Handling Unpleasant Job of Firing Someone

"The more right people hired, the fewer wrong people fired."

There are three simple truths about firing:

1. Most employees lose their jobs long before they are actually fired.
   
   
   
   
2. Most employees know they're going to be fired long before it actually happens and believe (down deep) that they deserve it.
   
   
3. If most employees don't know they're in danger of being fired long before it actually happens, management hasn't done its job.

Being dismissed from a job is never pleasant for the employee. In the majority of cases, it isn't pleasant for the employer, who is faced with breaking the bad news to fellow human beings that their services are no longer needed--or worse, no longer desired. Of course, there are some employees whose performance, attitude, and general presence is so disruptive and distasteful that telling them to leave is more a relief than an unwelcome task. Those situations, however, are relatively rare.

Be that as it may, having to dismiss employees for cause is an integral responsibility of management. Not everyone who is hired works out. Even if considerable care is taken to evaluate resumes, conduct effective, revealing interviews, and check those all-important references, circumstances and people change over time.

As much of a "science" as hiring can ever be, it will always pose a risk factor. In some situations, the "perfect candidate" proves to be not so perfect. Thomas Edison was fired from his job with a railroad for setting a baggage car ablaze while conducting an experiment. Henry Ford felt it necessary to fire Lee lacocca. Warner Brothers fired former President Ronald Reagan when he was a motion picture actor.

Why Employees are Fired

There are many reasons to fire someone, but most fall into one of four categories:

• Failure to perform. This may be defined in many ways but usually involves incompetence or unwillingness to do the job as it's supposed to be done.
  
  
• Insubordination. Habitual disregard of company rules is certainly grounds for dismissal, and may include lying or discriminatory treatment of subordinates.
  
  
• Reduction of the work force. This is sometimes unavoidable, depending on the business climate.
  
  
• Embezzlement, fraud, or other crimes. This can include a cornucopia of offenses against the company, including activities that represent a conflict of interest.

A survey conducted by Robert Half International explored many more reasons than these four. The poll found that while incompetence was the leading cause cited by employers for dismissing employees, other reasons also came into play. Except for "mega" layoffs, the reasons are still true today. Vice presidents and personnel directors from America's 1,000 largest companies were asked: "What is the single greatest reason for firing an employee?" The results broke down in the following order:

• Incompetence: 39 percent
• Inability to get along with others: 17 percent
• Dishonesty or lying: 12 percent
• Negative attitude: 10 percent
• Lack of motivation: 7 percent
• Failure or refusal to follow instructions: 7 percent
• All other reasons: 8 percent

That so many employers point to incompetence says something, I believe, about how lax some companies are when hiring. After all, hiring boils down to choosing individuals to do specific jobs, jobs they presumably are equipped to handle. If they're dismissed for "incompetence," they evidently weren't qualified from the outset, and shouldn't have been hired. Why were they? Hiring managers should ask themselves these questions:

• Were claims of their education, technical knowledge, and experience exaggerated?
• Did they do too good a job of selling themselves during interviews, glossing over technical questions?
• Did their references fudge the truth?
• Were references adequately checked?
• Were references checked at all?
• Did the employer somehow not follow all the proper procedures in the hiring process, such as detailing needed skills in a job description?

There will always be a certain number of people who'll slip past even the most stringent employer scrutiny. The fewer the better. Remember: The more right people hired, the fewer "wrong" people fired.

Avoid Firing Employees by Hiring the Right Employees

Hiring begins, of course, with a thorough review of corporate staffing and employment procedures, including a hard-nosed look at job specifications. Many instances of so-called incompetence result from having poorly defined the job to be filled, or even changing the definition after someone has filled it.

Once a job has been adequately defined and the technical qualifications to perform it have been realistically established, the entire process of hiring--finding candidates through personnel recruiters, advertising, networking, evaluating resumes, interviewing, and reference checking--should be analyzed. It's expensive for an employer to make hiring mistakes that lead to the need to repeatedly fire and hire, to say nothing of the emotional toll on employer and employees alike. Any extra time and effort spent in hiring properly is worth the investment.

Yet, when an employee hasn't worked out for whatever reason, it's incumbent on management to dismiss that person for the company's good, and often for the employee's own good as well. (A person in an unrealistic situation will only become disheartened and discouraged.) Mediocrity dominates in too many firms because supervisors either haven't established a workable system of identifying nonproductive and disruptive workers or haven't developed the resolve to fire them. When this situation is allowed to exist, everyone suffers--the employee who keeps the job but never advances; valuable co-workers who become disenchanted and leave; and, of course, the department, the division, and the entire company.

Management-by-Fear

Under most circumstances, management-by-fear not only creates an unpleasant working environment, but also inspires no self-generated productivity and pride in performance. On the other hand, a reasonable fear of being fired can be a positive motivator for employees who have been warned repeatedly that they are not performing up to expectation.

No one wants to be fired, especially from a good job. It's a blow to an individual's pride as well as to his or her financial security. But in some instances, the fear of being fired is so great that it gets in the way of individual achievement and leads to employees deliberately choosing to be "underemployed."

I once worked with a young man who deliberately sought jobs that paid far less than he was worth. When I asked him about it, he told me that if he were paid less, his chances of being dismissed were less. He never took any risks in the jobs he'd held, content to maintain a low profile and to toil quietly in the background. He was paralyzed by fear of losing a job, and he's not an aberration. There are many men and women who approach their careers in the same manner.

This breed of worker aside, a healthy fear of losing a job can be positive for employees and their employers, provided it's based on standards and expectations set by an employer that are realistic and fair to all and that are clearly and adequately communicated to every employee.

Lay the Groundwork before Firing

Before examining effective ways to dismiss a nonproductive employee, let's review how to lay the supporting groundwork to be fair to both employee and employer when a firing becomes necessary. Here are some guidelines:

Formalize what constitutes grounds for dismissal, clearly communicate them at the outset of each employee's hiring.

Never promise job security and be certain your employee handbook doesn't read like an employment contract.

Keep careful records of all unsatisfactory work performance and conduct. Before discharging any employee, give and document ample and prior warnings of dissatisfaction in writing.

Conduct regular performance reviews, and maintain records of all reviews in the event a firing decision must be defended.

Consider the more frequent use of employment contracts, which, among other things, spell out conditions under which an employer may dismiss an employee.

Have your legal counsel regularly review all written materials that bear on the rules, regulations, and conditions of the employer-employee relationship. In most instances, run the details of any firing past a company lawyer.

In addition to these guidelines, the following advice can be useful when the firing of employees becomes necessary. They might be called the "never rules":

• Never fire in anger; it only makes an unpleasant situation worse. In addition, words said in anger may be used later by a dismissed employee to try to prove personal animosity on the part of an employer.
  
  
• Never fire before exhausting all prospects for communication. If the urge to fire is caused by a specific, isolated problem, level with the employee and get his or her recommendations for avoiding a repetition.
  
  
• Never fail to consider the possibility that a personality conflict, however subtle, might be behind a decision to fire an employee. If the reason for dismissal doesn't clearly fall into one of the three basic categories listed earlier, such a personal conflict could be at play. If so, consider alternatives, including a transfer.
  
  
• Never fire a valuable employee whose work has begun to suffer because of emotional or psychological problems until an attempt has been made to seek professional help for that person. Reaching out to a talented, productive employee in his or her time of personal travail can salvage a good person. If the employee has close, caring friends in the company, seek their counsel on how to return the troubled person to productive status. There's a slight potential risk that the troubled employee will be offended, but that may be the best method to help this person.

How to Fire an Employee Gracefully and Professionally

When all attempts to avoid dismissing an employee have failed and the decision has been made to sever the relationship, the "nasty task" of actually doing the firing must fall to someone. There aren't any painless ways to fire a person, but there are certain standards to which all employers should adhere.

It should be done by the employee's immediate supervisor. Alternatively, it could be done by the highest ranking person in the company to whom the employee is accustomed to talking during the course of a normal business day. Delegating the firing authority to another person in order to avoid personal discomfort is wrong. In addition, an employee should never be fired by someone of equal rank.

The employee should be treated with respect. Every person, even one who has proved to be a bad and nettlesome employee, deserves respect as a human being and should be allowed to maintain his or her dignity at what is a distinctly undignified time. If possible, ask the employee to leave the same day he or she is informed about the separation. There are several reasons for attempting this. Being allowed, or even encouraged, to hang around only embarrasses the individual and may unsettle and disturb others in the organization. Also, in most cases, the discharged employee should not meet with the person hired as a replacement.

Firing should be done in private and in person. It should never be done over the phone, via computer voice mail, by mail, or at a meal. As mentioned, it's usually best handled by the employee's immediate supervisor, provided that person knows how to best protect the company.

The employee should be given all information relevant to termination. Be direct at the start of the conversation: "Jim, we're going to ask you to leave." Then, make the reasons for the decision to dismiss the individual clear, using documentation where necessary to substantiate those reasons. Spell out the terms of severance, including pay, continuing benefits to which the employee will be eligible, details of any pension of profit-sharing money that might be payable, and provide information about insurance. Although many of these details may be handled in-depth by a human resources department, the person doing the actual firing should have general knowledge of company policy and the dismissed individual's personal situation.

The firing should be handled gently. Always use words other than "fired." It's too harsh a term. A few gentler substitutions are dismiss, terminate, discharge, outplace, let go.

The employer should be prepared for an angry, bitter, sometimes vehement response or tears from the dismissed employee. In either case, don't allow yourself to be drawn into an acrimonious conversa-tion. If an employee demonstrates such responses, it's best to ask that person to vacate the premises immediately.

The employer may need to discuss the firing with other employees. If it's obvious to the person doing the firing that the employee will twist the reasons for having been dismissed, communicate to concerned others in the company the true reason for the action's having been taken. In the event such action is deemed necessary, the information should be painstakingly accurate and be communicated clearly, with all comments kept on a strictly professional level. Derogatory personal comments about departing employees not only are inappropriate, but also could come back to haunt a company should a dismissed employee take legal action.

The employer may want to offer outplacement services. Employees who react more rationally to being dismissed and who've been let go for reasons other than malfeasance or lack of performance might be deserving of certain courtesies to ease their job search. The use of an office and equipment, telephone, outplacement services, and other aids not only helps a departing employee, it creates an amicable situation that could prove mutually beneficial in the future.

We've all known employers who, rather than fire an employee, prefer to make the work situation sufficiently unpleasant to force a resignation. The employee is demoted, relieved of interesting assignments, given a reduced bonus, assigned to a smaller office, and, in general, kept out of the mainstream of company activity.

This approach not only strips away any remaining pride from the employee, it sabotages the company's morale and resulting productivity. I strongly reject it as a viable method for dealing with employees who are no longer in favor. A company should treat all its employees with respect, regardless of the circumstances.

Finally, use the firing of an employee as a reason for analyzing what went wrong, especially if you were the one who did the actual firing. It's very easy for top management to blame the departed employee's immediate supervisor for creating the situation leading to the dismissal.

Of course, it's also a good time for everyone who had been involved in hiring the individual to take a second look at the entire process. If employers don't continually learn from their mistakes, they are doomed to repeat them--hardly an original saying but one that has considerable validity.