Since I started working, at age 15, I’ve been fired twice and downsized once. The firings occurred when I was young and still knew it all; the downsizing came later when I knew much less. The fact that the incidents were all handled “by the book” didn’t make them any more pleasant (perhaps less so), either for me or for the people charged with my termination.

It is a rare and gifted manager who can fire someone and leave him feeling good about himself and accepting of the decision that deprives him of employment. More commonly, a person being fired will feel helpless, angry, vindictive, scared, and resentful and will project this emotional sludge onto his manager, who may himself feel anxious, upset, exasperated, and, perhaps, even a little guilty.

Under such conditions, communication is the first casualty, and neither party learns anything useful. Typically, a scripted drama unfolds in which the manager follows a court- tested series of politically correct steps approved by human resources, all very calm and civilized and all designed to get the employee out the door without legal repercussion. This process invariably results in mutual blame and resentful termination—not a preferred outcome for either the company or the departing employee. Termination policies are designed primarily to safeguard companies, not people. While useful from a bloodless procedural standpoint, they do little to relieve individual and organizational stress or to assuage the stigma of being fired. We can do better.

Mine the Process

There have always been three possible solutions to problem employees: fix, move, or fire. This article assumes that the first solution has been tried and the second is not an option. Admittedly, the road that leads to termination twists over difficult and trying ground, and most managers would be relieved to arrive at the destination as quickly as possible. When dismissal is inevitable, however, a manager has the opportunity to mine the process for a wealth of information that can be used to strengthen the organization. The most useful thing a manager can do is backtrack the events leading to the termination, understand what went wrong, own his or her part in the employee’s failure to thrive, and learn from the experience. Blaming the employee may have momentary therapeutic value, but it will do nothing to facilitate your growth as a manager.

No matter how deserving an employee may be of dismissal, we, as managers, inescapably share the responsibility for his/her malfeasance. Was it a hiring error? Was the person mismatched for the job? Was there adequate training? If so, was it presented in a modality suited to the learner? Were expectations clearly delineated? Were they realistic? Were there sufficient resources to get the job done? Did early warning signs go unnoticed? If so, why were they missed? Did the existing structure adequately support the employee? How much of the failure was systemic rather than individual? These are the types of questions a manager will ask if he is interested in change and improvement and not simply punishment. When managers are invested in punishing their employees, they ask only one question: Who’s to blame for this?

The Truth Shall Set Them Free

The actual firing process will differ depending on the reason for the dismissal. Obviously, layoffs that occur because a company is losing money and must cut back its employee base will be handled differently than firing an individual for reasons of performance or deportment. In the former scenario, human resources will likely take the lead, providing outplacement or referral services, counseling, and resumé writing assistance. The transition for departing employees may be somewhat eased by bestowal of a separation package, usually some combination of cash and extended medical coverage. However, regardless of the circumstances, if layoffs are imminent, it is vital from the start that the company tell the truth about its intention. The long-term loss of trust and morale will be much more costly than any short-term advantage based on keeping employees ignorant and excluded.

Unfortunately, it has been my experience that management, once sequestered behind closed doors, engorged with self-importance, and drunk with the intoxicating elixir of insider information, quickly decides that there are things mere mortals need not know. Noblesse oblige is a fine ideal, but, as an employee, I prefer the unvarnished truth. And as a manager, it is much more compassionate and much less actionable to tell it.

There are personal and organizational prices for being disingenuous. When IBM decided, after a long history of full-employment, that it could no longer afford to continue the practice, rather than level with employees, the company initially chose to eliminate tens of thousands of jobs by arbitrarily raising performance standards and dismissing those who failed to meet them. As a result, people whose work had been acceptable (for decades, in some cases) were suddenly being told that their performance was no longer tolerable. I clearly recall the devastation of a woman who had joined IBM right out of high school at age 18. She was now 48 and working as secretary to the branch manager. For 30 years, she served the company faithfully and capably, and then, suddenly, she was told she was no longer good enough. She was crushed, and I wondered why the sham was necessary. It was as if, after 30 years of supporting your family, you came home one day, the door was closed, and your family told you, “You’re not good enough to come in any more.” The impact of such treatment was not lost on others struggling with the new performance standards. People became angry and confused. Rumors and resentment were rampant. Fear rode the backs of anxious people, and many manifested serious illnesses during this period. None of it was necessary. It would have been much kinder and infinitely less damaging to simply tell the truth: “We’ve lost billions of dollars; we can no longer afford to maintain a full-employment policy; you’ve done an excellent job for three decades; and we’re dreadfully sorry to lose you.”

Stay Objective

When initiating an employee-provoked termination based on performance, the key is to confront the action and not the person. The more behavior-specific the feedback, the less dispute and defensiveness a manager will encounter. Focus on the objective incidents that demonstrate the employee’s failure to meet job requirements, not your subjective evaluation of them: A project assigned to the employee was either finished on time, or it wasn’t

completed; the report was accurate, or it was not; the application bug was fixed, or it wasn’t; the employee was excessively absent, or not. Such issues are unarguable. The reasons for the failures may provoke explanation and justification, but the issue is then reduced to the quality of performance—which is in management’s purview to judge—not the employee’s personal worth.

Compassion can defuse confrontation and crisis. Stating that a project wasn’t completed is far different from saying, “You’re lazy.” Affirming that an application bug still isn’t fixed will be received differently than stating, “You’re incompetent.” Core judgments (usually preceded by “you are”) not only are arguable, but also have the propensity to wound deeply and will provoke an angry response. Anger is the most common response to termination because the employee sees the manager as judge, jury, and executioner. Authenticity can defuse anger and bring a measure of sensitivity to a process that is normally formal and stilted. If you are disappointed, say so. If you have regrets, name them. If you have something good to say about the employee, by all means say it.

If the termination is prompted by behavior rather than performance, stress how the behavior impedes the employee’s performance or how it prevents others from doing their jobs. If the behavior is so egregious that it warrants immediate dismissal, it should already have been covered in the employee handbook, which then becomes the manager’s bible and serves as the final arbiter should the termination be challenged. Typically, if an employee does something that appears overtly irresponsible, he or she wants to be fired and will offer only modest resistance.

However, regardless of how skillfully the termination process is managed, the person being fired may still hear, “You’re not good enough. You’re not valuable enough.” That is a harsh judgment to accept, so the employee will probably offer a spirited defense or denial of the manager’s allegations. Whether spoken or unspoken, the employee will grapple with two questions: “Why me?” and “Why now?”

Document, Document, Document

It is essential, therefore, to have good documentation. The ability to substantiate claims of unsatisfactory job performance will serve the manager on several levels. First, it helps the manager to get clear on the specifics of an employee’s performance, which addresses the question “Why me?” Second, it eliminates the “he said/she said” dynamic should the employee appeal the termination to a higher authority. Third, it protects the manager and the company in the event of litigation. In fact, most human resources departments will not even consider initiating a termination without a detailed chronicle of events.

Documentation should not come as a surprise to the employee. If it is used to ambush, the employee will rightfully view the information as a cynical justification for a decision already made. Documentation should not be the result of a decision to terminate but should clearly delineate the reasons for termination. Dismissal thus becomes not so much a matter of failure, which is subjective, but a logical consequence of the documented events. With dismissal viewed as an inevitable consequence, documentation also provides the answer to the second question: “Why now?”

Ideally, a manager should document everyone’s performance, both good and bad, as a matter of course. For troubled employees, documentation should include incidents of counseling and the goals of a performance improvement plan. Unless an employee does something outrageous like bring a gun to work, which usually demands immediate termination, the possibility of redemption must be offered. Performance plans should be specific, be mutually agreed upon, and include due dates for deliverables. From a manager’s perspective, control has been lost long before a person finally has to be fired. A performance plan is a means for the employee to reestablish control of his performance and for the manager to reestablish control of his employee.

Hey! What Happened to Bob?

Be aware of the effect a firing has on others. By policy, most managers never talk about a firing to their people. Certainly, there are confidentiality issues that must be respected. But having a person just “disappear” from your midst without explanation—here one day and gone the next—reeks of Stalinist-era abductions and will no doubt be troubling to some. It is positively surreal, but when people are fired, the remaining employees, by unspoken fiat, are expected to carry on the pretense that nothing has happened. Lacking factual information, they make up and spread stories that are usually far worse than reality. Respectfully acknowledging a termination and allowing coworkers to verbalize its impact on them can defuse rumor, suspicion, and discontent. Allowing the terminated employee to have a measure of closure is both healthy and humane.

On the other end of the spectrum, I have witnessed people who were handed a cardboard box, given 10 minutes to clean out their desk while security looked on, and escorted out of the building. Such treatment is unnecessary and humiliating beyond measure. Unless an employee is guilty of a criminal act, he should not be treated like a criminal. Such shameful conduct is an indication of management’s failure to properly oversee the termination process from the start. Even if an employee is upset (and most will be, to some degree), there is no need to aggravate the situation by escalating hostilities and amplifying the adversarial aspects of losing a job. If fear of reprisal is the issue, respect will inspire less reprisal than intimidation and humiliation.

Having said that, it would be foolish to invite disaster. For example, if the person has root access to your system, it will be prudent to remove or restrict his access. Such precautions are not unreasonable and should be taken with the employee’s knowledge and participation as part of the separation process in which keys and security badges are returned. Removing all of an employee’s security privileges and then informing him, after the fact, that the company no longer trusts him is a cheap shot that attempts to blame the employee for the company’s caution. The difference is subtle but important. If I tell you that, by company policy, I am about to restrict your computer access, that’s about the company. If I tell you after I’ve restricted your access, that implies you are not trustworthy.

No Matter How You Slice It, They’re Still Fired

That the corporate culture has evolved so many euphemisms for firing people is a testimony to how often it is used as a solution. But whether people are terminated, discharged, dismissed, ousted, downsized, rightsized, reorganized, let go, removed, or separated from the company, they are still out of a job. The degree to which the employee’s dignity is preserved—and to which the process is managed with respect and compassion—is the measure by which terminations should rightfully be judged.

Superior employees are like excellent products: Both require quality to be built in from the start. That means making the right hiring decision. Statistics show that, in most cases, managers hire people they know and like whether or not the candidate has the exact experience, background, or skills to do the job.

When things don’t work out, we are inventive in coining descriptive expressions for termination. But we are less skilled, it seems, in identifying ways to develop struggling employees and keep excellent ones. If there is one mastery that can serve managers in both regards, it is coaching. Poor employees need it, and good ones crave it when they want to get better. Even world-class athletes have coaches. On average, they receive 30 hours of coaching for every hour of performance on the field, the track, or the ice. But merely assigning tasks and enforcing standards is not coaching. Coaching is guidance, inspiration, and shared knowledge. It requires taking time to know your employees’ limits and then working together to exceed them. Coaching composts failure into feedback that fuels tomorrow’s success. It mandates getting out of the office and spending time with the people you manage.

In some respects, our ever-increasing reliance on technology is a process by which we arrange life so that we don’t need to experience it. The only time we pay much attention to our gadgets is when they stop working properly and we are obliged to do what they were designed to accomplish for us. For managers who manage the people who attend to the technology, the challenge is to remain fully engaged and not wait until someone is broken.