When an employee is let go, sometimes it’s abundantly clear why they were laid off or terminated. Perhaps there was an unavoidable need for restructuring, or, in the case of termination, it may be a case where their shortcomings were obvious to nearly everyone they worked with.
But how about the times when a valuable employee, one who was highly productive and dependable, is let go as the result of the opinion of one person, namely a new manager?
I have witnessed such a scenario. A longtime employee with a great track record has a new manager who, a few months into their new position, decides that more than a decade of positive reviews and career advancement was a mistake and decides to make a case for termination. That case—many minor issues cobbled together to create what the new manager argues is one big issue—makes it up the chain of command to an executive who signs off. In many organizations, executives implicitly trust their managers to make such decisions.
The problem? After the employee leaves, it becomes clear a mistake was made. Unfortunately, such mistakes typically are nearly impossible to reverse. Once the employee was terminated, their position may have been eliminated. Another issue is that even if the highly questionable case led to termination by “mutual agreement,” rather than due to performance issues, the manager who terminated the employee left a paper trail, permanently damaging the employee’s stellar decade-plus track record. The safest decision at that point is to move forward and hire anew rather than find a new slot for the frivolously terminated employee.
My suspicion is that what I witnessed is not unusual. How do you ensure this scenario doesn’t play out in your organization, or if it has already played out, that it doesn’t happen again?
360-Degree Feedback Before Signing Off on Termination
You don’t want to regret letting an employee go. When the termination request is a surprise to executives—and maybe even when it’s not—a protocol of getting 360-degree feedback before making the decision is a good idea.
The executive with sign-off authority can do this without revealing to those they consult with that the employee in question may be terminated. They can speak to managers who are coequal with the manager who is making the case against the employee. For example, there might be a project manager in the department who has relied successfully on the employee under review. “Shirley, I wanted to ask you how well the employees in the department are supporting the work we do for clients. Could you give me a rundown of how each of our employees are supporting clients and yourself?”
Similarly, the executive could reach out to junior employees in a way that is not specific to the employee whose job is in question. “Fred, I want to make sure our department is supporting you in your work. Could you tell me how the more senior people you work with are helping you—or not helping you—in your work?” Then they casually bring up the person they have questions about. “I know you work with June quite a bit; has she been a good support to you? Your feedback can help me gauge how well our team is supporting you.”
The executive might find that, aside from the newly named manager, everyone else at the company that the person interacts with has nothing but positive things to say.
Avoid Leading the “Witness”
Sometimes, like a lawyer cross-examining a witness in court, or a researcher who goes into a study hoping for a certain outcome, a manager in search of a performance case to use against an employee can ask leading questions.
Let’s say the manager reaches out to clients for feedback about the employee. Most clients are happy with the employee’s work, but the manager knows they may have an opening with a few clients the department has struggled to satisfy.
On their own these clients may never have called out the employee, but with prodding, they can be led in that direction. “But June could have made it easier for you, right? Is that fair to say?” the manager might suggest.
From there, a client who may never have voiced an opinion explicitly about an employee is led into supporting the manager’s shaky performance argument.
Ask the Manager About Their Plans Post-Termination
The true motivations behind pushing an employee out of an organization can be revealed by a manager’s plans.
For instance, the manager might reveal that they plan to downgrade the position, in which case, the performance argument is moot. The real motivation is cost savings. Perhaps the employee is the only other senior person in the department other than the manager. The new manager may have looked at how much money that person made and concluded, “Well, it’s either her or me, I guess I have to get rid of her. There isn’t a big enough budget in this department for two senior-level salaries.” Seen in this light, the termination is more about taking out a potential rival than anything else.
Or the manager might reveal that they are planning to install a longtime favored protégé in the slot currently inhabited by the employee. In that case, it would be more about favoritism than anything else.
Have a Protocol in Place that Imposes Due Diligence
As a management best practice, don’t rely on just one person’s opinion when signing off on a layoff or termination, especially when the employee has a long, positive record with the organization.
How carefully do you review layoffs and terminations before finalizing these decisions? How do you ensure the organization won’t regret the action it takes?