.
I've worked out to pass on causes of laying off information with sympathies to the concerned ones. The people are very stressed as they’ve spent a long component of their lives (even 10 yrs) with the org. Though soft discussions are lowering down their anger yet no good views for the organization they used to love and introduced themselves proudly amongst the professional of other companies.
I've tried to provide them the way out in some other org, where I've contacts. Unfortunately, the number of people laid off can't be settled immediately all over the country where there is already the same situation of crises in biz.
Negative impacts:
1. The rest of the employees are also unsatisfied in this unstable situation.
2. Job burden increased three times to achieve the objectives.
3. The seniors of the laid-off team members are thinking to switch over (if possible).
4. Some of the people who left are getting opportunity with competition, spreading some frustration / worsening disinformation among the market (trade channels).
5. Some secrete data is transferred / being transferred to competitions.
6. Despite all these negatives, we'll suffer on company repute for any HR hiring in future.
I’m of the opinion that terminating people is difficult job than hiring. You lose good guys even after knowing these are good professionals. In hiring, you take risk with less surety that good people being hired.
Do you believe still we can eliminate the impact of all negatives?

ZAC

Assalam - o - Alaikum / Hi Marshal;
It’s really painful process I'm passing through right now. Owing to some of the strategic decisions, we are going to lose 200+ employees at certain level.
I've worked out to pass on causes of laying off information with sympathies to the concerned ones. The people are very stressed as they’ve spent a long component of their lives (even 10 yrs) with the org. Though soft discussions are lowering down their anger yet no good views for the organization they used to love and introduced themselves proudly amongst the professional of other companies.
I've tried to provide them the way out in some other org, where I've contacts. Unfortunately, the number of people laid off can't be settled immediately all over the country where there is already the same situation of crises in biz.
Negative impacts:
1. The rest of the employees are also unsatisfied in this unstable situation.
2. Job burden increased three times to achieve the objectives.
3. The seniors of the laid-off team members are thinking to switch over (if possible).
4. Some of the people who left are getting opportunity with competition, spreading some frustration / worsening disinformation among the market (trade channels).
5. Some secrete data is transferred / being transferred to competitions.
6. Despite all these negatives, we'll suffer on company repute for any HR hiring in future.
I’m of the opinion that terminating people is difficult job than hiring. You lose good guys even after knowing these are good professionals. In hiring, you take risk with less surety that good people being hired.
Do you believe still we can eliminate the impact of all negatives?

Zulfiqar - Thank you for this excellent post! You have done a wonderful job of pointing out the 'hidden costs' involved when we terminate great people. Do I know a way to ever eliminate all of the costs that you have described? No. My only hope is to help the actual manager involved in the interaction do the best job that he or she can.

Laying off your most talented employee is not an easy task. The process is very tough and emotionally challenging. As Mark referred, I have always told the truth and also make sure that there won't be any hard feeling. One approach I have taken in the past was, I have always invited the impacted employee for our departmental happy hours and other recreational activities. His participation was a huge factor for improving the trust and moral of my team. More over the impacted employee felt that he is still part of our team that eased his unhappiness towards our firm.

Regards
Babu

Great post Marshall.
They of course need to know that the lay off is not their fault and that it wasn't about performance. Since that person will hopefully have a bright future somewhere else, it behooves you to reward them with helping them land on their feet so they can sing your praises later on in their career vs. hold something against you.
One way to help them land on their feet is to help them distill what their leverage is. That will be tied to what they have already done in their career and with your company that has produced positive measurable results.
Help them then think of the best place for them to use those skills, i.e. what kind of company most urgently needs what they can get done for them. Then attempt to help them connect with that company.

I have a different scenario. I have a top employee that is relocating to another state I have responsibility for. This top rep will be replacing a less performing rep. The less performing rep was slow to come on board but is now starting to produce. She does have a feeling that she is being replaced although I have given her indications months ago that her performance is not where it needs to be. In those months, she has increased her performance. My challenge is that I think she is doing a good job - not a great job - the top rep will easily out pace her in the territory. How do I terminate this employee to move in the top employee?

Interesting article and points in light of Scott Berkun's post about top performers working solo? The reason is that there seems to be an underlying assumption about top performers not being able to work in a different/changing environment or take on different responsibilities that would allow them to preserve their place in the company. I'd like to take a bit of a contrarian perspective.

While agreeing it is inevitable that some top performers will lose out during economic downturns and companies adjust, it seems that most people feel it is an inevitability and that's troubling. The question ought to be: How do we save Top/Great Performers in a Tough Economy? Let's not forget that for many senior managers retaining top talent or winning the so-called "talent wars" is a never-ending battle. Thus, it suggests that if we don't change our own behaviors with respect to talent retention (even during tough times), we will only be repeating the vicious cycle.

Keep the Great Performer/Top Talent and be creative in your retention/organizational solutions. Because once you give up great employees, finding one when the economy and company business improves to hire again, you'll never be able to do so and you'll wish you found a way to keep that person!

Thanks,
-Lui

Hi,
I totally agree with you. We have a saying: "be nice with people when you are on your way up, you'll meet them again when you are on your way down".
More importantly though... people, especially good performers, when they are let go in another, less tactfull way, they will not only hold it against the person who faced them, but against the corporation as a whole. And they will often not keep their opinion to themselves. Since so many things can be shared in such a broad way (the Internet is a great Forum), a lot of people may hear about how this company treats people. If this happens more than once, in the long run this may not be good for the company's recrutement efforts and possibly even for their sales (who buys from an unethical company...)

Kind regards
Gabriela

Babu - Your is a very creative idea, that I have never heard done before. In your case it seems to be working. Thanks for giving our readers a fresh suggestion!
Mark - I would follow most of the instructions in my initial post. You could just add that although this person's performance is good - you believe that someone else can perform at a higher level - and that you are doing what you believe is best for your company and its stakeholders.
Liu - Thank you for pointing our the costs of losing great people. I agree with you - companies should keep these people when they can.
Gabriela - Excellent points!

Marshall, this is my second comment to this post.

At 60 years old and after 25 years of corporate HR, I've eliminated the "r" (retirement) word from my vocabulary and mindset. I'm in the process (oh so slowly) of re-careering and trying to recycle myself into consultancy. During this transition...which I view sort like a retreat...I'm volunteering, networking, and have increased my reading of books, e-newsletters, blogs, and listening to podcasts. Thus my developing a fervent affinity for Marshall Goldmith.

I've recently observed that you make it a practice to acknowldege and respond to most, if not all, the commentors of your blog posts. I'm in awe that, with such little white space on your calendar, you would take some of that precious time to do that. Tom Peters would call that a WOW Customer Experience!

With that, you have created in me a loyal MFF (Marshall Fan Forever)!

THANK YOU.
Norm

Norm - Thank you for this thoughtful post! I feel a great loyalty to my readers. I don't respond to every post, but I do the best that I can. Thank you for noticing.

Question:

Many times I have seen that the company actually tries to look for the opportunity to settle the scores, and to cover up mistakes done by senior executives. The articles and tips that you provide are very articulately mimicked. A false sense of genuineness is being displayed !

The question you should ask:

1. How to refactor/reorganize the best talent? How to conserve the best talent?
2. Have you really exhausted all means and sense of retaining or repositioning the employee within the company?
3. Have you really tried to create/discover alternative arrangements?
4. Have you really created possible environment to hire back in future, your very best employee that you targeted to fire?

In fact you should gear your management thoughts to employ some lean techniques. Grow entrepreneurial culture; still keep the best talent - but at minimal cost - and yet make them independent...

Why do you think firing is the way? I guess companies suffer big loss if they talent they fire is really the best! Also, it is extremely difficult to hire back such talents in future, if their is critical need arises ! Not sure, I have experienced that big technology companies soon find the problem after the layoff has happened. They despeartely start looking for contractors to do the job. Quality, Commitment, everything starts taking hit !

IMO, the current management thinking needs to innovate. One should figure out the root cause and fix; and rather than taking cover up actions as route to proceed.

Mostly a dire situations arise in the companies when executives tend to keep secrets close to their chest ! And, secondly they tend to create their own protective coterie for disproportinate distribution of payoffs, and shared interest !

Why don't we attack directly to the root cause, and develop innovative, alternative solutions such as entreneurship; and creating sub-units... Still keep things lean and retain talents !

S. Agarwal

It is an excellent post by Marshall at the tough times. Good to see the great comments on the topic.

Also, recommending in professional forums or groups or websites about the terminated best performer, would definitely improve the inter-personal relationship between the boss and the terminated employee. This would induce to look at the ex-boss as a great boss forever.

This particular example shows typical union environment. If it is than a good performers, but less senior may lose his/her job due to traditional seniority.

On the flipside, in the non-union environment, if the example took place, it would be detrimental to other good performing employees.

Stanley Das

Scottsdale, AZ

Do you think the company should acknowledge or mark the employee's departure in some way? (ie. staff reception, etc.)

S. Agarwal-Thank you for your comments! In today's environment, it is sometimes necessary to let go of great employees--some companies are letting go of all of their employees. This is not an easy task. There are steps one can take to make it better for all concerned, including some of the alternatives you mention.
Samuel-Thank you!
Stanley-Good point.
Leanne-I think that is up to the company. I do think though that this choice should be set in company protocol, not decided on a case-by-case basis.

Hi Marshall I'd like to comment firstly on the generic thread of redundancy or 'lay offs' depending on which country you are located you may call the process something else. Either way, it is the ugliest component of working with people, but a necessary evil from time to time!

In my previous experience as an Executive Director of HR, and as one who has had to both facilitate or undertake a few hundred of such conversations, I would suggest Marshall that your guidelines are as equally relevant to all staff who find themselves in a situation of 'unvoluntary' redundancy. In my experience, it is the Executives and Managers who remember, at the end of the day, that these are real people who deserve to be treated with dignity and respect that will be remembered. Consistency of Process is also extremely important.

I still have contact with a great number of those staff who I have made redundant, they still stop me in the street to say hello and ask me how am I going and can't wait to tell me of where they are at. I continue to show the same interest as when they were one of our team. My STAR performers would be the last to go - if it came to it then the business would need to be in a pretty bad state. Your readers may be interested in a strategy I have used very successfully in the past with STAR performers. That is to firstly acknowledge the impact on the individual but then to move the conversation around the redundant 'role' and explain why 'strategically' the organisation is no longer in a position to support it or their current skill set and how that decision was reached. This discussion may take another 10/15 mins but worth every second. This helps to move the focus away from the individual and the emotional aspects. If they truly are the STARS then the industry will know it. Remember too, realistically, your competitors will be in contact with them within 24 hours of the 'word' getting out there to provide a job offer. I also agree with the comment about the provision of outsourcing. It makes the difference to a person's dignity that you care anough about making sure they get on the right road quickly. I have also used the concept of the provision of outplacement services, or the equivalent in $'s as part of their 'package' which is more favourable taxed here in Australia, very successfully. For your star performers, they are going to pick up a job just as soon as they want to. The thought of an extra few $,000 as 'pin' money can be very attractive. Ann-Marie Docherty, Executive Coach, Perth, Western Australia

Years ago I worked for a very large insurance company whose value was 'doing right by people'. They built a service center in our city which employed over a thousand people in total. A major strategic change in the organization led to downsizing and eventually closing the entire office. I had responsibility for outplacing staff, including myself! What I appreciated the most about the organization is that they were honest and forthright about their intentions. They gave us a year's notice and during that year they hired coaches to help us find other work. The coaches worked with us in small groups and individually as well. In my HR role, we supported employees by setting up a career center, posting all jobs within the city. We also called employers and allowed people extra time from work to interview and explore opportunities. To this day I hold that organization in the highest esteem for the respect they gave employees. It was a challenging time, but one that taught me great lessons about resiliency and the importance of ethical leadership.

I find it interesting that you would use the pronoun, she, in this
article about firing a great performer. Rarely, do I read a business article that refers to the main character as a she, yet you chose this gender for this article after a major Wall Street meltdown led primarily by men. On to the next point: a great
performer raises the performance of every one around them that's usually why they (he/she) also usually experiencez the most pressure to be eliminated. Most people in today's workplace are
so focused on collaboration that they have lost their competitive
edge and they will use group pressure to squeeze the best out, so
they won't look bad and they won't have to work as hard. I would
say this is a significant problem in business, education, and
government.

This article is totally ridiculous! I agree with Neil, you should never fire "Top" performers because they are just that, top performers. Instead why not look at cutting the fat other ways by reducing marketing budgets, finding ways to work more efficiently, seeking alternative sources of revenue, cutting the salaries of top executives who most likely are not the "Top Performers” they once were. Or do I dare to say “Butt Kissers.” Top performers should be getting promoted, not fired! It is a shame that in many cases, the “Butt Kissers” are the ones in charge and decide to fire.

Whoever wrote this probably makes over $100,000 and can only see things with blinders on.

The top performers are probably the ones that will get your company through these hard times because there is a reason they are “top” performers. It is because they see things differently and are most likely extremely innovative. Although this quality is what enables them to excel it is the same quality that sometimes causes conflicts in the office. Being on the cutting edge scares some people and threatens most.

So is the reason they are being fired really to cut cost or does it have more to do with personal issues. There are better ways to cut cost than to fire your top employees. And believe me, there is no doubt about it, the ones you fire will be successful anywhere if not at your company. They will stay in your industry and someday you will, without question, regret your decision to let them go.

I know this is somewhat off topic but this article has just angered me to the extent I am going to say it anyway. Just because times are tough does not mean those in charge have the right to treat their employees any differently. Yes it is tough for people making over $100,000 a year but imagine how hard it is on those making less than $50,000. My point is, it is hard on everyone. Although most people are scared to leave a company and/or can't right now because of the economy, there is no reason to treat them like crap just because you can right now.
You not only are going to make it worse by decreasing morale, you will be more likely to lose them when times get better. Which they will!!

Come on people… try to see past tomorrow already.

Why not write an article called "Cutting the Fat from Upper Management."

Or "If you Remove Legs of a Table, It Will Wobble and Fall During Your Five Course Meal"

Maybe this one, "It is Easier to Replace the Top of a Pyramid than the Bottom"

Marshall,

Good comments, and very practical. I have been in this situation a couple times before and found both ends of the spectrum in my performance.

I did many of the things right that you suggested: being honest, following through with assistance and recommendations, and helping the person understand it "wasn't them".

Unfortunately, in one instance I did find myself laying the blame at the doorstep of the company. Even as the words were coming out of my mouth, they felt wrong. You are right - those leaders are your co-workers also and laying the blame on them is just another way of trying to say "it wasn't me". Sometimes things just don't work out the way anyone wants them too and it's nobody's fault. To divert blame like that just makes a bad situation worse. Luckily, the next time I was in the same situation, I had learned my lesson.

James seemmed to point out his views in a strict manner. Marshall, if you're please, could you acknowledge of what he's saying with your own words? Try stating the line between you and him of what you are actually trying to convey of your first intention in your article. James does have some points to ponder and at least do make sense. What have you got say with this, Marshall? I really like James's saying of "It is Easier to Replace the Top of a Pyramid than the Bottom". A good sense of humor with a tiny bit salt of sarcasm.